I want to apologize - I will deliver no more snark on the Warren subject

[Political Heretic]

So I've spent the last several hours really reflecting on the Warren issue, and why I've felt so frustrated by it, and how I let myself become cynical and snarky.

Here are some things I'm not above admitting: probably the biggest factor in my weak responses is the fact that after the emotional upheaval of a year of campaigning, I fully expected the time between an Obama presidential win and the time he became president to be a big celebration, frankly. I was prepared for the reality that, after he took office, he was not going to be perfect and in fact he might be a huge disappointment. I was ready for the fact that there would be heated debate as he went along in his presidency. But I really wasn't prepared for it to begin the second after John McCain conceded.

When all the debate and criticism over every cabinet choice started, that was a huge bucket of water on the victory I felt like we earned, but more importantly - emotionally I was nowhere near ready to be in that "place" again after one of the most intense political campaigns ever. But I finally began just looking forward to inauguration. And then, when this whole thing blew up, my frustration also blew up. I just wanted the guy to actually be president before all the condemnations and "he's dead to me" posts began.

Before I say anything else I want to make something very plain, and if I came across in any other post seeming to contradict what I'm about to say, then I apologize and state flatly that I was wrong, letting irrationality and emotional frustration get the best of me: Rich Warren sucks ass. He is a bigot across multiple dimensions. I think that Rachel Maddow put it most dispassionately when she gave her analysis of why Obama's choice was a poor one. I agree with her. I know at one point I said "I'm fine with Warren" and I later clarified that poor choice of words. Let me do so again: what I feel is that some of the conclusions that are being drawn about the Warren inaugural spot and some of the reactions are counter-productive, even downright hurtful, to the bigger picture. Some of the reactions are highly divisive, polarizing and inflammatory beyond what I feel is a reasonable or helpful response to this Obama error.

Now, I understand that many disagree with that, and what I haven't been doing is making it clear that I can see how substantive cases can be made for an even stronger negative reaction towards Obama's mistake. I really can. But I've been blowing it off because emotionally, I wasn't ready to handle it, because I just wanted to have a restful "happy" time before Obama took office and I expected to have to get all serious and stressed again like we were during the grueling campaign. That's my mistake. It's not appropriate for me to trivalize the pain that this sort of thing creates.

For me, speaking only for myself and no one else, the pain of this choice is lessened somewhat by the fact that I know what Obama was trying to do. I heard about the inclusion of Warren and I immediately thought "Oh, I see what you're trying to do here." And frankly, in terms of a bigger picture I think that what Obama is trying to do in terms of political philosophy is really exciting. However, in his eagerness to practice executive tolerance and invite even those with divergent views to the table, he's demonstrated some naivety. Frankly I don't know what Obama was thinking doing something like this right after the heartbreaking or heart-stabbing Prop 8 bombshell. It's clear to me that Obama simply wasn't thinking clearly at all. I think his heart was in the right place in terms of his over-arching desire for a post-partisan politic, however I think we've also seen that while Obama supports LGBT equality in terms of policy, he is still very much a privileged heterosexual male - I don't think it occurred to him why the symbol of this man would be so hurtful to so many.

I think it's silly to believe that Obama actively hates gay people, and I think its silly to believe he's even indifferent towards the inequality that gay people face. But I also think that he has blind spots, and he doesn't always understand the depth and scope of the oppression that is going on in America today. It's obvious that it is going to be up to use to help this man gain a deeper understanding of what is going on for LGBT Americans in this contemporary America....

.....So I'm willing to criticize his choice, and I'm more than willing if not eager to criticize Warren. But I also have some forgiveness in my heart for Obama's error, because I think I understand what he thought he would be doing, and it was mostly the ignorance that comes from hetero-privilege that cause him not to "get" why this would be a dumb idea.

