|
EDITORIAL | OBAMA's iNAUGURATION PICk
Courting Warren
President-elect Barack Obama takes his oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, to become the nation's 44th Chief Executive. This is the 60th anniversary of Harry S Truman's swearing-in, at which the late Rabbi Samuel Thurman of United Hebrew Congregation became the first rabbi to deliver a Presidential inaugural invocation.
Another religious leader is front and center this time around. The Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church is Obama's controversial choice to deliver the invocation at the inaugural. Warren's invitation, along with other recent decisions and conduct, speak volumes about what we may see from an Obama administration. If so, we applaud the approach.
The choice of Warren is admittedly unconventional, as he espouses views on several social issues that deviate significantly from the core Democratic constituency. The reverend opposes the pro-choice platform on women's reproductive rights. And while he and Obama both oppose same sex marriage, Warren states his opposition in much more strident terms, likening gay and lesbian marriages to those between siblings.
Many voters who supported Obama in the election expressed dismay over the choice of Warren, especially leaders of the gay and lesbian community. That same leadership was smarting from the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which overturned a court ruling upholding same-sex marriages (the proposition is being challenged as violative of the California State Constitution).
The concerns of pro-choice and gay and lesbian supporters of President Obama are certainly serious and understandable. However, the invitation to Warren is consistent with Obama's often repeated pledge to be an "inclusive" President who builds dialogue and connections with those of varying ideologies and perspectives. Moreover, Warren's views include some that are consonant with many of Obama's on issues of social justice and the environment.
Obama's governing approach and Cabinet appointments have drawn myriad comparisons to President Abraham Lincoln and his "Team of Rivals," as depicted in Doris Kearns Goodwin's best-selling book. The Warren news seems simply the latest iteration of this methodogy that's resulted in a diverse and eclectic body of advisors and advocates:
* Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of Defense in succession of Donald Rumsfeld, has been held over into the new administration.
* Hilary Clinton, Obama's fiercest rival in the Democratic primaries, will certainly be ratified as the next Secretary of State.
* In discussions on Israel, groups as right-leaning as the Zionist Organization of America and as left-leaning as the J Street Lobby have joined AIPAC at the table.
What's to be made of all this? Is an inclusive methodology indicative of courage, of compromise, or both?
We think that inviting disparate voices demonstrates strength of character. As our Prophet Isaiah, quoted frequently by President Lyndon B. Johnson, said, "Come, let us reason together." A seat at the table does not imply agreement or acceptance, but rather understanding and respect, and the prospect of better decisionmaking.
President Bush was oft criticized for having an insular body of advisors, disinclined to listen to competing views and voices. Now we have a president who is at least apparently desirous of hearing from those who may overtly disagree with him, both within and without his party. This is an enormously positive attribute.
By inviting Warren, Obama is reaching out to a large constituency of religious Americans, many of whom have drifted to the right in American politics. Without dialogue, the chasm will expand. With dialogue, the potential for common ground on at least some major issues — poverty, hunger, environment and health care, to name a few — can blossom. And who knows, with consensus built on those issues, perhaps a bridge can be constructed to support dialogue on others.
Rabbi Thurman's invocation praised the courage of President Truman for having recognized the State of Israel only 11 minutes after it was proclaimed, establishing the legacy of bipartisan support for our sister democracy that lasts to this very day. We trust that Warren's presence signals the potential for creating broadbased moral and political support for the pressing matters of these very difficult times.
EDITORIAL | OBAMA's iNAUGURATION PICk
Courting Warren
President-elect Barack Obama takes his oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, to become the nation's 44th Chief Executive. This is the 60th anniversary of Harry S Truman's swearing-in, at which the late Rabbi Samuel Thurman of United Hebrew Congregation became the first rabbi to deliver a Presidential inaugural invocation.
Another religious leader is front and center this time around. The Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church is Obama's controversial choice to deliver the invocation at the inaugural. Warren's invitation, along with other recent decisions and conduct, speak volumes about what we may see from an Obama administration. If so, we applaud the approach.
The choice of Warren is admittedly unconventional, as he espouses views on several social issues that deviate significantly from the core Democratic constituency. The reverend opposes the pro-choice platform on women's reproductive rights. And while he and Obama both oppose same sex marriage, Warren states his opposition in much more strident terms, likening gay and lesbian marriages to those between siblings.
Many voters who supported Obama in the election expressed dismay over the choice of Warren, especially leaders of the gay and lesbian community. That same leadership was smarting from the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which overturned a court ruling upholding same-sex marriages (the proposition is being challenged as violative of the California State Constitution).
The concerns of pro-choice and gay and lesbian supporters of President Obama are certainly serious and understandable. However, the invitation to Warren is consistent with Obama's often repeated pledge to be an "inclusive" President who builds dialogue and connections with those of varying ideologies and perspectives. Moreover, Warren's views include some that are consonant with many of Obama's on issues of social justice and the environment.
Obama's governing approach and Cabinet appointments have drawn myriad comparisons to President Abraham Lincoln and his "Team of Rivals," as depicted in Doris Kearns Goodwin's best-selling book. The Warren news seems simply the latest iteration of this methodogy that's resulted in a diverse and eclectic body of advisors and advocates:
* Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of Defense in succession of Donald Rumsfeld, has been held over into the new administration.
* Hilary Clinton, Obama's fiercest rival in the Democratic primaries, will certainly be ratified as the next Secretary of State.
* In discussions on Israel, groups as right-leaning as the Zionist Organization of America and as left-leaning as the J Street Lobby have joined AIPAC at the table.
What's to be made of all this? Is an inclusive methodology indicative of courage, of compromise, or both?
We think that inviting disparate voices demonstrates strength of character. As our Prophet Isaiah, quoted frequently by President Lyndon B. Johnson, said, "Come, let us reason together." A seat at the table does not imply agreement or acceptance, but rather understanding and respect, and the prospect of better decisionmaking.
President Bush was oft criticized for having an insular body of advisors, disinclined to listen to competing views and voices. Now we have a president who is at least apparently desirous of hearing from those who may overtly disagree with him, both within and without his party. This is an enormously positive attribute.
By inviting Warren, Obama is reaching out to a large constituency of religious Americans, many of whom have drifted to the right in American politics. Without dialogue, the chasm will expand. With dialogue, the potential for common ground on at least some major issues — poverty, hunger, environment and health care, to name a few — can blossom. And who knows, with consensus built on those issues, perhaps a bridge can be constructed to support dialogue on others.
Rabbi Thurman's invocation praised the courage of President Truman for having recognized the State of Israel only 11 minutes after it was proclaimed, establishing the legacy of bipartisan support for our sister democracy that lasts to this very day. We trust that Warren's presence signals the potential for creating broadbased moral and political support for the pressing matters of these very difficult times.
|
