whyroots

A Gchat conversation I just had with a fellow Whyrooter regarding Obama's choice of Rick Warren to bless his inauguration—

Nathan: i guess our prompt was pretty timely :)  what with the rick warren invocation announcement me: yeah no kidding seriously. :)  ughh why why why  why an anti choice anti gay preacher Nathan: i don't know10:44 AM rick warren encapsulates some of the deepest contradictions of evangelicals involved in some progressive movement  progressive causes*  because he's really on board with international development and economic justice  but he's also virulently anti-gay and anti-choice10:45 AM me: exactly  could he not find a single preacher whos progressive both socially and politically?? Nathan: oh i'm sure he could have  he's trying to send some sort of message by picking this guy me: what message is that10:46 AM Nathan: no clue  i don't know  that he can reach across the aisle and pick allies strategically  most likely me: he could strategically pick an ally who doesn't offend women and gays  how about that?10:47 AM Nathan: i don't know  he's really pushing things me: "pushing things"  what the hell does that mean?10:48 AM Nathan: he's pushing the comfort level of lefties me: he has strategically pushed me away! Nathan: exactly  haha  i think he's trying to confound expectations me: and this is good? to embrace backwards thinking people and push progressives away? Nathan: increase comfort levels on the right  when you're about to shove through the most liberal agenda in America's history?  probably10:49 AM me: hm.  that's an interesting theory. Nathan: i mean, if he's doing all this shit and doesn't:  get the troops out of Iraq quickly  institute a cap and trade program10:50 AM universal healthcare  and a huge economic stimulus  then he's just shitting on the left to no apparent purpose me: well that remains to be seen i suppose Nathan: he's actually raising the stakes for the left  as if they could get higher me: no kidding Nathan: i mean, these are already things everyone wants10:51 AM but now it's like, you better deliver or you're a traitor  i dunno  it will be interesting to compare his first term to jimmy carter's  who was seen as ideological at the expense of being effectual  or effective  anyway  i have to go board a plane10:52 AM ttyl me: listen to this though  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/12/18/spaulding/index.html10:53 AM bye bye fly safe.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I was raised an agnostic, have embraced atheism, and am pretty much entirely surrounded by other rejecters of religion. Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign I was awed—and not in a comfortable sense—by the way every candidate professed his or her adoration of Jesus Christ the Lord. Surely, I thought, they are merely being politically expedient. (This political expediency thesis makes it easier for me to understand how a man of Obama's intellect could say he believes in God despite being raised in a decidedly non-religious home and having remained non-religious until early adulthood.)

Despite the secular bubbles I travel in, I am not delusional about the existence of the god delusion in the United States. In this country—the most religious developed nation in the world —our dollar bills say it all: "In God We Trust."

I have no problem with others believing in Jesus, Allah, Xenu, Haley's Comet, what-have-you. I understand that religion is as old as mankind and even though I am certain we are trending toward secularization in the long-run, the United States is not there yet. If religion gets you through the night, the day, the life, so long as you don't impose it on me and the laws that govern my citizen life, then I absolutely respect your free-will choice to practice it just as I hope you respect my free-will choice to abstain from it.

All this meandering merely to say that if evangelicals and other believers want to work with progressives on issues ordinarily unassociated with the religious right, that's wonderful. Wonderful, indeed. But I don't believe that in order to attract their numbers, progressives have to pander to their religious beliefs. While it may be politically expedient in the short-term, it is neither politically nor morally expedient in the long-term to cater to fundamentalists' religious tenets, particularly not when those same beliefs have been often used to justify the stripping of others' rights.

If evangelicals are moving in our direction, it's because progressivism is inclusive where fundamentalism is exclusive. It would be wrong to exclude religious people from the progressive game but it also would be wrong to play by fundamentalism's failed rules and let religion referee.

-- Daniela Perdomo

"We must patiently explain why taxing or regulating noble things (like work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking) means you’ll get less of what makes America great and why subsidizing other things (like idleness and single parenthood) means you’ll get more of the destructive behaviors that ultimately will drag us down."

— An excerpt from a piece in the National Review by the vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.

What struck me most as I read Franc's piece on the National Review's website, was how much of his prose could be turned around and used to make arguments that nullify his own.

For example, he writes: "All policy battles on Capitol Hill require an adult to temper the animal spirits and childishness that so often induce lawmakers to enact irrational and damaging laws." According to Franc, this "childishness" applies to people who believe in income taxes and providing temporary sustenance to those who can't find work. I can earnestly say the exact same thing about somebody who believes that single parenthood corrupts society and spreading wealth and opportunity destroys it. Further, I can't hesitate to call laws that tax the poorest people at the same rate as the richest or that make inheritances immune to taxation "irrational and damaging."

