A lot of people I know and care about and respect are upset--furious, even--about the announcement that Rev. Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. When I heard the news, I was disappointed too. It seemed out of keeping with the change Obama had promised throughout the campaign.
But the more I thought about it--from a perspective of having essentially lived with Obama for months, watching him on the trail, studying him, writing about him--the more I think there are a lot of good reasons for the choice of Warren, and furthermore, that it's exactly the sort of decision we should expect from Obama, and the reason we voted for him.
Obama is human, and a politician, so on both counts he will disappoint most of us many times. No politician who never disappointed me would ever be elected once, let alone multiple times. So I don't expect to agree with all of his decisions, and neither should anyone else. If he makes any decision lightly, without due consideration, though, I haven't seen evidence of it.
His slogan, "Yes we can," is the perfect slogan for his candidacy and, I hope, for his presidency. On a symbolic level, it's vague enough to mean different things to different people. But on a practical level, when you get down to governing, it takes on very specific meaning. The first definition of "can" in my handy dictionary is "physical or mental ability." Yes we can means yes, we as a people--and we as a government--have the ability to do things that are in the best interests of our country.
To me, the hope and change that Obama promised is not that he'll replace an ideologically conservative administration with an ideologically liberal one. That's change, but not fundamental change.
When Bush was--well, not elected, but you know--he promised to be a uniter, not a divider. But that was lip service. His administration was, from day one, dedicated to promoting the divisions in society. Every decision made was predicated on ideological goals, not practical ones. The administration had an agenda and a plan for carrying out that agenda, and a further plan for dressing that agenda in ways that would make it seem appealing to the conservative base that voted for Bush in the first place.
Now we know (as many of us predicted during the 2000 campaign) that Bush's agenda was destructive to the country. A government that doesn't believe in government, that doesn't value it except to the extent that it can serve the narrow interests of a chosen few, doesn't make good decisions for America. They've made us less safe, damaged our economy, lost most of a major American city, hurt our moral standing in the world, shredded important aspects of our Constitution.
To recover from this disastrous incompetence, we need a government of competence. We need an administration that will act not out of ideology (never mind if that ideology might be more in keeping with our own) but out of practical need. We need a government that works. That's the promise of "Yes we can." That's the hope and change Obama was talking about.
The choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation comes from the same clever blending of symbolism and substance as that slogan did. It would have been easy, and expected, for Obama to find a member of the clergy whose social and political views more closely match his own. That would have made many of those who voted for him feel justified--see, he's one of us. But it would not have engaged those who didn't vote for him, or whose votes were cast hesitantly based largely on the fact that John McCain's campaign imploded in such ugly ways. Even people who didn't vote for Obama have great hopes for him, thus his 70% approval ratings during the transition. Obama needs to be president of those people, and the people who would never vote for him under any circumstances, as well as of the people who already support him. Letting Warren pray is a sign to those people that they are included in his presidency, and it's an important step toward an administration that will not be ideologically driven.
Obama functions on many levels at once. He likes to play poker, but I don't think I'd want to play 3-dimensional chess against him. Because underlying the layers of symbolism of the Warren choice--yes, I work for all Americans, yes, your voices will be heard too, yes, I acknowledge, despite our differences, that you are also Americans--are some decidely practical considerations.
Obama wants to be reelected. He hasn't taken office yet, but he has put forth an ambitious agenda, and it'll take more than four years to bring it all to fruition. Among the many demographic groups that voted for him were evangelicals, particularly young ones, who came to Obama in far greater numbers than they had to Kerry or Gore. That's a fundamental shift, and if Democrats can continue to peel evangelicals away from Republicans, it'll be good for the party in the long run.
More significantly, though--and this is really the important part of this long ramble--Obama wants to govern effectively. He knows the challenges he'll face in a few weeks, and they are massive. He'll need all the help he can get, and if he can do it with limited Republican obstruction, so much the better.
Rick Warren is an important evangelical--I would say the most important one in the country at this point. The last generation are dinosaurs--Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and their breed. Their influence has dimmed and will dim further. But Warren is young, incredibly popular, and on some issues--if not on the issue of gay equality in particular--he and Obama see more or less eye to eye. He's the future of the evangelical movement.
By bringing him onto that stage next month, Obama blunts him, to an extent. Warren will certainly argue against some of the things Obama wants to do, and he'll use his influence to support those in Congress and around the country who oppose Obama. But at the same time, Warren's followers will have to look at January 20, 2009, and think, "President Obama is a person who Rick Warren respects." By delivering the invocation, Warren certifies Obama's election for them. Obama is reaching out to tell all Americans that he's their president, and Warren confirms, for his followers, that Obama does in fact represent them. Because that happens in the very beginning, the knives Warren wields in the future will never be quite as sharp as the ones used against Clinton. Evangelicals who do want to use sharper edges will look increasingly irrelevant, because they'll be trying to use ideology to interfere with competent practicality.
In the end, it'll be Obama, not Warren, who makes policy. Obama has described himself as a "fierce advocate" for the rights and equality of gay and lesbian Americans. That in itself is nearly as historic as the fact that he's our first African-American president, expecially if he goes on to govern in a way that proves his contention. There's no reason to think he won't. And if giving Warren this one moment on the stage gets Warren off his back and allows him to govern, it's well worth it.
