Warren and Peace
If I were Barack Obama, I would not have chosen religious blow-hard and basic con man bigot Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at my inauguration — in case you’re interested. That’s because I wouldn’t have anyone do it.
I’m no more fond of liberal clerics than I am of the right-wing species.
I don’t really care who Obama taps for his inaugural sermon. And while I understand why a lot of people are angry about his choice, I also have to admire his political skill in getting a conservative evangelical to shill for him on his first day in office.
Bottom line, I don’t think it matters a whit who speaks at a presidential inauguration.
I remember standing in the DC chill on January 20, 1993 listening to the oh-so-politically-correct Maya Angelou babble on about how Slick Willie Clinton represented some sort of New Pulse of Dawn or something — and we know how all that turned out.
For me, the whole judging Obama thing is quite simple. And it begins on January 20th, after Pastor Warren’s sermon. Here’s what I will be looking for from Obama:
1) Is he willing to implement a massive, economic re-construction providing millions of green public works jobs?
2) Is he serious about beginning the withdrawal of troops of Iraq?
3) Is he willing to immediately terminate all programs of torture and shut down Gitmo?
4) Is he going to move quickly to pass a universal health care program?
5) Is he going to give full support to passage of the Employee Free Choice Act?
6) is he going to use the White House to move us closer to full legal rights for gay and Lesbian couples?
7) is he going to get serious about comprehensive immigration reform?
Is he going to move us closer to national service and wider access to a college education?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:42 am
If you wanted to throw a bone tot the evangelicals, picking one of their own to give the invocation is about the most meatless bone you could throw.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am
P.S. Are you implying then that national service shouldn’t be considered a back door draft but a back door means to government-paid college education?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Warren biggest sin is that he agrees with Obama on the definition of marriage. As to points 1-7, no.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Rev. Wright must not have been available.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:00 am
…or, his neighbor Louis Farrakhan.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Oh SNAP! It’s over. It’s totally over. Woody did it. Now there can be no denying that Obama is a black power racist unfit for command. End of argument.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Gays should give Obama credit for not selecting John Hagee.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Whoa. That Angelou poem becomes quite a clunker.
Here’s my suggested sermon for Rick Warren:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ
Pretty decent criteria, Marc. We’ll see how he does.
So far, he’s the best “President-Elect’ evah.
Is there enough mountain left to carve Obama’s face onto Mt. Rushmore?
December 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Couldn’t care less about this preacher either, however, he’s certainly pissing off all the right people. I.e., those who would have preferred to see it delivered by Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleiger (the honky who preached at Wright’s church), Rev. Barry Lynn, or Alan Dershowitz.
I’m with you all the way on points 1 thru 5. Point 6, OK but not too fast…civil unions and states rights for now. Point 7, no. We ought to have an immigration policy similar to Mexico’s immigration policy vis-a-vis its gringo neighbor to the north and its Central American neighbors to the southeast.
The two biggest mistakes Democrats can make: 1. assume their victory in November was an endorsement of their own ideas, rather than a repudiation of Republicans. In this messed-up country, voters know who or what they hate more than they know who or what they like. That’ll hold true in 2010 as well. 2. Forget that non-Hispanic whites still make up just a bit less than 2/3rds of the country.
On the next Prez, so far so good.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I think this national obsession with greater access to college is one of our more nutty and misplaced ones. The proliferation of high schools posing as community colleges, and the vast social pressure to go to college–especially on those who don’t want to go, or who aren’t ready to go–prevents us from doing what we should be doing. That is, some form of alternative education–business, entrepreneurial, vocational–that gets heavy support.
It’s also not clear that going to college creates the clear wage advantage that everyone claims as the bedrock reason for going to college for 4 years (which is distinct from the good citizen reason–the one I find more compelling).
Charles Murray (I can hear the hoots already. Cummings, get it revved up), says this:
“A large proportion of people who are theoretically able to absorb a liberal education have no interest in doing so.
And reasonably so. Seen dispassionately, getting a traditional liberal education over four years is an odd way to enjoy spending one’s time. Not many people enjoy reading for hour after hour, day after day, no matter what the material may be. To enjoy reading On Liberty and its ilk—and if you’re going to absorb such material, you must in some sense enjoy the process—is downright peculiar. To be willing to spend many more hours writing papers and answers to exam questions about that material approaches masochism.”
December 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
DanO, nobody’s reading “On Liberty” and its ilk in college anyway, unless it is a upper-level seminar or something. They’re reading Maya frickin’; Angelou, Howard Zinn, and accounting textbooks. Murray is right on a lot of stuff, but I disagree with him that proles can’t benefit from reading great books or just very good ones. Scott Buchanan founder of St. John’s College used to give Great Books seminars in mental hospitals, and Bard College now has some sort of a great books program in NY State prisons. The point is, nobody reads that stuff anymore except in very esoteric circles. If your point however is that not everyone wants to work with their head, some prefer to work with their hands, I agree. That’s why we need manufacturing in America, and a labor pool that forces us to pay living wages to unskilled labor.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I largely agree with DanO re glorified high schools, but the subject is Marc’s excellent seven point agenda for President Change.
I expect maybe one of the seven.
Enjoy the coming proto-Depression.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I read all that stuff as an undergraduate (Hegel, Heidegger, Mill, Wittgenstein, Descartes, Kant, blah blah blah, as well as the softer stuff; Cotton Mather, William Bradford, Walt Whitman and so on) and I went to an unexceptional state school.
I’ve been out of school for a long time, but I have a hard time believing that this sort of stuff doesn’t form the core of most college courses in their relevant fields of course. But like I said, I’ve been out for a long time, so what do I know?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
FYI…..
TODAY IS MARC’S BIRTHDAY!
