Comments on: “Can you imagine Jesus ignoring the plight of the disenfranchised and downtrodden while going after the abortionist?” http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/12/20/%e2%80%9ccan-you-imagine-jesus-ignoring-the-plight-of-the-disenfranchised-and-downtrodden-while-going-after-the-abortionist%e2%80%9d/ Yet another political blog Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:51:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ian http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/12/20/%e2%80%9ccan-you-imagine-jesus-ignoring-the-plight-of-the-disenfranchised-and-downtrodden-while-going-after-the-abortionist%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-652 Ian Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:12:44 +0000 http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=730#comment-652 Lee: I think you're making the same point that John F. Kennedy made in Profiles in Courage: that political courage requires doing what you think is right, even when it means risking your own popularity. (Not that I've actually read the book.) I agree that likeability and affability is not the same as moving in the right direction.  Also, I do not mean to suggest that Willaim Kristol is being honest or reasonable in saying, "the assault on Prop 8 supporters has been extraordinary in its mean-spiritedness and extremism." The fact that Kristol can say something so hyperbolic and not be seen as a kook is an indication of how insecure some social conservatives are about being demonized, and how willing they are to believe they're being demonized when actually they're not -- or at least, not to the extent Kristol suggests. That said, we're still faced with a question: It may very well be that Obama has decided to avoid fighting on the issues social conservatives care about, in hopes of winning their support to achieve other things, like universal health care, massive investment in infrastructure, a more progressive tax structure, and taking aggressive steps to save the environment. This doesn't mean Obama will be willing to openly give ground on issues such as abortion, school prayer, gay rights, etc. -- but it means Obama won't try to gain ground, either, and he may sit idly by when social conservatives win victories, as they did in California with Prop 8. In other words, Obama plans to spend his political capital -- his power to get things done -- on issues that won't alienate social conservatives. And that means doing things such as inviting Rick Warren -- who, as you say, is a very mainstream American religious figure -- to give the invocation at his church. Is this a fair trade or not? Clearly, you answer to that question is yes. And yet, in your blog <a href="?p=716" rel="nofollow">The Separated Parents Theory of American Politics</a>, you write "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 <em>does</em> make us mad — this theory is very misleading."So which is it? Do you agree that Obama is smart to reach out to social conservatives? Or do you believe that Obama is wrong to do so? You write Warren is "being included by Obama in part to solve a problem that I don’t think really exists."Are you willing to accept the idea that by inviting Warren, Obama is sending a signal that he doesn't hate social conservatives -- thereby making it more likely that these social conservatives will be willing to support Obama on issues such as health care, education, the economy, the environment, etc? Because the Republican party is a problem that really exists. Weakening the Republican party is political progress, in my book. Lee: I think you’re making the same point that John F. Kennedy made in Profiles in Courage: that political courage requires doing what you think is right, even when it means risking your own popularity. (Not that I’ve actually read the book.) I agree that likeability and affability is not the same as moving in the right direction.  Also, I do not mean to suggest that Willaim Kristol is being honest or reasonable in saying, “the assault on Prop 8 supporters has been extraordinary in its mean-spiritedness and extremism.” The fact that Kristol can say something so hyperbolic and not be seen as a kook is an indication of how insecure some social conservatives are about being demonized, and how willing they are to believe they’re being demonized when actually they’re not — or at least, not to the extent Kristol suggests. That said, we’re still faced with a question: It may very well be that Obama has decided to avoid fighting on the issues social conservatives care about, in hopes of winning their support to achieve other things, like universal health care, massive investment in infrastructure, a more progressive tax structure, and taking aggressive steps to save the environment. This doesn’t mean Obama will be willing to openly give ground on issues such as abortion, school prayer, gay rights, etc. — but it means Obama won’t try to gain ground, either, and he may sit idly by when social conservatives win victories, as they did in California with Prop 8. In other words, Obama plans to spend his political capital — his power to get things done — on issues that won’t alienate social conservatives. And that means doing things such as inviting Rick Warren — who, as you say, is a very mainstream American religious figure — to give the invocation at his church. Is this a fair trade or not? Clearly, you answer to that question is yes. And yet, in your blog The Separated Parents Theory of American Politics, you write “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.”So which is it? Do you agree that Obama is smart to reach out to social conservatives? Or do you believe that Obama is wrong to do so? You write Warren is “being included by Obama in part to solve a problem that I don’t think really exists.”Are you willing to accept the idea that by inviting Warren, Obama is sending a signal that he doesn’t hate social conservatives – thereby making it more likely that these social conservatives will be willing to support Obama on issues such as health care, education, the economy, the environment, etc? Because the Republican party is a problem that really exists. Weakening the Republican party is political progress, in my book.

