Obama’s selection of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation has whipped up a significant amount of anger on the left. This anger is quite justified. Rick Warren is a man who stands for the opposite of the political inclusiveness that Obama claims to be aiming for. Rick Warren is a man
* who supported Proposition 8 by saying “there are about 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population…change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.”
* who, on abortion, says: “it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’… Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’… I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”
* who is so committed to a culture of life that he believes “God puts government on earth to punish evildoers” and therefore unreservedly agrees with Sean Hannity that we should “take out” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran.
So for Warren, (i) we must all obey the 5000-year-old laws of all the world’s religions (if they all agreed that stoning adulterers is okay, then we ought to do so); (ii) those who are pro-choice are akin to Nazis (doesn’t he know that ancient Greek religion thought it was okay to kill the newly born? Why shouldn’t we obey those 5000 year old laws?); and (iii) our government’s existential purpose is to stop evildoers, so murdering foreign heads of state is okay by life-loving Warren. On the whole, Warren’s view seems to be this: if the world’s religions enjoin X, X must be the law of the land. Except if X is something Warren doesn’t happen to like — say polygamy — then and only then it shouldn’t be the law of the land.
And yet the selection of Warren doesn’t bother me for the same reason as most liberals. It seems to me that this choice is totally in keeping with the theory that has driven Obama’s whole campaign. This theory — let’s call it the Separated Parents Theory of American Politics — states that what was wrong with the last eight years of American politics — and American politics more broadly since 1968 — has been a Vietnam-fueled family squabble among liberals and conservatives.
According to this theory, our most important problem has been bitterness, divisiveness, disrespectful disagreement among members of the American family, a sort of looming divorce between what George Lakoff would describe as “strict fathers” (conservatives) and “nurturing mothers” (liberals). Obama, like Bill Clinton, the product of a broken marriage, seems to hate it when boomer Dad and Mom are fighting. He hopes, through a change of tone, to bring the two warring camps together. If only they could stay in the same room and be civil to each other, maybe we could start getting things done! It is the fantasy of the child heroically helping Mom and Dad reconcile that makes Obama’s campaign so symbolically powerful, especially — I suspect — among younger voters for whom boomer political strife seems almost incomprehensibly bitter. Ergo, “strong-Dad” Warren, who — whatever you think of his politics — is about as mainstream as apple pie among certain communities in this country. Including him is a way of (presumably) forcing “nurturing-mom” LGBT activists to stop “being so shrill,” and learn to have a respectful conversation with those they disagree with.
As you can tell from my account above, my problem with the selection of Warren is not Warren himself — though I strongly disagree with his politics — it’s that this choice reveals yet again how deeply Obama believes in the Separated Parents Theory. And if Obama keeps repeating this theory, using his bully pulpit to give it credibility, others might come to think it’s true. But in my view this whole way of talking about politics is deeply misguided. That is, though grounded by a grain of truth — politics does make us mad — this theory is very misleading.
The problem with the last eight years hasn’t been that Strict Dad (say, George W. Bush) and Nurturing Mom (say, Hillary Clinton) have been at each other’s throats in partisan rancor. No, in fact, there has since 9/11 (and before) been a high level of bipartisan accord on all the most important — and destructive — decisions that have been made. Hillary Clinton and Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq war. Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats were advised of — and either supported or tolerated — our torture policy. Pretty much everyone eagerly voted for the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. On gay marriage — the one area where one can plausibly claim a difference of policy preference is leading to disdain and anger — both major presidential candidates agreed completely: Marriage is between a man and a woman, though some civil rights should be extended to homosexual partners.
Given the overwhelming evidence of the last eight years, how can anyone take the Separated Parents Theory seriously?
Against the Separated Parents Theory of American Politics, then, I present what I hope will become a regular refrain on this blog: the Bad Policy Theory of American Politics. The problem with Warren is his politics. His delivering the invocation doesn’t matter because he is not being appointed to Obama’s cabinet. His invocation does matter because it suggests that Obama and those who believe in his narrative of family strife overestimate the importance of tone in their critique of the last eight years and underestimate the importance of Democratic complicity in the most horrific policies we have embraced. Indeed, you have to admit, whatever else you think of Warren: he takes a very civil tone as he espouses the most horrible, destructive ideas.