December 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
My guess is that Rick Warren is chosen to deliver an invocation designed as a “call to serve.” That appears to be the theme of the inauguration, and it is where Warren’s mission and Obama’s mission cover common ground.
While it doesn’t really matter who gives the invocation, the larger issue of the spiritual/philosophical orientation of Obama and other leaders is important. There are some very good, mostly younger people in the new-age fundamentalist churches that seem to be rooted in Southern California. Warren’s church, of course. Also there is “The Rock”–a congregation that really provides social/dating, political, cultural and, yes, religious interaction with its congregants. Its internet site resembles Craigslist. It provided very strong support for Prop 8. Still, there are aspects of its philosophy that are progressive. Obama has chosen to reach out to these people, and invite them in to help rebuild a kind of America that many of us who have felt excluded the last 30 or so years can believe in. I have to agree that it is worth the risk…the risk I guess being the loss of direction or purpose, and just floundering somewhere in the political center.
I do think Marc’s list is a pretty good tool to measure the administration’s willingness to pursue political change. I really think Obama is shooting for something broader, though.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Happy Birthday!!
December 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Happy birthday, Marc.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Happy Birthday, Marc.
Obama has delivered us all a nice present: Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor. She is a really good person who understands and cares about working people. I don’t know one way or the other about her administrative skills, but she is bright and has a big heart.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
You don’t look a day over whatever you say your age is, Marc. Happy birthday!
December 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
¡Feliz cumpleaños!
December 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Excellent questions, all. We need to give Obama at least 100 days in the White House before we pass judgment on him.
BTW, Happy Birthday, Marc!
December 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Feliz cumpleaños, hueon.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Let’s make racial equality a social issue, too, Barack Obama. Go ahead and sign up a white supremacist to give the benediction Jan. 20.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
That’s MY Al!
December 19th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Of course Alan is right.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
“Let’s make racial equality a social issue, too, Barack Obama.”
Well, so much for the racial unity benefit of electing a Black for President in leftist eyes.
Our new President elect, who is a lot smarter than any of you by your own worship, chooses to include both a white conservative and a black liberal spiritual leader in his inauguration celebrations, and you guys go apoplectic.
I believe it was Obama who said he cannot do it alone. Somehow I don’t believe this is exactly the kind of help he had in mind. I could be wrong.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Happy Birthday, Marc!
And as it happens, I agree with almost the entire post!
December 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The more I learn about this Warren guy, the more disturbing I find him. Dan Savage had an interesting take on this on his blog:
“I guess Obama—who also described himself as “a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans” in his press conference this morning—doesn’t think there’s anything disagreeable about Warren comparing the relationships of adult gays and lesbians to incest and child rape. But if we’re all going to agree to disagree without being all disagreeable and shit, why not invite Sean Hannity to speak at the inauguration? Or one of the anonymous authors of those Obama’s-a-secret-Muslim emails? Maybe that crazy “Obama’s-a-scawy-Ayrab” lady from McCain’s town hall meeting would like to attend the inauguration? Or how about a white supremacist who, while not at all happy about our first black president, happens to agree with Obama about the importance of early childhood education?
Or are only gays and lesbians required to tolerate people who refuse to tolerate us?”
December 19th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I guess you may not care – but for those that this affects, pretty much anyone in a minority (having an anti-semite speak at the front end and a rabbi at the back does not really make up for it..) it is offensive.Those that Warren hates worked pretty amazingly hard (and he courted them with equal vigor). I care about whom he chooses to represent his administration at this event and others, it speaks to how he will govern, and right now this decidion hasput that into question.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“…but for those that this affects, pretty much anyone in a minority”
Oh please. Stop the endless whining about perceived injustice. You have too much time on your hands. Get out of that liberal college and get a job producing something other than dissatisfaction.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:10 am
Of course Alan is right.
About what? Obama has in fact tapped Rev. Joseph Lowery to give the benediction. Lowery is not just a lion of civil rights, but is a strong supporter of gay marriage.
Or are only gays and lesbians required to tolerate people who refuse to tolerate us?
They aren’t required to do anything. They can bitch and moan all they want, and they can say incredibly stupid things about Obama … or not. Either way, Obama will be the most gay-friendly President ever, although he will be the more so to the degree that the GLBTQ community works with him rather than against him.
having an anti-semite speak at the front end
What if it were an anti-Palestinian? Or an anti-atheist? Or an anti-capitalist or an anti-socialist? It helps to keep a little perspective, and remember that the person giving the invocation is a token, doesn’t make policy, and doesn’t reflect Obama’s views outside the text of the invocation, which you can bet isn’t going to liken gays to rapists or otherwise reflect Warren’s bigotries.
December 21st, 2008 at 6:46 am
hmmm, yeah screw those gays i guess. you are right. why bother? you may want to crawl back into that cave of yours.
I actually work in politics, rather than just commenting on blogs. best
December 21st, 2008 at 7:49 am
Obama is a very sinister, unprincipled man. He has conned Rick Warren – the most important figure in the religious neo-right – into blessing the inauguration of a President who stands fully for women’s choice and social equality for gays including (wink, wink) “civil unions” at an event which features a gay/lesbian marching band. He has also drawn Warren back into the controversy over erasing any distinction between gay unions and “traditional marriage” just as the Prop 8 protests were losing steam in the media. With “enemies” like Obama the gay rights movement doesn’t need friends.
December 21st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Also, for the record, I would ask that PLEASE, PLEASE somebody, anybody keep up attacks on Obama from the left. He needs them in order to govern effectively.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 am
reg and his reverse psychology.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I actually work in politics
Perhaps that explains your inability or unwillingness to engage in rational debate.
October 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Maybe you could edit the webpage subject title Marc Cooper » Blog Archive » Warren and Peace to more suited for your blog post you create. I loved the blog post even sononetheless.