Channeling Obama's thoughts on Gay Rights and Rick Warren
"Geez, these lefties are clueless! Can't even tell when someone's trying to help them. They think the way politics works is that they explain to everyone else what right and wrong is, and everyone else agrees. It would make them really annoying if it didn't also make them so easy to manipulate.
This thing with Rick is working out beautifully. Now that I'm President, gays are the new blacks, the new angry outsiders, and this is my Sister Souljah move. The Left flips its lid over a harmless symbolic gesture, I look really reasonable to everyone else, and my plan to govern with 70% of the electorate behind me so I can override filibusters is perfectly on track.
That'll help with the stim plan, and with climate change and energy independence and health care. Hey, I'm gonna need all the political support I can get to push that stuff through the Senate. Then once the stim plan starts to work and we get some results from the other stuff too, I'll have enough political capital to fight the culture wars.
Boy, the Lefties are gonna feel silly when I start with that. I won't push gay marriage, but there's no point, because it's a state issue, not a Federal one. But I'll reform DOMA so the Federal gov't recognizes gay marriages and civil unions in states that have them. Then, once married gays can file joint income tax returns and get those thousand other Federal marriage breaks it'll push the Overton Window on this issue so much farther to the left that gay marriage will start popping in all the blue states.
I'll have to do something about the gay-military thing, too. That's a tough one, because those military guys are such giant homophobes. Some of them think that if there's a gay guy within a thousand yards of them they'll catch it. Thank God those guys are trained to obey orders.
Probably I'll start by allowing gays to serve openly in the Reserves and National Guard, and really enforcing the Don't Ask part of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If I have a couple of commanders demoted for conducting witch hunts, the others will get the message. Oh, and anyone who does get kicked out or did before gets an honorable discharge. That way everyone will see the writing on the wall and the guys who can't handle it will have time to leave. Then I'll have a commission study the reserves and say that it's great and we'll do it for the rest of the military.
Before I do that, though, I probably should do something about that U.N. Declaration on gay rights. My God, people are still going to jail for being gay in half the world! So primitive. It's mostly the Muslim and African countries, so they'd have a total shit fit if a black President with a Muslim name started lecturing them. Their people probably like me better than their own leaders, so I bet the leaders will ease up big time on this if it looks like I'm going to make a big deal about it. That helps me on this issue politically because everyone in the U.S. will agree with that except the wingnuts, and they'll make the whole antigay agenda look really awful.
Hey, I'll bet Rick would help with that! He may be against gays getting married, but he doesn't want to see them getting executed or spending their lives in jail for it, I'm sure of that. And I'll bet he'd love to make all the Lefties look like idiots by proving he's not a hater. Note to self: call Rick."
The software acted weird on the last paragraph, it switched fonts and font size without my doing it. I cut and pasted this from a Word doc. Anyone know about this?
December 19, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MS Word program has formatting that the TPM blogging software doesn't know how to translate. So when you copy from Word you are also copying the formatting too, hence your problem.
Better to write your blog in a basic text editor, like the notepad program on your PC (if you are on a PC) and then copy, paste and do your formatting using the buttons on the blog creation text box on TPM.
December 19, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you use Firefox instead of IE you can type right into the dialog box and you'll have spell check. Then you don't have to copy and paste...Works great for me!
December 20, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another winner from the keyboard of Tom Hollenbach. Except for the military part, I agree completely.
I was in the Navy for ten years and served with gay Sailors the entire time. It was never an issue for most of us nor was it much of a secret. I suspect most military men and women will snap off a crisp salute and carry on. Some will grumble or get out, but President Obama can end discrimination in the military just like it is already outlawed everywhere else. He can do it by executive order as well.
Otherwise, I think you are channeling his thoughts exactly. It is actually not that crazy of a tactic viewed through the lens of a longer-term strategy.
December 20, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably right but neither you nor Mr. Hollenbach seem to have taken into account the genuine pain the GLBT community is suffering right now. Mr. Hollenbach sounds a little too blithe about gays being the new blacks. This may be fine as an intellectual conceit but runs into problems when applied to real people. It's tiresome for scapegoats to be philosophical, I would guess.
That being said, I sure hope the longer-term strategy works out.
December 20, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully understand the pain and disappointment and continuing discrimination they GLBT community is feeling. Both for this latest insult as well as those more historical in nature. My comments aren't meant to dismiss those realities, just to highlight a different perspective. Tom used satire to achieve the same result, and I suspect he is aware of that reality as well.