Lee, you write, “Given the overwhelming evidence of the last eight years, how can anyone take the Separated Parents Theory seriously?”
I believe this theory should be taken seriously, for two reasons. As I see it, you’re making two points to criticize the theory. First, you compare Obama’s apparent efforts to unify the country around his presidency to the deluded efforts of a child trying to bring his estranged parents together:
“It is the fantasy of the child heroically helping Mom and Dad reconcile that makes Obama’s campaign so symbolically powerful, especially — I suspect — among younger voters for whom boomer political strife seems almost incomprehensibly bitter.”
When it comes to your model of the warring relationship between husband and wife (this is where your metaphor breaks down), the deluded child must eventually accept the reality that the parents cannot get along, and must therefore separate, get a divorce, etc. But in America (where the wife apparently represents all Democratic/liberal voters and the Republicans apparently represent all Republican/conservative voters) there is no divorce. We MUST find a way to share our home — this country — together. This “fantasy” is the hope that Americans can come together to face the awesome challenges we MUST confront. Perhaps you think Obama is deluded in believing that America can summon the political will to function, but defeatism is an irresponsible position to take. Any alternative ideas you have about how to move the country forward could just as easily be dismissed as “fantasy,” couldn’t they?
The other point you make is this:
“Hillary Clinton and Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq war. Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats were advised of — and either supported or tolerated — our torture policy. Pretty much everyone eagerly voted for the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. On gay marriage — the one area where one can plausibly claim a difference of policy preference is leading to disdain and anger — both major presidential candidates agreed completely: Marriage is between a man and a woman, though some civil rights should be extended to homosexual partners.”
I have a question: When Democrats chose to side with Republicans on these issues, weren’t they doing so because a majority of the American people also supported these positions? In other words, didn’t the American people support the war in Iraq, at the beginning? Didn’t the American people support the concept of torture? Don’t most Americans today believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? (These are not rhetorical questions — I honestly don’t know the answers.)
Barack Obama has suggested the power in America comes from the bottom up — and I completely agree — which means that when the American people support a position, it’s hard for Democrats to fight it. That’s why it was hard for Democrats to fight for an auto bailout — because 55% of Democrats opposed it. Before the Iraq war, I remember having very earnest conversations with liberal Democrats who supported the war (and there’s always Christopher Hitchens to consider.) My point is, is agreement between the two parties really the dynamic that best characterizes the last eight years, or are you just frustrated that more Democrats didn’t show more political courage in endorsing your views? Because if it’s the latter, then you have to realize that the politicians can’t do it on their own — they need the support of the people, and Democratic politicians aren’t the only ones influencing public opinion.
I will try to come up with examples of partisan discord over the past eight years.
I think the key question is twofold: Does Obama really intend to implement a big, bold, transformative agenda when he takes over as president? And is this agenda the right one? If he does have a big agenda, and if the agenda is right — then having Rick Warren give the invocation is a small price to pay to win the ear of evangelical Christians whose support (or at least open-mindedness) he’ll need to get his agenda passed.
If Obama doesn’t have an agenda that’s big and good, then promoting Rick Warren is meaningless and destructive.
I think it’s too early to know whether Obama is selling anyone out, or merely demonstrating the kind of political acumen that will enable him to lead this country to a brighter future.
Comment by Ian — December 19, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
My metaphor might have been deceptive in some ways. My point isn’t that we’re actually divided but that getting us to work together is hopeless. Indeed, I don’t think public opinion polling is all that divided on many important issues facing our country. Nor, I think, is the political class very divided, despite public spectacles of rancor that might suggest otherwise. It’s not that we can’t be brought together; it’s that we don’t need to be.
