A Caveat.

[richardf8]

level_head has a post worth contemplating, regardless of its slant, called Unpatriotic.

It's noteworthy to my mind because it points to a way in which we, as Americans, have gotten sloppy in our thinking, especially over the past eight years, but going back farther than that even. We have become accustomed to an us and them style of thought. The right and the left alike have spent the Bush years assimilating the "if you're not with us, your against us" mentality. And here is my warning: any lefty who brings this framework to the Obama presidency is going to be disappointed.

What we have in Obama is someone who grasps realpolitik. And that tends to mean compromise. If the last 8 years have had any effect on our culture at all, it has been to make "compromise" on either side of the fence a dirty word. The partisanship that has been brewing since Nixon, that saw its full flowering in the "Republican Revolution" and the Bush administration have torn this nation limb from limb. Getting us to where we are now demanded that Franken take on Limbaugh, that Maddow deconstruct Coulter, but the battle is now lost and won, and its time for reconstruction.

I think that Obama's ability to blend that which I agree with along with that which I find distasteful speaks volumes about his ability to reintegrate a nation that has been separated as if by a centrifuge. To those who are seeking ideological purity, he will seem a sellout, but to those who want a nation at peace, he may just the ticket.

You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.


[Edit: bluerain notes: "I actually think it's grossly unfair to cast anyone who is angry at the selection of Warren as displaying an "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality." This assessment is correct and just, and I have therefore removed the reference from the body of the post. Thanks to her and orv for helping refine my thoughts on that.]

Comments

[ziabandito555.livejournal.com]

its true we have gotten very much into an Us vs Them mindset. Or maybe we have always had this mindset. I can't say for certain my political awareness came about maybe in 1992 before that it was all very vague and well out of my understanding.

Still I think it will take a long time for the healing you describe to come. If it ever does. People will not put down their swords easily and people like to be in their camps.

You are right that Obama is not an ideological purist and I think he is trying to strive for the middle ground. I hope he can find it personally. i'd like to see someone try and strike a balance. Pull us in another direction but create some much needed equilibrium. Let us see then.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

I see it already among my friends. Anger that Pastor Rick Warren was given a leading role in the proceedings, ignoring the fact that Bishop Gene Robinson was there as well.

I actually think it's grossly unfair to cast anyone who is angry at the selection of Warren as displaying an "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.

I'm certainly very angry about Warren's selection, and the Robinson sleection did only so much to mollify me. Let me ask you this: how would you expect a black American to feel about an open racist giving a presidential invocation, and how mollified do you think that person would be if a black preacher were given a lesser speech, one that ended up not even being televised or broadcast over radio, on an earlier day?

Can you honestly tell me you think this hypothetical black person would simply say "oh, well, all right, then"?

Because that's a precise analogy. Bigotry is bigotry. Warren has said in public that he thinks homosexuality is equivalent to incest or pedophilia.

Nobody expects black Americans to make concessions to racism. And it is insulting to ask that GLBT Americans make concessions to anti-gay prejudice.

On the whole I do not think I see the world in anything like black-and-white terms. I'm a big fan of reasoned discussion and of considering all viewpoints, and that's what makes me happy about the idea of a President Obama after eight years of blind and rigid ideology.

But don't tell me to regard bigotry against me, or the honoring of an unrepentant bigot, as just a difference of opinion. Because I won't. Not ever. That's where I draw a line in the sand; this far and no further. Do you understand?

[richardf8]

Raine,

I'm telling you what you can expect from this president. For reasons that are at once different from and similar to yours I'm not a fan of Rick Warren myself. This is a man who believes that I am going to hell because I am not willing to worship his god-man. Today words from my liturgy passed through his unholy lips, and you can bet it felt like some blend of appropriation and condescension.

What he's got against you, he says out loud. What he's got against me, he says where he thinks I won't hear. I don't know which is better or worse, but regardless of what you may think of him, I'll wager that at least you don't imagine he's trying to game you.

But there was something that bugged me about what you said on the matter, so I will make this plain: you do not have the market cornered on having people trying to kill you because of who you are. You may be correct that it is still more acceptable to say "faggot" than "kike" in polite company, but these sentiments only ever go underground in any case. They never disappear. Take it from me - my city is home to Panzerfaust Records, and my synagogue has had Neo-Nazi leaflets placed on the windshields of the cars in its parking lot.

The problem is, some things come in packages. If I want to work on Gay Rights issues, chances are I'm doing it alongside people who would regard it as just punishment for the occupation if 6 million of my co-religionists got nuked. And if I want to work on Israel advocacy, I'm often stuck with people who would demand that each of us make impossible changes to who we are. It's distasteful and unpleasant in both directions. But guess what? These are both issues I work on, and I'll take my partners where I can get them.

And I won't take my eyes off of them either. Because I never know when they'll turn on me.

It's not about a difference of opinion. It's about keeping your enemies near.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

But there was something that bugged me about what you said on the matter, so I will make this plain: you do not have the market cornered on having people trying to kill you because of who you are.

