Howard Dean's Epic FAIL: Former Governor Refuses to Back Down From Opposition to Mosque

Howard Dean has published a statement on Salon.com that forcefully defends his controversial statements regarding the Cordoba House (or so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"). Yesterday, Dean said that the mosque proponents needed to compromise and that they should pick another site. Today, facing heated criticism from progressives, Dean has defended his comments.

Dean claims that he supports religious freedom and says that it is undeniable that the mosque proponents have the right to build near ground zero. Dean, however, argues that they should accept a compromise:

My argument is simple. This Center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are "justified" or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully whether they are right or whether they are wrong.

Dean also tries to rebut the assertion that his arguments could justify other forms of intolerance, like homophobia and racism:

This has nothing to do with the right to build and unlike same sex marriage or the civil rights movement it is not about equal protection under the law. The rights of the builders are not in dispute. This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides.

Epic FAIL
Dean's arguments, to use the vernacular of a younger generation than my own, are an epic FAIL. I do not doubt that Dean agrees that the individuals have a right to build the mosque. Dean also concedes that many individuals oppose the mosque because they are bigots.

Dean's arguments, however, fail to persuade me because he wants a group of seemingly well intentioned religious individuals to capitulate to irrational fears, bigotry, and "emotions" of individuals who oppose the mosque. No tangible evidence or logical argument can link mosque proponents with the 9/11 attackers.

Religious bigotry, however, makes it impossible for many mosque opponents to distinguish Cordoba House proponents from the radical individuals involved in 9/11. Rather than countering this bigotry, Dean argues that Muslims should acquiesce to its existence. This is hardly an emancipatory rhetoric.

Dean also fails in his effort to distinguish this discussion from other civil rights issues. Many bigots have said "I am not a racist, but. . . ." Others have said, "I have nothing against gay people, but. . . ." During the Civil Rights Movement, many liberals (e.g., President John F. Kennedy) claimed to agree that racism and segregation were wrong, but they urged black leaders to accept compromise, modify their demands, wait until society was more understanding, and refrain from protest. Thurgood Marshall famously said that the Negro waited nearly a century for Americans to respect the constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection. Further compromise was unacceptable.

The same twisted logic that Marshall rejected pervades discussions of Islam in this setting. It also serves as the basis for Dean's comments. While many people who oppose the mosque might stop short of explicitly denying that its proponents have the right to do so, this distinction is meaningless. By linking all Muslims with 9/11, the mosque opponents render their professed religious tolerance a nullity. Dean, who once excited progressives with his position on social issues, should be ashamed of his stance towards the mosque.

UPDATE: Howard Dean conducted an interview with Glenn Greenwald on this subject. During the interview, he tried to walk away from his argument that moving the mosque would be a "better idea." Instead he said he simply seeks discussion and compromise. Dean also criticized progressives for being inflexible.

Dean denied Greenwald's assertion that his arguments mirror efforts to get civil rights leaders to curb their activism due to social pressure. I highly recommend that Dean read Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter From A Birmingham Jail. It discusses the issue of delay, compromise, the fear of white moderates, and injustice.

If Obama Emulates Lincoln, Will Progressives Follow Abolitionists and Radical Republicans?

President-elect Obama's frequent deployment of Abraham Lincoln-related symbolism (arriving to the inauguration by train, swearing in with "Lincoln Bible," launching campaign at the Old Capitol Building in Springfield) has generated a surge in commentary regarding the famed president. But much of the recent discourse depicts Lincoln as an undifferentiated hero of oppressed people, a vigorous champion of human rights, and a tireless opponent of the status quo. The preeminent historian Eric Foner, however, offers a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of Lincoln in his recent essay "Our Lincoln" (which appears in The Nation).

Lincoln May Have Held "Bold" Personal Beliefs on Slavery, But He Preferred "Moderate" Policies
Lincoln, like Obama, was far more moderate than many progressives choose to acknowledge. Although he expressed a personal opposition to slavery, Lincoln would have compromised his own stated values on the issue in order to maintain national unity. Lincoln advocated the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, which he hoped to accomplish by opposing its extension rather than abolishing it in pro-slavery states. Lincoln was a moderate, not "radical," Republican.

Lincoln only supported emancipation as "policy" after large numbers of slaves abandoned plantations when Union soldiers arrived. Slaves needed food, shelter, clothing, and attention to their health. Also, Lincoln realized that blacks could help fight the war, which was rapidly losing support among Northern voters. Depriving the South of slaves would also devastate the region financially during a costly war. Furthermore, abolitionists, who consistently pressed Lincoln, believed that the War's narrative should center around emancipation.

Congress actually did more than Lincoln to press for emancipation. Prior to Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Congress passed statutes that freed slaves who fled to Union forces and which abolished slavery in federal territories, the District of Columbia, and in certain Union occupied areas. So, as Foner argues, the Emancipation Proclamation accomplished far less than the great symbolism surrounding the document suggests.

