Normally, I would not care about the choice of an inauguration speaker. In fact, I rarely even watch inauguration ceremonies. I am pretty sure I watched Clinton's inauguration in 1993; I am more certain that I did not watch either of the Bushes'. But the more I listen to Rick Warren's anti-gay positions and to Obama's and his supporters responses to Warren's critics, I become increasingly troubled by his role at the inauguration.
True to form, Obama defends picking Warren on the grounds that he wants to end divisions and provide a seat for everyone at the table despite differences. In the abstract, this sounds like a great operating principle. Reduced to a simplistic maxim, the argument says: "I want to reduce strife and enmity." This goal is as unassailable (and vague) as wanting to improve the quality of schools, prevent crime, and end hunger. It is one of those ideas that people of all political perspectives can embrace, at least in the abstract.
But one's ability to feel safe extending his or her arm across the metaphorical aisle depends upon the level of vulnerability that person experiences in society. For some people, forging a particular link could feel dangerous rather than noble.
Consider, for example, the many ways Obama could have used the moment of his inauguration to reach out to people who do not share his stated viewpoints. Instead of picking Warren, Obama could have chosen one of the many otherwise benevolent ministers who believe that "a woman's place is in the home" or who subscribe to conservative views on race and racial justice. If Obama had invited an outspoken opponent of racial and gender equality to speak at his inauguration, the choice would have raised outcry from a broader share of the population. And knowing that Aretha Franklin would entertain the masses after a racist opened the ceremony would not provide sufficient cover. The two things do not cancel out each other.
I am also certain that many of the white liberal heterosexual males who have rushed to defend Warren would likely have taken a different view if the choice undermined their own comfort level. Suppose Obama had picked Minister Louis Farrakhan instead of Warren. Farrakhan, like Warren, has engaged in outreach to poor people. Nonetheless, many of Warren's defenders would probably view Farrakhan, who has made insensitive comments regarding whites and Jews (and gays), as a substantial departure from Obama's message of "change." Because Warren's ideological positions do not threaten the well being of most white heterosexuals, however, many of them view gay and lesbian criticism as mere "whining." But this is a classic response to criticism by disparaged social groups.
Ultimately, Obama's positions on gay and lesbian rights matter much more than Warren's five minutes of fame. But if Obama's election warrants celebration and attention due to its symbolism, then Warren's role at the inauguration matters (although less significantly) due to its message as well. Warren, to use the analogy Obama applied to Reverend Wright, represents the nice, caring and giving uncle who, during family meals, makes "interesting" arguments about gay rights, such as the assertion that same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent of incest, statutory rape and polygamy. Most of the family tries to downplay the comments by remaining silent or rapidly changing the subject, but the gay or lesbian person at the table cringes in discomfort. Although Uncle Good-But-Homophobic has offended the very essence of the gay family member, the rest of the table demands silence for the "greater good."
Warren's defenders are playing the role of the straight family members who enable the homophobic (or racist or sexist) uncle. They are asking GLBT people to look at the bigger picture and to accept a good guy with troubling politics because there is room at the table for everyone. Perhaps this is the best course of action. But these types of deals ultimately require that some groups make sacrifices not shared by the whole. The stakes become even greater and more volatile when the situation involves concrete policy and not mere symbolism. I cannot stop wondering whether Warren's defenders would demand the same type of sacrifices by other groups -- or whether they would make the same sacrifices themselves.
True to form, Obama defends picking Warren on the grounds that he wants to end divisions and provide a seat for everyone at the table despite differences. In the abstract, this sounds like a great operating principle. Reduced to a simplistic maxim, the argument says: "I want to reduce strife and enmity." This goal is as unassailable (and vague) as wanting to improve the quality of schools, prevent crime, and end hunger. It is one of those ideas that people of all political perspectives can embrace, at least in the abstract.
But one's ability to feel safe extending his or her arm across the metaphorical aisle depends upon the level of vulnerability that person experiences in society. For some people, forging a particular link could feel dangerous rather than noble.
Consider, for example, the many ways Obama could have used the moment of his inauguration to reach out to people who do not share his stated viewpoints. Instead of picking Warren, Obama could have chosen one of the many otherwise benevolent ministers who believe that "a woman's place is in the home" or who subscribe to conservative views on race and racial justice. If Obama had invited an outspoken opponent of racial and gender equality to speak at his inauguration, the choice would have raised outcry from a broader share of the population. And knowing that Aretha Franklin would entertain the masses after a racist opened the ceremony would not provide sufficient cover. The two things do not cancel out each other.
I am also certain that many of the white liberal heterosexual males who have rushed to defend Warren would likely have taken a different view if the choice undermined their own comfort level. Suppose Obama had picked Minister Louis Farrakhan instead of Warren. Farrakhan, like Warren, has engaged in outreach to poor people. Nonetheless, many of Warren's defenders would probably view Farrakhan, who has made insensitive comments regarding whites and Jews (and gays), as a substantial departure from Obama's message of "change." Because Warren's ideological positions do not threaten the well being of most white heterosexuals, however, many of them view gay and lesbian criticism as mere "whining." But this is a classic response to criticism by disparaged social groups.
Ultimately, Obama's positions on gay and lesbian rights matter much more than Warren's five minutes of fame. But if Obama's election warrants celebration and attention due to its symbolism, then Warren's role at the inauguration matters (although less significantly) due to its message as well. Warren, to use the analogy Obama applied to Reverend Wright, represents the nice, caring and giving uncle who, during family meals, makes "interesting" arguments about gay rights, such as the assertion that same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent of incest, statutory rape and polygamy. Most of the family tries to downplay the comments by remaining silent or rapidly changing the subject, but the gay or lesbian person at the table cringes in discomfort. Although Uncle Good-But-Homophobic has offended the very essence of the gay family member, the rest of the table demands silence for the "greater good."
Warren's defenders are playing the role of the straight family members who enable the homophobic (or racist or sexist) uncle. They are asking GLBT people to look at the bigger picture and to accept a good guy with troubling politics because there is room at the table for everyone. Perhaps this is the best course of action. But these types of deals ultimately require that some groups make sacrifices not shared by the whole. The stakes become even greater and more volatile when the situation involves concrete policy and not mere symbolism. I cannot stop wondering whether Warren's defenders would demand the same type of sacrifices by other groups -- or whether they would make the same sacrifices themselves.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table
New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration
Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath
Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010
Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?
Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State
Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?
No comments:
Post a Comment