Symbolism is important but it's not everything

I have received some email from people who are rather irate over the selection of Rick Warren to speak/pray at the inauguration and I would like to ask these folks to reconsider their position.  

While I am not in favor of Rick Warren -- or any religious observances in our government’s affairs, for that matter -- I think it is important to hold a broader perspective.  First, we supported Obama because "he could reach across the aisle."  I find that it is easy to be bipartisanship as long as that means "the other side agrees with us" but it' something else when we’re the ones making compromises.

Obama has been very open about being a religious person.  Much of America sees itself as religious, if not Christian and there has been a rather vocal religious faction that remained outside Obama's tent. In my mind, picking Warren is a symbolic gesture to prove to "those who [he] has yet to earn their support"  that he will be their leader too.  

For me, too much is at stake to throw the agenda baby out with the ceremonial bath water.  In fact, I'm hoping that this is the first attempt to bring these people into Obama's tent and convince them that he isn't so threatening. Our country is too divided for him to immediately tack to the left -- it would only serve to galvanize the electorate around the poles.  In fact, I think Obama is moving very prudently in his selections and, in general, the bulk of America is becoming more comfortable with him, not less. Unlike Bush and Cheney, he is not a radical and this can only help his agenda. (Yes, I think Bush and Cheney were radical in how their political philosophies -- they were just well hidden.)

Regarding Obama’s agenda, he has not deviated from the broad policy goals that we all supported during the campaign and with a broader base of support, he will be more able to enact that agenda.

I think the worst thing we can do at this point is to abandon our support over this symbolic but mostly meaningless, in my opinion, decision.  I don't care who prays or not at the inauguration as long as we get the laws of this country reformed and have a just government again.  America is, generally speaking, a right-of-center country as much as I wish it were otherwise.  However with time and exposure, I think America can learn that the left side of the spectrum is not such a scary place.

Our supporters were so instrumental during the campaign that I would hate for our movement to lose this support.  I hope we can all find the will and space to work within our communities to build the support so Obama can govern and enact the legislation that we hope to see.

Please don't give up the hope so soon.

Independent vs. Democrat in the Era of Obama

I received a couple of questions in a comment to a recent post that I thought deserved a thorough response.

The first question was:

I want to ask about your evolution to a commitment to the Democratic party. I sometimes wonder if the two party structure we've evolved is counter-productive to the examination of multiple viewpoints. Even though I've generally leaned Democratic, I still resist identifying myself as a Democrat, preferring to be "independent".

I have shared this view for a long time and it is the principal reason why I was a non-aligned voter for 25 years. However, I tend not to be a “black and white” thinker which is what particularly pushed me away from the Republican party and the Bush administration.

As with Obama, I chose the Democratic party not so much because of a specific platform but because of a general set of principles that governed its practices. I saw those principles being ones of diversity, empowerment, inclusion, dialogue and respect for the individual that is often balanced with the needs of the community.

When I looked at the two parties, like you, I found myself identifying most often with the Democratic party.

The second question was:

I'd be interested in what is now your clear alignment with the Democratic party. How would you define the party as opposed to the Republican party (which right now seems like an unlikely marriage of two very different groups). Of course, what the parties were historically and what they represent now may be quite different. In either case, I'd be interested in your thinking. What has inspired you to have that identification?

That is a rather difficult question to answer. As frustrating as it may seem, I see people, groups, issues and events as collection of interests or attributes each measured along its own axis or continuum. So, when I think of the Democratic Party, I see a collection of diverse people each with his or he own set and measure of interests. For me that makes it challenging to pin down just exactly what the Democratic Party is and if you ask any two people, “what is XYZ party“, you’ll get differing answers.

As I said, becoming a member of the Democratic party was not so much accepting some pre-determined set of beliefs or issues but deciding to become part of the equation. At any time, the party may have positions in its platform with which I will not agree and I’m OK with that. I believe that is integral to living in a democracy. However, by becoming part of the party, I believe I can add my voice to a collective effort to govern our country.

Over the last several years, I have seen trends in the Republican party -- like the blurring of the boundaries between church and state -- that worry me. In comparison to the principles that I perceived inside the Democratic party, I felt it was important for me to become part of the party that most embodied my world view.

I’ve quoted this line before but when I was a boy the rock band Rush had a song called ”Freewill“ with the lyric, ”"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.“ Ultimately, I felt that ”choosing not to decide“ was abdicating power to a set of principles I did not support so I ”made a choice.”

Now it’s up to me to make of it what I will.