In a way, I could even write something like this, though in a less pompous tone: "We must demonstrate that, so long as our alternatives are grounded in a proper appreciation and understanding of human nature and demand the best from our citizens, Americans will rise to the challenges ahead." The difference, of course, would be that my understanding of human nature is completely different from his, because I don't frame my view of my fellow citizens in a binary, hard-coded moral spectrum.

Therein lies the problem with an argument like Franc's: It frames every policy discussion—including this economic debate over taxes and subsidies—in terms of moral inequalities, instead of in terms of structural inequalities. The fact of the matter is that issues like poverty, crime, and unemployment are the result of structural differences, not moral differences. One cannot vilify the poor, simultaneously lionize the rich, and expect the less fortunate to believe and fight for that old American Dream. Forgive me the Marxist tone, but this type of inequality in power and reward, quite obviously, leads to more of the same, more of the same.

The way I see it, Mr. Franc, the most "destructive behavior that ultimately will drag us down" is continuing to define our structural problems as moral problems. To continue to do so seems, frankly, immoral.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I took a late, long lunch today and started catching up on my reading, which I've neglected recently due to the holiday weekend and other time-consuming events in my life. Surprisingly, among all the articles I read today, the most interesting quote I came across was from a front-of-the-magazine profile of Mike Huckabee in the Dec. 1 edition of the New Yorker.

The article made me, er, understand Mike Huckabee a little more. (I add the very doubtful "er" because I don't think I can ever really understand someone who literally interprets the Bible.) Anyway, I have to give credit to the formerly-obese Baptist minister for two things: One, he called the unfurling economic crisis before nearly any presidential hopeful—on either side—did; two, he's put into words something I fear may very well be true—

"My guess is that Barack Obama will more disappoint his supporters on the far left than he will enrage his critics on the far right."

I don't want this to be true, but with the Cabinet forming along establishment lines, I fear Obama won't take the progressive mandate he was granted on Nov. 4 as far he viably could. That being said, I still harbor—yes—hope for two reasons:

(1) The Cabinet is not yet fully formed, and a few truly progressive names are still being floated around for open positions, such as Labor. (For example, Mary Beth Maxwell is the epitome of progressivism, what with her lesbian union activist credentials.)

(2) I think there's a real important and possibly unanswerable question here as to how progressive Obama really is and to what extent he can influence people who have in the past been cautiously centrist (See: all the Clintonian incrementalists he's hiring) to be bravely focused on moving our policies from the center firmly to the left side of the political spectrum.

My hope, then lies in the appointment of more high-level progressives in Obama's administration (i.e. not just lower-level appointments, such as Gaspard's), and the possibility that Obama may surprise us with the leadership needed to steer his band of establishment pols into progressive territory.

I am hopeful, then, but not really convinced that this will happen. Only time will tell.

-- Daniela Perdomo

Every now and then, newspaper copywriters get their time in the spotlight. Evidence—

I'm especially fond of the play on "Yes We Can" in the section heading, "If They Can." The other captions and headlines are a little more obvious. I wish the article was as hard-hitting as the copywriting would suggest. That being said, though, it's the first article the Gray Lady has published that takes a look at just how many establishment wonks are set to populate Obama's Cabinet. It's got me thinking about how glad I am that I get my political analysis from other sources, because this is about two weeks behind.

On that note, I recommend you read OpenLeft's post on how three progressives will have a voice in the Obama White House. One of them is Gaspard, the labor operative I posted about on Friday. Unfortunately, as Chris Bowers points out, none of them are Cabinet-level. You know, because that's for people like HRC and acolytes of Larry Bummers.

-- Daniela Perdomo

Ladies and gentlemen, if media speculation is correct, there's a very good chance labor will finally have a place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a labor organizer hasn't ever served in the White House, unless you count, um, Reagan, who was president of the Screen Actors Guild—but I hardly count Ron as a labor operative.

So who am I speaking of? Patrick Gaspard. Media reports indicate that the political director (left) of Obama's presidential campaign, is set to be tapped for the same position in the White House.

Before joining the Obama campaign, Gaspard was the lead political operative for the 1199 branch of the SEIU, an influential branch of the union that represents health care workers in New York.

