Many look at the fact that Joseph Lowery will be present at the inauguration and cite his credentials in the civil rights movement in America as reason that it is “okay.”
But, if that justifies this, then we will be in for a presidency where somebody like John Yoo and someone from Amnesty International decides the policy on torture. We will be in for a presidency where someone like Michael Crichton (who died recently) and somebody like Al Gore decide the policy on global warming. We will be in for a presidency where somebody from SEIU and somebody from Wal-Mart decide the future of unions.
Consider the fact that right now a person on the fringe right has more chance of influencing Obama's transition than a person the fringe left. Think about it --- Mike Pence has more of a chance of influencing Obama than Dennis Kucinich. How backwards is that?
At some point, progressives and liberals have to admit that inclusiveness that throws truth and reality and logic and humanity under the bus is not reasonable at all. And it may seem unreasonable to explain to Obama that one does not support his all-inclusive decisions, but if they produce outcomes like this one concerning Pastor Warren, Obama’s leadership may not be the hope and change America needs.
The inauguration will be linked to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement in America.
Jeffrey Feldman put Obama’s decision into historical context:
Thinking about Obama's presidency in terms of an 'epicenter' of civil rights changes how we think about Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration.
Rick Warren is not just a pastor opposed to gay rights. He is a highly political leader of a mega-church who has compared abortion to the Holocaust and opposed marriage reform in terms equivalent to the bigoted plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia -- the landmark 1967 civil rights case overturning anti-miscegenation marriage laws. In an era where gay rights are the epicenter, Rick Warren is a widely recognized voice arguing against those rights.
Translating Rick Warren into the terms of previous civil rights eras is the key to seeing why his role at Obama's inauguration is so troubling. By comparison, if this were Lincoln's inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent pro-slavery pastor giving the invocation. If this were Wilson's inauguration, Rick Warren would have been the equivalent of an anti-women's suffrage pastor saying a prayer. For FDR, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor opposed to rights for the poor. For Kennedy, he would have been the same as inviting a pastor who spoke out repeatedly about the dangers of desegregation.
In each of these cases, for the president-elect to invite the a voice known for arguing against progress -- and to do so in the name of political peacemaking, as Barack Obama has done with Rick Warren -- would have revealed a tinkerer on civil rights, not a leader.
The denial of marriage rights for certain Americans is not, of course, a "social issue," as President-elect Obama has argued. Like the denial of citizenship to African-Americans, the denial of voting rights to women, the denial of basic needs to the impoverished, and the refusal to dismantle Jim Crow laws, the denial of marriage rights is a persistent failure in our system. It is a failure that cannot be fixed by tinkering with politics. It can only be fixed by persistent vision and leadership.
Americans must demand persistent vision and leadership. And part of that demand must include expectations that progress cannot and will not be made with leaders like Pastor Warren at the forefront.
