It's exhausting fighting and debating this, especially when people won't put their anger down and think of this logically.
So, with great reluctance, and a knowledge that many people out there will disagree with me (and that's ok) here is my take on what i'm dubbing "Warren-gate".
This is compiled mostly from comments i've left here at Kos and over at TPM. So if you've been engaging in this, and some of this sounds familiar, that's why.
People are making WAAAAY tooo much of a big deal about who says a prayer to the invisible man in the sky. Obama just asked Rick Warren, with whom he disagrees on many things and has said so publicly many times, to say a prayer. Thats it folks. It's not a cabinet position. It has no policy implications. It's just a prayer.
Obama isn't endorsing Warren's beliefs on gay rights. He's not changing his position on DOMA or ENDA or DADT.
So when people like John Aravosis calls the most gay friendly president-elect we've ever had a bigot, i think somebody needs to stand up and tell every body to take a deep breath and think logically.
Isn't this what we expected from Obama? I mean, its certainly what I expected. Obama promised unity and to change the tone in Washington. You don't do that by demonizing those you disagree with and shutting them out at every single turn. At some point, governing a country this large, with so many different viewpoints means you're going to have to talk to, and include those with whom you disagree if you EVER want to accomplish anything.
This is EXACTLY what Obama promised to do and he's doing it. The fact that every one on the left seems so pissed off about it says more about them than it does obama: mainly, they didn't REALLY want to change Washington, they just wanted to win. And now that we've won, we can govern just like the republicans did for the last 8yrs by not letting people who disagree with us politically have a seat at the table.
Only one problem with that: That's not change. That's more of the same. That's the cause of all the obstructionism and deadlock in Washington. You can't bypass all that by shutting out a substantial portion of the population.
Obama and Warren disagree about gay rights. But Obama cares about other things too. Like poverty, or fighting aids or say, global warming. And Warren (and the millions of evangelicals he represents) can be important allies in those causes. By picking Warren to say a 30 second prayer to the invisible man in the sky, Obama builds some good will with them.
Should we focus only on the things we disagree about, or should we focus on the things we all agree on and work together to try to solve those problems? I mean, if you think Warren's views on gays are flat wrong (and speaking as a gay, i do) that's perfectly legitimate.
But why does that have to be the end of the conversation? What about all those other things we can agree on? the problems this country is facing are huge. We need all hands on deck to solve them. And i don't think you get there by shutting out every one who disagrees with you on gay issues, or abortion, or govt spending etc.
Lets disagree on things. That's America. But let's not allow those disagreements to prevent us from doing the things WE ALL AGREE need to be done.
Like it or not, Warren is representative of Millions of people (a vast number of whom didn't vote for Obama). And even though they think i'm a sinner who's going to burn in hell for all eternity, we can't ignore them. Well, i guess we could, but we'd be no better than bush ignoring every one he disagreed with.Those were a fun 8 years, huh? Just cause we're on the winning side now, doesn't mean we have to shut out those who 'lost'. This is a democracy and it doesn't just belong to the left. It belongs to everyone, and it will only work if everyone feels they have a say and are respected.
So, the choice is either alienate them and lose any chance of enlisting their resources to help the causes we all can agree on, or, build good will and keep the avenues of dialogue and exchange open so that Obama can have access to potentially millions of important allies that he's going to need to get this country back on track.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Finally, I want to close by quoting a commenter at TPM who, i think, summed this all up perfectly.
paddynoons:
I hate to break it to the people who are so upset, but this is what 'ending the culture war' looks like. What did you think: it would be an unconditional surrender by the other side? No, the idea is that 1) you disagree without being disagreeable; 2) you avoid demonizing individuals; 3) you focus on commonalities rather than differences and you set some issues aside on occaision; and 4) you try to understand the other person's perspective.
UPDATE: if you're just gonna flame me in the comments, don't bother. and grow up.
UPDATE II: I've been thinking a while on this, and i have more to say.
President-Elect Obama has been preaching for two years how we need to engage our enemies abroad. This means talking to Iran. He's been preaching the same message domestically. What did you all think that looked like? That means at some point, sitting down with, and talking to, people you fundamentally disagree with.
Barack Obama isn't afraid to talk to Machmoud Achmeninajad, do you really think a creampuff like Rick Warren intimidates him?
See past the anger, see past the symbolism and look at the nuts and bolts politics of it. This is an opportunity. Obama is never ever in a million billion years going to agree with Rick Warren regarding gays. So we wont work with him on gay issues.
But we can agree on global warming, poverty, hunger, volunteerism, AIDS and about a billion other things.
If Rick Warren giving the invocation buys an opportunity to solve those problems, I think that's worth the bad symbolism of it.
Now, I'm going to get out my soapbox and tell you some more things none of you will like to hear. What i've seen here on kos has been part of the problem we need to solve. I'm trying to have a rational, fact based debate, and i was called a bigot once directly, and it was implied indirectly several more times.
I hate to say, but some of what i've seen here reminds me of the wingnuts we're supposed to outclass. I mean, we're supposed to be the rational, sane ones, and yet, I, a 24 year old gay man living in Columbus, Ohio who is dating a black man, was called a bigot because of a political disagreement.
That is absurdity, folks. We're supposed to be better than that. Now I don't like bringing all that up because a)it shouldn't matter b)people with think i'm making it up and c)my argument should speak for itself no matter who is making it.
But when you attack someone's credibility, or insinuate they're not having a good-faith, honest disagreement, I kind of feel the need to defend myself by pointing that out. But more importantly, i wanted to point it out because I think it's demonstrative of the problem. Civil discourse means not assuming the worst about those you disagree. It means we can disagree without calling each other bad names. I'm not your enemy. I'm on the same side as you. I want the same rights as a gay man that everyone else has. Just because I disagree with you on how to get from point A to point B doesn't mean I'm a "bigot". And that kind of thing is not helpful or constructive to what we're trying to accomplish.
We are the change we've been waiting for. So let's act like it, huh?