Change We Can Believe In

My partner has a theory about Obama's slogan. She believes that "change we can believe in" really means "not very much change." Because *big* change would be difficult to believe in, at this point.

Well, here's one thing that hasn't changed: a Democratic politician deciding that he can afford to piss off the GBLT segment of the base, and that it's worth it to him in order to court some other constituency.

I don't think his invitation of Warren was a "mistake." I think it was a calculated political decision. One thing that is happening over there on the Christian right is that the selection of issues they care about has expanded to include stewardship of the environment and humanitarian causes in Africa (including HIV/AIDS). He wants them on board. This is one way of signaling that.

It also signals to his GBLT supporters that he really doesn't give a shit about us. Which is disappointing, but it's not surprising, and it's not new. Clinton (Bill) took the same approach: all I have to be is better than the Republicans, and they will support me. And sadly, we will, and we do. Because what the hell else are we going to do?

I knew when I voted for Obama that he would not be willing to take risks on behalf of my rights. That was clear from the campaign. I didn't know that he would pick someone like Warren to have an important symbolic role in his inauguration; but from what I know about how his campaign operates politically I guess it makes sense. It will be good for him, from a political capital perspective, to be seen to be pissing off "the left," and it won't hurt him either that this underlines his lack of support for same-sex marriage. I mean, it'll hurt him with GBLT Americans and their straight allies, of course. But not enough to make them not support his agenda--because we actually support those policies for their own sake, regardless of how pissed off we might be at the people putting them forward.

So it is pretty much politics as usual, where we are concerned. And it sucks. Especially because, despite the evidence, a lot of us expected better from him.

I have not a whole lot more to say about Obama's decision--it's disappointing, it's painful, it does not augur well for things to come. I want to point out the single thing which I think accounts for the vast differences in response from GBLT DUers (and straight DUers who make GBLT rights a priority) and those who don't see this as a problem:

Obama's justification for Warren's invitation keeps talking about his "views" on homosexuality. He keeps going back to the language of "viewpoint," "opinion," "diversity," "disagreement," and so on. And this is what sets me off and will no doubt have set off a lot of Obama's GBLT supporters: his language indicates that he believes (or wishes people to think he believes) that homophobia is not hatred or bigotry, but a legitimate "point of view." This is one of the biggest obstacles that GBLT Americans still face in their fight for equal rights. A person who states that non-whites are inferior to and not deserving of the same rights and privileges as white people is not treated as someone expressing a "view" or an "opinion;" he is treated as a bigot whose prejudice renders his "perspective" on this topic (and pretty much anything else) invalid and indefensible. A person who states that GBLT people are inferior to and not deserving of the same rights and privileges as straight people--and that IS what you are stating if you oppose same-sex marriage--is treated, at least by Obama at this moment, as someone expressing a valid and valuable "viewpoint" which needs to be included in the Great Conversation that Obama wants to have with all of us Americans.

In other words: one thing this whole incident reminds us is that bigotry against GBLT people is still not recognized by a lot of other people in this country--including our president-elect--as bigotry. It is instead a point of view which deserves respect. And to GBLT people, the fact that Obama is endorsing that idea so publicly is not just deeply offensive; it's dangerous. Because that "opinion" gets expressed in ways that materially hurt us; so the more that "opinion" of us is respected and protected, the worse our lives, overall, are going to be.

Obama's election is still an amazing thing in a lot of ways, and I look forward to seeing him make this country better for a lot of us. But as far as GBLT rights are concerned...well, this is a lack of change that unfortunately I have no trouble believing in.

The Plaid Adder

Sometimes, however, I wonder if too much is being placed on Obama.

For change to take place, the actions of House and Senate are
required. Realistically How many Senators or House Members
can be counted on?? The Senate and House are quick to reflect
their states and districts on Cultural Matters. There is only
so much a President can do.

It seems the least he can do is to not try and force folks to accept these enemies of humanity, like Warren (Gates and others, as well), as some sort of political equals. They have been and will be enemies to the progress the Pres. elect purports to represent.

cabinet picks.

I just cannot understand bigot warren being chosen.

Don't lose sight of the inhumanity of the immoral occupation that Gates is angling to prolong. Other issues are just as critical.

