I feel obligated to write a short diary after a long debate last night over the President's position, or lack thereof, on the building of an Islamic center/mosque near ground zero. Let me be clear.
I am disappointed that people have fallen for the frame that the President is somehow unable to take a position on the wisdom of building a mosque in Lower Manhattan. That is a position that comes from political calculus and cedes ground to those who are demonizing the Islamic religion by making the assertion that the building of a Mosque in and of itself in a specific location is inflammatory and somehow controversial. That idea needs to be forcefully rejected.
When the President makes the claim that he will not comment on the "wisdom" of the site choice AFTER entering the debate, while Islamaphobes and Republicans who are moving farther towards an intolerant position by the day continue to demagogue the issue, it unnecessarily grants them a position in the debate. Even worse, it makes it seem as though there are two legitimate positions. There are not. And the move to ensure that people understood that he was being ambiguous is disappointing, to say the least.
And watching Democrats run for the hills, as I have seen this morning on the Sunday talk shows is even worse.
I suspect, this is the real reason for the comments to Ed Henry's uncontroversial question "What do you think about the reaction to your speech last night"?
"It's going to play poorly for many Democrats and will be used as a political club by those Republicans willing to exploit it," said one senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill, where the president's party is worried that it could lose control of one and possibly both houses of Congress this fall. The aide asked for anonymity to speak freely.
Their concern is not that Obama's comments will feed the myths about his citizenship, his religion and his allegiances that have taken root in the far reaches of the right; those voters are cemented in place against the Democrats already.
Rather, they fear that taking a stand on the issue of building a mosque so close to the spot where thousands of Americans lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001, could further alienate swing voters. A CNN poll this month found that 68 percent of those surveyed oppose the idea; among independents, 70 percent were against it.
The President could have ignored Ed Henry's question. He could have stated he stands by his statement. But he chose to clarify or at a minimum ensure people knew he was not taking a position of the actual issue. He was only taking a position on the law, which as far as I know was not a major question. But because Democrats got cold feet and the RWNM revved up, once again the President was put in a position where he had to make a difficult decision with limited support from his own part if he moved in one direction. I understand the one he made, I simply disagree with it.
There are things that should be worthy of fighting for, regardless of polls or the cowardice of his party. And I find it extremely frustrating that those who believe the issue will go away by simply saying the President's position hasn't changed. That is communication position. Whether it was a clarification, a walkback, or a restatement is irrelevant. This is an issue where you can't be half pregnant. On what moral or philosphical grounds, beyond the law, would it be appropriate for the mosque to be moved because people who are attempting to manipulate the fear of a religion into a political football. No one is fighting over the constitutionality of the building. This is a discussion of fear and hatred vs acceptance that all religious beliefs are on equal footing and the location of places of worship are not open for debate. Period.
If the President did not want to take a position, he should not have weighed in. By weighing in, and then saying "I don't really have a position beyond the law", or stating "I am unwilling to publicly state it", it gives unnecessary credence to those who seek to divide. Racists have the right to spew hatred, rally in hoods, and set up racist websites. Does that mean the President is unable to comment on the wisdom of those actions because he is the leader of everyone? However, he can comment on the wisdom of Kanye West making a fool of himself at an award show?
Leadership means taking tough positions even when the immediate political ramifications may be bad.
I am sick of ceding ground to hatred (and I am referring to the Democratic party here, not just the President). And yes, my frustration is coming out. And quite frankly, I hope progressives could stop looking at the political impact of a position before standing up for those who are under attack, be it Prop 8, DADT, black farmers, immigrants, this issue, and on and on. Good policy and moral policy is good politics.
Do we stand for anything at this point? Or are we only interested in the next election cycle out of pragmatism?
Give the intolerant an inch, they will take a mile. The optics of even giving an inch here, has the potential for serious repercussions in terms of trust of our Government within the Muslim community. It also serves as a rallying point for those continuing to attempt to make people believe there is a controversy here.
If a mosque can be built IN the Pentagon, there is zero rationale for even having this discussion.
(I apologize in advance as I will have a limited opportunity to discuss in comments immediately, but I will come back and try to respond if possible in about an hour.)