Now some of the things I've said here represent a slight divergence from things I've said previously. Early on I was emphasizing how he was trying to be inclusive to groups like evangelical Christians and social conservatives who don't believe there will be any room for any sort of dialog in this new administration. But I just ask you to please consider this post to be my most well formed thoughts on the matter. I know that's what Obama wanted but he was wrong - you don't legitimize an oppressor. People who have been saying that were right. There are plenty of ways he could have demonstrated his spirit of inclusiveness without that legitimizing act. It could be a major component of his speech. Or he could have chosen another conservative Christian leader with a less patently outrageous attitude toward gays. I get that now.

What I am still strongly opposed to and turned off by is all-or-nothing thinking on the issue. I have not found much of anything in the world that is truly black and white - most things in life are complicated, nuanced shades of gray. That does not mean that I'm saying LGBT equality is a "gray" area - it means that I don't think Obama deserves to be written off because of this mistake, what he was trying to do is complicated and to some degree admirable, even if this particular instance was poor. I absolutely do not think that people at DU who elect not to speak in the strongest and most absolutist of language - talking about how "he's dead to me" or its all over, or time to run someone else in 2012 - deserve to be called homophobe or bigots. That is destructive, every bit as much as Rick Warren is destructive.

So for my part, I once again apologize for letting my emotional frustration with this chaos get the best of me, and I promise to cease snark one liner responses even to posts that I don't personally agree with on this issue. And I want to again say to my LGBT brothers and sisters that my heart aches for you and with you, and despite my gross failure to demonstrate it in the last 24-hours, I do indeed understand the conditions that you are living under in America today, and I know its bad. And I know that things like this hurt terrible, and that you're already hurting after a years worth of ups and downs ending with a total defeat when it comes to the fight for equality. Please don't give up. We will get there.

[DainBramaged]

1. I'll take over for you if you'd like?

[Fumesucker]

2. It takes intellectual honesty to admit error, kudos to you. n/t

[last1standing]

3. While I don't agree with you on Obama's intent, I respect your beliefs.

Thank you for a very well thought out post. I disagree with some parts but I do believe your heart and soul are in the right place.

K&R

[Marrah_G]

4. I think this was a really good post.

[patrice]

5. Rick Warren makes me puke. I hate seeing our guy, Obama, do ANYTHING that even remotely

looks like toadying to the the likes of RW. I hate it! I hate it! I hate it!!!

However, I am

GLAD

that this nation is having this discussion. This discussion is possible because, if they/RW think their judgement of others is justified, then Others' judgement of them is also justified. That is, unless one or the other of us is God and I know it isn't me/my side who thinks they are God, so it must be them/RW who think they are God and, if, in fact, they think that they are so infallible on this issue as to be able to

DICTATE the Rights of others

, then I, for one, am VERY happy to have an opportunity to call them out on their Blasphemy.

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

8. Yeah, I haven't spent enough time saying what a horrible disgusting neanderthal Warren is

Unfortunately (or fortunately.. I think you'll get what I'm trying to say) a literalist/fundamentalist understanding of religion is going to have to be marginalized... it is literally bigoted at its core. This is true for gays, women, jews v. gentiles... at least. You can't read the bible literally and then have a place in a society that honors social equality.

[patrice]

16. It's also the cognitive style that produced popular support for the Invasion and Occupation

of Iraq, in and from the church pulpits of this country.

[Political Heretic]

20. No, I don't think so.

But you'd have to expand on that beyond a one liner before I'd know for sure.

[patrice]

23. The basic assumption is that one/many are capable of knowing "The Truth" so perfectly that they

are JUSTIFIED in coercing others in whatever manner they deem "Right", be it Sexual Orientation or Political Culture and that coercion can go from violating People's Civil Rights all of the way up to and include torture and War. All justified in the name of being exclusively "Right." It's their Rightness that justifies BOTH Oppression and Murder.

[Political Heretic]

24. Ohhhhh! Click. I gotcha. Yeah, ok absolutely

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Obama is stepping all over his base. All he has to do is pick a pastor that is not

and was not fully in charge and involved with prop 8 and everyone will breathe again and relax.

So far, he made a statement that he would not, and now he's on vacation unseeable, unhearable, and I'm sure trying to figure out what the hell to do.

It's very easy. He picks a different pastor. One that doesn't have a MONSTER homophobia agenda like this one does.

