Pandering is courage? One-sided debate is dialogue? Honoring those who divide us will bring unity?

[jpgray]

These are fundamentally odious conceptions, and why anyone is surprised that they arouse a great deal of anger is a complete mystery to me. Defend Obama all you wish, but I think this much at least should be clear:

Braving the risk of a persecuted minority's anger by currying favor with their wealthy, established, powerful oppressors is not courage.

This should be self-evident to any progressive. Where's the risk in upsetting a minority that the majority and the law treat as second-class citizens? A minority that is treated with apathy, ignorance, or hatred by the establishment? A minority that is wholly abandoned by one of two parties and treated with selfish indifference by the other? Unfortunately, there isn't much risk there. Just as there isn't must danger in honoring "America's Pastor" with the invocation of your inauguration. The real risk is in taking on the prevailing view--all its might, money and influence as an entrenched bastion of acceptable bigotry--by reaching out to the persecuted, misunderstood and oppressed. Don't call Obama's behavior cowardice if you don't wish to, but don't call it courage either.

Providing prominence and exposure to only one side of a debate, one that is dominating and suppressing its opponents and already glutted with power and influence, does not generate a dialogue.

It generates the opposite--it provides more favor and exclusivity to already favored and ubiquitous voices. One side of a debate is powerful and established, holding all the cards and having all the advantages for promoting their views. The other is misunderstood, derided, and freely hated by prominent figures--this side has great trouble in getting a fair hearing for their views. Which side needs more prominence and promotion? Which side deserves more? How does amplifying the voice that already drowns out its opponent generate "dialogue?" It doesn't. And that's been a problem for us on every major controversial issue in the Bush presidency.

Honoring bigots who seek to divide us does not unite us, and is not necessary or helpful in combating the ignorance of their followers.

Talking is fine. Wheeling and dealing is great. Debates are nice, summits are dandy, and hoedowns are sublime. Please note, however, that none of these require piling singular honors atop a bigot who is too much honored already. What's the impact of such honors?

The bane of many a progressive policy has been the ignorance present in the majority concerning the issue. Many of this majority see themselves as devout supporters of progressive ideals, such as essential human rights. However, they are often timid and vacillating--they don't take the positions their ideals would argue for on their own authority, they look around for prominent people to show them how far to go in supporting their ideals. Thus the side which obtains the most prominent and influential support has a massive advantage. And what are the prominent positions on equal rights for gays, for example? Glutted with money, powerful friends, and exposure, they represent either unvarnished bigotry or slightly softened bigotry: outright rejection of a minority's status as human on one hand, and an anemic "compromise" that satisfies neither the persecuted minority nor its enemies on the other. The "compromise" view doesn't see itself as a step on the road to full equality, it sees its "compromise" as the -end- of the road.

You'll notice one side of the debate is often absent from prominence--that which unapologetically supports the full rights of the minority. Supporting civil unions and denying marriage is as close as the most prominent public figures get to supporting equal rights, and this has its impact: when the apathetic folks look around to see how far they should support human rights, they don't see the whole debate--they see the established, conservative side on one hand and its slight softening on the other. Full support for equal rights is notably absent, while the weak middle and strong opposition are everywhere one looks. Which side needs help, if we are to remove this ignorance, do you think? Which side needs the honors?