Obama Giveth And Obama Taketh Away
As President-elect, Barack Obama continues to surprise and puzzle me. I was, like many, disappointed to find out he’d given the spot of invocation for the inaugural to legendary religious huckster, homophobe, and all-around worshiper of false idols Rick Warren. I was equally disappointed to find out that for the increasingly important position of Transportation Secretary, he’d tapped a guy who has a mixed (but decent) record on rail issues, but was more infamous for leading impeachment proceedings against the last Democratic president.
So I took a night to ponder over this, and was all set to write a heartrending essay detailing how I expected this from Obama and that it’s another sign of how he intends to govern…and then he does this:
President-elect Barack Obama will select California Rep. Hilda Solis for labor secretary, an official told the Associated Press.
The
official spoke on conditions of anonymity because an announcement has
not been made yet. A call to Solis’s office was not immediately
returned. Solis, 51, has focused on immigration and environment issues while in the House. An announcement is expected from the Obama transition team in the next few days.
First
elected in 2000, Solis is serving her fourth term in the U.S. House of
Representatives. She represents California’s 32nd Congressional
District, which includes portions of East Los Angeles and the San
Gabriel Valley. Prior to her election to Congress, Solis served eight
years in the California state legislature. In August 2000, Solis became
the first woman to receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award
for her pioneering work on environmental justice issues in California.
Solis is not only a big win for fighters for environmental and immigration rights, but labor issues as well–her support of the Employee Free Choice Act will no doubt ensure its passage in 2009.
So what does all this mean? Is Obama serious when he says he intends to govern for everyone, and his policies and personnel will reflect that? More after the jump.
I think the Warren choice is more evidence that Obama intends to play hard to win the hearts and minds of evangelical Democrats, which is a move I support on a theoretical level, even though it nets him little in tactical gains–they didn’t exactly turn out in force for this election past. What’s more disheartening is that it reinforces his general reticence and apathy towards the LGBT community and their struggles–if the McClurkin scandal didn’t tell you Obama is lukewarm when it comes to teh gheyz, this should.
It means one of two things. One, it’s a mercenary calculation by Obama and his crew that he knows the gay community is not going to go Republican en masse, though certainly many groups within it do. But on the whole, knowing that they will likely be facing numerous challenges to gay marriage laws in the states, and the specter of Palin or Romney in 2012, Obama may correctly reckon that the rainbow vote has nowhere else to go. In effect, he’s telling an entire class–an entire community--”I’ve got you by the short n’ curlies, and you have no other options, so sit back and enjoy the no-lube reaming while I fete and fellate the people who hate you.”
Two–and this troubles me more–it may be a sign that Obama really believes the shit Warren slings–that marriage between a same-sex couple is equivalent to incest, that being pro-choice is equivalent to Holocaust denialism, and that Warren’s brand of market-tested, poll-driven pulpit-pounding is the way to reach the hearts and minds of people across the religious divide. Either option is disturbing and ultimately untenable.
But on the other hand, choosing Solis for the incredibly important position of Labor Secretary sends a huge signal to the working class that their needs are, at last, going to be heard in equal measure on Capitol Hill. Unions were initially cool to Obama in the campaign, breaking more for Edwards and Clinton at first, so passing EFCA will be essential to retain their support for bruising battles for Congress in 2010 and his relection in 2012. Plus, y’know, it really is just great on the merits to see unions get strengthened, at a time when they’re under attack for everything that’s wrong with our economy, often falsely and for pernicious purposes. I know both from my own research and friends who work there that the Labor Department has turned into an absolute vortex of corruption under current Secretary Elaine Chao, and it needs a serious housecleaning if it’s to be effective in strengthening and fighting for workers in all circumstances.
As far as LaHood goes, I can only echo a sentiment from a colleague that this may be a signal of Obama pushing transit issues down the list of things to tackle, or it may be the sign that Obama, who supports increased federal money for Amtrak and light rail programs as part of his environmental initiatives, plans to handle these policies from his desk, and LaHood is going to be the implementer. Let’s hope so–transit is too important to neglect if we’re to move away from a car-based, oil-guzzling society.
So that’s one BIG down, one BIG up, and one head-scratcher in the middle. If, as Bonesparkle says, this may be just a case of “Use ‘em and lose ‘em,” I can hold my nose and live with Warren sleazing it up at the inauguration if it gets us the EFCA passed and Amtrak fully funded. But then again, I’m not gay, so I have the luxury of not feeling like I’ve been told to sit at the back of the bus once again. I suspect those of my friends and colleagues who are LGBT can’t really see this as an acceptable compromise.
And I also suspect this won’t be the last time we see a “one step forward, one step back” moment in the Obama era.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
the two-step is better than the no-step
December 18th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Martin – as both a progressive and a gay guy, I wasn’t happy with Warren’s choice … at all.
My conclusion on Obama’s take on things, given his decisions and choices so far: He values pragmatism (as he sees it), and bringing people of wildly different perspectives together in the public sphere and *forcing* them to deal with each other … rather than talking past each other as has been the case until now.