December 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure this was exactly what you wanted to say.
December 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't understand what it's like when I have had friends explain it to me directly?
I'm not saying these are conversations I am having everyday, but I am certainly able to use personal experience and things I read online to form a basis for conversation.
When did empathy become a bad word on the left?
I did use the word "they" instead of "the" if that's what you are talking about, but having empathy for my fellow human beings isn't rocket science if one bothers to listen instead of talk and find a way to understand before seeing to be understood.
I don't understand your objection to that as a process.
December 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, thanks for the software advice. I use a Mac and Safari, so I'm still not sure. I suspect that Word for Mac is buggy, maybe intentionally. Jason, thanks a lot, especially for your take on the military piece. I think Obama has good ethical instincts that he uses to form his goals, but also has a great tactical side that he uses to achieve them.
December 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I use a Mac and Firefox. And sometimes Safari. The point is just as was told to you above: don't paste from Word into the TPM html editor. The formatting transfers, but since the html editor can't understand some of the formatting, it gets screwed up. It wouldn't matter whether you were on a PC. The same thing would happen.
The best way to go about things is either to write your whole post in the html editor (it saves drafts and you can always go back and edit the post if it screws up), or you should write the post in TextEdit and then copy/paste into the html editor and format after it's pasted.
December 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I'll try that.
December 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Decent, except for the entire passage on Gays in the military. I don't want to be rude, but I suggest you do some research on it. A huge majority of people, including top commanders and generals, and the ones responsible for forming the original Dont Ask, Don't Tell legislation, have turned around and are now supporting the repeal of it.
Obama, I believe, is in full support of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I can see nothing that would prevent such an act from taking place during his Presidency.
But besides that, I agree with you. I think that Rick Warren is certainly a way to govern a majority of the country. Key word: govern. This isn't about infusing a political ideology. We had that for the past eight years, and I don't think the far left is any better than the far right, frankly. Perhaps if they thought more rationally over things like this, I could think otherwise, but they have yet to prove themselves to me.
December 20, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, are you so particularly special that anyone should have to prove themselves to you?
December 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should I listen to the far left or respect them any more than the far right? Dogmatic ideology is detrimental, whether it comes from the left or the right, and until the far left and prove itself to be a rational entity, I have no reason to respect it.
December 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
yea, damn those far lefty's for wanting equality under the law. There is NOTHING rational about that, is there? And I agree, what do we need those far lefty's for? Oh yea, we can't win an election without them, but hell, who cares, they don't need no stinking equal rights or representation, now do they?
December 20, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me once in which an election was won as a result of the FAR left? I think you confuse the LEFT and the FAR left.
One can want equality for all without being a part of the far left, or, for that matter, even the left. I know plenty of independents and centrists who are more rational and pragmatic in their thinking, and in some ways much more progressive, than those who associate with far-left ideology.
Of course, in the end, I think your thoughtful and provocative response to my comment pretty much speaks for itself.
December 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama has done anything it is to get a discourse going on what it means to be left, far left, right, far right, center, progressive, liberal, conservative, uber conservative, etc. --
and how one should interact with those in the categegory that one is not. A discourse this country has been sorely missing for quite some time.
December 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. Thanks for making that point.
December 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burnsey, thank you for joining the debate. My issue with the far left is that, while I usually share their goals on a moral level, I think their political tactics are very counterproductive, and that's why they usually get marginalized. The far left, like the far right, in my view tends to be more interested in asserting moral judgments that they feel are correct than in finding effective ways to actually change things. Because of this they open the left to the same charges of hatred and rigidity that the far right receives, and this weakens the appeal of left-wing policies to everyone else.
December 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't have said it better myself.
December 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Nathan, others have said the same about the military. They probably know a lot better than I do, and I hope you and they are right. I'm also aware that other countries have ended their bans against gays in the military without any problems. Appreciate your points.
December 20, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard some stories on NPR, as well as read articles on the issue. It's interesting how much people's opinions have changed regarding it.
Read this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html
Of course, the military itself as a body is strongly opposed. But as I said, some top military officials who had brought about the legislation back in the 1990s have now reversed their opinions and are advocating for repealing it.
December 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I tried to channel Obama, it would sound different! He's way more compassionate in my head!
In my head he'd be torn about this. He'd feel the pain of gays and lesbians. He wouldn't be "calculating" but instead would be looking to the big picture. He wouldn't take anybody for granted or put them down.
