Over the last eight years, many of the Bush administration's major political decisions, a disturbing number of their appointments, in fact a great share of the administration's public policy was engineered simply to give the finger to their enemies (and the rest of us). In a similar way, by appointing Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's seat, Illinois' disgraced but unrepentant governor, Rod Blagojevich, just told everyone to f-off. There was a moment during his announcement that he was appointing Burris to fill Obama's seat when Blagojevich couldn't contain himself. After saying, "This man actually once was an opponent of mine for governor," Blagojevich paused, smirked, and licked his lips. It was unmistakable: he was flipping us off. He was saying: try to stop me from doing this.
Any policy (or appointment) made simply to demonstrate contempt for the process, or the people, or to tell opponents or the public to f-off, is bad public policy. There is a reason we call our elected officials public servants. Because, ideally, they are elected to serve our interests. When George Bush proposes Harriet Miers for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, or Blagojevich appoints Burris to fill Obama's seat, we should see the choices as they were intended, as an insult. As an expression of bitterness or hubristic presumption. A poke in the eye. No one should be suprised that Bush and Blagojevich think and act this way. Or that they place themselves - rather than the public - at the center of all policy choices they make. Over their years in their current offices, they have demonstrated that they are enormous, unapologetic assholes.
Which brings me to Roland Burris and Bobby Rush. It turns out they are a-holes too. That's a bit more of a surprise. It seems clear that Burris is along for the ride because he wants to claim an office that fits with his exaggerated view of his own worth. At 71, he is likely thinking about his legacy. And looking back at three failed attempts to become governor, one failed run at the Senate, and a failed effort to become Mayor of Chicago, Burris grabbed the chance to be handed an office he could have never won on his own. Sad? Maybe a little. But, in the framework of the conversation we just had, he's clearly a poor choice for public service. He wants the office for entirely personal reasons. For his own self-aggrandizement, or fame, or as a prize for years spent laboring in low-visibility offices. He can't possibly believe he can actually make a contribution to public policy or to the citizens of Illinois. Only a deeply, deeply deluded politician could believe he could accomplish anything under the cloud of suspicion that would undoubtedly darken any appointment made by Blagojevich.
And Bobby Rush - my god - he is a champion arse-hole. Still mad that Obama challenged him for his congressional seat eight years ago, and obviously angry that Obama has rolled a series of doubles and jumped far, far ahead of him on the gameboard of life, Rush showed up alongside Blagojevich to preemptively paint opposition to Burris as a "lynching." Not content with that, he went on the morning news shows today to suggest opposition to Burris' appointment was analogous to the work of those who stood up to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South. There is no way to rationally make this claim. Rush was deliberately and self-servingly positioning this fight as a continuation of the civil rights struggle. Among the many misguided things Rush might be aiming to achieve, one, I am certain, is to portray Obama's principled opposition to Blagojevich's nomination of Burris as a betrayal. As he did in 2000, when Obama ran against him in the contest to retain his seat in Congress, Rush wants to depict Obama as insufficiently Black or worse, as an Uncle Tom, helping delay the advancement of the African American community.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Intolerance at the Inauguration
There has been a firestorm over Barack Obama's invitation to Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren's conservative evangelical faith - and his homophobia - has caused many of us who supported Obama to blink, or in some cases to rage.
But, let's pause a second. The very idea that we have a prayer before we swear in our President is profoundly misguided. Offering a prayer before an important civic ceremony like this is offensive, to those who don't have religious beliefs, to those whose commitment to faith takes a non-traditional form, and to those who firmly believe, as I do, that government should be free from religious vestments.
Realistically, we are not at a place in our collective life where the invocation can be dropped. So somebody has to do it. I wish it could have been my friend Alison Boden, formerly the chaplain at the University of Chicago, and now Dean of Religious Life at Princeton. Alison practices a humane and inclusive version of Christianity. But politics being what it is - Will Rogers once referred to politics as applesauce - it was necessary to pick someone who had majority appeal. And Warren seems to have that. Author of the best-selling book The Purpose-Driven Life, Warren is about as mainstream as you get. For a generation, America's Presidents called Billy Graham to deliver the inaugural invocation. And Warren is, in many respects, a natural heir to Billy Graham. The Purpose-Driven Life is still a top-selling book, even six years after its publication. And when someone somewhere decided that Obama and John McCain needed to hold a dialogue on religion this autumn, Warren seemed like the most likely host.
