The Phoenix

Rick Warren: Why is anybody surprised?

Credit my Phoenix colleagues Deirdre Fulton and Jeff Inglis with great timing. "Take Back Barack," which contends that progressives should "reclaim the man [they] put in the White House," appeared the same week that Barack Obama disappointed said progressives by tapping Rick Warren--whose views on gays and lesbians are problematic, to say the least--to give the invocation at his inauguration.

But here's my question: Why, exactly, is anybody surprised that Obama's giving a prime slot to Warren? For that matter, why is anybody surprised that Obama is poised to govern as a centrist Democrat?

First point first. By agreeing to appear with John McCain at Warren's California megachurch earlier this year, Obama signalled that he didn't find Warren's views too objectionable--or at least, not objectionable enough to trump Warren's possible political utility.

As for the notion that Obama owes progressives more than he's given them.... Here, I've got to respectfully disagree with Deirdre and Jeff. After all, Obama didn't really campaign as a progressive. He campaigned, instead, much the same way he burst on the national political scene back in '04--as a would-be unifier whose own biography epitomized his aspirations for the nation.

Obama's charisma--and his reliance on the notion of "Change," which can mean whatever you want it to--convinced plenty of people, on both the right and the left, that he wasn't really a moderate Democrat. Substantively, though, that's how he sold himself. And sure enough, that's what he seems to be.

Published Dec 19 2008, 03:15 PM by Adam Reilly

Chris Faraone said:

I'm a bit disappointed that the outrage is being specifically directed at Warren and Obama rather than at this lame tradition of having an invocation and benediction (and prayer in the House and Senate, etc.). What happened to the separation of church and state? Clearly this is just a pose - unlike his predecessor, Obama is way too smart to believe in all that Godly gobbledygook.

December 19, 2008 6:06 PM
Adam said:

Hey Chris--We can discuss further at the office water cooler, but I'd say two things here. First, the fact that people aren't generally outraged about an invocation tells me the lion's share of Americans have a different take on religion (and religion/politics) than you. Second, you can't correlate between intelligence and religious belief. Plenty of smart people have some sort of religious bent; conversely, being an atheist doesn't necessary mean you're smart (and vice versa). To be continued...

December 19, 2008 7:02 PM
Peter Porcupine said:

Adam - Chris' comment epitomizes my own take on Obama's stances.

Really - who the hell knows what they are?

Obama campaigned as a pleasing tabula rasa, and many groups projected their personal dreams upon his bland and blank persona. Even now, Chris can say he KNOWS that Barack doesn't believe that stuff - because Chris doesn't himself, and is still entranced with his priojection. Many gay activists deluded himself that he was just lying to get elected, because he was REALLY with them, despite his repeated statements to the contrary. It MUST be so.

Change - Hope - Puppies - it's all bland and non-specific, so you too can know he agrees with you on every issue. Like Gov. Patrick's campaign, this was a deliberate strategy of being all things to all people. It is good politics, but it leads to crappy governance. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Ironically, Obama is doing himself no favors with this. Democrats are enchanted with symbolic gestures, to the point that they obscure actual action (the FILING of the bill is important; letting it languish unpassed is ignored). Conservatves, the targets of this tinselly gesture, will enjoy the ceremony, but it won't buy Obama a nanosecond of toleration if he crosses them in a substantive way. Live and learn.

December 20, 2008 2:06 AM
Brad Deltan said:

Obama might've campaigned on whatever he wanted to, but he won because of one thing: he was as far as possible from being Bush.

Isn't that kinda obvious? McCain was, of course, the closest thing to Bush Term Three. Hillary was much further away, but her positions on some key issues...like the wars...made her next-closest to Bush Term Three. Obama was as far as you could get from Bush Term Three and still be a viable presidential candidate.

If it were eight years ago, I'd say he ignores this dynamic at his peril...because it means everyone can and will turn on him if he even appears to be Bush-like. But if Bush's presidency* has proven anything, it's that once you're in 1600 Penn Ave, you don't have to give the slightest shit what everyone else thinks.

December 20, 2008 1:10 PM