He's got a tough job trying to change a country. I woke up thinking about that this morning. It's hard enough to try and nudge TPM folks in the direction of compassion. Harder to do that for a whole country. I imagine him waking up with that responsibility and that goal.
May he succeed.
December 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I think you're right. =)
But I do think that Obama most likely believes letting Warren give his invocation is a way to try to govern a wide majority of the country. The issue here is that, Obama said he's not just the President of the people who voted for him, but those who didn't as well. I think we need to remember that.
December 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I so agree with your comment, Nathan. I like the new photo too!
December 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Thera!
Yeah... I change my picture every couple months or so. Time for a change, you know?
December 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you're trying to balance all sides here, you might enjoy reading this post by an evangelical pastor (who's got an amazing educational background):
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2008/12/rick-warren-to-deliver-the-invocation-at-obamas-inauguration.html
December 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what's so unfortunate is that more people can't see, accept and understand the following passage:
He goes on to explain why not, sure. But the fact is, those are the questions we SHOULD be asking. I am not anti-religion. I just find that religion, in any form, from Christianity to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, should have no place in Government. Though I believe Obama was divinely touched by his noodly appendage.
December 20, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm puzzled by much intertwining of religion in state functions. While I revere spiritual writings and people who sincerely follow a spiritual path, I am a huge believer in the separation of church and state. Yet... our currency says "In god we trust" and in courts people swear on a holy book "so help me god" and even when people sneeze... we say... "god bless you." (the latter is not a matter of the state of course... but still...)
We are a people of contradictions!
December 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are precisely the problems that exist. Putting "In God We Trust" in and of itself is discriminatory, as there are millions of people who do not believe in "God" as its stated on our currency. There are those who believe in many gods, or who don't believe in any higher power or deity. And for myself, why should I swear upon The Bible, or swear to God, when I don't believe in that God? Honestly, I have no problem with others doing so. But frankly, I believe, for example, that we should not pledge allegiance to the flag, or a nation "under God", nor should the President be sworn in on a Bible. We should pledge allegiance to and be sworn in on the Constitution itself...
December 20, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on no pledge to the flag. And especially the under god part of it. (I wrote earlier this week about how that bothers me - especially at sports events)
I like your idea of a pledge to the constitution. I love that idea!
How people should be "sworn in" in a court of law... I'd be interested in what other nations do.
Remove the "phrase" from the money. Fine by me.
I respect those who believe in religion and those who don't. I happen to believe in God, but I don't think God cares - one way or another - whether you believe or not. What matters is a person's character and his or her efforts to behave in ways that foster fairness and justice and love etc. for all of us.
December 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think public officials should simply swear to uphold the Constitution. As for courts? They should simply swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. God doesn't have anything to do with it.
Honestly, when these questions come to mind, I watch Dogma. That movie is one of the most insightful critiques of religion, and, more specifically, Christianity.
December 20, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
These issues are small, compared to this one:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/12/blown-away---by-a-letter-to-th.php
December 20, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that religion is intertwined with our government still on symbolic issues such as invocations, what it says on our money, bibles incourtrooms, etc. And I also agree that this is clearly against the separation of church and state enshrined in our constitution.
Thera, I'm curious like you are about the roots of this. Readers, do any of you know how all this evolved historically? I'd love to know.
However, I also remember when religious morality determined law in many extremely harmful ways. When I was young, contraception (let alone abortion) was illegal in many states, definitely including those that are among the most liberal now. And being gay was illegal. We've come a long way, and I regard the symbolic remnants as being pretty much vestigial.
December 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Especially in the light of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Have they then made the two one? Someone must have researched this!
December 20, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the mid 20th Century. I believe they did it to "fight Communism" or some such nonsense. Like "Freedom Fries" or "Liberty Cabbage". How idiotic.
December 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the mid-50's. We had to relearn it!
December 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
December 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure that is also when it was added to our currency and our motto was changed from 'e pluribus unum' to "In God we Trust"
I have always found these things to be blasphemous at the very least. For those of us that believe in a higher power, it sullies that higher power.
Just this chicken's 2 cents.
December 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I had always assumed that these things went back much farther historically. That's really fascinating.
December 20, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's what I had heard as well. It's really quite disgusting, in my opinion.