Politics - and perhaps Obama's own Christian faith - compelled him to pick a pastor to deliver the invocation. From a political perspective, Warren was the obvious choice. Of course it could have been more courageous to pick an imam, at this moment in our collective life when Islam is distrusted and misunderstood. But if the choice is principally a political choice, then courageousness isn't really what we are concerned with. Politics is the art of the possible - assembling necessary numbers to win votes, pushing through measures, even watered-down measures, when one can, waiting until the opportunity is right to push through more ambitious policy shifts. Smart politics is characterized by caution, not courage. It's about reading the winds, not plowing forward into the perfect storm no matter what. Selecting an imam to deliver the invocation would have been impossible for Obama - a large part of the country still is unsure whether he is a muslim or not. Picking an imam to lead prayers at his inauguration would have triggered a flood of right wing emails - each one starting with "I told you so."
Let's say something here that perhaps needs to be said: for all of you who believed that Obama was going to end politics, it's time to wake up and reconnect with the facts on the ground. Politics still matters. It always will. Politics is the machinery we have - the process we employ - to pick leaders and build consensus (or at least support) for what those leaders choose to do. What matters, though, is law and policy. Will Obama embrace progressive policies? Will he nominate progressive judges? Will he reengineer our policy-making process - in so far as he can - so lobbyists don't determine our national agenda and kill policies we need (to build greener industries and to achieve meaningful change in the delivery of health care, to name two priorities). Will he map out approaches to move the country toward ambitious changes that are unimaginable now?
Picking Warren to deliver the invocation is applesauce - to borrow Will Rogers' characterization. The meat and potatoes is the policy agenda that follows the inaugural festivities. Is Warren intolerant? Yes he is. As is the vast majority of America. The good news is that anti-gay bigotry is dying, and Warren's views won't matter 25 years from now. He is on the losing side of the issue. The success of supporters of Proposition 8 is a last gasp. This form of discrimination, this particular expression of intolerance, will be swept away when the generation that still holds anti-gay views are displaced in the political landscape by the young voters who overwhelmingly support gay rights. I'm not saying we should wait for that day. What I am saying is this: political choices like picking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration have no lasting consequence, what matters is the laws we pass and the judges we pick to interpret those laws. The insult is the passage of Proposition 8, and overturning it should be a priority. Picking Warren to deliver the invocation is just politics. It is treading water, while we wait for the opportunity to steer the country forward.
But, let's pause a second. The very idea that we have a prayer before we swear in our President is profoundly misguided. Offering a prayer before an important civic ceremony like this is offensive, to those who don't have religious beliefs, to those whose commitment to faith takes a non-traditional form, and to those who firmly believe, as I do, that government should be free from religious vestments.
Realistically, we are not at a place in our collective life where the invocation can be dropped. So somebody has to do it. I wish it could have been my friend Alison Boden, formerly the chaplain at the University of Chicago, and now Dean of Religious Life at Princeton. Alison practices a humane and inclusive version of Christianity. But politics being what it is - Will Rogers once referred to politics as applesauce - it was necessary to pick someone who had majority appeal. And Warren seems to have that. Author of the best-selling book The Purpose-Driven Life, Warren is about as mainstream as you get. For a generation, America's Presidents called Billy Graham to deliver the inaugural invocation. And Warren is, in many respects, a natural heir to Billy Graham. The Purpose-Driven Life is still a top-selling book, even six years after its publication. And when someone somewhere decided that Obama and John McCain needed to hold a dialogue on religion this autumn, Warren seemed like the most likely host.
