At the end of every war, before there can be lasting peace and real progress, there must come surrender. Arguably, genocide is another way to end a war, but this is arguable because true genocide is difficult to achieve, just ask the Jews. In the course of our brief history on this planet, several societies and civilizations have tried to exterminate them, and yet they still exist and even thrive. For genocide to truly end a conflict, it must be completed, and such an attempt is brutal and tends to work counter to our natural human sympathies for others, gaining allies and converts to the oppressed group, and further complicating the goal of ending the conflict.
But by surrender, I do not here mean merely that the "losers" to the conflict must surrender to the "victors" but rather that the victors too must surrender. As a people who are engaged in many conflicts, it behooves us to remember this simple truth if we are to ever hope to overcome them. At the end of the Civil War, the South surrendered unconditionally to the North, but in winning their victory, the North had to make concessions to the South as well. Not all the officers and generals were arrested and tried for war crimes. White plantation owners were not executed for their past murders and torture of their slaves.
Likewise at the end of the Second World War, where both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Forces. In order to preserve and sustain our victory, we had to practice extraordinary levels of forgiveness. Many Nazis were granted amnesty, though their leadership was pursued by International Law Enforcement with great vigor. The Japanese got to keep their Emperor, though his role in their government was greatly narrowed. The point of all this is that the winner of a conflict must make concessions , concessions that prior to the end of the conflict would have been unacceptable, in order to make the resolution of the conflict last.
Now, you might think that the political point I’m trying to make here has something to do with our occupation in Iraq, or perhaps with the larger "War on Terrorism." But you’d be wrong. This is about the Obama campaign and the McClurkin controversy. For those of you who don’t know (what, have you been living under a rock?) this controversy stems from the fact that McClurkin, a reverend and popular gospel singer, is outspoken against the morality of homosexuality. Obama has invited him to sing at his campaign functions, and naturally, this as caused a great deal of outrage from the gay and lesbian communities and their liberal and progressive allies. "How can Obama be a progressive if he associates with such people?" and "Clearly Obama doesn’t care about gay and lesbian issues because he treats their feelings and sensibilities with such disregard." These questions and conclusions have been rampant of late, accompanied by much thrashing of keyboards and gnashing of teeth.
While cooler heads have attempted to intervene, to give an explanation of what’s going on, for why Obama might be including this individual, their excuses have been received with something less than charity. "McClurkin is a popular gospel singer amongst the African American community and Obama is trying to curry their support" is an excuse that’s simply not good enough, in the eyes of the keepers of progressive and liberal purity. "He’s gaining support from one group by pissing off another" they say. Practically, it’s a wash, and as an indication of Obama’s character, it does not signal the steadfastness to principles, especially the principles we hold so dear, but rather a sort of triangulatory, wishy-washy disposition at best, a cynical and calculating disposition at worst. McClurkin, as well as many others on "the other side" of the political spectrum are as good as lepers to these people. Talk to them, associate with them, even touch them and you will be tainted.
But perhaps one of the most famous and revered historical figures made his career out of hanging out with, healing and reconciling with those society hates: tax-collectors, prostitutes and even actual lepers. Of course, I am speaking of Jesus of Nazareth. "Dear God," you must be saying to yourselves, "This guy titles his essay with one of those paradoxical Zen koans, proceeds with an all too brief synopsis and glib analysis of history, implies that those outraged by Obama’s self-association with Pastor McClurkin are purity trolls, and now he’s comparing Barack Hussein Obama with Jesus H. Christ?" Indeed, I am. But I am not arguing that Obama is the next coming of Christ, that he is our messiah, or that he is in any way divine. I am arguing that it is no vice to associate with those we despise, even those we despise for good reasons.
Now there’s a big difference between lepers and homophobes. Lepers are not responsible for their affliction, whereas homophobes are. But in Jesus’ time, this difference did not exist. Lepers were condemned to their condition by a Just God, if they were afflicted with a necrotizing disease, it must have been because they had so offended God that this was just punishment. Jesus’ caring for lepers, his willingness to associate with them and especially his healing of them were radical acts. "Just who does this guy think he is?" the Israelites said to themselves, "He’s challenging God’s judgment by removing this affliction." By healing lepers, associating with them and caring for them, he challenged the social assumption that these people didn’t deserve inclusion and assimilation, and more than that, he challenged the belief that only God could forgive these individuals and absolve them of their sin by removing their affliction.
Thus, for those of us in the liberal, progressive community, homophobes and racists, warmongers and corporatists are, one and all, very like the lepers of old. They are tainted with their sin against the principles of liberal democracy. We hate them, and for good reason: their affliction distorts our efforts. It is a constant reminder that human beings are not the basically good-natured, tolerant and reasonable people liberal democracy requires them to be. Nor can they be absolved by any mere mortal. Once they have shown themselves to be the enemies of tolerance and progress, they must be destroyed, or at a minimum, completely disenfranchised.
Obama, in associating with these outcasts of progressive society, is being as viciously criticized by members of that society as Jesus was by members of the Hebrew society, and for the same reasons. How dare he treat these outcasts with compassion, tolerance and inclusion? They are evil incarnate! McClurkin’s statements are so vile and reprehensible, that not even a retraction and apology would allow us to permit him into our community. He deserves to be outcast, not to be given a platform from which he can spew his evil!
But this attitude is as absolutist, as ignorant of history and reality and as hateful as the supposed ideology of those we purport to despise. In associating with McClurkin, Obama should be praised and encouraged, for by doing so he is laying the groundwork for a decades long conflict in our culture to finally come to a peaceful resolution and final victory. The battle for gay and lesbian rights and fundamental inclusion and equality in our culture is all but won. But the armies that have waged this conflict are still angry, the losers are not ready to admit defeat and the winners are not ready to re-incorporate the losers. Barack Obama, by inviting a general, or at least a colonel, of the opposing camp to come and publically contribute to his campaign something that millions of people find valuable and inspiring, his gospel music, he is proffering the first steps of a sort of political amnesty whereby the armies of the Christian literalists and fundamentalists can come to peaceably accept their defeat.
I will not here repeat the platitudes that Obama is not allowing McClurkin a platform from which he can espouse his homophobic views, that his legislative history has shown him to be a great ally of gays and lesbians, or any of the other excuses that Obama's defenders have offered for him, not because they are not relevant or important in deciding whether or not to support him for President, for they are. I am not repeating them because I do not care who you intend to vote for for President. But I do care about bringing the conflict surrounding gay and lesbian issues in our society to a successful and final end, and to my eyes, so does Barack Obama.