December 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can get by intertwining the two if you pick humble obscure inoffensive ecumenical religious types to do generic invocations and benedictions. You get into trouble when you pick super star mega book selling Larry King regulars to brand the civic function with their very particular religion.
December 20, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
like me?
December 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah and I am also with you on this point. Obama is going to be President of the United States of America. And I know the argument is getting multi-partied now, TH is not, as far as I can tell, really debating the point.
It is just I have to remind myself of this point.
Everytime I think my position is not being represented on any single issue.
December 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Thera. I actually don't think Obama's interior monologue sounds like that, either, I put the snark into it as literary license to be humorous. But I do think his tactical thinking is probably something along those lines.
December 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed this post Tom. I think there is a squeamishness about this issue because Clinton stumbled out of the gate with the military gay issue. It is 16 years later. I just think our New Administration will wait two years and then do it through executive order.
What do I know?
December 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could very well be, DD. I imagine that he'll be careful and try to assess the potential political costs of doing this,(if any) but I think he'll move on it eventually, assuming he gets the economy under control.
December 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been lurking for a couple of months now, but your well written piece convinced me to sign up with TPM just so I could tell you how right I think you are. Obama sees the big picture and he sees the big picture down the road...and when we all catch up to him there's gonna be a great big 'Ah-ha!' moment.
December 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, flowerchild, that's a wonderful compliment. It's really nice to know when people enjoy what you write (and useful to know when they don't). Welcome to TPM!
December 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the snark, Tom. Rec'd.
I tend to agree that Obama is looking at the big picture, although I don't think he is a liberal, as some here think. He will rule wisely and compassionately from the center.
What that center IS, is the question. The country, under Bush, was artificially tilted to the right, I think Obama represents th old center, more like Clinton, but if anything to the right of him.
I think the only thing we can count on is that he will endeavor to undo the harm caused by GW, and will try to rebalance the country. Our present malaise is due to swinging too far to the right, he will stabilize us.
I refuse to get upset that he isn't "liberal" enough for the left. I knew that voting for him, and so should anyone that has been paying attention.
December 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Bw. It's an interesting question, what separates the center-left from the left. Is it different values? Or is it mostly different tactics? I think that the center-left and left share many of the same goals.
I've considered myself center-left for some time now, which to me means a very hard-headed and pragmatic approach to achieving goals of fairness, equity, and relieving the suffering of others, and understanding that progress toward these goals will usually be halting and incomplete, but must be pursued nonetheless.
December 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom you've apparently also bought into the notion that it is only gay "lefties" who are bothered by this.
In reality many people of the so-called center find this gesture to be repugnant. Rightfully so in my estimation. These folks (Republicans and Democrats) are straight and gay and they have friends and family; sons and daughters, moms and dads who are gay.
It is a deep insult to them as well. It isn't just "lefties."
December 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as I fit into your categories there (not being a far lefty and having a gay father), I think I can well speak from that perspective. Am I upset about Warren giving the invocation? Yes. Though less and less the more I'm able to grasp it, the reasoning, and the big picture (as well as the small, and how simply insignificant, in the end, the invocation actually is). I think, for the most part (though not exclusively), those who are extremely upset, to the point of ranting and anger over this issue, are looking at things strictly from an ideological standpoint. Pragmatic rationality doesn't really register when one thinks in such a way. That's not a sleight against those who think in such a way. I do that from time to time, and even on this very issue felt as much when I first heard it. But as I've found, reckless thought often times comes before rational thought in the process. I think that was part of McCain's downfall. He could never get past the hump of recklessness into rationality.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people don't have a right to be upset. Not in the least. I would personally rather Warren not speak at ALL at the Inauguration. But it's not as big a deal as many have seemed to make it into.
December 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine. I disagree with you that they are not pragmatic or rational. But no big thing.
This, however, has registered greatly. More so than any of his appointments. Some people were bugged by Hilary. Some by Gates. But nothing like this. And for good reason. Because, it is not just "lefties." I don't think looking for a nice neat "enemy" to fault for this is fair... nor right.
December 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Warren... isn't in any way a part of the Administration. He has no power over making policy or forming legislation. It's clear that Obama does not believe the bigoted things that Warren does. Basically, Warren has.. practically no tangible power. The only power he holds is over those who actually read his books and attend his church. So... It confuses the hell out of me why people have their panties in a bunch.
December 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
See... saying things like people having their "panties in a bunch" is not helpful. It is blowing them off. Even as you try to say you're not dismissing them.
