No, not ‘faster than light’, but rather ‘for the lose’. And while I will continue to support him (he hasn’t actually made any policy proposals yet), this is perhaps the worst political calculation of Barack Obama since the FISA vote, and doomed to fail as I will explain below.
I admit that I was intially and naively impressed with Rick Warren, believing that he was some sort of moderate who was trying to shift the focus of evangelicals away from the culture wars and towards more universal goals such as climate change and alleviating poverty. But after looking more closely at Warren’s ideology and the political initiatives he supports (most recently Prop 8), I have to conclude that Warren is little better than the Falwells and Robertsons – only with a much better PR machine to make him look like a moderate and much less ‘angry’. The video below pretty much sums everything up:
[youtube]Xz4O8j8MIhs[/youtube]
It’s pretty clear what Barack Obama is doing; evangelicals make up about 25% of the country (and supported McCain overwhelmingly), while gay people make up less than 10% (and supported Obama overwhelmingly). Thus it would make sense to try to gain votes with a larger section of the electorate… but then you would have to take into account Warren’s likening of abortion to the holocaust and being against stem cell research (60% of the country considers themselves ‘pro-choice’ and only 18% of the country believes that abortion right should be banned under all circumstances) and his right-wing foreign policy views. All three of these issues are central to the voting patterns of right-wing evangelicals, who are also notorious for being inflexible and exceedingly intolerant of dissenting opinions.
This is not even taking into account that we are dealing with a fundamental human rights issue (that Mr. Obama should be especially sensitive to, being an African-American…) and that if this were happening 40 years ago, Pastor Warren would be arguing for the separation of races based on biblical infallibility. If I were to try to woo the evangelical vote – not that I would even have to at this point after getting 7.5% more of the popular vote than John McCain and having a 68% popularity rating – I would get liberal evangelical Jim Wallis or former NAE president Richard Cizik to do the invocation, not some pseudo-moderate wolf in sheep’s clothing. That, and I would wait for the younger generation – who are generally more tolerant of alternative lifestyles – to take over the electorate.
Another possibility is that this could be just some sort of ploy where Obama tries to look more moderate while adopting left-wing policies (a reverse Rick Warren?); George W. Bush after all had left-wing Rev. Louis Leon during his 2005 invocation despite tacking hard to the right. But either way, it’s a bad day for the transition.
More by Robin Zhang
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Value of the Printed Word
- The Incoherent Spheres, or the Need to Be Understood
- Influenza: Evolution in a Petridish
- Rise, Reason, Rise
- WTF @ Battlestar Galactica Finale!?
- The Young Turks: A Growing Voice For Reason
- Fear and Anti-Male Discrimination in the Classroom
- In Defence of Johann Hari
- Pope’s affectionate embrace of Holocaust deniers draws international ire
- Christian Sci-Fi: Rarer Than a Gay Black Republican.
Author Feeds
tweets loading 
I definitely share your opinion of Warren and FISA as disgusting. In fact, I recommend Bob Price’s book “The Reason Driven Life” as a cathartic counterpoint to Warren’s fantasy world of backwardness.
But the political power of the evangelicals is something that any American president has to wrestle with, and they ignore it at their own peril.
This is a funny paradox for me, because I believe as activists we shouldn’t give the evangelicals an inch without a fight, but as a political junkie I am reminded of Machiavelli’s council to the Princes regarding the Ecclesiastic (church) principalities.
Which was to always “appear to be religious, indeed be religious,” more than a little tongue in cheek.
Obama must appear as sympathetic to the evangelicals as he can, as a good long term strategy.
The words that he has spoken on religion make it impossible for Obama to agree doctrinally in any way with Warren, but pandering to Warren could help assure his re-election in 2008.
Why do people always conveniently forget that Obama didn’t, and doesn’t, support gay marriage. Setting aside any mind-reading capability you think you might have, Obama is not the guy.
Gay marriage has only existed in California because a judge decided the current law didn’t work.
That is not an endorsement, simply a legal issue.
This wasn’t done by lawmakers elected to do so, and not by democracy.
I support gay marriage, by the way, it seems a no-brainer to me.
The fact is though, when it comes to prop 8, those on the left soft-pedaled the issue, and many admitted this, because they wanted Obama to have a chance of winning, and that price was paid. Blaming evangelicals for being what they are, when even liberals aren’t willing to stand up for it, when it counts, seems somewhat disingenuous.
