Saddleback, Biden, and Traditional Family Values

Barack Obama’s mission of “bringing us all together” included three major events over the past two weeks, heading into his acceptance speech Friday night at Mile High Stadium.

First, on August 16, Obama participated in the first exchange between the two Presidential candidates at Saddleback Church in Orange County. Participating in what was, in essence, the first debate of the ‘08 election at Rick Warren’s megachurch was a major move on Obama’s part to embrace and legitimize the imposition of Christian fundamentalism into all realms of society. Then, on Saturday, August 24, Obama announced that Joe Biden, would be his running mate. A long-time ruling class insider, Biden has not just been complicit with, but a key player in the whole development of the so-called “War on Terror,” a war for empire that has brought a million deaths to Iraq, and bloodshed and suffering across the Middle East. And Michelle Obama’s August 26 speech to the Democratic National Convention was a major statement—an acclamation of oppressive, patriarchal traditional family values.

Each of these events provoked new rounds of outrage from many of Obama’s supporters. But the basic question for those people is: Are they betrayals of Obama’s principles? Or examples of what Obama’s mission is all about?

Presidential Debate at Saddleback

The first major exchange between the two candidates in Election ’08 did not take place on a mainstream news channel. Nor were the candidates questioned by the traditional panel of mainstream media pundits, faithfully spinning things into terms framed by the needs of the ruling class. No, this kickoff event for the 2008 election was staged and hosted by Christian fundamentalist Rick Warren from his Saddleback megachurch in Orange County. It was streamed live from Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network to the mainstream news channels—who ran it as if it was a normal, legitimate exchange between candidates.

Rick Warren is a Biblical literalist. His views—which he insists should contend in the political realm like any other “worldview”—are those of dark-ages ignorance, intolerance, and draconian oppression. His church declares that, “Abortion is murder,” with all the implications for those who participate that this implies. He insists “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.” No gay people are allowed to join Saddleback church. Warren opposes stem cell research, because “Life begins when God creates, and the Bible tells us that happens in the womb.” He denies the basic fact of evolution, claiming to trump definitive scientific evidence with the “argument” that: “Since God clearly said that it is our sin that brought death into the world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the 1st man who sinned on earth?” And, in response to a question about the Bible verse from 1st Corinthians that says “...women are not allowed to talk in church,” the Saddleback Church web site quotes another verse from 1st Corinthians: “[T]he head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” These positions reflect those of the powerful, highly connected Christian fascist movement that would impose them on society as a whole.

If Obama simply showed up at Saddleback, that alone would have represented an off-the-charts concession to the assault on the supposed wall between church and state, and the war on science. But Obama went even further—bending over backwards to make clear that these Christian fascists would have a LOT of influence in his administration. His told Warren, “I love the ministries that are taking place here at Saddleback.” When Warren asked if there was anything wrong with “me asking you these questions,” clearly referring to those who object to having a Christian fundamentalist run a presidential debate, Obama said: “These are the kinds of forums we need.” When Warren asked Obama what was America’s greatest moral failing in his lifetime, Obama went to the Bible—quoting from Matthew about not thinking about trying to meet the needs of the “least of us.”

The event at Saddleback starkly revealed what Obama’s message of “bringing us together” means in the real world. In this case, conciliation with, legitimizing, and capitulation to the imposition of obscurantist Christian fundamentalism into every realm of society.

A Ruling Class Insider for Vice President

Joe Biden is a long-time ruling class foreign affairs specialist—who has lead the Senate Foreign Relations committee through the whole process of sanctioning, funding, and legitimizing the Bush regime’s agenda of endless war for empire, while expressing reservations and kibitzing about how to do it better. Biden’s role was reflected not just in his support for the invasion of Iraq, but in his refusal to let former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter testify before Congress to refute the “weapons of mass destruction” hoax during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. The selection of Biden as Obama’s running mate is about as anti-change a statement one could make.

And as soon as he was handed the baton, the punch line of his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was essentially an argument that he and Obama, not McCain, could more effectively, and more aggressively defend the global interests of the U.S. empire. After implicitly criticizing Bush for not standing up to Russia in Georgia, Biden listed a whole set of issues on which Obama would do better in promoting global U.S. interests. Biden asked: “Should we trust John McCain’s judgment when he said only three years ago, ‘Afghanistan—we don’t read about it any more in the papers because it’s succeeded’? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?”

On the announcement of the selection of Biden as the Vice Presidential nominee, columnist Robert Dreyfuss—writing in The Nation—called Biden “a bloodthirsty Democrat.” Dreyfuss noted that “Biden joined McCain in voting for the war resolution in 2002 that propelled the United States into Iraq.” And Dreyfuss asked: “How, exactly, does Obama enhance his anti-war stand by selecting a pro-war hawk as his running mate?” (“On Iraq, Biden Is Worse than McCain,” August 23, 2008).

The answer to that question is that Obama doesn’t have an anti-war stand. He’s said so explicitly. And he keeps saying it. Adjusting the global war for empire, the so-called “war on terror,” to focus more aggression and death on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and arguing for more flexible tactics in isolating and perhaps laying the ground for an attack on Iran is not “antiwar.” And for those who didn’t want to listen when he said it before, Obama is saying that again with his selection of Biden.

Michelle Obama Promotes Traditional Family Values

As part of the buildup to Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, Michelle Obama’s moment in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention was a promotion of patriarchy, and all that goes with that. While Michelle Obama did invoke Barack Obama’s rhetoric of “hope,” and “change,” her whole speech was framed by her devotion to her parents, husband, and children. Her speech began with a story of how her big brother vetted her future husband on the basketball court, and headed towards a conclusion with the declaration that her children are the “center of my world.” Overall it represented and amounted to a declaration of traditional “fathers knows best” values, where a woman is defined by her role as daughter, wife, and mother.

And this came in the context of a convention where the right to abortion was hardly mentioned (and Michelle Obama did not mention it at all). Michelle Obama’s speech was another indication of what the “bring us together” message of the Obama campaign is about. In this case, Michelle Obama’s speech represented “bringing together” those who understand that women are human beings, capable of participating in every realm of society, and determined to oppose against all obstacles to that, including forced child bearing by banning abortion and birth control—on the one hand; with those who insist on a revival of oppressive, traditional morality and a submissive role for women defined by her husband and her children on the other. As with every other element of the Obama package of “bringing together” antagonistic positions, this ends up adopting the terms and framework of the forces of reaction and oppression.

* * *

These three nodal points on the Obama campaign trail cannot be dismissed as disappointing aberrations. In each case, he (and his wife) went way out of their way to make a statement about the nature of the supposed “change” he represents.

Nor can they be considered surprises. They represent positions Obama has been proclaiming since his candidacy became “credible.” And more fundamentally, they conform to the interests of the system of which he is aspiring to lead—a system built on exploitation and oppression, and the violent enforcement of that domestically and around the world.

And, these three events highlight how Obama’s central message of “bringing us all together,” represents, on one issue of fundamental political and moral principle after another, conciliation with, and capitulation to the very forces and outrages that in many cases those who have enlisted in his campaign want to fight against.

Send us your comments.

If you like this article, subscribe, donate to and sustain Revolution newspaper.