Gay rights activists are upset at the inclusion of Rick Warren for the inauguration, to which the Obama camp replies that they are seeking inclusiveness, and they are reaching out. This is where the future Obama administration needs to distinguish between inclusiveness versus laying out a progressive vision. The choice of Warren is a problem, because it is suggesting that inclusiveness is vision, which it is not.
The United States, especially since the McCarthy era, has demonstrated a notable lack of inclusiveness, discussion over wide-ranging ideas, and a willingness to consider and debate ideas from the left and from the right. That millions of Americans can not only hear about, but actually believe that Obama is a socialist, displays an astounding lack of understanding of what anything remotely on the left stands for, in terms of policy. While this may seem like an unrelated, I would argue the contrary. At this point, U.S. politics has been so devoid of intelligent debate from left, right and center, that we mistake inclusiveness for vision.
Warren can be included by being invited to the inauguration as a guest. However, acknowledging his ideas (which as a Christian, I myself find impossible to get to his oddly split-personality decision) is much different from laying out the the path Obama believes we should take. The use of Warren is not "inclusive," it is tacit approval of his position. Have him there, but then show Warren, Americans everywhere and the world that you have a different and more progressive way of looking at the world; you do this by having someone who is acceptable to the gay community and to those who are supporters of the gay community.
So now we are left to wonder; is Obama really just being inclusive, or is this just a muddled vision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment