More on Rick Warren

More on the Rick Warren controversy. Glenn Greenwald and a piece he links to by Michelle Goldberg are worth reading. Although I don't entirely agree with the thrust of their arguments, Jim (twice), Chuck, and Alex are also worth reading.

I had the following e-mail exchange with one of my best friends from college. I usually don't post this sort of thing (in part because posting potentially colors future e-mail exchanges), but in this case I think it illuminates some of the differences between Obama supporters who are upset about Rick Warren and Obama supporters who are not:

From: Friend
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:46 AM
To: Nirmal

Curious what your response is:

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/12/obama-warren-and-civic-inclusion.html

----------
From: Nirmal
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
To: Friend

1) I agree with his point that progressives shouldn't be surprised, this is what Obama promised all along. It's possible to have a complicated view of Obama (mostly happy, but disappointed by some things).
2) My primary objection is political strategy, elevating him is going to give his attacks against us (progressives/gay rights advocates/feminists) more heft in the future.
3) By his logic, does that mean that Obama should include racists in his inauguration too? Where are they?
----------
From: Friend
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM
To: Nirmal

Interesting response. Three points.

1) I agree that elevating Warren as a political strategy could backfire on Obama if it legitimizes his attacks later. That said, I think the calcuation depends on how likely Warren is to challenge Obama, whether such an attack will matter, and how it will weigh against the potential benefits of inclusiveness. I think we can disagree upon those variables, but I think that's where the argument has to be.

2) I think we can draw a clear line between racists and Warren based upon the fact that Warren is willing to be to be pragmatic whereas racists lack this common ground. I think this presumes that the left is willing to be pragmatic and is willing to acknowledge pragmatism in those who disagree with them, which may not be the case though I hope/believe it is.

3) I think the question really turns on how we feel about inclusiveness. Under your logic it doesn't seem like Obama would include anyone who would need including under a philosophy of "inclusiveness". That is Obama would always play it safe, never picking people he would be afraid of legitimizing, even if part of their policy (namely their pragmatism) was worth legitimizing. As a result it seems like your position implicitly rejects inclusiveness where as a matter of political strategy there is at least some value to including non-fundamentalists.

Just throughts. I'd be interested in your reply. I don't think there's a right answer but the strategy is interesting.

Best,
-Friend
----------
From: Nirmal
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:13 PM
To: friend

1) The gay community is used to being shitted on by Democratic presidents/politicians, so they're very aware of patterns that indicate they're being triangulated against. See Bill Clinton's involvement with DOMA, don't ask don't tell, etc. Obama's record on those issues has been good so far, but his symbolism hasn't: his views were accurately represented for an influential ad in favor of prop 8 in California, he embraced Donnie McClurkin in the primary, and embraced Rick Warren now. That may be indicative of things to come. Of course, if Obama achieves results on gay rights / equality issues then Rick Warren is going to matter a lot less. Until then, the gay community has every reason to be suspicious.

2) I do think elevating Rick Warren is the same as elevating a racist. This is someone who calls same-sex marriage the same as pedophilia/incest, doesn't allow gays into his church, calls christians who work for social justice marxists, claims abortion is like the holocaust, supports harmful abstinence-only programs (even in places that really need safe-sex programs like Africa), believes a wife should be subservient to a husband, etc. He is intolerant and uses his power to promote intolerance. This goes beyond mere disagreement on policy positions -- it's not the same as, say, differing views on economic policy. Whatever outreach he does to Democratic politicians doesn't change that he's harmful to gays/women in unconscionable ways.

3) In that vein, it is bad political strategy to elevate him. Even if he doesn't turn on Obama (and I think he will), his views and past behavior indicate that he's going to be attacking other progressive candidates and causes. When he does, given his "bipartisan" street-cred his attacks are going to carry a lot more weight with the media and public. Even if Obama isn't hurting himself, he is damaging the pro-choice and gay rights movements. That justifies being upset at Obama.

4) Just to clarify, what does "pragmatism" mean?

5) At this point it's probably too late to drop Rick Warren, but pressuring Obama is going to make him more sensitive to these concerns in the future, particularly as he begins to govern.