Even as other expected appointments don't exactly smell like "change we can believe in"—keeping Gates in Defense, for one—the Gaspard pick, if true, is great news.

But how's this for a (sadly) novel idea: What about a labor person for the Secretary of Labor job? Yeah, chew on that.

-- Daniela Perdomo

OK, I just want to put this on the record before any announcement is made, as it seems that if it's the one the media is expecting, it's bound to be made very, very soon.

Those of you who read my old blog know that throughout the Democratic primaries, I was not a fan of Hillary Clinton's campaign. That being said, ever since Obama clinched the nomination, I've warmed to her a little more. Let bygones be bygones, as they say. After all, despite the fact that she let Mark Penn drive her presidential bid into the gutter, I would rather have her on our side than on the GOP's. She is driven, smart, and I genuinely believe she wants the best for the country, even if I don't agree with her on a number of issues.

That being said, then, I have no problem with her playing a role in the Obama Administration—be it as a senior adviser, or even a member of the Cabinet. But there's one position I was always so sure she would never really be a serious contender for, it's the spot as Obama's top diplomat—the Secretary of State—given how antiquated her stance on speaking to Iran (and others) with no preconditions was. And, of course, how she ridiculed Obama for saying he would be open to that kind of diplomatic conversation.

If speculation is right and Obama is considering her over other candidates, there is hardly a doubt in my mind that she'll say no to the offer. Hillary is nothing if not incredibly sure of power in her own hands. If she is offered and accepts the position, she has some serious public explaining to do. For one: Does she now see the value of speaking to Iran without preconditions? Does she see the diplomatic value of speaking to "rogue" leaders like Ahmadinejad even if she doesn't get to set the exact, stringent terms?

You know, now that I think of it, Obama himself would need to very deliberately explain the decision because it seems to me that despite the fact that HRC and Obama are very similar on most policy issues and approaches to governance, diplomatic relations was the one where the ideological difference between them was most stark.

(Oh, and before you ask: Who if not Hillary? Because I still believe that Hillary has been self-aggrandizing regarding her foreign policy experience (as if First Lady visits count), I figure someone who actually has genuine diplomatic and foreign policy experience should get the nod. Among viable, establishment candidates, I am a fan of Bill Richardson, who in addition to being Secretary of Energy under Bubba, was also the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., where he negotiated meetings between Israel and the PLO.)

-- Daniela Perdomo

The problem with a word like progress, and its derivatives, is that it's necessarily relative. While I believe in the significance of progressivism, I worry about the congratulatory, doe-eyed mood that's taken over the electorate. I worry that we'll settle and fall short of the most progressive progress possible.

The code word for progress in today's political lingua franca is, of course, change. It's been the theme of the past two years of presidential campaigning, as Barack Obama re-framed partisan politics into a choice between Washington-as-usual and Washington-as-it-could-be. After eight years of cronyism, bellicosity, and the debasement of civil liberties, Obama's resounding electoral success last week was as much a rejection of political sameness as it was a genuine confirmation of the need for change.

Yet despite messianic "Change Has Come" headlines, it is not enough to have voted in the first black president, or to be satisfied that Obama's White House will be more progressive than the one the neo-conservatives are about to vacate. (The former is, indeed, progress; the latter is simply obvious.) We can't accept the mainstream definition of progress as simply better-than-Bush. We need to demand that our elected officials seize this unique opportunity in American political discourse to progress significantly further to the left, and quit pandering to the center-right.

This is necessary because there's a stark difference between change we can believe in and change I believe will actually be enacted—

I believe in universal health care; but I believe what we'll get is an opt-in system that still panders to insurance companies' profit margins. I believe in energy independence; but I believe that we'll continue to heed inefficient, home-grown corn ethanol and so-called "clean coal" lobbies on our way there. I believe in the separation of church and state; but I believe that taxpayers' money will continue to be funneled to faith-based initiatives. The list goes on.

I harbor no illusions that all my progressive ideals will be met under an Obama presidency. He is, pundits' claims notwithstanding, decidedly not the herald of American progressivism (See: stances on death penalty, marriage equality, etc.), but he is the most liberal politician ever elected to the highest executive office. The political capital garnered by this election is an ideological mandate for progressivism that we've never had before. Gone is the need for Clintonian incrementalism—we can actually bet big.

The difference between progress I believe in and the progress I believe is most likely to actually occur under the forty-fourth presidency and one-hundred-eleventh Congress need not be so stark. More-than-better-than-Bush progress requires action: We must demand the most progress, not just enough progress.

-- Daniela Perdomo