This will as a matter of course piss off people on the Right and the Left on a regular basis. But if they’re smart, they’ll get over it and play ball with him.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
With the caveat that I’m not gay, so I certainly don’t have their perspective on the matter… We are talking about an invocation, not a cabinet appointment. What this and the Jeremiah Wright business suggest to me is that in the end, Obama pays lip service to religion but doesn’t particularly care to listen to what the preachers actually say, since its harldy binding :-p
December 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I don’t think that the Warren selection for a mere function at a ceremony is anything more than a token gesture to the Bible-bangers. Like the poster above, I think he’s probably more secular than religious, and merely pays lip-service to the religious people. Let’s see how this pans out before hitting the panic button.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Nick and Sunfell – agreed.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:07 am
I agree with the three commenters above. If this equates to policies being pushed by Warren then the panic button should definitely be pressed.
My dissatisfaction is that they still have an invocation. Get God out of the government.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
As a gay man, I am deeply dissapointed in Warren’s choice. I know the invocation is symbolic and does not set policy but it sets a really strong tone and I am sure will dampen the innagural spirit for a lot of GLBT folks who already had it quite a bit dampened by passage of Prop. 8 which is being called the “greatest setback in the LGBT movement in 40 years”
I can understand that Obama would want a fundamentalist there in some effort to bring everyone together but he could have had the decency to pick one not from California who supported Prop. 8 which still feels like a thorn in many of our sides.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Thanks for the smart commentary as always, guys. I really appreciate it.
Obama has always been weak on LGBT issues, but there’s a hidden benefit to that–if it’s not a priority for him, that means the battleground will shift back to the states, enabling the equal rights movement to retrench and push to get Prop 8 overturned in the California courts, while other states push forward with gay marriage and equal protection legislation.
If Obama isn’t willing to lead, at least he can get out of the way, which may be just as well in the end.
And yes, Corby, I agree with you–I’d rather have no invocation of religion in our public sphere at all, personally, and certainly not the endless procession of Christians, as if there were no other religious beliefs in the country.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Sadly (or not depending on one’s POV I guess) I think that the current nature and methodology of politics (specifically issue politics) means that religion will not be leaving the public square any time soon.
But I also do not believe that separation of church and state – which is a perfectly fine and valid ideal, was ever intended to drive religion out of the public square, and I’m not sure it should.
December 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Nick,
The problem I have isn’t necessarily that religion informs one’s political views. Indeed, to remain true to one’s beliefs would require that you act according to those principles.
The problem I have is that so much of it is utterly false and cynical, designed to pacify the “true believers” and remind everyone else that while all religions are equal, some are more equal than others.
We can go one of two ways–either that pulpit gets opened up to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, and everything else you can think of, or it’s closed and we relearn how to govern with our hearts and minds, not from the Bible. Right now, we have the worst of all possible worlds, where one specific religion–no, a few branches of one specific religion–are dominating our discourse and our political process to sickening effect.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Here’s how I view it… Obama has made it clear that his first-time priorities are going to be about re-building the economy and strengthening the middle class. Bottom line – if he can’t improve people’s economic welfare, we’ll all be living in the United States of Palin. That means picking battles and that even means throwing bones to people whose beliefs progressives find detestable.
But think of it this way: It’s purely symbolic. He fills his cabinet with capable and competent individuals. As you mention in your post, Martin, even the Republican DOT pick’s record is mixed at worst. Meanwhile, the evangelical gets to say grace. He can’t pretend they don’t exist. There’s too many of them… and maybe by throwing them bones that are purely symbolic in nature will be enough to keep them at bay while he sorts out our current mess… and if he succeeds (that’s a huge ‘if’), he can walk into a second term and start tackling social issues.
Is this ideal? No. Is this what most people want to hear in the wake of prop 8? No. Is it reflective of our current political reality? Absolutely.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:39 am
I agree with Corby Kennard on the religion pov.
And it looks to me like Obama figured there are more unionists than g/l/Ts so he puts the unionists who political science reveals are more likely to be conservatists in front of the g/L/Ts.
Imo, the choice of Rick Warren is a kick in the tail. Why not the Rev. Jesse Jackson if he wanted to play it safe and to give credit to those who made it possible for him to stand where he does today?
Frankly, I never trusted Obama-there is just something that speaks of political opportunism. The man has followed the safe trail from a long ways back to High School even. He was a community organiser not a community activist: says it all!!!
Neither Clinton nor Obama pre-election were pro-Gay marriage so I don’t expect much from the man.
Its like any space that feminists, lesbians/gays/Transgender, Blacks etc make they do it for themselves. No President does it.
December 24th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Martin,
I certainly can’t disagree with you on that score, but the problem is the way our politics works. Some wacked preacher forming a PAC or something is not inherently different than some secular crackpot forming a PAC. The only difference is the rationale they use to promote their beliefs. Religious zealots have the same freedom to promote their agenda as secular zealots, even when we wish to God they wouldn’t :-p
As far as opening up the pulpit, the answer there is they need to get themselves elected. Separation of Church and State, as the trite saying goes, is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. So, as long as 100% of US Presidents are Christian, expect them to keep those invocations and crap. When we elect a Buddhist President, I’d expect something very different.
Also, and I think this is a key point, you say “all religions are equal, yet some are more equal than others” and I think that is a fallacy. While no religion may be favored, this is still a democracy, and our form of representative democracy is ALL ABOUT the squeaky wheel getting the grease. If there are more voters in group A than in group B (religious or secular groups), A is almost assuredly going to get preferential treatment. That is our system, for better or worse.