Overshooting the Center? [UPDATED AGAIN]

Barack Obama has had the bloody nerve to invite Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback megachurch, author of the megabestseller The Purpose Driven Life, who compares gay marriage to sibling marriage and abortion to the Holocaust, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

It's an audacious reach across the big aisle in the sky -- to a man who himself is not entirely pigeonholeable.  Obama is probably banking on the social conservatism of a good part of his African-American and Latino constituencies, plus the disgruntled but continued loyalty of his liberal, gay, and pro-choice constituencies -- who really have noplace else to go -- to give him the political capital on the left to offer this olive branch to the right. 

Hoping, perhaps, to establish enough political capital on the right to make some pretty progressive policy moves?

Will it work?  The man's a playa, you gotta give him that.  And the predicted stealth radical has not, so far, materialized.  What do you think?

I'm unhappy with gays being the one minority gentlemen can still agree to be bigoted against.  (As a commenter here puts it:  "[I[f this is about inclusion and diversity, why is it that Obama is not inviting open racists and anti-Semites too? Is it a coincidence that the homophobes still always manage to get a seat at the table or a platform to show they're just fine?")  I'm also unhappy with the shrill militancy that greeted the passage of Prop 8.  Obama is presenting his choice of Warren as earnest of his administration's openness to "dialogue," not a declaration of his own positions.  Obviously, he differs with Warren on abortion; his intentions toward gay Americans are perfectly unclear.  What this move does say to gays is "Sorry, guys, evangelicals have more power."  What he'll do substantively remains to be seen. 

UPDATE:  Michael fingers the real target of Obama's move, and gives the pres-elect props for dickdom, takes-one-to-know-one fashion.

UPDATE II:  Another wise response from Jack Whelan at After the Future.

Comments

[Donna B.]

Where so much of my "philosophy" of life might be deemed "right wing" I cannot understand hatred of gays or lesbians.

My first knowing encounter with a gay male was when I was 19 years old and just married. This guy was my BEST girlfriend, because, dammit, he understood why I didn't get along with the sorority chicks. He laughed at me and with me and I loved him for it.

My experience with lesbians has been mostly appreciative. Frankly, I'm pleased that they consider me a potential partner. And I'm also appreciative that they are not angry when I decline a liaison.

I have never been exposed to "militant" gays or lesbians, only the friendly kind, so perhaps my view is skewed.

I have also never found that that gays or lesbians are overwhelmingly liberal or leftist. I have found that they are pressured to be such, but almost all I have met are intellectual and political individualists.

[Rod]

The Purpose Driven Life is no right-wing screed. It encourages a Bible based view of mankind's role in the universe and our social obligations. It is mainstream Christian theology, not political philosophy.

Of course, anyone who looks to the Bible to define his role in life will come to many points at which the message can be interpreted in many ways, and to some points at which a fair reading of Scripture, as applied to political issues, would cause heartburn for political true believers in either party.

I view the selection of Rick Warren not as a sop to the right wing - Obama will never get them anyway - but as a signal to the great middle that Obama is a mainstream Christian, not a follower of Rev. Wright's Black Theology.

The selection of Warren says little about Obama's attitude towards gay rights or abortion. Obama has already made the point that you do not have to agree with someone on every point to pray along side of him, or to work towards solutions of social issues on which you find common ground.

It is an appropriate choice for this time. It is an Ambivablog kind of thing to do.

[amba]

Obama has already made the point that you do not have to agree with someone on every point to pray along side of him, or to work towards solutions of social issues on which you find common ground.

And Warren has made that same point. He is the anti-Wright, isn't he? There's a symmetry to Obama's disinviting Wright a few years back and inviting Warren now. He's repudiating absolutist, incendiary politics, and notably it's absolutists on both ends who are angriest at him.

[wj]

I'm not sure it's the absolutists who are angriest at Obama. Rather I would say that it is those who saw what they wanted to see (pro or con) for the last year, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. And now, still ignoring the evidence of the past year, are horrified to see suddenly that he is not what they had imagined him to be in their fantasy world.

