Watch “Social Issues Symbolism” at Takimag.com
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
6 Comments
How true it is Jack. To solve problems, destroys the job security of problem solvers…..As for Rick Warren, I enjoyed his little book, but find him somewhat tarnished by the fact that he has been a member of the CFR for some time. Now, I even see the book as questionable?
Why does anyone believe that advocates for marriage equality need to compromise with religious fundamentalists? They’re not our guardians, or our mentors. We don’t need to accept anything that they espouse, because they’re dead wrong. At the end of this gay marriage war, they will be the odd man out. Their religion doesn’t have anything deep to offer them except opposition to anything gay. They’re obsessed lunatics who should humiliated and shamed, because they need to reap the seeds that they sow!
To Flex – yo uare the one that’s is an obsessed lunatic. Homosexuality is aberrant behavior. The more “gays are “out of the closet”, and flout their strange lusts, the more it’s undeniably obvious that homosexuality is an indication of seep mental illness, moral degeneracy, and just-plain “brokedness”. Nature decress that all living things go forth and procreate. Given the lifestyles of homosexuals – pederaty is a death-create. Homos die young, of grotesque diseases, and do not replenish the species. You have seized temporary power now – but your hour grows short. The fals economy is burning and crashing. People will be focred inot survival mode. NORMAL adults will need to adults their children. The larger society will regain [it's] senses, and re-awaken to the FACT the “breeders” are the ones that MATTER, in society, not flouncing, prancing, hysterical degenerates. LAMBDA delenda est!
OMG Pearlgirl,
Chill out, s’il vous plait. At least the gay folks I know (some of whom are close family members BTW and all gay from birth and not a degenerate among them, I might add) take the time to spell when they write. You need to slow down because your comment looks more like a LOL cat caption than a response, IMHO. ; )
You need to check out Soulforce. (www.soulforce.org) There *are* religious folks who love and accept gay folks because LOVE is THE Christian value if you are *really* talking about Jesus Christ and not some nominal fundamentalist bullcrap.
As much as I hate to say this, I think SA is right on the money on this one. I believe that Obama is nothing if not a brilliant strategist. His strategy here is flawless. Question: how can I appear to be reaching across the aisle and at the same time not step on many toes? Answer: step on the toes of an unpopular minority that only comprises about five percent of the voting electorate.
Clinton did the same thing. He rode into the White House on the backs of gay voters to whom he promised the world, but only gave a vague “don’t ask don’t tell” compromise on gays in the military that was worse than if he had done nothing at all.
I was a die-hard, yellow-dog Democrat for over forty years. As a gay man, I was told time and again the same thing: that liberals were on my side, but now is not the time to seek civil equality. For forty years! The last straw was when a local Democratic Party organizer wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper which went something like this: “Kick up your hooves, Democrats! Now that those immoral gay people have been removed from our party platform, we might actually whoop Republican’s butts now.” I officially left the Democratic Party after reading this, and have been a voting independent for the last four years. I voted for Bob Barre in the last election.
I guess that’s why I continue to read SA’s commentaries. I think we both have been let down by our perspective ideological peers. And now that we are both on the outside looking in, we have the ability to see through the bs on both sides of the political aisle.
Politics as usual. What could be sadder and more disheartening than that?
Obama owes the gays nothing they almost universally opposed him while supporting Hillary and they were extremely bitter after she conceded-now it is payback time. He owes them nothing and he will give them nothing.