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

[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.