Fighting Back in the Age of Obama

The holiday blogs have taken over the Huffington Post, so my Wednesday column has been bumped off the front page. So here’s “Fighting Back in the Age of Obama” cross-posted in full. Hee-haw and Merry Christmas! -Bob


“The middle way is no way at all. If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way.” -John Adams, 1776

I’ve spent the last week or so debating with my friend and fellow Huffington Post contributor Lee Stranahan the significance of Rick Warren’s syllabus of ridiculous statements and how it’s an awful idea to be rewarding such remarks with a speaking part on the inaugural dais. Despite Lee’s better efforts to convince me otherwise and regardless of my support for the Obama campaign and transition, I simply can’t go along with the president-elect on this one.

I can absolutely tolerate the tradition of inviting a pastor to deliver an invocation at the inauguration (despite the establishment clause), but this particular pastor has a closet full of Santorum-ish pederasty remarks and Buchanan-ish alcoholism metaphors that ought to fully disqualify him from speaking at this otherwise historic occasion. And I still can’t quite grasp the political upside for the president-elect, especially given the very un-Obama distraction and drama that’s accompanying it.

But this isn’t necessarily another angry take on Rick Warren.

This is about fighting back in the age of Obama.


The maxim that’s been most often tossed around this week to explain the Warren invitation has been: “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” Some supporters of the president-elect’s choice of invocation speaker have grappled onto this idea in the spirit of the Obama change message and used it as a blanket explanation for why we should embrace Rick Warren — even though his more controversial remarks, by the way, are nothing if not “disagreeable.”It’s important to underscore that this maxim, while repeated in the spirit of unity, also contains the word “disagree.”And it goes without saying that many of us vigorously disagree with Rick Warren’s comments on same-sex marriage and abortion, not to mention his vocal condemnation to hell anyone who doesn’t abandon their Judaism. But for whatever reason, we’re expected to go along with this one as if Warren were just another random pastor. We’re expected to just suck it up and take it even though some of Warren’s public statements have denigrated millions of Americans. We’re told by very serious people to grow up. You know, in the spirit of not being “disagreeable.”Nevertheless, we can bet on the fact that the far-right is going to be uncorking a pandemic of crazy so unrelenting as to make the 1990s seem quaint by comparison. And I worry that if this notion of political and ideological détente is taken too far and too seriously, we’re going to be summarily stampeded by a doped-up herd of shrieking Limbaughs, and then collectively atomic-wedgied by the far-right until the president-elect is rendered as ineffectual as Majority Capitulator Harry Reid.”If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way,” John Adams wrote in a letter to General Horatio Gates, the hero of the Battle of Saratoga.Adams didn’t make any blanket claims against all forms of compromise — in fact, democratic politics is all about finding a “middle way” and despite his bellicosity, Adams knew this. But the middle way doesn’t apply this time. Should we have found a middle way with Rick Santorum when he compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality? No way. In fact, everyone including the eventual president-elect worked to forcefully eject Santorum from the U.S. Senate in 2006, mostly because of his terrible and weird “gay marriage is like bestial marriage” remark, as well as other trespasses against liberty, decency and tolerance. I can’t think of anything more disagreeable, in fact, than spending millions of dollars to fire a man of from job. And Rick Santorum sure as hell deserved it.But then again perhaps we should’ve found a middle way with Santorum. Maybe we should’ve looked beyond his divisive, derogatory “man on dog” comment and elevated his brand of wingnut zealotry — you know, in the spirit of inclusion. After all, the Senate should reflect all of the views of America, no? No. Even if at that time we were seeking common ground with the Senate Republicans, I can’t imagine recusing ourselves from attacking Santorum’s brand of fundamentalist hackery.On some topics a middle way can, no doubt, be found between the left and conservative evangelicals — but that doesn’t mean hugging-it-out with someone who quite literally said that making abortion rare is like denying the Holocaust. Just because Rick Warren is jolly and friendly doesn’t mean that some of his stated views are any less incendiary than other similar awfulness spoken by the likes of Rick Santorum or Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh.So where’s the line here? How crazy is too crazy before we’re permitted to let slip the dogs of progressive war and forcefully declare “enough!”? As someone who has followed the president-elect’s career, I can’t imagine that he’s suggesting that we’re not allowed to stand up for our values with an appropriate level of force.That’s precisely why this could be President-elect Obama’s first post-election political blunder.Rather than asking us to accept a less offensive character from the right, the president-elect has asked us to embrace someone whose more obnoxious assertions rival the most extreme views of the opposition — on the most extreme and divergent issues. So we’re being told that vocal opposition to even the most terrible proclamations of the far-right is simply unacceptable in Obama’s America. Affording him the benefit of the doubt, however, I don’t think this is the president-elect’s intention, but that’s exactly how it comes off. In other words, if there are more Warren debacles on the way, the president-elect could end up permanently and irreversibly alienating his left flank while castrating his most loyal supporters, thus laying out a nice smooth track for the on-coming Republican crazy train.BobCesca.comOrder my book: One Nation Under Fear, with a foreword by Arianna Huffington. Also available in stores.

