The Barack Problem

Rick Warren, Obama Invocation Choice, Causing First Real Rift With Progressives.

It's too early to know how Barack Obama will govern which is why each of his cabinet appointments has been followed by rounds of tea-leaf reading by pundits, pols and regular folk . But I think that his selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural, maybe more than anything so far, highlights one of the central problems that Obama will face as president.

The Warren pick is exactly the kind of move you'd expect from a figure who rose to national prominence in 2004 by telling the country that there is not a black america, nor a white america, but the United States of America (that may be the single most italic-worthy sentence of the current millenium.) The problem is that it is not true. We want it to be and more than any politician in recent history, Obama is the beneficiary of a vision of America that we believe in but which does not exist. At least not yet.

But there is a flipside to the kind of political ecumenism that Obama is advocating, one that Clinton raised but (as with many of her critiques) failed to gain any traction. The short version is this: there are things we will have to fight about and we can have change or we can have national unity, but probably not both.

There is one pole in American politics in which figures like Rove and the late Lee Atwater flourish, the one in which the country is fractured and deliberated pitted against each other, where the term "wedge issue" isn't even considered a pejorative.

At the other extreme is a kind of touchy-feely centrism that glosses over real differences in the name of unity -- and that "unity" is often a disservice to groups/causes with legitimate grievances. Given that we've been at the first pole for eight years we may be rushing toward the opposite one.

It's been my observation that change usually begins on the political margins and has to fight its way to the center. Organized labor was considered a bunch of un-American radicals for decades before the Wagner Act in the 1930s. Civil Rights groups sat on the fringe for a half-century before gaining enough influence for Truman to denounce lynching and integrate the military. Domestic violence was once a fringe issue.

Groups advocating "change" whether of the FDR sort or the Reagan doesn't usually come from the center (unless maybe the "change" is realizing that there actually is a center.) The most important changes of the 20th century -- social security, civil rights, legalized abortion -- have evoked huge controversies and lasting divisions before they came to be generally accepted (that has yet to happen with abortion but it probably will.)

So we get to Obama's fundamental paradox: how do you preserve national unity and institute change simultaneously? That's a hard trick to pull off.

As per Warren, Obama was elected by people who are by and large at least moderately pro-choice and he had the benefit of high levels of support from the gay and lesbian community. For the latter folks, legalized marriage is "the change we need." On the other hand Obama's invitation to Warren is meant to convey a kind of just the kind of post-partisanship that he promised.

I always find the Sunday political shows interesting when, in the name of decorum and public relations, people with radically different agendas share a kind of chummy, cozy friendship of old college friends. The implications are "Yes, I know you support a war in which hundreds of thousands of people will die for reasons that remain unclear, billions will be recklessly spent, and American prestige will crater but that doesn't mean you're a bad guy."

In the name of national unity, the liberal Adlai Stevenson chose the segregationist John Sparkman as VP on the 1952 Democratic ticket. Black Democrats were rightfully furious. Unity is just as often a buzzword for those quiet periods where little changes.

Rick Warren's invitation is not as bad the Sparkman choice -- he's making a prayer, not policy. But it raises the memory of groups being left in the cold in the name of unity.

Barack can have change or he can bridge the divsions in American politics. It's possible but highly unlikely he -- or we -- can have it both ways.

Comments

[Bill Harshaw]

While your point may be correct on a large scale, I don't think it is on the smaller scale. For example, LBJ had to decide whether to push civil rights or not when he became President. He decided to push both civil rights and the Great Society. Sen. Dirksen was not a Great Society supporter, but LBJ was able to get him to support civil rights. Political coalitions are shifting things and issue-oriented. Bush pushed AIDS/Africa, but it's not a core issue for Republicans. Assuming Obama wants to continue to push the initiative, he'll need help from the Warrens of the world to pick up GOP votes.

[jelani c.]

I hear you but there are a couple of other points: LBJ didn't have much of a choice on civil rights. By the time he became president the issue had been increasing in significance for arguably fifteen years and esp in the nine years between Brown v. Board and the JFK assassination.

But I do agree that its possible for an effective, powerful and/or charismatic politician to win over support for otherwise unpopular issues. Obama doesn't (appear to) have LBJ's legendary arm-twisting skills but he is charismatic and has that massive voter/donor database which will influence a great deal in terms of the way Congress treats him.

But to the larger point: Obama can gain support from the Rick Warrens of the world, but to what end? LBJ could pick off someone like Dirksen but he wasn't going to win over people like Faubus or Wallace or Eastland or Bilbo or any of those folk for whom supporting integration was political suicide.

For what it matters, the modern right seems to have to calling cards on social issues these days: abortion and gay marriage. It's highly unlikely Obama will win with them on either issue. But let's say that he does miraculously -- do we really think he doesn't simultaneously create a huge backlash of disaffected voters that make the likes of Rove salivate?

