What's the difference between Obama asking Warren to speak at the inauguration and Obama promising to sit down with foreign leaders without preconditions?
Is there a difference between two situations, one which we (apparently) support as a group and one which we (apparently) do not support as a group.
The first is sitting down with foreign leaders without preconditions. We are willing to do this, to talk to foreign leaders who do not have our best interests at heart, to open dialog and perhaps change their minds.
The second is allowing someone to speak at the inauguration who is anti-GLBTQ rights. We are not willing to do this, because "we shouldn't bargain with civil rights" and "he's a bigot who shouldn't be given a voice". Apply this logic to the first statement and we have the Bush doctrine, one where we have no dialog and no chance of changing their minds.
Hmm...
Is there a difference between two situations, one which we (apparently) support as a group and one which we (apparently) do not support as a group.
The first is sitting down with foreign leaders without preconditions. We are willing to do this, to talk to foreign leaders who do not have our best interests at heart, to open dialog and perhaps change their minds.
The second is allowing someone to speak at the inauguration who is anti-GLBTQ rights. We are not willing to do this, because "we shouldn't bargain with civil rights" and "he's a bigot who shouldn't be given a voice". Apply this logic to the first statement and we have the Bush doctrine, one where we have no dialog and no chance of changing their minds.
Hmm...
Comments