[Fumesucker]

7. Obama has to dis teh gay and teh DFHs to be thought "serious" inside the beltway..

Otherwise he would be thought just like Kookinich..

[IntravenousDemilo]

9. What is a DFH?

Better yet, what's with this "teh" shit I see all over the net?

[Fumesucker]

13. "Teh" is a common way to misspell "the", it's become kind of an in joke..like "intertubes"

And DFH is Dirty Fucking Hippie(s).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. I'm sorry what's the DFH? nt

[Fumesucker]

14. Dirty Fucking Hippie(s) n/t

[Political Heretic]

17. You made pop go up my nose

Owie!

Sorry.... just that DFH made me laugh. I realize its not funny in context, but damn...

[Fumesucker]

19. It's rapidly becoming an intertubes tradition..

DFH I mean..

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. OH. You think he's trying to lick right wing behind? nt

[readmoreoften]

10. I rec'd this thread because I appreciate your thoughts, although I don't agree about Obama's intent.

I do understand that many are upset because they wanted a moment of political peace. I don't think it's possible and the reason for this is twofold: predatory corporatism and violent religious rhetoric. Gay people simply have no problem with people being heterosexuals. I understand that many people are excited about what Obama represents to them. What frightens me--and why I've reacted so strongly--is that I don't think Obama is genuinely concerned about LGBT rights. I think he'd like to win the votes of as many people as possible. From what I can see from his behavior, he seems to have little experience with LGBT people. To me, he seems genuinely uncomfortable with us, while he seems genuinely comfortable with the religious right. His "commitment" to our rights seems like a calculated political position that could go either way.

However, I need to work at understanding that you see a different Obama than I do and not be so afraid of that. I need to have faith that, while Obama is at home with these religious conservatives, most Democrats aren't and that if any other Democrat tried this, they'd be pretty grossed out. I should know that this is largely cognitive dissonance: people trust Obama and yet they know that Rick Warren is scum, so they're trying to make sense of it in a way that doesn't effect their opinion of Obama. From my perspective, I just, unadulterated, feel the danger a person like Warren poses towards a person like me.

[patrice]

25. Thank you very much for this new insight.

I don't feel danger, probably because I'm not LGBT. But I DO feel deep Sadness that the old Hypocritical Oppressors, worshippers of Mammon, from ages and ages and ages of Human misery are being allowed to keep their Public position.

[Jamastiene]

44. I think you may have just put your finger on the pulse of this thing.

If there is one thing most of us agree on, it is that the right wing zealots like Warren are part of the problem, not the solution.

We have been traumatized and lorded over for the past 8 years (actually longer) by people who have used religion to justify everything from war to torture to taking away people's rights to letting children starve and be bombed. They used our tax dollars to do it. They did it in our names despite the fact that we didn't want it.

That solid 8 years of psychological torture from them has been so bad, that most of us just want to get the "Change" part of the show on the road ASAP.

Then to see some asshole like Warren come along and get to usher in this "new" time that is supposed to be our time, is just too much for our tired, embattled senses to take. Psychologically, many of us have cracked to some degree because of it. It's just so wrong.

On Edit: Yes, I replied to the right post to begin with. I do need sleep. Sorry for the mix-up.

[glitch]

12. Well done. nt

[Starry Messenger]

15. Great post.

k&r

[yardwork]

18. Thank you very much for this post.

I appreciate your apology, and I also appreciate your explaining where you were coming from in your reaction to others' reactions. Reactions against reactions against reactions....the internet can be a bit like a hall of mirrors.

I hope you are right about why Obama did this. I haven't noticed him being naive or thoughtless in the past. I'm thinking that this may have been a very calculated move on Obama's team's part to step on gay people and human rights advocates in an effort to obtain more support from the right-wing. In other words, I am worried that Obama has decided to abandon some of his base - us.

Time will tell.

[Hydra]

21. Progress

Thank you for taking the time to hear me before.

[EFerrari]

22. That was a great thing you just did.

Thanks.

Beth

[Toasterlad]

26. "I think it's silly to believe that Obama actively hates gay people"

I don't think Obama hates gay people.