And the only answer to your question is we can't see why you are not pissed off. You're OK with it? Fine. But acting sanctimonious and self righteous towards those who are bothered makes you look like an ass. You want to be all inclusive and understanding of intolerant people like Warren? Great, good for you. But try not to forget those who are somewhat like-minded and share a kind of kinship. try to be understanding of them as well. Try to see that they are not "far left" nutjobs needing to be dismissed.
And listen up little boy, condescendingly trying to tell people what they already know only makes you look like a fool. Nobody thinks Warren gets a position of authority. But his abhorrent views have no place on such a grand stage. (Yes, I know you think deserves that spot. Again, good for you.)
Obama's ideas for inclusiveness, reaching across the aisle... the vast majority of Americans, even Democrats! are behind it. But it is possible to do it wrong. To make a mistake. This is one of those instances. Mindlessly defending everything he does is also foolish.
December 20, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan,
Where's the line for you? Is there anyone? Anyone Obama could have invited that would have really pissed you off? Made you want to write a post or two about it? To really think "wow, I don't like this at all. I'm going to send Obama a letter?" Anyone?
Or are you one of those who really think that there is no way he could choose poorly? Is everything he does for the good of America? Can't make a mistake?
Who?
December 20, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How ignorant of you to respond to me in such a way. No matter. If condescension is what you want to give me, then I really don't care. I in no way called you anything, like "little boy", or anything even remotely insulting to your person. But fine, I'm the child, of course. Hypocrisy runs rampant in the spectrum of mindless ideology.
As for "what will push you too far" (a slightly idiotic question or premise to begin with, as one is dealing almost strictly with '"what-ifs") concerning Warren... I almost DID write a post about it. At first, I was quite indignantly pissed off about it. And then, after re-reading what I had written, I realized how stupid it was for me to be acting in such a way. Overreacting, I should say.
Apparently, you have either ignored or just not read anything I have written in this thread, or you would understand my thinking concerning Warren, and how I am not happy with it. But it's not as bad as so many would like to portray it as. Honestly, it's devolved into mostly childish bickering rather than intelligent discourse. And you may upset over my using phrases such as "get one's panties in a bunch", but honestly, if you get so offended by such a statement, I suggest you stay off the net.
December 20, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is of course you that was childish. And your inability to see confirms it.
December 20, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point out when I once personally insulted you in any way. Perhaps the use of ellipses to you equals childishness. I was simply confused as to why you even compared Warren to Hillary and Gates, as they're actual cabinet positions. Preacher giving an invocation is...not. "Panties in a bunch" is childish? It's just a figure of speech. Grow up, loki. I know you're not that ignorant.
December 21, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
{This may be too late in this thread, but I'll comment anyway, just in case.}
Young Nathan,
If we are to take you at your word, if you are not bullshitting us... then you know full well why people are pissed off/getting their "panties in a bunch." In one breath you say you understand the critics and don't dismiss them while at the same time saying you don't understand them and say they're only getting their panties in a bunch (dismissive).
Nobody anywhere claimed Warren was going to be in Obama's administration or that he would have any authority. Yet you condescendingly tell us he's not in the cabinet. I know you are not that stupid, so it was clearly an emotional and rude bit of snark on your part. Again, rather dismissive and supposedly unaware of what people really know.
My bringing up Clinton and Gates (and I'm pretty sure you really did get this!) was just a way of comparing some of the things Obama has made decisions on. Things that might have caused some people angst. Yet it was this decision that really got people worked up. Which I believes goes to the sincerity of their anger/frustration.
In any case, my main point in this thread was that picking on "the left" was dishonest and grasping for straws. It isn't just the left or just homosexuals. A large number of Americans are disappointed. Again, despite your comments, I think you really know this. And actually understand it.
Try to be a little less contradictory if you could.
Cheers.
December 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You fail to even understand my point, but no matter. Let me attempt.
I understand where the far left is coming from when I look at the issue from a purely ideological standpoint.
But when I infuse reason and rationality into the thought process, the vast majority of my anger and/or upset concerning it fails to make much sense.
My entire point here is that the far left (and the far right) think in purely ideological terms, and most of the time, there is a failure to grasp things in any sense outside of ideology (i.e. pragmatism, for one example).
I had for many, many years identified with the far left. It was not until recently in my life that I started to realize and grasp the true meaning of a far-leaning ideological thought process and worldview, and the negatives associated with it. Yet that does not stop me from still seeing things in those eyes, from time to time.