Of course, most of those self-deluded are absolutists, of one stripe of the other. But it is the shattering of their delusions, rather than their absolutism, which is driving their anger.

[Danny]

I understand why many people are disappointed about the choice of Warren to give the invocation but I'm choosing to adopt an "eh...so what?" stance. I heard Warren's comments comparing gay marriage to polygamy, etc., and thought they were terribly misguided but they're also being taken out of context from the moment in which he said them and given way too much weight. I vehemently disagree with Warren's views on gays and gay marriage but I don't think he's an "enemy" of gay people. I watched about an hour's worth of interviews with him yesterday and can't help but view him as a true religious leader even if I disagree with many of his views. So compared to some of the other bigoted shmoes pretending to be spiritual, I can't get that worked up about him at the Inauguration even though I would have preferred someone else...say my wonderful lesbian rabbi? I like the idea of attempting to find common ground with people you disagree with. That's one of the reasons I love this blog!

[David]

Michael makes a good point over at Sideways Mencken: the selection of Warren moves James Dobson more deeply into irrelevance. That, in and of itself, is shrewd politics and a good thing for the future of tolerance.

[David]

On the other hand, Jewish Atheist has this to say:

"If Warren opposed interracial marriages instead of gay marriages, I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't be having him at the inauguration."

[michael Reynolds]

David:

That last is true. But I'd counter Jewish Atheist by asking whether Martin Luther King would have invited George Wallace to stand on the podium with him at some point. Of course he would because it would have been a smart move.

[wj]

But the real test of the wisdom of Obama's selection will be what Warren actually says, come the day. If I were Obama's staff, and nervous, I might be pushing to get to review the words ahead of time.

[Callimachus]

Smart guy. Like you said a while back: competence. The assured hand, not just the boastful word. He gives us these moments of aisle-crossing and big tentism when there's nothing at stake for him (or us) -- two months from now, who will remember who said what prayer at the inaugural?

But now people will stop talking about Jeremiah Wright. And now that Obama has established himself as a man who sits down and deals with rivals, ideological foes, and people who have tried to harm his career, it will all seem that much more natural when he also sits down with the Castros or Ahmedinejad. When somewhat more will be at stake. For him and us.

[PatHMV]

Exactly right, Cal. Cheap symbolism costs him very little, but some portions of the public are so enthralled with it that it will give him political cover later on, should he take a substantive turn to the left.

[realpc]

No I don't think Obama is trying to be clever. Just because Obama is a Democrat does not mean he agrees with every so-called left-wing idea. He has stated he is not in favor of gay marriage, and I agree with him. There is nothing anti-gay about that -- he is not saying gays are inferior or should not be domestic partners. He just has a sense of tradition -- which is something leftists fail to understand.

Anyone who expects Obama to be a leftist is just assuming there is nothing except two political categories, and if you aren't in one you must be in the other.

[Rod]

About Warren, Danny said:

"I watched about an hour's worth of interviews with him yesterday and can't help but view him as a true religious leader even if I disagree with many of his views."

He hit the nail on the head. The left-right political spectrum is the wrong lens through which to understand Rick Warren, because Warren isn't primarily about politics. Having read The Purpose Driven Life, it is clear to me that Warren's primary goal is a spiritual awakening among Christians, not electing Republicans.

Now, if I can just find the right template for understanding Obama.

[Christopher]

I'm sorry but not all who support gay marriage are leftists and not all are without a lack of a sense of tradition. It's rather that some of us know quite a bit about the complicated history of marriage in the West, including in Christianity.

Obama can choose who he wants to lead the prayers, but let me be very blunt in saying I will not pray along with someone who has characterized my commitment to my partner as comparable to pedophilia and bestiality. That kind of sloppy and simplistic moral reasoning doesn't fit the facts.