Not the point.

The point is, if an anti-semite had been selected to give the invocation and you were angry about it, I would be angry about it along with you. I would not lecture you pompously about how you needed to make nice with anti-semites if they happened to agree with you on some unrelated matter.

You know not of what you speak, in this case. Seriously.

[jesterstear.livejournal.com]

Damn right.

I was talking with my brother about this the other night, and how I'm really disappointed with the selection of "America's Pastor."

The man is a hate-monger. I can understand reaching out to those that disagree with you on a level of how to fix the economy, etc... but you do not reach out to people that actively encourage others to treat fellow Americans as lesser beings simply over the fact that they were born different. It's wrong, and it has no place in our politics. As Americans, these people have the right to believe what they want - no matter how ignorant and misguided and hateful. They do not, however, have the right to be given recognition by the government.

But that's Democrats for you. When they win, they seem to get guilty and bend over backwards to appease everyone they just defeated.

[orv.livejournal.com]

You know, I've struggled with how to explain why I find your analogy invalid. I don't want to come across as one of those "Jews run everything" crazies. But the fact is, pro-Israel is the mainstream position to the point where to criticize anything Israel does is to risk being labeled a bigot. Only a tiny number of ultra-fringe lefties think it would be "just" if your "co-religionists got nuked." On the other hand, there's a whole political party that doesn't think homosexuals should have equal rights.

They really aren't comparable situations at all. To be blunt, if the gay rights lobby had a tenth the clout in the U.S. government that the pro-Israel lobby does, we'd have had gay marriage years ago.

[childings.livejournal.com]

Pro-Israel =/= pro Jewish.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

Richard's attempted analogy involved Israel getting nuked. It seems fair to assume he was discussing Israel.

[orv.livejournal.com]

That may be, but I was responding to richard's comment, which conflates the two issues.

I would argue that the two are effectively the same in our politics. You certainly can't criticize anything about Israel without being accused of anti-semitism.

[richardf8]

Y'know some of my own more complicated feelings about this all is encoded in this.

Why am I, as a Zionist I stuck with "allies" like Warren, Mac Hammond, and Michelle Bachmann - people that I detest on every matter of public policy and frankly don't trust on Israel because of their eschatological vision?

But the fact is, pro-Israel is the mainstream position to the point where to criticize anything Israel does is to risk being labeled a bigot.

This point strikes to why I made the analogy in the first place. Because this means its all about appearance. Pro-Israel is indeed more fashionable than Anti-Israel; but even this is less true than it was 10 years ago. So yeah, I regard it as transient. I don't really trust the safety I'm supposed to have.

They really aren't comparable situations at all. To be blunt, if the gay rights lobby had a tenth the clout in the U.S. government that the pro-Israel lobby does, we'd have had gay marriage years ago.

This is true. Its also true that the Pro-Israel lobby is much older than the gay rights lobby. Which is to say that I think, especially with the work of Joe Solomonese and the HRC the gay rights movement that gay marriage will happen. The clout that AIPAC has was built over many decades.

This is a phased thing. 40 years ago there were places where Jews could not buy property, clubs they could not join, and so on. Barriers were broken down carefully. Taking a hard line rarely worked. During WWII Roosevelt tightened quotas on Jews allowed to immigrate, and ships were turned away; anti-semitism of the lethal sort happened on American streets, at the instigation of Henry Ford's publication of the "International Jew" and its distribution to Polish American Clubs and other "ethnic" organizations.

The reason the analogy doesn't work today is that Jews have traveled much of the distance that gays have yet to travel.

[orv.livejournal.com]

The reason the analogy doesn't work today is that Jews have traveled much of the distance that gays have yet to travel.

But they didn't get there by supporting anti-Semites just because they had other issues in common with them. Which is the issue we disagree on when it comes to gay rights, apparently.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

To me this is all beside the point, which is still that Richard accused anyone who was mad about Rick Warren giving the invocation despite his open anti-gay views, and who did not find assinging Bishop Robinson a lesser role on an earlier day 100% placating, is guilty of sloppy thinking, ideological rigidity, and of having assimilated an "if you're not with us, your against us" mentality.

I think that statement is highly insulting, and also very probably hypocritical, since I *very* much doubt Richard would feel the same way if it were, instead, an open anti-semite giving the invocation.

[orv.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree, and I think richardf8 should stop ignoring your comments to that effect. It's pretty clear he's only debating with me because he doesn't want to address your point.

Bigotry should be a "you're either with us or against us" issue. I find posts like this one that apologize for it in the name of political expediency pretty disturbing.

[richardf8]

Why don't you go ahead and view the revised entry.

[orv.livejournal.com]

I hope you're wrong.

Part of the reason we've drifted so far to the right as a nation is that Republicans always try to remain ideologically pure, and Democrats always compromise to try to make nice. This lets Republicans effectively run things even when they're not in the majority, and makes the Democrats look weak when they should be strong.