Politics - and perhaps Obama's own Christian faith - compelled him to pick a pastor to deliver the invocation. From a political perspective, Warren was the obvious choice. Of course it could have been more courageous to pick an imam, at this moment in our collective life when Islam is distrusted and misunderstood. But if the choice is principally a political choice, then courageousness isn't really what we are concerned with. Politics is the art of the possible - assembling necessary numbers to win votes, pushing through measures, even watered-down measures, when one can, waiting until the opportunity is right to push through more ambitious policy shifts. Smart politics is characterized by caution, not courage. It's about reading the winds, not plowing forward into the perfect storm no matter what. Selecting an imam to deliver the invocation would have been impossible for Obama - a large part of the country still is unsure whether he is a muslim or not. Picking an imam to lead prayers at his inauguration would have triggered a flood of right wing emails - each one starting with "I told you so."
Let's say something here that perhaps needs to be said: for all of you who believed that Obama was going to end politics, it's time to wake up and reconnect with the facts on the ground. Politics still matters. It always will. Politics is the machinery we have - the process we employ - to pick leaders and build consensus (or at least support) for what those leaders choose to do. What matters, though, is law and policy. Will Obama embrace progressive policies? Will he nominate progressive judges? Will he reengineer our policy-making process - in so far as he can - so lobbyists don't determine our national agenda and kill policies we need (to build greener industries and to achieve meaningful change in the delivery of health care, to name two priorities). Will he map out approaches to move the country toward ambitious changes that are unimaginable now?
Picking Warren to deliver the invocation is applesauce - to borrow Will Rogers' characterization. The meat and potatoes is the policy agenda that follows the inaugural festivities. Is Warren intolerant? Yes he is. As is the vast majority of America. The good news is that anti-gay bigotry is dying, and Warren's views won't matter 25 years from now. He is on the losing side of the issue. The success of supporters of Proposition 8 is a last gasp. This form of discrimination, this particular expression of intolerance, will be swept away when the generation that still holds anti-gay views are displaced in the political landscape by the young voters who overwhelmingly support gay rights. I'm not saying we should wait for that day. What I am saying is this: political choices like picking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration have no lasting consequence, what matters is the laws we pass and the judges we pick to interpret those laws. The insult is the passage of Proposition 8, and overturning it should be a priority. Picking Warren to deliver the invocation is just politics. It is treading water, while we wait for the opportunity to steer the country forward.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Obligatory shout-out from the other side of the world
Rod Blagojevich. I don't know where to begin. The more we learn about the depths of my governor's malfeasance the more my mind reels. The guy is like the Charles Manson of political corruption. He is awful. He has managed to contaminate the Obama transition, ended the political career of Jesse Jackson, Jr., may end up derailing Rahm Emanual's brief - hell, anticipated - tenure as Chief of Staff, and almost assuredly cost Chicago the 2016 Olympics. Okay, maybe it's a good thing he spoiled Chicago's Olympic bid.
I'm typing this up while sitting in the airport in Seoul, waiting for a flight to Hong Kong. On the way over here I watched The Dark Knight on the plane. The Dark Knight was filmed in Chicago, but takes a detour to visit Hong Kong. Seoul hosted an Olympics, Chicago is trying to. In my sleepy head, all of these things are tied up together in a mysterious web of significance. The Dark Knight is about the societal cost of corruption and bad government (and, as all the critics pointed out, also about terrorism). In the end, it seems to argue, we need public servants who are selfless, who devote their lives to serve us. While everyone was going on and on about how the movie parallels our current faustian bargain in the "war on terror" - the way we have embraced torture and vigilanteism (I mean, what else is Blackwater but a professional vigilante force) - the movie is also about bad government. Forget what I said about Blagojevich being Charles Manson. He's the Joker.
I'm typing this up while sitting in the airport in Seoul, waiting for a flight to Hong Kong. On the way over here I watched The Dark Knight on the plane. The Dark Knight was filmed in Chicago, but takes a detour to visit Hong Kong. Seoul hosted an Olympics, Chicago is trying to. In my sleepy head, all of these things are tied up together in a mysterious web of significance. The Dark Knight is about the societal cost of corruption and bad government (and, as all the critics pointed out, also about terrorism). In the end, it seems to argue, we need public servants who are selfless, who devote their lives to serve us. While everyone was going on and on about how the movie parallels our current faustian bargain in the "war on terror" - the way we have embraced torture and vigilanteism (I mean, what else is Blackwater but a professional vigilante force) - the movie is also about bad government. Forget what I said about Blagojevich being Charles Manson. He's the Joker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