America is an idea first and foremost and try as we might, we simply will not likely get people to radically change their view of what that idea is because it is simultaneously asking them to change their own sense of identity. And I have no illusions about that being a reasonable expectation.

Of course, you could always point to the fact that a black guy named Barack got himself elected President as evidence to the contrary...

[DeAngelo]

As usual, excellent writing, Mr. Cobb. I think you're on point, too. I think you come from the margins to the middle. Otherwise, you find yourself pandering and picking and choosing calling yourself a centrist.

Obama's choice of Warren was baffling given that he would be a lightening rod for dissent by pro-gay advocates. I still don't get what the big deal about allowing gay people to marry. To me, it's as silly to say two gay people can't marry as it was that a black and white person can't marry. Commitment and trust are infinitely important than the gender of the two people getting married. And the mental gymnastics people like Warren do to get justify their prejudice (yes, that's what it is) is maddening and intellectually dishonest.

The greater point for me is what was Obama trying to prove? And his justification for the pick was intellectually dishonest as well. He based his argument on being inclusive to people with whom we have disagreement. So you include someone whose views are not inclusive? That's your idea of change? That's that Clintonesque pandering that frustrated me in the 90s. Further, I didn't like the tone of his justification. It was like he lecturing and scolding his critics of the pick. Moreover, he came off defensive.

We can work with people with whom we disagree. But if you want a prominent place at the Inauguration and speak to all the people, either use the opportunity to rebuke and refute your bigotry clothed in religion or remove yourselve out of respect for all of us.

[MichaelAllen]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the theme of this inauguration premised on the idea that it is the most open event of it's kind? And aren't the selection of speakers and guests there in order to allow a wide range of voices that reflect America today? So how is having Warren there a slap in the face to gays when Rev Lowery is up there with him? Rev Lowery has an enviable record of support for gay marriage. Doesn't Rev Lowery count? Isn't his voice equally important and if not why? Isn't this symbolic too? So Rick Warren is there for the moderates and Lowery is there for the moderates and progressives. It's been very distressing to read and see how dismissive everybody is at the inclusion of Rev Lowery in the program. It's a prayer not policy.

[FAH]

Not sure how all of you can be right at the same time, but you are... in my humble opinion anyway. The beauty of the Warren pick is that it invites America- all SES, class, race, religion, status- to have this kind of discourse. Everybody at the table, everybody with a voice.

[jelani c.]

I agree, FAH (can I call you Fred?) and Deangelo. My real concern is whether this is a harbinger of things to come. It is not inappropriate to have a multiplicity of voices and views at the inauguration but we're fooling ourselves if we think it's that simple.

I favor gay marriage as a civil rights issue. (Also my libertarian sympathies make me doubt that the government should have the right to deny it in the first place.)

But there's no way in hell I would attend an inaugural where a white democrat who had received massive black support invited a segregationist in the name of "diversity of opinion."

At some point this becomes a zero sum game.

[Smokedpoke]

What the punditry and news outlets oversimplify is that Rick Warren doesn't simply oppose gay marriage. He has stated, among other bigoted things, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia. He has actively used his influence and ministry to help strip rights from gays in California. The inauguration is not a debate or civil rights forum, where we can actually share our "diversity of opinions" - no matter how you slice it, this is an endorsement of Rick Warren, and legitimization of his bigotry at the highest level.

As an ardent Obama supporter who knocked on doors, defended him repeatedly to skeptical gay and lesbian friends and donated over $1,000 to his campaign, I cannot feel anything but slapped in the face. My only hope is that he actually makes good on his pro-LGBT promises.

[andgarden]

This is a pretty excellent essay. Thanks.

I'm here via jbou:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/22/2375/5096/959/676381

[jelani c.]

many thanks for the link, andgarden.

i'm still in beta but i'll return the favor as soon as i'm fully up and running.

[Dan Tres Omi]

My thing is, if you want to be about change, eff it, do it.

Instead we get a big debate on centrist politics and bring back previous cabinet heads.

Like you, I can't critique Obama on the presidency until at least 100 days into his presidency (with the economy going bad I might have to give him a blank check for maybe a year...fyi, I did not support Obama or McCain).

but I always hear about the risks of making certain moves instead of the benefits.

[Jane]

I came here from TNC.

I am white and grew up in the deep South during the '50's and '60's.

Civil rights came to Southern Blacks because of federal judges, support from Freedom Riders coming in from away, and federal troops.

There is NO WAY that changes would have come solely through the efforts of local whites. It would have been impossible, for a variety of (good and bad) reasons.

Obama reminds me of the white people (many of whom were very fine people) who said that change had to come slowly and without rocking the boat ("you can't legislate morality".) Obama needs to be careful with his inclusiveness and incrementalism.