Invoking disagreement
President-elect Obama can have all the ponies he wants, as far as I’m concerned, when he gets inaugurated. And if he gets us out of Iraq, closes Gitmo, creates 5 million green jobs, and provides health care to all he can have many many more. It’s for this reason that I’m not overly concerned with his desire to have Pastor Rick Warren give an invocation at the inauguration. I don’t particularly think we need an invocation, but it would probably annoy more people to not have one. I’d rather have Jeramiah Wright though.
Of course, though, I’m not gay, so I’m not as naturally upset as those who are, especially since he worked to defeat Prop 8. However, to my friends on their high horses, I believe climate change is the most important of all challenges facing us. If we don’t do something about it, nobody’s getting married. And it’s not like the ERA has gone anywhere, so how about fighting for my equal pay, too. Anyway, weeds.
To those on high horses, there are other things to be mad about, and generate anger over, that are more timely.
However, to my dearest president elect, this reminds me of how you dealt with FISA. You just said, we need to disagree without being disagreeable. Well, I’m going to disagree disagreeably every time you choose not to explain why you are disagreeing with me.
Your press conference today was not one of your better linguistic moments. You start talking about your personal beliefs. Using lots of “I statements.” You say where you disagree with Warren, and then that we need to come together as Americans where we do agree. Then you use passive voice to say “So Rick Warren has been invited to speak.” And then you say lots of other viewpoints will be there so agree with them.
I think you passed up a huge opportunity to explain where you agree with Pastor Warren, that you hold in common. That’s the hope thing we all got behind you for. But don’t go all weaselly passive voice and point to where people would automatically like things. Take it upon yourself to diffuse the disagreement by pointing to why you actually wanted Pastor Warren there. And say you chose him. It’s your inauguration, you’re the decider. Say “I wanted Rick Warren to speak. I admire XXX about him.” Unless you didn’t. In which case he shouldn’t be there if you can’t defend him better.
Maybe I disagree with you. Maybe I disagree with someone you agree with. Give me the opportunity to agree. Don’t just piss me off. It’s uncivil. And unagreeable. I would like some ponies, too.
Comment from legofeel
Time January 18, 2009 at 10:44 am
For all we know, Obama despises Warren and everything he stands for. It is said that there’s a concerted strategy to seduce the opposition. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17532.html
I’d prefer my President elect *not* have to lie by going beyond areas of the most general and meaningless points of agreement (i.e. “We both believe family is important.”)
Sure, if I was gay, it would be even more painful for me to see Warren given *any* semblance of credibility. But I believe Obama has a bigger plan. He is throwing the opposition a few bones that have little or no tangible effect on policy (compared to say, rescinding don’t-ask-don’t-tell.)
This will not stop many people on either side from feeling outrage at times, but Obama can at least cloak himself with the pretense of non-partisanship a little longer. This might help a little when important battles, like Supreme Court nominations, have to be negotiated.
It is likely that Obama’s attempts to seduce or placate the religious right will ultimately fail. They are a difficult bunch to please. Perhaps they will at least become a tad more complacent and less fearful of being displaced by the progress of the ongoing civil rights movement.
All IMO.