Obama wants to be inclusive? Host a party for the KKK, Karl Rove, the guys who brought us Iraq war and torture, or Matthew Sheppard's killers.
Green Scar
As I try to describe below, Obama's call for "inclusiveness" has often been misinterpreted or mischaracterized, as illustrated by Green Scar's comment above. This is not necessarily done out of any animus, but may happen because of the extent to which Obama deeply embraces a unique philosophy of inclusiveness given the great partisan and ideological divides currently affecting American politics. This inclusive embrace can lead people to view Obama as naive, disloyal, or foolish. Or lead some to resort to hyperbolic speculation about Obama's motives since they have not really seen this unique change take place in recent political history.
Obama isn't being "inclusive" just for the sake of inclusiveness. He has a very specific reason that he has stated dozens of times, including yesterday at his press conference, for wanting to work with those with whom he has fundamental disagreements, including evangelical Christians like Rick Warren.
It is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.
I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak despite his awareness that I have views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues about abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue is part of what my campaign was all about.
We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common.
December 18, 2008
Obama on Warren: Let's Come Together
Obama isn't hosting a "party" for homophobes by inviting Warren to give an invocation at his inauguration. He invited Warren because, while they may disagree on many issues, like gay rights and choice for women, they do agree on important issues like the need to confront climate change and to continue the fight against AIDS in Africa.
Obama believes that he needs as much political support as he can get to pass legislation in the areas of agreement between him, Warren, and the millions of evangelical Christians that subscribe to Warren's beliefs. So by including Warren in his inauguration, he is indicating to those people that he wants to work with them on the areas in which they have agreement.
Obama has no apparent reason to be inclusive of the KKK, Karl Rove, or the other people Green Scar mentioned above. Those individuals or groups would likely not be able to substantively help Obama pursue any important common interests. For instance, it's doubtful that the KKK could help Obama pursue any common political goals that they may have considering that the KKK is a tiny, marginalized violent hate group.
For the other individuals or groups, I think that if they could in some significant way, help Obama to achieve some important common goal, he would not hesitate to work with them. For instance, if Obama believes he has to work with "the guys who brought us [the] Iraq war and torture," including possibly Karl Rove, to facilitate the ending of the Iraq war and torture, I think he would. As distasteful as it may legitimately be for many anti-war and anti-torture Americans, I think that Obama would work with these individuals if he truly believed that they could provide essential assistance.
Note that I am not arguing that Obama would necessarily be right to believe that such individuals could provide vital assistance, but if he did believe so, he would work with them. Also, note that I am not saying that DKos readers, liberals, Democrats, or others should silently trust Obama's judgment in these matters. Indeed, Obama demands that we question his judgment to make sure that he is aware of the need to make adjustments when he is wrong or when circumstances change.
For instance, consider the case of John Brennan.
Former CIA official John Brennan, once considered the top choice to serve as CIA director in President-elect Barack Obama's administration, was pressured by the Obama transition team to pull his name from consideration, according to friends and former intelligence associates.
Brennan's withdrawal, offered in a Nov. 25 letter to Obama, came after liberal bloggers mounted an opposition campaign against his possible appointment. They said he was tainted by his service in the CIA at a time when the agency was employing coercive interrogation methods, including "waterboarding," on detainees.
Among Brennan's critics were 200 psychologists who signed a mass letter to Obama, saying Brennan's appointment to a senior intelligence position would "alienate those who opposed torture under the Bush administration." The psychologists cited Brennan's service as a senior CIA official under former agency Director George Tenet, who approved coercive interrogation methods, plus interviews Brennan gave in which he appeared to stop short of explicitly rejecting those methods.
December 3, 2008
Some Say Obama Team Forced Out CIA Contender
I believe that pressure from liberal bloggers and the professional psychological community put enough pressure on Obama and Brennan, that Obama's team forced Brennan out or Brennan felt compelled to withdraw his name from consideration. Obama may have believed that despite (indeed because of) Brennan's association with the Bush torture regime, he was in a unique position to effectively dismantle the remnants of that regime. Anti-torture individuals and groups, however, successfully conveyed the message to Obama that Brennan's association with Bush's torture tainted him in unacceptable ways. That kind of role of the people is necessary, indeed, demanded by Obama.
I’m reminded every single day that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president. But I can promise you this – I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you when we disagree. And most importantly I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your own democracy again.
