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.