I think Rick Perlstein is correct when he says “As far as public opinion goes, the American public is generally not center-right… The younger generation is more progressive than the last one. What we do have is a center-right political system.” I believe the major political division in this country is the gap between public opinion and the behavior/opinions of the political class, between the people and our leaders.
This is a division primarily of policy, not of tone. You can point to public support for the Iraq war before the war, but you can also point to polls that show that overwhelmingly people thought that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that he was poised to unleash an army of WMD-armed terrorists on America. Polls taken immediately after 9/11 show that Americans — correctly — didn’t believe Saddam had any link to 9/11. What we lived through was a Republican-engineered “marketing campaign” trying to imply that Saddam was behind 9/11; this largely successful propaganda campaign received little to no meaningful push-back from Democrats. Nor did poorly substantiated claims that Saddam had WMDs receive any objection by prominent Democrats, especially those on the intelligence committees, who knew better. As for torture, the polling I’ve found suggests that a majority of Americans support an absolute ban on torture (appx. 53%). Not an inspiring number, from the prespective of human decency, but it is a majority.
More to the point, to not push back against these views because you fear divisiveness and partisan rancor is essentially to give up the argument. As the case of the Saddam-9/11 link shows, public opinion can be won or lost by presenting facts and using the media to make a case. The views of the American people aren’t some static monolith unmoved by persuasion and evidence. On the whole, Americans hold left of center views, but if Republicans make a very loud and vocal and confident case about how we’re all in terrible danger, and Democrats essentially don’t push back, people may come to believe that there’s a consensus that we’re in terrible immediate danger. In which case, supporting military action is entirely rational on the part of the population.
That’s what our politics should be about. Pushing our views on each other and trying to win change we believe in. The problem with Rick Warren isn’t that he has objections to gay marriage — though I obviously disagree with his objections, and will happily debate anyone who would outlaw marriage. It’s that he’s being included by Obama in part to solve a problem that I don’t think really exists.
Our focus should be less on trying to change the tone of American politics in some general, I think, than on making sure Obama implements the big bold agenda we think he ought to. And to persuade our fellow Americans that our vision is the best vision for the country. And, if Obama does not do what we think is right, even if he sincerely thinks he’s doing the right thing, we might even have to get a little shrill.
Comment by Lee — December 20, 2008 @ 3:26 am
I absolutely believe that people who see things the way we see things should work hard to persuade our fellow Americans that our vision is the best vision for the country. I also agree, then, that “the views of the American people aren’t some static monolith unmoved by persuasion and evidence.” I agree that getting a little shrill may be warranted to communicate our ideas about what is best for America. I also completely agree with you when you write, “More to the point, to not push back against these views because you fear divisiveness and partisan rancor is essentially to give up the argument. As the case of the Saddam-9/11 link shows, public opinion can be won or lost by presenting facts and using the media to make a case.”
The question is: If you believe, as I do, that facts and reason are fundamentally on our side — and if you also believe, as you suggest, that public opinion is also fundamentally on our side — then why isn’t the left more effective in persuading the American people to support Democratic politicians and not Republican ones in the voting booth?
Of course, there are a variety of explanations: gerrymandering of Congressional districts that gives conservatives an advantage, right-wing talk radio and Fox news that paints distorted pictures of Democratic candidates and then stokes irrational fears. But gerrymandering doesn’t fully account for the Republicans’ advantage, and blaming right-wing media still leaves us wondering why right-wing media is so successful and influential.
The answer, I believe, is fear and resentment. Consider that only 61% of Americans reject Biblical literalism — which means 39% of Americans are prepared to believe that the Bible is the literal truth. Of course, this is an untenable position — but it seems to mean that this 39% of Americans consider homosexuality sinful, period. And they place their views of homosexuality in the larger context of their religion/spirituality, which represents hope/freedom/love/righteousness. So when their views are characterized as “hatred” by gay-rights activists, they don’t just disagree. They feel threatened. They feel resentful. They feel that someone is trying to take their religion away from them. Right-wing media knows this, and so they lure these people in by validating their religious views, and then — once they have their attention — sell them on the rest of the conservative agenda.