Lincoln Was Not a Racial Egalitarian, But He Embraced "Some" Rights for Blacks
Lincoln also broke from abolitionists and progressives in the Republican Party who favored complete racial equality. Lincoln did not believe in extending civil, political and social equality to blacks, and as an Illinois legislator, he refused to condemn or seek the repeal of the state's infamous "Black Laws," which relegated Illinois blacks to a subordinate status and prohibited nonresident blacks from entering the state. Also, Lincoln was once a strong supporter of the colonization movement, which literally would have sent blacks "back to Africa" or to places in the Caribbean or Central America in order to get rid of the nation's "race problem."

Whenever Stephen Douglas, his Democratic opponent for Senate in 1858, portrayed him as an advocate of "Negro equality," Lincoln responded by denouncing the claim. Although Lincoln argued that blacks were entitled to the broad rights in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), he did not favor blacks intermarrying with whites, holding office, voting, or serving on juries. After the conclusion of the war, however, he supported extending the right of suffrage to black men -- but only those "very intelligent" blacks who were free prior to the war and those who served in Union forces. Radical Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, however, supported full racial equality, viewed racial discrimination and slavery as equally immoral, and often criticized Lincoln's moderate stances.

Social Movements Must Press for Change and Criticize Obama When Appropriate
Lincoln came to positions that abolitionists had long held due to a combination of factors, including military and economic need and, more importantly, the persistent engagement of social movements. As Foner (and other scholars) have argued, Lincoln's progressive accomplishments resulted from an "engaged social movement" and his own leadership. This fact can inform social movement actors today.

During the Democratic primaries and general election campaign, progressives and liberals often shocked and upset me by (1) refusing to criticize Obama on any issue, while demonizing his critics and (2) portraying progressive "change" as simply a matter of getting Obama elected. Once Obama began embracing moderate and conservative positions and appointing persons to his Cabinet whom many progressives despise, the Left cried foul play. It felt betrayed, duped, and let down.

The Left's disappointment with Obama rests on a willful effort to distort or ignore his campaign message and voting record (which as a shrewd politician he encouraged) and from a lack of knowledge of the complex and interdependent forces that have created progressive change historically. Progressive change has not occurred because "radical" presidents mandated it. Instead, progressive social movements have pushed moderate national leaders to implement reform under opportune conditions (a point I make at greater length in this essay).

Reform will most likely occur when "political opportunities" exist that make progressive change acceptable. Thus, emancipation happened because freedmen could help fight the war, ending slavery could bankrupt the South, European countries would side with the United States once abolition framed the combat, and because abolitionists insisted that it occur.

Likewise, the economic reforms of the New Deal era resulted because the Great Depression created and highlighted economic vulnerability, and it legitimized progressive reforms that labor and anti-poverty advocates had long advanced. And the Civil Rights Movement helped accomplish racial progress after a long period of brutal racism because World War II shattered popular beliefs in Social Darwanism and Nazism and because fighting the Cold War required the United States to project a progressive image into world affairs. News reports of domestic racial violence undermined foreign affairs. Contemporary social movements can engender change only if they take their cues from this rich history.

The Role of Dissent in Social Movements
Finally, progressives need to discard their reluctance to engage in passionate dissent. Only dissent, rather than blind acquiescence, can push leaders where progressives want them to go. This does not mean that progressives should complain about every "disappointment." Instead, they need to compromise when appropriate and balance their praise with honest criticism.

On this end, I close this essay with a quote from Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, who often criticized Lincoln, whom Douglass nonetheless considered a political ally. At a ceremony unveiling the Freedmen's Monument in Lincoln Park (located in the District of Columbia) Douglass delivered a very powerful speech that portrayed Lincoln, then deceased, in the honest terms that could inform progressive engagement with Obama. Although Douglass's speech included praise for Lincoln, he did not shy away critique:

Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places. . . .

[Lincoln] was preeminently the white man's President. . . .He was. . .willing. . .during the first years of his administration to. . .sacrifice the rights of. . .colored people [in order] to promote the welfare of . . .white[s]. . . .He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. . . .To protect . . . slavery in the states where it existed. . .Lincoln [would] draw the sword of the nation. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty. . . .

Only the full text of the speech can capture the beauty of Douglass's tribute, and I encourage readers to examine it. Douglass's approach can inform progressives today who seem confused about their role during a "liberal" presidential administration or who appear reluctant to appraise Obama critically. Obama, however, almost invites critical engagement with his frequent usage of Lincoln symbolism.

As Foner argues: "The challenge confronting President Obama is to move beyond the powerful symbolism of his election as the first African-American president toward substantive actions that address the still unfinished struggle for equality." But this will only occur if social movement actors demand that he articulate progressive policy, rather than resting on the transformative symbolism of his presidency. In doing so, they should model the behavior of abolitionists and other social movements participants whose bold political activism and dissent led to reform and innovation.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

Free at Last? No!

An Obama Presidency Would Cause the Death of Racism and the Civil Rights Movement, Says Alec Baldwin.

Race and Presidential Politics: Pre- and Post-Obama