When Bush took office, most Democrats (including me) went batshit crazy when he essentially shut everyone who didn't walk in lockstep with him out of meaningful participation in the policymaking process. From Cheney and his secret energy meetings to Gonzales and his hiring of attorneys who were active in the Federalist Society, time and again we saw Americans of every stripe shut out of the process based solely on their political affiliation. "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists," we would routinely hear.
Fast forward to today. Exemplifying the tenets of openness and inclusion upon which he campaigned, Obama has extended his hand to Pastor Rick Warren in an extraordinary gesture of reaching out to those with which he disagrees. Yes, I know Rick Warren is an asshole. I know he's a bigot. But he has shown he is willing to revisit those views and re-examine them. He's already removed the hateful rhetoric from his website, which may not be much, but is certainly a good first step in the right direction.
Obama ran the best campaign we've ever seen, and he won by a sizable margin. He beat Hilary Clinton, after she was considered by most to be the 'anointed' candidate. He motivated people to jump onto his bandwagon and contribute in amounts never before seen in a presidential campaign. It seems clear to me that if Obama wanted to, he could successfully shut out those he disagrees with, impose his views on much of the country, and he'd probably be able to do so with a significant degree of success.
But Obama has made a very different choice. Obama knows that he won because Americans were counting on him to unite, not to divide. Obama knows that voters rejected polarization and instead prefer to focus on finding common ground and coming up with solutions to our collective problems. Obama has made a clear choice that as President, he will conform his conduct to the words and rhetoric of his campaign rather than merely spending his political capital on getting his way.
Might Warren return to his bigoted, ignorant ways? Maybe. Some may say probably. But one thing is crystal clear -- he won't likely change anything about what he believes and what he chooses to communicate to his followers if he's shut out of participation.
Changing the views of people who favor discriminating against gays is hard work. It takes time, it takes effort, and it takes staying above the fray. A great deal of progress has been made, but there have been monumental setbacks as well. The solution isn't to shut out those we disagree with, but to convince them they are wrong and offer to work with them to find solutions to the impasse that will move us all forward.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way delighted to see Rick Warren provided with a forum in which to express his views to hundreds of millions of people all across the world. I realize there are risks associated with doing that. But I also realize, as I believe Obama does, that this presents a chance -- an opportunity-- to move opposing factions closer on this and on other issues we face collectively. It's the kind of opportunity that Bush never provided. It's the kind of opportunity that exemplifies true leadership. Frankly, I think it takes a great deal of courage to invite Warren to present at the inauguration, and it stands to reason that Obama is doing it because he thinks there's something to be gained.
So, I would argue that now is a good time to see if inclusion, debate and dialogue can move us forward. Instead of bitching and complaining because Obama won't pursue Bush tactics against those he disagrees with, I believe now is a perfect time to walk the walk instead of simply talking the talk. |
Remember way back when? First in the late 90s, and then again in 2004-05? Republicans desperately wanted to privatize Social Security, putting a small percentage of everyone's earnings into investment accounts similar to 401K accounts. The idea was that, over the long term, private investment accounts would do better than the federal government would with the same money.
