Bloodless Coup

I find Warren's positions disagreeable, but I can't help but think this is one of numerous manifestations to date -- and the man isn't even sworn in -- that Obama will not be a single-issue politician, that he won't be ideological in every facet of his Presidency, that he will, indeed, endeavor to be a President for all Americans. And that's bound to piss people off along the way, me with the bullshit conciliatory attitude toward Lieberman, evidently you and many others with the Warren thing, but that's still, arguably, a sign of progress. Say what you will about Warren, he reaches a lot of people, and he's not nearly as offensive on any of the issues people are reciting in connection with him as the ministers who have advised (not just stood up for at an inaugural) presidents, left and right, in the past.

I also refuse to forget that arguably the most revealing forum the candidates participated in during the general election was Warren's. His palaver with each had its highs and lows, to be sure, but it was less scripted, more incisive, and more revealing of the people we were considering for the office than any of the debates were. And that he provided that forum, and did so with utter equanimity, says a lot.

The First Amendment is predicated on the premise that the marketplace of ideas will sift the wheat from the chaff. There are quite a few evangelicals, and Republican and Democratic politicians and pols, who manifest in their every move an utter terror of airing out their ideas before hostile audiences, or who manifest their unwillingness to permit their opponents to air out their ideas without interference; it's refreshing when anyone manifests his willingness to say "This is what I believe, and I invite you to share what you believe beside me and engage in a discussion of our differences," let alone a prominent evangelical with his share of narrow-minded followers like Warren, who would be just as well off, and perhaps more so, if he adopted the firebrand, I-won't-engage-sinners-on-a-level-playing-field bullshit that mostly characterizes his crowd.

The point being, you can count me out of the usual lefty circular firing squad on this one. I applaud those who are speaking up for their disgust, to be clear, and I will state my own distaste, but I won't shout it from the rooftops, because I think politically this is another savvy move that will abet Obama's larger effort to make it very hard for the right to resist his policies on the basis that he's an extreme partisan or that he isn't listening to everyone's views.

Yes, I know it's the inaugural. But, you know, it's also just the inaugural. He's not appointing this guy Pope. And his statement yesterday on the topic, which manifested his clear disagreement with Warren on numerous subjects, was pitch perfect, per usual.

1) This could well be a savvy move and be to the benefit of both the Obama administration and the country at large.

2) Obama's statement this week show he's vastly friendly to the gay community than the Clinton administration ever was. And that bodes well, abd Obama still appears to be on track to be the best president in decades, and maybe ever. But ...

3) Warren is intensely political, hugely anti-gay, anti-choice, and a big self-promoter. And given that last bit your comment about equanimity ... well, I'd quibble with that description (or say that self-serving works just as well).

4) Giving an anti-gay politician a platform to talk about god within the first few minutes of his administration is appalling, to me and many others.

5) Inaugurations should be scrapped - they are unseemly parties for rich people and stink of aristocracy and titles ... but as long as we are stuck with them, it's a bit odd to discuss including Warren as showing inclusivity, when millions of Americans will feel disrespected and insulted by his presence.

6) But Obama is a bridge builder - he wants a big tent - he was serious about that, and anyone who is surprised that appalling people would be inside the tent wasn't paying attention (and is arguing, to a degree, for Rovian plurality politics).

7) So I've lost any interest I had in seeing the inauguration (didn't have much anyway though). And it's an insulting choice. But it's very Obama - the same Obama who's likely to be the most gay-friendly president ever, in terms of his policies and appointments.

Sure, he's a self-promoter, and in that sense his little forum with McCain and Obama was self-serving. But I defy you to demonstrate a want of equanimity in the execution. Which is more than you can say about Wolf Blitzer (speaking of self-promoting), Gwen Ifill, and the rest of that motley crowd. I learned more of interest about both candidates from their discussions with Warren, hands down, than I did from any other single event. And I think that forum stands as a model for civil discourse about important policy issues among people who strenuously disagree. Not a great model, but a refreshing one, and one that might point the way to even better ones.

Warren has strong, often objectionable (to me) beliefs. But he's not afraid of debate, and that distinguishes him from virtually every prominent evangelical preacher, not to mention many Catholics and other faiths, I can think of.