Monday, December 22, 2008
More on Obama and Warren: The Requirements of Civil Society
Namely: Within our public discourse, if we want to be worthy of the title of a free and civil society, there should be no tolerance of hysteria (which the GLBT community seems to be fanning the flames of across the Internet right now); rather, there should be open disagreement and robust debate; a rigorous stance unashamed to cross the lines of party, ideology, and identity. That Reverend Warren is a supporter of Proposition 8 is not the death knell for Gay Rights, and that Obama is willing to embrace some of the ideologically different persons on the right, is not a sign that he has "turned dirt" on the gay agenda. True, Warren has said that he also would not approve of the marriage of "adult and child, nor brother and sister"; however, to spread tales across the internet to the effect that Warren views homosexuality as equal to incest and pedophilia does not stand the gay community in good stead.
We have reached a point wherein the individualistic splintering into self-serving factions and indeed, the whole domain of "identity politics", has become a piper who is now piping alone, and out of tune. Obama now wants others to pipe with him, in some form of harmony, respecting differences. I say it makes a great deal of sense in these times.
It is not homophobic to say that hysteria is infantile and mainly self-serving. I myself have always been a great promoter of the gay community; my husband and I took our vacations in Provincetown, and many of the writers and artists I most respect and cherish, are gay men. I simply believe that a robust stance, with no identity-politics which produce the unpleasant shrillness which allows a tone of hysteria or indignation to begin to sound within the council of our public discourse, is what is most worthy of the gays themselves. And I mean nothing more than that.
Most important of all: Let's not allow this beautiful moment for the Democrats, and the historic win of Barack Obama, be spoiled by throwing tantrums pre-inauguration. Unseemly, would be the word which comes to mind. This is Obama's moment, his victory, and ours; why start whining, when he has only attempted to unify, which was what everyone found so appealing about him, from the outset. It was his promise: Let him fulfil it, in his own manner, and on his own terms. I find the circulating petitions, which call for boycotting the Inauguration, deeply disturbing, and I am in agreement with Pat Buchannan, who said on MSNBC's Hardball, "Obama wants to govern from the middle; he is trying to adhere to a centrist view." What is more needed at this time?
~ From Huffington Post , "Time Magazine Columnist Calls Obama, "A very rational sounding bigot." (In my own opinion, just more of the swan song of identity politics whining. ) An interesting piece, here: Liberals Indirectly Call Obama an Evil Bigot
***More whining: "He's a hypocritical bigot" ( from the gay community) and "He is NOT down with Boomers" (Dr. Leo Strauss)---all completely to be expected if one was prepared by reading the one of the greatest works of our time, (at the risk of beating this to death), The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy by Neil Howe and the late William Strauss.