Building National Unity, One Rick Warren at a Time

Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to do the invocation prayer at his inauguration is a bitter pill that we should try our best to swallow.

Bush's biggest domestic debacle (yes, bigger than Katrina) was his failure to unite a nation bitterly divided along political, religious, and racial lines. This is true in spite of the unique opportunity he was given in the wake of 9/11 by a people resolved, practically begging, to be united.

The reason Bush failed was because he thought unifying people meant convincing opponents that they were wrong and that he was right. On issues as critical as education (evolution vs intelligent design), medicine (genome research), sexuality (gay rights), and war (justifying preemptive war), he simply did not compromise. That stance, of course, only deepened the gulf that divides us and solidified our partisanship. As a result, we are more divided then ever.

Rick Warren's stance toward gays and his views on a whole host of other issues run counter to core progressive principles. Most people reading this blog and probably Obama himself disagree with them. But the fact of the matter is that there are million upon millions who do not. To them, Warren's views are orthodox, they are correct.

By choosing Warren to do the invocation, Obama has decided to say to these very people, nearly 50% of Americans who sit on the other side of the political spectrum, I don't agree with you but I respect you and I'm willing to give you a place at the table. He's keeping his promise to "be their president too." This means more than just giving them tax cuts too. It's a much more profound and ultimately more difficult commitment to represent them and their views.

It's a whole new kind of politics. Obama sees that compromise is perhaps the most effective way to soften peoples' stances and to start a dialogue that might just lead to greater unity. If we really want to be a more perfect union, we need to take the difficult step of accepting that there are profound differences, attempt to tolerate them, and seek ways of finding common ground. Merely opposing them and trying to change the views of others would only be making the same mistake Bush made. And it would bring the same outcome.

But what do you think? Thanks for commenting.

PS: Incidentally, the web site of Warren's church has already taken down it's statement on gays! See, compromise has already begun to work in our favor.
PPS: And isn't it infinitely more Christian of Obama to tolerate opposing views?

Ahmadinejad, Bush, and the Presumption of Good

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered British Channel 4's alternative Christmas address yesterday, sending a message of "happiness, prosperity, peace and brotherhood for humanity." On cue, the broadcast ignited a storm of criticism from those who site the Iranian president's
nuclear ambitions, his hardline views on Israel, and resolute rejection of homosexuality. But the message was moderate, with none of the harsh rhetoric for which he has gained notoriety. God, he said, had created "every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection". He also urged Muslims and Christians to work together towards a world of "love, brotherhood and justice".

Why the outrage? I tend not to watch but doesn't President Bush give a televised Christmas address each year? He is a resolute defender of his country's right to possess nuclear weapons (and his is the only country that's ever used them, twice). He threatens countries in the Middle East and even invades them, illegally and unjustly, killing tens of thousands of civilians. And yes, he absolutely rejects homosexuality and publicly supports legislation to limit the civil rights of gays.

I believe the difference is not merely hypocrisy or a double standard. It's something I've come to call a "presumption of good." When Iraqis, for example, kill civilians, it's their natural predisposition, it's just what they do. When the US uses predator drones in northern Afghanistan to kill civilians, it's an anomaly, a terrible misfortune, albeit a necessary one. The former, our enemies, are presumed evil; they mean to do bad and they do do bad. The latter, the US, is presumed good; "we" mean to do good but sometimes there are bad outcomes: Gotta break eggs to make an omelet!

Bush's Christmas message of peace and love is acceptable because that's the real him up there on the box, telling us to spread joy and goodness. This essentially very good man, however, due to the nature of his job, is sometimes forced to order missile strikes and even invasions that result in the deaths of thousand, even hundreds of thousands of people, and the destruction of the ways of life of millions more. But that's just his job. And he needs to do such for the greater good. Even his evil deeds are conducted out of desire to do good, or so we presume.

But Ahmadinejad! There's a different story. This man's fundamentally evil. He's just plain bad; there's not a good bone in his body. Therefore, the man we see on the television spreading a message of peace and love is a hoax. He's a liar. A fake. He's putting that face on to trick us; to distract us; to try to hide who he really is: a murdering bigot who is essentially bad.

One is presumed to be good. The other is presumed to be bad. But I think something is wrong with this picture. Neither, of course, is essentially good nor bad. Only our perceptions are twisted.

For Bush, "proper" pardons only.

On Tuesday, George Bush pardoned Isaac Robert Toussie, a felon who pled guilty and was convicted of making false statements to the Housing and Urban Development Department and of mail fraud. On Wednesday, that pardon was revoked because the White House (a metanym for “Bush”) wanted to avoid creating “an appearance of impropriety,” after it was discovered that Toussie’s father was a major RNC contributor.

Let’s put this in perspective. Pardon’s are a special privilege that empowers presidents to basically say, “fu*k the law and courts, I’ve decided to let the guy off scot free!” There can be almost no pretext about the use of this privilege to set things right or “do the right thing,” even thought I’m aware that it has, in fact, been used in such a way in the past (draft dodgers, Confederate vets, etc.) Usually, it’s a way of helping out friends, allies, or colleagues.

So why is it all of a sudden not okay to pardon Toussie because his dad was an RNC contributor or that he might have been a bit more unsavory then expected? He’s a criminal and Bush sought to get him off the hook. So he’s a bribing criminal and that’s over the line?

My question is this: Bush is trying to avoid impropriety but are any pardons of convicted criminals really "proper."

Thanks for commenting.

JR Tokai tugs at my nostaglia bone

Only some of you will appreciate these but for those who do, I challenge you not to choke up at least once.

1988-1992


2000

Is Japan in the Realm of a Dying Emperor?

The Japanese emperor, who turns 75 today, is reportedly not feeling well and is suffering from stress.

The part of this news article I found most interesting was the last sentence that suggest a possible imperial schism. Wouldn't that make things interesting?

AusAid near top of Clinton Foundation Donors List

Last week, the Clinton Foundation released its donors list. Doing so was apparently a stipulation attached to his wife's being offered the Sec. of State position.

Very near the top of that list was an acronym that many Americans scrutinizing the list would not have recognized: AUSAID, Australia's official aid organization. It apparently donated an amount somewhere between 10 and 25 million US dollars. A search for "USAID," unfortunately, turned up only one hit. Yes, "AUSAID." Hum, conspicuously absent? Probably not. I also noticed that Norway gave a hefty sum (but Norway's flat stinkin' rich).

Reflecting on my Impending Trip to Japan

The Dark Knight: Watch it

The Dark Knight is out on DVD. Watch it. It's the best film I've seen in too long.