The Coming of the Messiah

The Messiah is coming. It will be a glorious day... no more will mankind suffer war, hunger or want... He will be loved by all.

Until He cannot live up to everything expected of Him after January 20th.

I jest. But only just. Barack Obama's inauguration is likely the most anticipated swearing in of a U.S. President in over a century, and possibly two. More than Reagan, more than either Roosevelt, and I would argue even more then Kennedy. I doubt there has been as much public excitement over a new president since Andrew Jackson became our seventh President of the United States. Kennedy barely won over Nixon... Reagan was popular but distrusted... Lincoln's election precipitated the secession of South Carolina. We have not seen a phenomenon like this before.

Living in Washington D.C. gives me a unique perspective on the excitement - two million people are estimated to be coming downtown. As many as five million may come into the area. The reason only two million ... let me say that again... ONLY... TWO... MILLION... will be downtown because that is the MAXIMUM the DC Metro and 50,000 charter buses coming into the city will be able to carry. There is no precedent for this type of crowd. Period.

For the record, I plan on staying in my house for four straight days.

Also for the record, I am very proud Obama will be our President. I have closely followed his cabinet picks, and agree with other writers on this blog that his choices have been judicious and non-partisan. His choices are well-qualified, pragmatic and are not ideologues. As a group they are not neo-cons, liberals, greens, progressives... they are reflective of Obama's intention to surround himself with people with whom he may disagree. Yet by his actions, he has demonstrated a belief that no single group holds a monopoly on the truth - or good ideas. Yet these same picks will make Obama's honeymoon with his most fervent supporters is likely to be short. And hardly sweet.

Obama's problems will not stem from an inability to meet campaign promises. He never said anything like "Read my lips. No new taxes." In fact, Obama made few concrete or quantifiable promises on the campaign trail... his one promise to remove most "combat" troops from Iraq within 16 months will be possible only because the surge he opposed has been so successful. (Of note, the architects of that surge will be working for Obama - Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense and General David Petraeus as Commander, US Central Command) No, Obama's problem will not be with anything he promised, or even said. His problem will be with what he did NOT say, but what has been projected upon him.

He will champion Gay rights.
The United States will become the world leader in fighting climate change.
We will ratify the Kyoto accord.
We will intervene in Sudan. (which is different from Iraq how?)
The UAW will be able to renegotiate the GM/Chrysler bailout provisions.
He will oppose offshore drilling.
He will restore affirmative action.
Palestine will achieve statehood.
He will raise taxes on the "rich" and lower taxes for the "middle class."
He will end the "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Guantanamo Bay will be closed (as a prison for "enemy combatants")
Etc, etc, etc.

More likely, he will compromise and earn the enmity of the true believers who will feel personally betrayed.

Obama was elected on a mantra of "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can." But I didn't vote for Obama because of the empty rhetoric. I voted for him because I saw an intelligent man who I thought would make informed decisions as President, and not a "decider" who would go on instinct. Obama has the chance - and intellectual acumen - to be a great President. But to become so, he will need to be President for all Americans. Perhaps that is the greatest lesson he can learn from George W. Bush.

Bush Jr. was elected as a "compassionate conservative" and a bipartisan "uniter," but he governed as a neo-con and social conservative, eschewing cooperation with Democrats, who were frequently labeled un-patriotic and God-hating baby-killers. (Thank you for your contribution to American political discourse Ms. Coulter). The result - not coincidentally - is the lowest approval rating in the history of such ratings. Bush has so poisoned his relations with Democrats, moderates and our international allies that the pragmatic and intelligence policies his administration has attempted to carry out in the post-Rumsfield, Feith, Wolfowitz and Bolton era have been ignored and even pilloried only because they have been promoted by Bush. The change in policy in Iraq, the massive AIDS prevention efforts and aid to Africa, the diplomatic coordination of policy on Iran and North Korea have all received no credit.

Obama would be wise to remember this example. And we all would be wise to remember he is not the messiah. He cannot solve all our problems for us, will not bring universal prosperity, and may not even be able to fulfill some of his most important goals. But in the end, he may bring us real change we can believe in - an administration that determines policy based on merits and not hunches. And we would all be wise to give him that chance.

Rick Warren on Inauguration Day

I am one of those Barack Obama supporters who has rolled his eyes at the hyperventilation from some on the left that Obama has "betrayed" the left wing and the liberal agenda. For example, Obama's selection of Robert Gates to continue to lead the Department of Defense was met with, from some, shock and anger, because surely no one serving under the Bush administration-- the same administration that pursued a fierce and monolithic ideological neoconservative agenda (including initiating an unwise and unjustified war against Iraq and dragging our country into seemingly perpetual war)-- would be allowed to continue his tenure under Barack Obama, the one candidate for the Democratic nomination for president who came out early and hard against the war in Iraq. Well, the fact is, Robert Gates has done a good job, and our defense policy has taken a number of intelligent and pragmatic steps since he took over, starting with an emphasis on diplomacy and ending with a smarter management style (remember Rummy? *whew*).

I have been very happy with Obama's selections for his top advisers in the Cabinet and otherwise. I think he has chosen competence--regardless of party-- over fulfilling political obligations or rewarding cronies, and that bodes well for his governance of the country. We have seen what happens when a president installs, say, a gentleman most experienced in judging Arabian horses to be the head of FEMA (Michael Brown). The country is tired of incompetence and cronyism and especially cannot afford to have it in government at this very challenging economic time.

But I think Obama went a bit too far with his inclusionary philosophy in his selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. Here is what Obama said in defending his choice:

"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about. That's part of the magic of this country ... we are diverse and noisy and opinionated."

Rick Warren does not believe in evolution, adamantly opposes all forms of abortion, adamantly opposes gay marriage and does not affirm or even tolerate gays or transgender people. He also despises atheistic and agnostic points of view; i.e., if it were up to him, those viewpoints would not be tolerated. For all the touchy-feeliness of the guy and his image, he's a staunch, hardline Christian conservative. Including him in the inauguration ceremony does not add to diversity or inclusiveness, it subtracts from it, because, if it were up to him, many of the other people on the podium and in the crowd would not be participants. It's like adding a piece of poo to your salad. Sure, it's got more stuff in it, but it surely isn't better.

Can you imagine John F. Kennedy inviting a racist Southern Baptist minister to deliver the invocation back on his Inauguration Day? Because, guess what the prevailing view was among white conservative Christians in the South in 1961? Blacks should be segregated from whites, and black and white people should not marry (one notable exception here, incidentally, was Billy Graham, who famously opposed segregation; but note that he was the exception and famously opposed segregation--i.e., he's famous for that act because it stood in contrast to what everyone else was doing). How would that have been inclusion in any sense of the word beyond the physical addition of another living, breathing human body? The parallels are striking.

There is a difference between reaching out and condoning. Allowing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at President-Elect Barack Obama's inauguration is putting an official imprimatur of approval on his views. Invitation, yes. Participation in the ceremony, no.

Granted, the decision to include Rick Warren in the ceremony is not a policy decision, merely a symbolic gesture. But symbols matter, and in this case, Obama just made his first error in judgment.