I do believe, though, that on the Warren issue, it seems that the least Obama can do is to provide support for the offended and those discriminated against without trying to force those individuals to recognize their enemies as legitimate figures which deserve recognition in our political debate.

and if there is at least a "truth and reconciliation" about the last eight years, we can start saying "Preisdent Jeb Bush" in 2012 or sooner.

when you lie down and become Republican lite, you lose your base. People will vote Green, Independent, anything but republican-lite.
Obama won handily, but after 8 yrs of Bush no one wanted to take a chance on a Dem losing again.
Nonetheless, the Dems still dont seem to get it.
In 2012, if this keeps up, a Republican will win again, because the Dem base will leave . Maybe that ends up being a good thing, maybe they need to see Jeb in there to wake up and smell the coffee..
I certainly it doesnt play out like that. Unfortunately, I havent seen a thing that makes me think it wont. not yet.

Masses of people voted for CHANGE, yet congress seems to be hewing to the same 'status quo' as always. Democrats have a massive mandate, and they're still capitulating at the drop of a hat, and calling it 'compromise'.

It's very frustrating.

Obama is my last Hurrah. If he turns into just another Washington politician out to protect the wealthy elite and screw the rest then I am done. There is no chance any third party candidate could ever win a National election for President so I just will bow out and accept whatever the USA has to offer.

I will no longer donate money or time to any candidate who believes my citizenship is secondary to his own -particularly when that view is based on some manufactured, selected "religious" belief or something as ridiculous as the direction his peepee points when it gets excited.

I gave to this candidate and compromised the dignity of my own relationships to "help the country." And in return, we get the same kick off the bus we get after every election.

I don't care if President "Separate but Equal" Obama gets rid of DADT and DOMA. Those were both travesties of Democratic administrations in which more people from my community were forced to make sacrifices in their lives and their human dignity to placate the Warrens of this world. Getting rid of those policies should have happened a long time ago. He'll get no special credit for me for doing the job of recognizing my citizenship.

I will not vote or support another heterosupremacist whose attitude is that my right to marriage should be segregated.

Change is coming from the bottom up---not top down. We will lead. They will follow.

gays.

This is an excellent OP - I'm a straight person, but offended by this notion of "different point of view".

"...Obama's justification for Warren's invitation keeps talking about his "views" on homosexuality. He keeps going back to the language of "viewpoint," "opinion," "diversity," "disagreement," and so on. And this is what sets me off and will no doubt have set off a lot of Obama's GBLT supporters: his language indicates that he believes (or wishes people to think he believes) that homophobia is not hatred or bigotry, but a legitimate "point of view." This is one of the biggest obstacles that GBLT Americans still face in their fight for equal rights. A person who states that non-whites are inferior to and not deserving of the same rights and privileges as white people is not treated as someone expressing a "view" or an "opinion;" he is treated as a bigot whose prejudice renders his "perspective" on this topic (and pretty much anything else) invalid and indefensible. A person who states that GBLT people are inferior to and not deserving of the same rights and privileges as straight people--and that IS what you are stating if you oppose same-sex marriage--is treated, at least by Obama at this moment, as someone expressing a valid and valuable "viewpoint" which needs to be included in the Great Conversation that Obama wants to have with all of us Americans.

In other words: one thing this whole incident reminds us is that bigotry against GBLT people is still not recognized by a lot of other people in this country--including our president-elect--as bigotry. It is instead a point of view which deserves respect. And to GBLT people, the fact that Obama is endorsing that idea so publicly is not just deeply offensive; it's dangerous. Because that "opinion" gets expressed in ways that materially hurt us; so the more that "opinion" of us is respected and protected, the worse our lives, overall, are going to be..."

Once again, like Bill Clinton, I made the stupid mistake of thinking that a politician is going to care about GLBT people. I should learn not to make that mistake.

Recommended, by the way.

...as signaled by his embrace of colin powell? i think it is the same thing. "reaching across the aisle" means "not very much change, if any at all."

and let's make another thing perfectly clear: reaching across the aisle is not a new strategy, it is not change. in fact, it's what many of us have complained about about the two party system for many years, how they cover each other's asses and pass shitty legislation for their corporate sponsors.

obama is simply not what most people think he is. his reach exceeds our grasp.

I mean that was the important thing right? Forget about electing a liberal candidate that actually responds to his base. Let's just make history and take pictures of our ballots!!!!

:sarcasm:

Historical election in the very near future. I never expected much in the way of a true progressive agenda from an Obama or HRC Administration, so I will not be surprised when it doesn't materialize. :shrug:

Thank you.

The act of legitimizing hatred is the most disturbing thing to me as well. Obama is a man who understands the power of language. He also understands the importance of framing the debate and defining the terms used in the argument. By including Warren in such a symbolic way, he authenticates the bigotry as civil debate when it should be kicked to the curb as rubbish.

Though I haven't seen anything from him yet to make me think it might be true, a small part of me holds out hope Obama will give the evangelicals their symbolic gesture while making positive changes to the actual laws to help promote the advancement of human rights for all.