This entry was posted in Huffington Post and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://cgwaltney@mac.com Chris Gwaltney

    Hooray Bob. It IS permissible to be pissed at this choice. I’m a willing slack-cutterer, but I will be paying attention to O’s further choices and explanations of said choices.Great article, sorry you were bumped to the Huff-basement for the holiday blogs.

  • http://obamaproject.windonwater.net QueenTiye

    Merry Christmas, Bob, and all! :) QT

  • 24hourjack

    rick warrens “alcoholism” comparison is a favorite of anti-gay knuckledraggers.and as a recovering drug addict i can firmly state that it is a bullshit analogy.the logic goes like this…i dont believe people are born gay.its a sin.like alcoholism or drug addiction.something which you need to refrain from,regardless of how appealing it may be.okay,now as a drug addict in recovery(3 weeks short of one year) i can attest to the fact that since i have refrained from shooting dope my life has gotten better.much much better.however,by warrens logic,refraining from gay sex would make a persons life better.you would become a better person.a happier person.the problem is,a person who manages to “recover” from homosexuality will not suddenly become attracted to the opposite sex.a recovering homosexual would beleft with only two options:engage in a “normal” lifestyle,something which repulses them and brings them absolutely zero joy.or,spend the rest of their life alone,never falling in love or raising a family.i would love to hear rick warren tell a gay person that the “right” thing to do is to spend their entire life alone.i would truly love to hear him justify that in person with a gay couple who have been together,raising children for ten or fifteen years.also,im so steaming mad that guys like him,have somehow come to speak for christians in this country.well,im a devoted christian and i can clearly state that rick warren does not speak for me.not on this issue,and not on plenty of others.

  • http://petertupitza@comcast.net smackdab

    Born gay- never closeted; in a relationship for 30 years; raising children for the past 11; Quaker; secure enough to watch all the craziness Anita Bryant uncorked go on around me without feeling threatened. My life, and the visibility of my family is my activism. RM is on the very slow path to recognizing that there is more to our lives than Gay parades and celebrity lesbians. Same-sex adoption was not legal in our (DOM) state (struck down several times, in fact) until my case prevailed. The Roman-Catholic Archbishop here was clearly displeased, but many of his parisoners spoke out in support. My comment is; I have faith that the law of the land, disheartening set-backs notwithstanding, will inevitably establish our equality. Laws that protect homosexuals do not exist in a vacuum. They were (and will be) won on precident. (My own case was won based on a ruling of the ‘de facto’ relationship between a divorced man and his ex-wife’s son). Our attention should be focused on the promise this next administration is showing to make sound judicial appointments. It is an utter waste of time to sacrifice an ounce of brain-power on people who focus their own on turning back on the progress we, as a society, continue to make.

  • Kyle W.

    I would just like to take the opportunity, once again, to encourage those who keep telling gay Americans to “calm down and wait” to read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s letter from the Birmingham Jail.

  • viccan

    @smackdabThank you for your calm and measured entry. Unfortunately I sometimes feel ‘lost’ when tempers are flying on a controversial issue and I don’t get why there is so much anger, or what people expect as a result of their anger. Your entry speaks to me. Thanks. I too ” have faith that the law of the land, disheartening set-backs notwithstanding, will inevitably establish … equality. Laws that protect homosexuals do not exist in a vacuum.” I wonder why others who trust PE Obama seem unwilling to allow his promise to unfurl… in time.

  • MonkeyHawk

    I’m not sure I agree.But knowing President-elect Obama is a student and a fan of his fellow lanky Illinois president, this might be worth considering:When, at an official reception during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln referred to Southerners as erring human beings (rather than enemies worthy of extermination), an elderly Union patriot rebuked him for speaking kindly of his enemies when he ought to be thinking of destroying them.“Why, madam,” Lincoln replied, “do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”We’ll see.

  • Lyle

    It’s unfortunate that it is almost heretical to suggest that no pastor should be invoking any deity to do anything at a government ceremony on government property.It seems the only reason that the basic problem with invocations is overlooked is that it is traditional and cultural. I don’t see any difference if an applicant for a civil marriage license was forced to listen to a pastor praying for things to work out ok, or a driver having to endure a sermon before being issued a speeding ticket. This would be as outrageous as having presidential candidates appear for religious vetting at a California mega-church, for it would suggest the country was a defacto theocracy. Thank God that doesn’t happen.