As I had stated, I originally felt quite upset and insulted over Warren. Yet after fully processing the decision, and its implications, large and small, on top of a number of other variables outside of pure partisan ideology, I realized that it's really not as big of a deal as many people are making it out to be.
If you can't understand what I've said, then apologies. But I've explained it as best I can.
December 21, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not.... just... the..."far left."
December 22, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't listening. What Tom is saying is that it is the TACTICS resemble the far right, and you know what? That offends me and my gay friends and family, and bisexual daughter, and my aunt who was "so" gay, that she became my uncle. So what?
It offends plenty of people. Is there anything that DOESN'T offend plenty of people? Rightly or wrongly?
You have to pick your battles and guard against hysteria over EVERY LITTLE THING. This is a LITTLE THING. Two minutes, tops. Get a grip.
Otherwise, you'll be taken about as seriously as the far right is taken by most people. That is to say, they aren't taken seriously at all.
One wingnut isn't much better than another.
December 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
...There's the rationality I was talking about. =)
December 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a little thing, and maybe we should not see it as which battle to fight, but why are we fighting.
I live in a pretty dang conservative corner of the country, and in order to do any community work I have to basically do so by working hand in hand with people who believe about homosexuality as Warren does. There are times I want to just scream at them to open their eyes and minds and hearts, but that wouldn't do any good. It would only result in the good work that we are doing not to get done.
My point: this invitation to Warren to do the invocation is Obama reaching out to those of Warren's world and saying lets see what we have in common, lets see where we can work together.
December 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My work here in Southwest Missouri, one of the most conservative pockets of the country, has truly opened my eyes. What you describe is the way I feel.
December 20, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missouri and Indiana is are very similar culturally speaking. It was much easier when I lived in the Northwest to associate only with those that tended to see the world the way I did. Although during the 1984 anti-gay initiative in Oregon, I was surprised how many of the liberals were against gay marriage (they were all for civil unions, but drew the line at marriage).
December 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record: I'm a supporter of gay rights, definitely. I think the two most important gay rights issues are first, decriminalization world-wide, and second, the right to marry. My post is about the best way to achieve things politically.
December 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Our president is associating with a bigot but it's people on the left who are doing the wrong thing. Okay. Geez, I'm so freaking sorry for being annoyed by this. Can't wait to get me a copy of "The Purpose Driven Life."
December 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hyperbolize much, Destor?
Presidents associate with bigots regularly. Any reason why this is more offensive? No one is saying you should buy Rick Warren's book anymore than buying Chinese goods means you should frame a picture of Chairman Mao over the fireplace, or if you have dinner at a Cambodian joint that it means you approve of Pol pot.
Perspective, please?
You know better than most that Obama isn't a Liberal, so why this gross over reaction over everything? I swear the left didn't get as upset over Bush's more knee-jerk right maneuvers.
I'll hold my fire over something that really counts. If people overreact to everything, then when and if Obama really does something bad, they'll be no real power behind the outcry.
December 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree with everything you said there except that "Obama isn't a liberal". I just don't think Obama is an ideologue. For some reason people seem to think that simply because someone isn't Kucinich-esque, they aren't liberal. I simply don't buy that.
December 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always found him to be a centrist. I was an Edwards supporter. I am, by nature, a populist. Destor appears to lean libertarian.
I suppose "liberal" is a pretty big tent, and Obama would fit in more then say, McCain, but I have always considered him to be a centrist.
That is fine with me, really. ANYTHING but right-leaning is a vast improvement.
December 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh. I understand. Thanks for the clarification!
December 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, what you do there by conceding everything left of the center is to move the point of compromise to somewhere between center right and radical right. The right wins the argument without a fight. That's why we've got Warren on stage. It's a win-win for the right. They're the only argument in town. Every play begins with the ball in their court. I'm not quite sure what the election was about. Oh, change. Right. Right.
December 20, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a wise poster elsewhere has pointed out, Obama has promised us he'd meet with the enemies of America.
So, he's doing it.
I don't see any logic in your position, "all or nothing" is a fallacy of the most basic variety.
True change doesn't happen immediately. It happens incrementally, over time. I'll be happy with that. Of course, blood in the streets may appeal to some, but I think it's kind of 17th century.
December 20, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hyperbole much?