Twice during Obama’s presidential campaign — once early on, when Warren invited Obama to speak at his church, and again later when Warren hosted his “forum” — Warren essentially endorsed Obama as a reasonable man who shouldn’t inspire fear in evangelical Christians. At a time when Obama’s enemies were trying to use Rev. Wright to say Obama’s religious views make him an enemy of this country, Warren threw his repuation behind the idea that Obama is worthy of respect from mainstream evangelical Christians.
The question is, how do we relate to the 39% of Americans who believe the Bible may be the literal truth? Do we just assume we can govern this country without any support from them on any issue? Or can we agree to disagree in the areas where no agreement is possible, and then form partnerships to move forward in the areas where we can agree? Obama clearly believes in the latter — as he said throughout his campaign. Don’t we owe it to the American people to give Obama’s idea a chance? What’s the great danger?
Comment by Ian — December 20, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
I think the idea of speaking respectfully with the 39% of Americans who believe in the Bible literally is a great idea. I disagree with them on many issues, but may even agree with them on others, such as torture, the need for social welfare programs, etc. There’s no danger in reaching out respectfully to those with whom we passionately disagree.
However, we should not expect that by doing so, our political opponents will do the same. No amount of being nice to Sean Hannity will convince him to be nice and respectful toward the left because he’s in essence an Outrage Performance Artist, much like Limbaugh and O’Reilly. His whole career depends on whipping up the mob, calling for the assasinations of heads of state, etc., and profiting from this fury.
My point is that when we look at the last eight years, divisiveness has not been the primary problem of our politics, at least relative to the issues I care about. Misguided bipartisan accord and cooperation — on war, torture, gay rights, illegal wiretapping and government surveillance, erosion of the rule of law, No Child Left Behind, etc. — has been the problem. When there has been political discord, say on privatizing Social Security, I have generally been quite pleased with the outcome.
That many in this country are fans of the Outrage Performance Artists mentioned above is perhaps disturbing to a degree — well, to a large degree — but then if we all wanted to stop such publicly divisive rhetoric, there would be an easy way: Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly should simply instantly stop doing what they do, and begin advocating for “their” positions on the basis of respectful reasoned arguments. That would be the end of it. There is simply no mainstream analog to them on the left. Olbermann tries, but he’s not nearly in the same league. No Democratic politician in my living memory has ever attempted to be divisive or shrill or nasty, but has always been ready to speak respectfully to the right and forge bipartisan compromise — often, too quickly, and with bad policy outcomes.
Comment by Lee — December 20, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
I see a contradiction in your position, but I may be mistaken.
On the one hand, you seem to support the idea that Democrats should adopt a civil tone, should try to reach out, etc. You write, “I think the idea of speaking respectfully with the 39% of Americans who believe in the Bible literally is a great idea. I disagree with them on many issues, but may even agree with them on others, such as torture, the need for social welfare programs, etc. There’s no danger in reaching out respectfully to those with whom we passionately disagree.”
On the other hand, you interpret Obama’s selection of Rick Warren in this way: “As you can tell from my account above, my problem with the selection of Warren is not Warren himself — though I strongly disagree with his politics — it’s that this choice reveals yet again how deeply Obama believes in the Separated Parents Theory. And if Obama keeps repeating this theory, using his bully pulpit to give it credibility, others might come to think it’s true. But in my view this whole way of talking about politics is deeply misguided.”
Why isn’t it right to interpret Obama’s selection of Warren as an effort to reach out to someone with whom Obama passionately disagrees? Why isn’t Obama’s selection of Warren an example of “speaking respectfully with the 39% of Americans who believe in the Bible literally”? (I don’t actually know whether Warren claims to believe in the Bible literally, but you get my point.)
I agree with you that “misguided bipartisan accord and cooperation — on war, torture, gay rights, illegal wiretapping and government surveillance, erosion of the rule of law, No Child Left Behind, etc. — has been the problem.” But how is Obama’s selection of Rick Warren an example of this?