Our ideology will never prevail if we continually try to "out nice" the other party. Politics doesn't work that way.

[richardf8]

I hope I'm wrong too. I hope his goal is to shift things to the left with care. But some of his cabinet appointments suggest otherwise.

[orv.livejournal.com]

You say that, but your post is endorsing bipartisanship and compromise -- which, after long, painful experience, I've learned actually means "Democrats doing whatever Republicans tell them to do."

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

And gays getting thrown under the bus.

[orv.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Because for some reason gays are always the group that's asked to sacrifice for the sake of political expediency.

This is very different from the issue richardf8 is talking about in his comment. No president could ever get elected who didn't profess support for Israel.

[richardf8]

Do take a look at Obama's section on Civil Rights on the whitehouse.gov site. I hope he does better than Clinton on this.

[richardf8]

There is a difference, and that is that Democrats are in a position of power they haven't seen 1994. I'm hoping this means Republicans being persuaded to do what the Democrats tell them to. But its not going to be the hard left feint we may hope for. He's also got more political capital than anyone since Reagan, and that too, I think will make a difference.

[orv.livejournal.com]

Be that as it may, the gesture he made by selecting Warren is futile. The group it reaches out to is religious conservatives. They're completely unpersuadable because they believe their political beliefs are handed down from God. Any compromise with them can only be one-sided because they're not going to budge.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

And even if they were reachable by throwing GLBT people under the bus...under absolutely no circumstances will I accept it.

[richardf8]

Warren's audience is wider than that, though. His Purpose Driven Life is very popular in the cult of personal success once dominated by Steven Covey.

[orv.livejournal.com]

He's a right-wing extremist with a thinly-applied moderate disguise. One of the more problematic things about Obama's picking him is it gives him more credibility with moderates. You can bet whenever he's seen stumping against gay marriage he will point out that Obama asked him to speak at his inaugeration.

[richardf8]

And this is a good point, indeed. He should not have been given that bit of ammunition.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

What? How dare you say that. You and your black-and white worldview, you and your demands for ideological purity.

[richardf8]

Orv made a good argument. Would you prefer I were immune to good arguments?

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

Of course not. I would prefer that, having heard an argument that seems to have convinced you, you admitted you were wrong.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

So let's just have an open anti-Semite who compares Jews to pedophiles, who has a successful book, deliver the invocation!

By your logic you should be just fine with that, right? Because otherwise you'd be a massive hypocrite.

[richardf8]

Hmm . . . That might be hard to find. We're usually accused of pedophagia, not pedophilia.

[orv.livejournal.com]

You're deliberately missing the point. No one who accused Jews of pedophilia would be invited to speak at an event like this. Yet you believe that homosexuals should have to accept the same treatment.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

And that anyone who does is guilty of demanding ideological purity.

We await your retraction, Richard.

[richardf8]

My fear is this: that anyone who does demand ideological purity will become disillusioned with Obama and withdraw their support of him for that reason (I'm not just thinking of Rick Warren here BTW, I'm thinking of things like that he will not promote National Health Care, or that he appointed an agritech CEO to head up the FDA).

[orv.livejournal.com]

If you'd said, "I don't think people should abandon Obama because he picked Rick Warren as his speaker," we wouldn't have an argument.

What you actually said, in your post, is that Obama giving a stage to a bigot is desirable because it will bring the nation together.

There's a big difference.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

Clever way of avoiding the fact that I'm not arguing in favor of rigid ideological purity, I'm simply taking offense at your allegation that anyone who was offended by the Warren selection is guilty of it.

[kevinjdog.livejournal.com]

No one is going to withdraw their support of Obama, under the circumstances; he's what we've got, and the consequences of backing off are too dire. We've seen that in the past eight years.

The point is that having Warren give the invocation was wrong, sent the wrong message, and should be clearly seen as such. Obama stumbled big time with this, but that doesn't mean we're going to suddenly jump ship for McCain or the Republicans or whatever. We should be allowed to be indignant at the slight, just as you would be indignant at an anti-Semitic priest giving an invocation.

His feet should be held to the fire, and to be honest, I don't think Obama would want it any other way.

[richardf8]

Thanks Thomas, for addressing the core issue for me.

I hope I have not overly much disturbed the peace in your home.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I see in Obama a practical moderate.

Gotta admit, I'm comfortable with a practical moderate.

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

Thank you for updating your post. I'm still not in 100% agreement with you about this--but that's the point, isn't it? :)

And I'm sorry for arguing as stridently as I did, but this is something I feel strongly about. For years and years I've had to put up with people, even other liberals with the best of intentions, telling me and people like me that we have to accept homophobia as just another legitimate side of the issue. It makes me bristle, and I consider it a moral obligation to speak up.

[richardf8]

Thanks for that.

I was arguing back as hard as I was because the last few weeks have left me feeling a bit raw myself.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Kind of ironic that your entry got more than thrice as many comments as LH's. And he usually gets more than you.