If you want gay marriage rights in a democracy, you have to convince people. Proclaiming what they would have done 40 years ago is little better than invoking Godwin’s law.
Obama hasn’t done anything out of character. He is business as usual. There will be no great change. Warren will be doing the invocation because it is politically convenient and expedient for Obama to have him there. Sure, it pisses off some of the people who had illusions of Obama being someone he is not, but that doesn’t matter in the long run. They will all forget about this and probably re-elect him, even though his rhetoric will most likely not change on this or any other issue. We will still be at war, gays will still not have rights to marry, and all will be as it has been. The only changes we will see will be for the worse, as they always are from president to president.
One is reminded of Seneca’s: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Are we seeing a slight display of this, yet again, by diverting to the latter?
I agree, I will never forget the shudder I felt when glancing through “A Purpose Driven Life” and finding “Surrendered people obey God’s will, whether it makes sense or not.” I believe it is on page 40.
People who read self-help books get what they deserve.
Quick fixes for life are always shallow.
I agree, but it means we should be trying harder to get the audience who likes “quick-fixes” to love philosophy, science and literature. Entice them, if you will
Anyway, I’m actually going to write about it later and it would be more appropriate to talk about it there.
Hey Joe,
Warren’s book was one of the best selling books in the world for years.
By your logic millions of people “get what they deserve.”
Joe,
You can trace Obama’s rightward shift from his Illinois days to the presidential election, one might say that its shrewd politics, and that his earlier stances are more akin to his real views.
Obama is opposed the word marriage, but he supports marriage rights in civil unions.
My tone is different since I am quite fond of Obama, but basically I agree.
Except that I hope that Obama in time will provide greater civil rights for gays. One must remember that Clinton said he endorsed school prayer but appointed Judges who struck it down at every turn.
Ultimately what happens with gay rights is a matter of court appointments not speeches.
Reminds me of a dark time years ago when a manager at Wal-mart said to me, when I explained that what he was asking was physically impossible, “Don’t think, just do it.”
Whatever happened to “Come, let us reason together, says the Lord your God”?
Right on. The society in general needs to love learning and knowledge to make any real progress. Anti-intellectualism is suicidal.
I think Obama is a shrewd politician, you just don’t get where he is today without having political sense. Having said that, his ‘real’ views are not only impenetrable on that basis, but could very well have simply shifted with experience, as they do for many people. We simply don’t, and probably will never, know. What’s important is what he ‘does’.
You are correct though, he does support marriage rights within civil unions, as any shrewd politician would. And abolishing state recognized ‘marriage’, in favor of civil unions for everyone, has always seemed to me, to be the most reasonable compromise on such a divisive issue. Not to mention, it fits in better with the ideas of separation of church and state. Also, giving civil unions full rights would give straights, who are pro-gay rights, a way of showing support, by simply ignoring ‘marriage’ in favor of state civil unions. Everyone wins.
This is essentially the same issue that stalled gay marriage in canada for so long. People are willing to argue endlessly about the definition of words. And I have little doubt that if a prop 8 vote had been allowed in Canada at the time it was being decided, there is a very good chance there would be no ‘gay marriage’ here either. Luckily we have a less-democratic system. Some times that’s a good thing.
‘Best seller’ doesn’t imply quality. Invariably its quite the opposite.
People are often swayed by emotional rhetoric, bad arguments, and fluff.
L. Ron Hubbard, Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, Ayn Rand, and other self-help gurus always sell well. Like a used car salesman, they tell you what you want to hear.
Its unfortunate, but I have more sympathy for people who end up having to deal with the idiots; those who consume bestsellers like candy, than the idiots themselves. Maybe that sounds harsh, and maybe it is. But when people keep doing stupid things, over and over, my patience tends to wear thin.
Uhhh I don’t think it was Obama’s decision to have Warren lead the inauguration of his presidency. The Joint Congressional Commitee on Inaugural Ceremonies chooses who leads the inauguration. Obama has really little say, so…..to say that Obama has chose Warren to inaugurate him is wrong. Its clearly is out of his hand, and there shouldn’t be this reasoning that he is trying to appease the religious right.
I did not know that.
Its deplorable all the same though.