words words words

Yesterday at a fundraiser for the Human Rights Campaign, Obama renewed his pledge to put an end to the absurdity of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The program has recently come under attack from an unusual source--an airforce colonel, Om Prakash, whose article citing the law's negative impact and urging its imminent repeal won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay contest. Although this earlier turn of events might indicate an legitimate shift in the military's attitude toward homosexuals serving openly in the military, Obama's restatement of his commitment to ending the policy--which failed to present a timetable for doing so--appears to be more of the same. Liberals (or progressives, as the Democrats like to call us when they deign to associate with our ilk) have been disappointed time and time again by Obama's reluctance to push certain issues--gay and lesbian rights, the public option--combined with his apparent about-face on others (see bill, "media shield").

In some ways, of course, this is just good politics--who else will the lefty likes of MoveOn.org vote for? But, on the other hand, Obama got elected not only by appealing to moderates, but in large part by sparking the passions of people (largely of liberal bent) who labored tirelessly to convince the rest of the country that voting for black man who shares a Muslim middle name with a recently executed enemy of the United States wasn't such a bad idea after all. The longer Obama stalls on increasingly uncontroversial issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the more he risks alienating those supporters. Of course, they'll still cast their vote for him in 2012, but they won't campaign doggedly for him--and, as a leader who is (through little fault of his own) presiding over the worst recession in a generation, that's not a chance he should be too eager to take.

just how big is this tent?

Obama has done a lot to disappoint the liberal/progressive/pinko (or progressives? well, whatever those crazy lefties are calling themselves these days), especially in his appointment of traditional, center-right Democrats to the cabinet, but up until this point nothing has come close to the (righteous) indignation felt by many Obama supporters when the president-elected selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. While this is a clear sign that Obama intends to make good on his promise made during his acceptance speech to be the president of those who did not vote for him as well. But what about the (majority) of Americans who did? Are our votes, once cast, suddenly meaningless in Obama's attempts to end partisanship in Washington?

Much has been said about tolerance, but there is a difference between tolerance and approval. The best example that springs to mind is Sarah Palin describing her personal attitudes towards homosexuals at the vice-presidential debate. She said that although she strongly disagreed with anything approving of same-sex marriage, she was "tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners." Those words (and perhaps, more importantly, the way they were delivered) probably did not suggest to anyone that she in any way approved of such choices, merely that she was able to tolerate their existance (as long as it wasn't in front of the altar at least). However, by selecting Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration (making him one of only two religious figures involved in the ceremony), Obama is more than tolerating the intolerance against homosexuality on the Christian right, he is giving it his stamp of approval. This is not a case of having a discussion with Warren about his views or listening to his opinions, but rather of elevating the Reverand to a position of high authority and legitimacy within his inauguration ceremony (and, by symbolic extension, his presidency).

Obama claims to want to invite everyone to the table, but how is that possible when the intolerance of certain invitees will surely make some groups feel aggressively excluded? How accepting should we be of intolerance? His desire to unify all Americans is well placed (and part of what won him the election). On election night, when Obama said that he wanted to be president of all Americans, regardless of how they voted, he was right. But all Americans does include those of us who did support the president-elect. By extending this invitation to Warren, Obama essentially indicating that he values the approval of the Christian right more than the comfort of the gay community (perhaps because he can, virtually no matter what his actions are, remain fairly confident in the support of the latter).