When Inclusion is Really Exclusion

When I heard that Rick Warren was invited by PE Obama to say a prayer at the inauguration,  my first thought was that Obama’s pandering to the religious right was more than just electioneering.  Obama seems intent on including them in his administration.  To me, this  bodes poorly for science, rational thought, and civil rights.   I was hoping he might ask some one like Rev. Gene Robinson, an Episcopalian Bishop to give the prayer because it would demonstrate a true commitment to civil rights.  Rev. Robinson is openly gay and his appointment has been an ongoing source of controversy.

I was pleased to read Jeffrey Feldman’s blog today to find there was some one else out there with similar feelings.  I always find the Feldman’s analysis of how people looking for positions of power  ‘frame’ cultural and political issues fascinating.  Feldman believes that Obama is not leading on civil rights issues but ‘tinkering’ and points to previous democratic leaders who took bold stands on civil rights issues.  I’m going to highlight his main points, but would suggest you go look at the entire essay.

Obama, Feldman believes,  comes up short on the leadership scale.

Marriage equality for gays and lesbians is not just some “social issue” akin to school uniforms, warning labels on music or smoking in restaurants.  It is the current epicenter of the civil rights movement in America.

…  When Lincoln took office, the abolition of slavery was the epicenter.  When Wilson took office, the women’s suffrage movement was the epicenter.  When FDR took office, poverty was the epicenter. When Kennedy took office, segregation was the epicenter

Thinking about Obama’s presidency in terms of an  ‘epicenter’ of civil rights changes how we think about Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration.

Rick Warren is not just a pastor opposed to gay rights. He is a highly political leader of a mega-church who has compared abortion to the Holocaust and opposed marriage reform in terms equivalent to the bigoted plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia–the landmark 1967 civil rights case overturning anti-miscegenation marriage laws.  In an era where gay rights are the epicenter, Rick Warren is a widely recognized voice arguing against those rights. 

Translating Rick Warren into the terms of previous civil rights eras is the key to seeing why his role at Obama’s inauguration is so troubling. By comparison, if this were Lincoln’s inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent pro-slavery pastor giving the invocation.  If this were Wilson’s inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent of an anti-women’s suffrage pastor saying a prayer.  For FDR, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor opposed to rights for the poor. For Kennedy, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor who spoke out repeatedly about the dangers of desegregation. 

In each of these cases, for the President-elect to invite the a voice known for arguing against progress–and to do so in the name of political peacemaking, as Barack Obama has done with Rick Warren–would have revealed a tinkerer on civil rights, not a leader.

Feldman raises just one faucet of leadership where Obama fails.  Obama’s cabinet appointments are being ‘framed’ as pragmatic.  Obama has said he wants to be surrounded by folks that are not idealogues, but folks that will get things done.  I guess I have to raise the question of how important is getting a bureaucracy to work when the overall goals are based on functionality and not vision.  This is where I think Feldman sees the gay rights as symptomatic of Obama’s lack of leadership skills.  As President, Obama should be doing more than just making history based on appearances.  If Obama is ‘symbolic’ of civil rights gains, then what does it say to choose Warren, some one who assaults the civil rights of both women and GLBT Americans? 

I feel compelled to add my voice to those asking Obama to disinvite Warren.  What would it say if Obama, instead, asked Rev Robinson to contribute this prayer instead?   Wouldn’t the inclusion of Rev. Gene Robinson make a compelling statement towards the future of  civil rights in this country?  Wouldn’t this be a strong statement given that the President Elect’s supporters contributed so heavily to the defeat of Prop 8 in California?  This would be a sign of leadership and not just a going along with what worked to get Obama elected.