"I think its silly to believe he's even indifferent towards the inequality that gay people face."

I don't think Obama hates gay people.

[Political Heretic]

28. I neither think he is hateful nor indifferent - I do think however he is sheltered....

..within hetero-privilege and I'm not sure he has yet to fully appreciate the level of discrimination that people in the LGBT community face on a daily basis.

[Toasterlad]

30. He's Not Going to Find Out By Talking With Rich Warren.

I appreciate the confidence you have in Obama, but I do not share it.

[Political Heretic]

33. Probably, but I appreciate what he is trying to do.

[scarletwoman]

27. I appreciate your post very much.

I never expected peace, I expected to be fighting Obama from day one. This old post from Jackpine Radical encapsulates my p.o.v. exactly:

I've got this plan, see? What I'm gonna do is...

work like a sumbitch to get Obama elected and then once that's accomplished I'm gonna turn his life into a living hell, raggin' on him mercilessly to get us out of the war, get a universal healthcare program in place, put money into everything green, restore our missing civil rights, and all that stuff. (my bold)

I knew full well that Obama wasn't a progressive, but having a true progressive candidate was never in the cards. You have to make do with what you can get. As far as I'm concerned, he's been on probation from the moment he won the election.

sw

[Political Heretic]

29. Honestly I felt the same way with one exception:

I've never paid any attention to any president-elect before. I sort of thought that "day one" meant the day he became President.

[scarletwoman]

31. I didn't used to pay attention to the PE before, either. But after Clinton, I realized what a big

mistake was made by the left by relaxing our guard.

For me, Obama's "day one" began as soon as he started announcing his Cabinet picks -- most of whom suck to one degree or another, so far.

sw

[Political Heretic]

37. Labor rocks, that's all I know.

Actually I'm good on labor, environment, commerce and state. I really don't know about DOJ. During his confirmation, we need one senator to ask him a yes or no question and demand that he give a yes or no answer - literally hold up the entire proceeding if he/she doesn't get it:

Sir, is waterboarding torture, yes or no?

If he answers no, he needs to not be confirmed.

If he answers yes, the follow up question should be:

Will you prosecute people in our government who have, by your own answer, broken the law?

[WeDidIt]

32. Meet the new politics, same as the old politics

Obama pulled a cynical political move.

[Political Heretic]

34. There are certainly two ways to look at it - neither have more evidence or credence

It pretty much boils down to what fits your personality the most. It was either cynically political or naively idealistic... can't prove one or the other, however for me, the latter seems to make more sense with all the other information I've come to gather about the man.

[Swamp Rat]

35. Is this a Jedi mind trick?

:D

[Political Heretic]

39. lol no. :)

[madmadmad]

36. thank you for your apology and please understand, my decision to never support or trust obama

doesn't come easy.

like you, i had such great hopes. like you, i was so excited and couldn't wait for the real action to begin jan 20th. i trusted this man. i honestly thought we couldn't have elected a better individual to led us through these rough times. i was pissed at those who said he was betraying us with his cabinet picks. "give the man a chance" i thought "he's not even in office yet". the right will tear him down soon enough, so we democrats need to support him! and i thought perhaps we'd never get reason NOT to trust, as so far so good. i was even cool with him keeping gates on- throw a bone to the right- why not, we've won, we can be magnanimous!

really, i trusted with all my heart- until obama betrayed my trust by asking rick warren to speak at his inauguration.

see, i'm raw over prop 8- i live in california, and it's been really hard. for the first time that i'm aware of, a civil right that had been granted to a minority was taken away by a majority vote. my neighbor-, people i know and liked- voted to make me a second class citizen. and to add insult to injury, i was told not to be angry about it: "the people have spoken", "i'm not homophobic, but my religous beliefs state that marriage is between a man and a women", "why can't you just be happy with civil unions- they're the same thing really. why marriage? why now?". i could go on and on.

and behind this campaign to strip me of my rights, several entities stood out: the mormon church, the knights of columbus, and the most popular evangelical minister in the untied states: rick warren. this man compared me to a pedophile. he says it is wrong for me to EVER have sex, or be with the one i love. and make no mistake- he wants me dead. as he said about the president of iran, whom he advocated assassinating:

“the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. … In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”

it doesn't take a great leap to extract from that statement, that as the gay, and therefore, an evildoer, he would have the government take care of me- after all "The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”

and this is the man obama wants to give the invocation at his ceremony. the man obama CHOSE of his own free will to give honor of participating in one of the most important days in history. he wasn't forced, and it certainly wasn't even necessary- no one expected the far right to be included on this very special day. he did it for whatever political gain i cannot even fathom. but the fact is, he picked a man who delivers a message of hate, and by doing so legitimizes that message in front of millions of people who might never have even heard of rick warren and his cult of hate.

obama picked a man who wants tot nullify my very existence. a man who WANTS ME DEAD. am i being dramatic? please read his words again about the bible and god's will for governments. it's there in his own words: pastor rick warren wants me dead.

so i'll accept your apology but in turn i'd like you to accept why obama will never receive my support- why in your words "he is dead to me". you can still support him, he IS our president after all, but i'd appreciate it if you'd not tell me i'm overreacting, or to get over it. i've heard enough of that lately. but the fact is, obama has betrayed me. betrayed my people. betrayed our trust. and for what? something he never even had to do. for political gain i can't even see. for nothing. we mean *that* little to him.

[Political Heretic]

38. I guess my postmodernist upbringing makes me unable to say "never."

Never trust - maybe. At least insofar as I'm not sure that politicians should really have our "trust." We don't have relationships with them, and we don't really know them in any way. On what basis would the term "trust" really apply. I think the more appropriate attitude toward politicians is skepticism and to evaluate them based on what they do on a case by case basis.

Never support - that seems difficult to rationalize. My support is conditional on what people DO. So if you don't support Obama right now, I get that. I don't agree with it because I do personaly think its a bit knee-jerk, but I still can understand I think. But if Obama goes on to push through dramatic gains for LGBT equality, if he were to complete most or all of the HRC's list of things that he should do within his first 100 days, then I wouldn't sit around and say "I'll never support him" - I would say I certainly support what he's been doing.

Support is always conditional and contingent, it can be gained, lost and reearned - it should all have to do with what a politician is actively doing.

Trust on the other hand.... well like I said I supposed we could argue that trust really isn't a word that makes much sense when it comes to talking about political representatives that we've never met and don't have any kind of personal relationship with in the first place.

[scarletwoman]

40. Hmmm... Isn't the whole notion of representative democracy sorta based on "trust"?

I mean, we elect people because we think -- or at least hope -- that they'll do a decent job of governing. Seems to me that's giving them our trust, we're entrusting our collective future to their judgement.

sw

[Political Heretic]

41. I guess we need to define "trust" :)

Yes, that's possible.

The kind of trust I was thinking of however, was more like the sort of trust I might give to a partner - someone that I know well. Where I might not understand what's he or she is doing, but because of how intimately I know them, I almost assume that its something good. I would be shocked and betrayed if it turned out to be something not good.

I think some people have the attitude about political figures as well... and that doesn't make much sense to me. On the other hand, what we're talking about when we entrust our future to representative judgment - sounds a lot like hope. I hope they will do the right thing, I don't know that I would say that I "trust" that they will.

[scarletwoman]

42. Language is tricky, isn't it? I know that, personally, I had "hoped" that I could "trust" Obama's

judgement, because I saw him as an intelligent and reason-based politician.

On the other hand, I didn't have much "faith" in the whole "change" schtick, because I'm well aware of how powerful the forces are who seek to preserve the status quo.

The DUers who have been counselling "wait and see" are those, it seems to me, who have given their "trust" to Obama. They sincerely trust that he is doing the right thing, no matter what it looks like at the moment.

I, obviously, have no such trust in Obama.

sw

[Political Heretic]

43. Lanaguage is both tricky....and awesome!

I love it.... it always reminds me to see the world through grey colored lenses. So many shades of meaning, all situated around individual or group contexts, cultures, histories, and so much more.