You seem to be suggesting that Obama’s selection of Rick Warren is effectively an endorsement of decisions by Democrats to forge wrong-headed bipartisan compromise on issues such as “war, torture, gay rights, illegal wiretapping and government surveillance, erosion of the rule of law, No Child Left Behind, etc.” But couldn’t the selection be interpreted as a gesture of respect and inclusion, rather than an endorsement of any particular political position?
Also, I strongly disagree with your position that Olbermann isn’t “in the same league” as Hannity, Limbaugh or O’Reilly. Are you saying Olbermann isn’t the same because he isn’t as popular? Because he isn’t as effective? He is certainly shrill, and nasty, and divisive. He is certainly an Outrage Performance Artist, as you put it — and I love it! Can you say more about why you think Olbermann isn’t in the same league as folks like O’Reilly and Hannity?
Comment by Ian — December 20, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
I don’t see the contradiction. What I’m saying is that Obama is reaching out to Warren as a gesture to “heal” the country, on the tacit theory that the rupture that needs healing — our big problem post-68 — is the division between people like LGBT activists and people like Warren. Once the civil tone is achieved, you seem to think that Obama can go right ahead and enact a super-progressive agenda. I tend not to see Obama’s agenda as super-progressive — better than McCain’s, yes — but that’s another conversation.
I am saying that reaching out to those we disagree with as a general principle is fine — there’s no problem with that — but that doing so isn’t related to healing the major problems of the country. The problem with the last eight — and for that matter, the last forty — years has been too much bipartisan agreement on bad policies. Rick Warren and Hillary Clinton agree quite a lot in their attitudes toward Iran. Bringing them together to sing a song of conciliation over marriage, where both anyway would agree that it ought to be defined as between a man and a woman, will not change that Warren is all for “taking out” the president of Iran whereas Clinton is more confortable saying she’d be fine “obliterating” Iran if it came to that.
Moreover, to the degree that there is real anger over certain hot-button social issues in this country, too often bipartisan agreement has meant putting the LGBT activists out to pasture, and embracing the Warrens of the country (see: Clinton and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; Billy Graham; etc.) Plenty of Democrats have attempted to be healers of this sort — the exact same sort as Obama — and for their efforts they get impeached, charges of not being patriotic, charges of treason, described as vicious anti-Semites (Carter), etc.
This sort of outreach simply doesn’t work — or hasn’t. The question I’m left with is why is it going to start working now? I am also left with the thought that if we want to make our public discourse more civil, Limbaugh and Hannity and co. should merely tender their resignations, and things would be much better instantly.
As for Olbermann: his problem is he’s actually too argument-driven and fact-oriented and rational. When I say he’s not in the same league, I mean that he’s far too civilized, at least the little of him I’ve seen.
Comment by Lee — December 21, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
You cite Bill Clinton as an example of a president whose efforts to reach out to the religious right were ineffective. In fact, Bill Clinton’s experience perfectly illustrates my point. Very early on in his transition period, Clinton tried to enact a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — thereby alienating social conservatives, alienating the military, giving the impression to mainstream voters that he cared more about gay rights than jobs or health care, and arriving at a ludicrous compromise that let basically let homophobes off the hook for their continuing refusal to tolerate homosexuality. Bill Clinton wasn’t trying to be a “healer” — he was trying to exert his authority as commander-in-cheif to change the rules to let gays serve openly in the military — and he was weakened and humiliated when the top military brass refused to follow his orders. Bill Clinton’s efforts during this whole ordeal weren’t interpreted by the American people as a gesture of compromise — they were interpreted as a gesture of political stupidity and weakness.
I still see a contradiction, which is this: On the one hand, you write of “embracing” Rick Warren: “Plenty of Democrats have attempted to be healers of this sort — the exact same sort as Obama — and for their efforts they get impeached, charges of not being patriotic, charges of treason, described as vicious anti-Semites (Carter), etc. This sort of outreach simply doesn’t work — or hasn’t. The question I’m left with is why is it going to start working now?”