October 29, 2008
Obama Campaign Infomercial
In addition, it's hard to imagine a situation in which "Matthew Shepard's killers" would have important enough divergent beliefs in some areas but common goals in others with Obama that would necessitate their interaction. If the killers had become reformed in prison, showed remorse for their brutal crime and wanted to play an active role in defeating homophobia (to the extent that they could do so from behind bars), Obama may be inclusive of them to the limited extent that they could be used to somehow illustrate the horrors of violent homophobia. Of course, the chances of this occurring are far-fetched, for many reasons. This is just an example of how Obama may think when he talks about "inclusiveness."
Again, Obama doesn't value inclusiveness for its own sake. He values working with people with whom he may fundamentally disagree on important issues, to pursue equally or more important common goals. The words seem so straightforward, like common sense; but we all know how little President Bush and the Republican party valued this philosophy or put it into practice.
--------------
This inclusive philosophy has been very clearly described in both of Obama's books and in virtually all of his major speeches, including his 2004 Democratic convention speech, his Iowa primary victory speech, his "Race" speech, his Democratic nominee acceptance speech, and his victory speech on November 4.
I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
March 18, 2008
Obama Race Speech
This unique inclusive philosophy has been illustrated by his selection of a "Team of Rivals" for his Vice President and Cabinet, including Republicans and several Demorats who ran against him in the primary (i.e. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson).
This idea of working with people with whom you have strong disagreements in order to pursue a common goal is not the typical political rhetoric you hear, as when George W. Bush said during his 2000 run for president that he would be a "uniter, not a divider" and then proceeded to virtually shut out Congress and the American people from his administration. Obama seems to actually believe what he's saying, as he is clearly attempting to put his words into action.
In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let's remember that it was a man from this state [Illinois] who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.
November 4, 2008
Obama's Chicago Acceptance Speech
Just words? Unfortunately for many of us DKos readers and liberal Democrats generally, no. Then again, maybe we're not so unfortunate to have a conciliatory president who is strong enough to resist what I would personally find to be an irresistible impulse to punish conservatives and Republicans severely for what they have done to our country over the last 8 years.
Obama's different. Indeed, his very unique life has been permeated with the need to find common ground between divergent groups. He has described how his biracial background, being the son of a "white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya," and his multi-racial, multi-national experiences have, in effect, forced him to work across seemingly stark boundaries in pursuit of common goals for his entire life.
When he was on the Harvard Law Review, he "alienated" some of his liberal allies because he was so willing to work with conservatives with whom he fundamentally disagreed on so many legal and social issues, in pursuit of a common goal - producing a first rate law review publication.
Cassandra Butts, Harvard Class of '91
Barack was not and is not predictable. He's thoughtful. He'll tell you what he believes. But it isn't always what you expect ... His ideological approach is to the left and there was an expectation that as the president of the Law Review that he would side on the part of his more progressive colleagues. But he recognized that his role was such that he had to bring both sides together. And in order to publish the Law Review and to be productive in his term as president, he had to figure out how to make it work and how to make both sides work together, which meant that he wasn't always going to side with his progressive colleagues, that he had to take the interests and the ideas of the people on the right into account.
Bradford Berenson, Harvard Class of '91, Bush White House Counsel 2001-'03
And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting ... We had all worked with him over the course of a year ... And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category ... [After Obama is selected,] he does a very able job as president. Puts out what I think was a very good volume of the Review. Does a great job managing the difficult and complicated interpersonal dynamics on the Review. And manages somehow, in an extremely fractious group, to keep everybody almost happy.
Christine Spurell, Harvard Class of '91
Barack was the one who was truly able to move between the different groups and have credibility with all of them. Why? I really don't know. He grew up in a multiracial environment. I don't know what he's like now with conservatives, but I don't know why at the time he was able to communicate so well with them, even spend social time with them, which was not something I would ever have done ... Barack, being a much better leader than me, allowed for open and robust discussion. He actually believed and showed that he believed that when you debate things openly and intelligently, the best ideas will win. So there were protracted debates, and he permitted them. And he permitted things to go to votes.
October 14, 2008
Harvard Law Days
For various reasons, Obama may be wrong in pursuing such an inclusive strategy (overall or in particular cases), but it behooves us not to misunderstand what he is trying to do and why. Obama said that he would bring "change" to Washington. Presidents-elect typically do. However, this one seems to actually mean it.