]]> By: Lee http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/2008/12/20/%e2%80%9ccan-you-imagine-jesus-ignoring-the-plight-of-the-disenfranchised-and-downtrodden-while-going-after-the-abortionist%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Lee Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:05:23 +0000 http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=730#comment-651 <p>This post is very long, so I won't be able to address it completely here.  I'll reiterate that I do not have much problem with the general concept of including evangelical Christians in the inauguration.  Nor with the idea of being respectful with those whom one disagrees.</p> <p>Furthermore, I think Dean is exactly right from an electoral strategy perspective to emphasize economic and social issues over guns/Gods/gays.  In essence, he is advocating what Bill Clinton successfully did in 1992 (with some help from Ross Perot):  make the election about the issues you can win on, not the issues the other guy can win on.  But Republicans will continue to call Democrats socialists and quasi-Marxists and other horrible names on these economic and social issues.  To focus on them is not to end division or rancor, but to move it to new political domains.</p> <p>I do have a problem with the tendency (not saying it's your tendency, Ian) to equate likability and affability with a positive move in the right direction -- as if getting everyone to be nice to one another is the end of our politics.  Huckabee is a very likable man, as is Rick Warren.  And Rick Warren can be completely likable as he embraces the notion that foreign heads of state should be "taken out."  That is why the commentator who mentioned the KKK is correct:  your niceness and friendliness is in no way related to the value of your politics.  It's only related to marketing and public relations.  A likable anti-Semite is little better than a vicious anti-Semite.</p> <p>That said, no mainstream Democrat has ever said the divisive things Kristol alludes to -- about the KKK or anti-Semitism -- in relation to Warren, only activists and relatively marginal figures on the left.  Even the case of Edwards and Clinton commenting on Reagan, all they said (if I recall correctly) was that Ronald Reagan was a bad president -- presumably, they meant that his policies were bad.  From the perspective of getting his own far-right agenda enacted, all while pretending to be a happy centrist, he was a wild success.  That's like the model of using likabilty as a cover to do horrible things.</p> This post is very long, so I won’t be able to address it completely here.  I’ll reiterate that I do not have much problem with the general concept of including evangelical Christians in the inauguration.  Nor with the idea of being respectful with those whom one disagrees.

Furthermore, I think Dean is exactly right from an electoral strategy perspective to emphasize economic and social issues over guns/Gods/gays.  In essence, he is advocating what Bill Clinton successfully did in 1992 (with some help from Ross Perot):  make the election about the issues you can win on, not the issues the other guy can win on.  But Republicans will continue to call Democrats socialists and quasi-Marxists and other horrible names on these economic and social issues.  To focus on them is not to end division or rancor, but to move it to new political domains.

I do have a problem with the tendency (not saying it’s your tendency, Ian) to equate likability and affability with a positive move in the right direction — as if getting everyone to be nice to one another is the end of our politics.  Huckabee is a very likable man, as is Rick Warren.  And Rick Warren can be completely likable as he embraces the notion that foreign heads of state should be “taken out.”  That is why the commentator who mentioned the KKK is correct:  your niceness and friendliness is in no way related to the value of your politics.  It’s only related to marketing and public relations.  A likable anti-Semite is little better than a vicious anti-Semite.

That said, no mainstream Democrat has ever said the divisive things Kristol alludes to — about the KKK or anti-Semitism — in relation to Warren, only activists and relatively marginal figures on the left.  Even the case of Edwards and Clinton commenting on Reagan, all they said (if I recall correctly) was that Ronald Reagan was a bad president — presumably, they meant that his policies were bad.  From the perspective of getting his own far-right agenda enacted, all while pretending to be a happy centrist, he was a wild success.  That’s like the model of using likabilty as a cover to do horrible things.

]]>