President-elect Obama’s decision to have Pastor Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration has ignited the expected firestorm. Pastor Warren opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage, and how could a liberal Democrat like Obama make such a choice?
Similar criticism was aimed at Republican John McCain when Sarah Palin was named as his running mate. as many of her views were far to the right of his. If the goal was to appeal to the GOP’s conservative base while hanging on to McCain’s own constituency, it didn’t work.
While the choice of Palin may have seemed like a Hail Mary pass, Obama was on solid pastoral ground when choosing Warren, who is considered one of the most influential of his ilk in America today. He has been invited to speak at the U.N. as well as other prestigious venues. As the Billy Grahams and Robert Schullers fade into history, it will be clergy members like Rick Warren taking their place.
But what was Obama trying to say with this choice? It’s OK to try to turn your administration into some kind of big tent. But others who have tried forced inclusiveness have found that it’s a bad strategy, and I agree with those who believe Obama made a mistake with this selection.
Then there’s the question of consequences. Pastor Warren will go down in history as the invocation giver, but then his job is done. It’s not as if Obama named him a cabinet secretary. I think it did damage to Obama’s image, but certainly not irreparable damage.
While it seems Obama’s trademark ears were made of tin in this case, there are a lot more important issues to worry about now, which may be his saving grace from a PR standpoint. But you just can’t put all kinds of kids in the sandbox and expect them to play together nicely.
There, now I’ve said it.
No comments:
Post a Comment