For instance, if he does lift the @#$! ban on gays in the military, then at least we'll know that this was a symbolic compromise in order to achieve practical gains. Which is better than a symbolic compromise in order to throw us undert he bus, though it doesn't change any of what I said in the OP.

yay for hope,

The Plaid Adder

I'll be patient and see where this administration stands by July Fourth. If we get more of this Warrenesque junk going on, it'll be my cue to take off. I voted for Nader in '96 as a protest against Bill Clinton for dropping the ball on gay issues; if I step outside the Party again, it'll be a "forever" thing.

for some it means believing this guy doesn't kick you in the gut as hard as the other guy. It is very unfortunate that as far as equality for all Americans is concerned, the choice for President always seems to be between the lesser of two evils.

There is still a long way to go.

thanking me for sharing my vision of America's future with them.

If you're going to kick or rec the thread, I figure you may as well also take the time to go over there and explain why your "vision of America's future" does not include homophobia.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

That is exactly the phrase I have been seeking for the last several days.

Homophobia IS hatred and bigotry, even when (especially when?) it is wrapped up in religious justification. Hatred and bigotry should never, ever be treated as a legitimate "point of view."

well said, Plaid Adder . . . I've been thinking along the same lines, but you express it far better than I ever could . . .

what I find difficult to accept is that Obama seems to view gay and lesbian rights as "an issue" rather than as something fundamental . . . an issue can have two (or more) sides, and in Obama's "post-partisan" world, each of those sides must be heard and respected . . .

GLBT rights are not "an issue" . . . they are fundamental human rights, and there are no sides but full and equal rights . . . anything less is unacceptable, just as listening to "both sides" of an "issue" like civil rights for African-Americans would be unacceptable . . . that Obama seems not to see the equivalence is disturbing, to say the least . . .

looks like we gays and lesbians have a lot of educating to do, beginning at the top . . . until Obama stops viewing us as "an issue" and supports full equal rights unequivocally, we will never really have a place at his table . . .

opposed. And the only reason civil rights for racial minorities (at least by the letter of the law) aren't an "issue" anymore is because that political debate was largely settled 40+ years ago. And I would hope that a few decades from now, gay marriage, gays serving openly in the military, etc., will no longer be an "issue" but a fact of life, just as interracial marriage and a racially integrated military are now.

Otherwise, though, I agree with you completely. No reason to give a platform, any platform, to a shithead like Warren.

"outreach" to the gay community. I suppose he erroneously figured that sticking a few house faggots in campaign advisory positions and asking a gay marching band to the parade was all that was needed to address our rights.

Obama is a deeply conservative man. I'm not sure how it is folks have come to believe otherwise. He has made that rather clear all along the campaign trail and long before he was known as a national political entity.

K&R

Obama's speeches were filled with intentionally vague and misleading Progressive rhetoric and Progressive imagery.
Only those of us who searched for policy specifics were able to discern how conservative Obama really is.
Many educated people still believe that Obama promised to end the War in Iraq.

He holds a mix of conservative and liberal views. Not everyone here on DU is a "true" Progressive as Lakoff might define it. There are different types of Progressives.

But there are some things that will disqualify someone from the label "Progressive".

* Increasing the "Defense" Budget, expanding the Military, or escalating illegal wars should be a criteria for disqualification.

*Promoting BIGOTRY should be a disqualification.

* Advancing the agenda of The RICH at the expense of the Working Class and the Poor is a disqualification. (RE: Wall Street Bailout)

to understand there are different types of Progressives though.

It is a deliberate trading of political capital.

And yet some will sneer if we bring out the "under the bus" cliche.

And all the right wing can do is crow about how Obama is pissing off his base.

I'm beginning to fear the results of 2010 already.

He could have chosen someone else. He didn't. It had to have been on purpose. :(

Legitimizing bigotry as merely opinion -- you've totally nailed it.

sw

;-)

and as long as there is a klezmer band marching in the parade, everything is kosher.

nt

Excellent post. Reasonable, rational, and truthful. Thank you.

:kick:

"In other words: one thing this whole incident reminds us is that bigotry against GBLT people is still not recognized by a lot of other people in this country--including our president-elect--as bigotry."

Which should have included the faction of Obama supporter/apologists and those hiding their bigotry there.

Sheesh -- when are people going to realize that. It's right up there with "reformer with results" from 2000. I can't believe that there are still people who actually believe in marketing slogans from political campaigns. They're not real. They're just clever words that are developed by teams and focus-group tested to appeal to the most people. They really don't mean anything.