I liked Obama ever since I saw him in 2004 -- backed him in the primary and the general. As a progressive I have a complicated relationship with him, though. I want him to do well, but he is going to do things I don't agree with and I need to pressure him. That's one of the great things about participating in politics.

----------
From: Friend
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:33 AM
To: Nirmal

0) My definition of pragmatism comes pretty close to the comments in this post. Basically it's a willingness to move in small steps, far short of ideological goals. I think this is good for presidents (as distinct from congressmen) since they represent a much broader and more diverse constituency and where governing by a 51% majority is possible, I believe it ultimately corrupts the institutions, both political and social, of the country. Now, the us vs. them mentallity may inherently be a part of politics, and at times a very useful, but the past 8 years of the politics of division have left me weary and concerned for the country's future if we can't find some common ground to move forward on.

1) Good point. Gays have every reason to be worried particularly since Obama doesn't need them to get elected (remember they originally supported Clinton). My only response is a general point about pragmatism and the need for small steps over big ones (civil unions, equal tax treatment before gay marriage) which I think Obama is particularly situated to achieve since he doesn't polarize moderate forces. But yea, until there's proof gays can worry (although it presumes a certain hypersensitivity to politics and an assumption of the worst, though I think some of this is driven by the fact that there (A) aren't more relevant things to talk about (B) the blogosphere is generally hypersensitive, and (C) there's a lack of information to offset it so far.)

2) That's a pretty uncomplicated view of the man considering the level of demonization. I think taken to extremes you can say that anyone who takes a traditional view of the bible is bad for gays and women, but I think it's more of a spectrum. For example, I know some priests within orthodoxy who are openly traditional, but don't enforce or discriminate based upon those positions. Now I don't think Rick Warren fits that mold. That said, I don't think Rick Warren is a Southern Baptist preaching fire and brimstone. I think there's a difference between having a position and centering your work around that position.

2.5) Also, how are his views relevant to the invocation? From what I understand the invocation is just the invocation of god's blessing at the inauguration. Please correct me if I'm wrong since I couldn't find a source to explain what it is.

3) Again, I think you're only looking at one side of the calculation. Obama gains a lot of street cred with conservatives because of this move and in a fight Obama would win out over Warren. That said I think the real issue is that Obama isn't really a progressive and thus this move helps him but hurts progressives (whom you represent). But that raises the issue of what makes Obama not a progressive but a liberal. And I think it comes down to pragmatism. Obama is willing to make small sacrifices so that he'll be able to push for small gains, rather than mandating large ones.

5) I think that's one role for bloggers. I'm more concered about the boy who cried wolf, but I never want to suggest that there isn't a role for bloggers to play in making sure the administration is aware. If no one raises their voice, then Obama would presume to consent and act as he has, which you disagree with on principled grounds. So I think you're on solid footing.

I think our differences boil down to two things. First I think we have different roles, particularly with you being a blogger and me being a private citizen. Second, I think we have different political philosophies, somewhat informed by our roles, but also likely driven by other things. It's probably too far afrield from our current conversation to talk about what informs our sensitivity to intolerance, but I think that's the fault line. I'd be curious to know if you agree with me on this point or think it's somewhere else.

Best,
-Friend

----------
From: Friend
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:44 AM
To: Nirmal

also, given my definition of pragmatism, would you be willing to call yourself one? I.e. would you sacrifice part of your principles for a small step?
----------
From: Nirmal
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:14 AM
To: Friend

Yeah I think the areas of disagreement are:

- Perception/understanding of political world: we disagree on strategic significance of gaining street cred with conservatives vs. probability of meaningfully getting bitten in the ass, rick warren as evildoer vs. nuanced figure, whether his views are relevant (your 2.5), etc

- Pragmatism/Ideology: i'm uncomfortable with viewing being "pragmatic" and "ideological" as a dichotomy, or even two sides of a continuum, but somewhere there's a disagreement about to what degree sacrificing principles is tolerable for gains. in this case, as you point out this relates to our sensitivity levels for intolerance.

So I think we disagree on both what the magnitudes of gain/loss are in this particular situation, and what levels of gain/loss are tolerable in general.