December 20, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but not as much as some
December 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall him saying he'd let the enemies of America give an invocation at his inauguration (hmm, that would at least provide some religious diversity). No one is opposing him meeting with Warren or working with Warren on policy. We object to him honoring Warren above all others as a religious leader.
December 20, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, I think that's much too pessimistic. The NYT just reported today that in a recent interview, Warren came out in favor of partnership rights for gays, including insurance coverage and hospital visitation rights. I don't follow Warren's views closely, but I belive this represents a change on his part. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a lot to do with the inaugural. Obama is pulling people in his direction as he moves toward them.
December 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, along with having confronted the issues, he has reflected on the issues and became open to seeing things from a different angle. And the more he is included in the discourse, the more likely it is that he will shift more. I remember an opinion article some long time ago by an African-American author who was bemoaning the fact that a student was kicked out of a college because he had used racists comments. His point was that here you have someone with ideas and views of others that we don't agree with, and rather than keep in an environment where he would be exposed to new ways of looking at the world, he was sent back to the environment that produced those views that got him kicked out.
December 20, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm less concerned about the specifics of gay rights here than I am with the evangelical religious right being annointed as the one true faith.
People's attitudes towards gays are changing because so many more gays are out of the closet and people meet them across the Christmas dinner table. It's a lot easier to discriminate against gays when you can pretend to yourself that your uncle or cousin is just a bit shy and doesn't like to date than when he brings home his partner for the holidays. Once gays are openly included in the social functions of extended families, it becomes a lot more understandable that they would also want to share a marriage ceremony with extended family and friends. Marriage is a social event in most cultures. That's why the social acceptance aspect can't be easily separated from the civil union.
December 20, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I don't remember that any inauguration benediction had the power to do that. Care to cite one?
Good grief.
December 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's wait for his inaugural.
December 20, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To do what? Having Warren give a benediction isn't going to make America have an official religion. That's just cracked, Thera.
It's getting pretty silly around here.
And that's an observation coming from a chicken.
December 20, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, chicken. I was making a couple of leaps. But of course that's not gonna give us an official religion. What I was inferring (but how would that have been clear?) was that we should wait for his inaugural before assuming he was somehow against gays.
But.. thanks for noticing the cracked logic! Yes, sometimes we lose even our own train of thought! (well... ok, I do!)
What would we do without you? You're an excellent hall monitor! (and I mean that in all sincerity, as a complement)
December 20, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd all do quite well without this fried chicken, but I appreciate it, truly.
Some things are worth getting in an uproar about. I think Rick Warren is an ignorant boob, but hey, lots of my fellow citizens think he has wisdom. The fact that Obama participated in the Saddleback Church's forum bothered me a lot, but I didn't see anyone here getting bent about it.
So why now?
Sometimes I think people are actively looking for things to feel despair over. I don't want to go there.
I hope, for my family and for gay families. I know Obama isn't going to leave them out. That would go against just about everything he has said and done in this area. It's illogical.
This gesture, for that is all it is, a gesture, is to let the right know he's their president, too.
I don't like it, but it's hardly a mistake.
FISA, now THATs a mistake. This isn't even remotely on the same level, and it isn't an all or nothing policy shift on gay rights.
Silly season is open.
December 20, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love freshly laid eggs! :)
December 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, thanks for commenting. To reply, I certainly don't think people who are upset at the Warren selection are doing anything morally wrong. I think that they are doing something that is wrong politically, wrong tactically, in that it doesn't advance their agenda, and may in fact retard it.
I would also say this to supporters of gay rights, and that's a group that I belong to. We have a long history of being marginalized in the public debate, and many in this group have, I feel, developed feelings of powerlessness as a result. Those days are really, truly, coming to an end, and now that taking real control on these issues is increasingly possible, supporters of gay rights need to start deal-making and horse-trading to get the job done.
Alienating the first President who's actually on our side is short-sighted, and so are outbursts of anger generally. These issues can go our way in the next few years if the broad middle of the electorate without strong feelings on gay issues can be won over, and rage alienates this group.
All I'm saying is, play to win. That's what's most important.
December 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a nice reply Tom and I do appreciate it.
Social issues are very important to me. In fact, I think they're among the most important. I'm just worried about our president validating that guy in public. You say our days in the darkness are coming to an end. I hope so. I thought voting for Obama was part of that. Actually, I think it is part of that. But it's only the end when the president says "enough." Not when he says "let's disagree without being disagreeable" but when he says, "You know, Rick Warren is a friend of mine but the inauguration and by administration should be made up not of people who I either like or don't but who believe in the equal rights of all Americans."
