*
I said to LuMac the other day that I believe liberal ideas are too important to entrust to liberals. He was amused. Here's what I meant:
Everybody knows that liberalism and democracy are inseparable. Even neocon scum talk in terms of "liberal democracy" when criticizing nations whose authoritarian governments prevent U.S. corporations from stealing their national resources. Liberal ideas are that important: even fascist-leaning swine are forced to pay lip service to them as a desirable way of life. My observations and direct experience with self-identifying liberals have led me to conclude that liberalism became a very different thing in the late 1960s than it had been through the New Deal and earlier times.
Baby boom conformists searching for a unique identity put on liberalism the same way they slipped into their railroad-striped bell bottoms and tee shirts with the Zig-Zag man on them. The minuscule reproduction of a '60s rock show poster (upper left) shows an example of how readily liberal ideas --- in this case the doubly political overtones of the headlining group's name: Big Brother And The Holding Company --- were conflated with accouterments of youth counterculture lifestyle. In order to prove that one was a
real hippie in the 1960s, and not just one of those white suburban phonies, the young person had to learn the liturgy of mainstream counterculture liberalism and talk about it earnestly enough to be considered Genuine. The more earnest you were, the more genuine you were. The idea was to never say or do anything to jeopardize your counterculture credentials in the eyes of people who were even hipper than you. Likewise, you could never pass up an opportunity to demonstrate that you were hipper-than-thou, and the easiest way to do that was to "make a statement." Turn everything into a political issue.
I'd guess that maybe 30 percent of the people I am characterizing here chose to calcify in their juvenile roles as rabble-rousing freaks, and the other 70 percent became Reagan Republicans after freaking out on dope, or catching an unpronouncable social disease, or growing tired of living like bums. I dropped out of college in 1973, as Watergate was boiling over in pus, then re-enrolled in 1977. Campus liberalism had changed significantly during that span. It was expressed strictly in terms of lifestyle choices, and I remember very little political awareness being expressed --- a bit of interest in U.S. atrocities in Latin America and some anti-corporation rhetoric published in the newspaper I edited as a senior. For most of my latter-day campus peers, the transition from a "liberal" lifestyle into a Reagan Revolutionary presented no real dilemma. As the disco era smeared into the Reagan era, any valuable core of liberal conterculture ideals defaulted into the hands of self-proclaimed "true hippies" who were retrenching in defiance of their fading youth.
To this day the survivors of the liberalism-as-lifestyle tradition don't understand that activities like
making earnest statements and
contriving political theater have no impact on policy formation. Worse, these obsolete schmoes do not understand how their anachronicstic and self-centered behavior helps to margnalize important ideas of which they purport, by implication of their acting out, to be the sole stewards. Unfortunately for the preservation and promotion of liberalism, many smart and articulate people of the baby boom generation act as if its more important to maintain their self-image than to applying presure in pragmatic ways.
In short, nobody who knows a goddam thing about how power works gives a fuck that Obama selected Pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the inauguration. It's only "optics," as the celebrity pundits now like to say. The decision was a political calculation, just like one might expect from the smartest political strategic thinker we've seen since Kevin Phillips. Does anyone really remember who gave the invocation at Bush's last inaugural? Or his first one? Or either of Clinton's? Or Nixon's? Did the words spoken at those inaugurations by the Holy Men have any impact on policy formation?
I understand that gay people have their reasons for disliking or despising Rick Warren. I do not understand why high-visibility liberals would waste their time with fist-pounding denunciations of Obams's "poor judgment" in this matter if their intent is to "make a difference." Their petulance will not make a difference. But by co-opting Rick Warren for his inauguration, Obama is probably shielding himself from a significant amount of criticism from the middle should he decide, for example, to lift the ban on gays serving in the uniformed military forces.
In this case, the best suggestion I've read for a liberal response to this non-event comes from Atrios: if you're present at the inauguration and deplore the presence of Rick Warren, then
turn your back on the invocation. It could be a silent bit of political theater that might actually be heard by the media. Meanwhile, I wish the marquee names in liberal blogging and commentary would try to grow up soon and get their priorities straight. The host of a religious invocation at a public event is not a good reason to "go to the mat," as the wrestlers say. They need to save their zeal for promoting core liberal policy priorities, like progressive taxation, full employment, sustainable economics, and law & order in the worlds of business and finance.
Update before I'm done writing: I predict a small number of inauguration attendees will be arrested for throwing shoes in Warren's direction.