On the other hand, you write, “I think the idea of speaking respectfully with the 39% of Americans who believe in the Bible literally is a great idea. I disagree with them on many issues, but may even agree with them on others, such as torture, the need for social welfare programs, etc. There’s no danger in reaching out respectfully to those with whom we passionately disagree.”
So which is it? Was Obama “embracing” Rick Warren, or “reaching out respectfully?” Was it a good idea or a bad idea for Obama to invite Warren to give the invocation? How are we supposed to tell the difference between reaching out respectfully, which is a great idea, and attempting to be a healer, which is a strategy you say will never work?
Comment by Ian — December 21, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Just to clarify: You write, “Once the civil tone is achieved, you seem to think that Obama can go right ahead and enact a super-progressive agenda.”
I absolutely do not believe Obama will ever be able to enact a super-progressive agenda. People can say all they like about how we’re a “center-left nation” but our center-leftiness wasn’t enough to keep George Bush from being elected president twice. A country capable of electing George W. Bush twice is not a country where we can expect a “super-progressive agenda.”
People who don’t understand why we aren’t moving forward with a “super-progressive” agenda will undoubtedly be disappointed by Obama, who will aim to enact an agenda that is merely progressive. I believe Obama’s goals include reducing the number of Americans without health insurance by millions, pulling American troops out of Iraq right away, making real military progress in Afghanistan and real diplomatic progress all over the world, investing in infrastructure, early education, green technologies, and other things that will produce massive benefits for the American people over the course of generations. The American people WANT these things.
In my opinion, a “super-progressive” agenda would include comprehensive tax reform, massive reform of our trade agreements, massive cuts in our nuclear capability and our defense budget, constitutional protections for gay marriage, a constitutional amendment to permanently protect abortion rights, and probably a whole host of other things.
Obama wants some tax reform, some reform of our trade agreements, and perhaps some budget cuts here and there — but he isn’t a “super-progressive” guy.
If “super-progressives” want to see their agenda enacted, they need to get more aggresively behind Dennis Kucinish or Ralph Nader — because candidates such as Obama just won’t get it done.
Am I being needlessly defeatest in my expectations of what Obama can achieve?
Comment by Ian — December 21, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
I think it’s a toss up whether it’s a good idea. If Warren’s inclusion brings evangelicals into the fold, it’ll be good from an electoral perspective circa 2012. If it doesn’t, then Obama will perhaps stay more or less where he is. If evangelicals don’t flock to the Democratic party, it’s possible activists who worked their butts off for Obama in 2008 may be so dispirited that they don’t work as hard for Obama in 2012. Hard to say.
I think it won’t work — Warren will be nice and friendly, and the next day Limbaugh & co. will draw audiences just as large as before — but who knows. I advocate respectfully conversing with those we disagree with not as a political prescription for Obama or other Democrats but for individuals like you or me. I see the two statements as only thinly related.
When I look over the last few years, I see plenty of respectful agreement at the national level. I wish there had been more divisive disagreement.
Comment by Lee — December 21, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
I think you’re probably right about the activists in 2012. I hate to say it, but Democratic activists may be irrelevant in 2012 — unless there’s a solid chance that a Republican can beat Obama, in which case activists will have to decide whether to fight for Obama, or stay on the sidelines and risk a Republican president. I suppose it’s possible that activists could get behind a challenger in the Democratic primary or a third-party candidate — and that might actually be an exciting undertaking, although every president who has faced a major primary threat (Johnson, Carter, Bush) never made it to a second term, and was replaced with a member of the other party. In 2012 Obama will have the full force of the Democratic establishment behind him, but it won’t be enough if Obama’s first term is widely-considered to be a failure.
I agree with you about Limbaugh and Co. — the phrase “outrage performance artist” is totally accurate, and they’ll never back down. My hope is that their message will seem less and less relevant if their audience doesn’t feel as outraged. But I may be naive.
Comment by Ian — December 21, 2008 @ 10:31 pm