We're talking about people's lives and dignity here. Every loving couple that isn't treated equally by the government is a tragedy that can't be taken back.
People are supposed to get equal treatment by the government whether or not they have majority approval. Natural rights are natural rights. Obama needs to stand up for that.
December 20, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Natural rights are natural rights! Obama needs to stand up for that!"
Just thought that was brilliant and should be emphasized. ;^}
December 20, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you guys been for the last 25 or so years?
I'm sorry, but really. I think you sound like spoiled petulant children. We won and you want it alll NOW!!!!!!
You aren't going to GET it alllllll NOW, and the more nasty you are about it, the more you'll set the adults in the room back a few years or more.
Thanks a lot. Really. Thanks, all of you.
Hey, here's an idea, lets talk the GLBT community into a public orgy, you know, shove it down the rights throat.
Will that do it for you?
December 20, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, thank you for continuing to engage on this issue. There is something you said that I disagree with, "It's the end when the President says 'enough'." Actually, I feel it isn't the end until laws are passed that guarantee the rights that people should have. And, unfortunately, the process of passing laws is inherently pretty ugly, because laws are usually passed at a point when political forces are fairly equally balanced. And so it becomes necessary to play it smart in order to gain the small advantages that put you over the top. Someone once said, "The two things you never want to watch being made are sausage and legislation." That's pretty much true, and now we are really at the law-making stage. I just want to see everyone on our side play it as smart as possible so we can just simply win.
December 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or as others have said, keep your eyes on the prize.
December 20, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
and the prize is not gained in fell swoop...its a set of small victories and occasional setbacks!
December 20, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly, the gay marriage issue is going to have to be fought many times, in many state legislatures, as well as in Congress to deal with DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) And these are political struggles for the hearts and minds of majorities. I firmly believe we will win, but you're right, it's going to take time.
December 20, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful, Tom. It's hard to be patient. But as acamus and Lux also say: Eyes on the Prize. (catching flies with honey.... and all that)
December 20, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Thera. In fact, what I said about feeling powerless I think also applies to some degree to liberals in general, given our history of the past few decades. And we have to realize that our agenda is now achievable and do what we can to get it enacted.
December 20, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Thera, and Tom, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have to hold this coalition together somehow, when the innate anarchic individualism of our Democratic tradition tends to split us apart.
The Republicans are all supposed to be authoritarian types who just love a leader to follow lockstep. We are anything but normally.
The progressives can't bolt the Party because of Warren or Geithner or FISA II or any other cause de jour. If we do, it will fatally weaken the Party's attempt to survive the Republicans attempt to destroy it.
December 20, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like many on this board, I was completely disgusted when I read of the Warren invitation. But soon I realized that of all the things that Obama has done to impress me with his smarts, this may be the smartest. The guy is ruthlessly rational - in the pursuit of goals that are intelligent and compassionate. It's scary: if he impresses me any further I might find myself wearing a bracelet that says "What Would Obama Do?".
People, this is a heads-I-win/tails-you-lose "compromise" with the Right! Just what are the anti-gay bigots getting out of this? In terms of lip-service, it gave Obama an opportunity to state that his views on gay rights are "absolutely contrary" to those of Warren! As a tactic to help him with his legislation agenda, every day sooner that Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell is repealed is one less day that every gay kid in the army has to worry about his or her life being overturned. (And in that respect I disagree with Tom -- I think Obama should move as quickly as possible.)
But I love the idea of Obama lecturing to African and Muslim countries on gay rights!! Can you imagine the effect of Right Wingnuts coming out in defense of Iran and friends? Nothing could do more to stigmatize anti-gay-bigotry in America.
December 20, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, Obama didn't have to get Rick Warren, who is a slightly more benign version of Jerry Falwell - someone who hates both women and gays, someone who thinks teh gayz can be cured, and women should submit to their husbands.
There are other choices. Millions of 'em.
Warren's followers didn't make calls, knock on doors, contribute money, or VOTE for Obama. None of that matters any more. He got elected with the help of teh gayz and even the dreaded far left. And now that he is elected, he can go back over to the center right where he came from. He doesn't need lefties or gays any more. Thanks to the 2 party system, we can be assured that the GOP will nominate some crazy right wing fascist in 2012, and we'll all vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils.
December 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink