Bwaaa! But I’m a grownup!
Filed under: Barack Oama — Claudia, Assistant Editor on March 21, 2008 @ 4:12 pm CET
How well do you know the people around you? Let me ask you, do you agree with every single thing that every one of your friends, family, clergymen believes? You better, if you’re planning on being a politician. Oh and it doesn’t matter that someone might be 80% great and 20% nasty, you’ll be crucified for that 20%. Oh and don’t forget to read the church newsletter! Remember, you agree with every single word in it unless you denounce it!
It’s amazing. I heard constant complaints that people want to be treated like adults by politicians, not children who can’t understand complexity or the greyscale between black and white. Then the very INSTANT things get complicated, people take the reality to the very extreme and stick with it. To read the blogosphere lately is to believe either that Obama is a saint fallen to earth to heal us, or that he is a crypto-racist terrorist loving hypocrite, who embraces every single controversial and nasty position of anyone close to him. Strangely, all the good and totally contrary positions of people equally close to him aren’t similarly applied to him, nor is the proof of how he has run his life given any credence.
It’s far too complicated to actually think that he’s an adult with a complex relationship isn’t it? Either he’s a guy who only every heard love and rainbows coming out of the mouths of his preacher (by the way, Trinity has a larger pastoral staff than just Rev Wright) OR he attended the black equivalent of KKK rallies every single Sunday for 20 years, and believes Jesus Christ was black and that blacks are the “chosen people”.
Please no gray area. No actual human being who probably heard really nasty things said in church now and again, but thought the good outweighed the bad. Who didn’t raise a huge stink about the matter because, though distasteful, decided it wasn’t worth fighting with his church, and the people he appreciated, over. Not the bravest stance to take, by any means, but perfectly human. Or maybe it was something else, but almost certainly it was a hell of a lot more complicated than the cartoonish caricatures we’ve been reading lately.
I say we deserve to be grounded until we decide to ACT like adults, and then maybe we’ll get treated as such
1 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 4:27 pm CETClaudia, you generally are better than this- to make a strawman argument such as this. I think you know very well that many of us are not saying that people can’t have complex relationships, that they can’t accept having a personal relationship with someone who holds controversial views, etc.
It’s the specific nature of Wright’s views (which should be denounced uncategorically, not with excuses for why they were never denounced before or excuses for why we should understand his feelings) and the specific nature of Obama’s relationship with him (pastor for more than 20 years, described by Obama as his spiritual mentor as well as someone whose judgment he sought to keep him grounded, was made head of Obama’s campaign’s religious outreach, and oh, by the way, his theology is a completely inseparable mix of politics and religion, and he campaigns for Obama from the pulpit.)
It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama liked or loved the man as a personal friend, and frankly the attempts you are making to make the issue more gray rather than acknowledging the parts that really are black and white, is part of the problem.
2 Rich Horton
March 21, 2008 @ 4:50 pm CETClaudia, the Barrack Obama you are decribing must be the world’s most naive person. Funny thing is, I don’t want a naive president either.
3 Claudia
March 21, 2008 @ 4:50 pm CETC. Stanley I wasn’t thinking of you specifically. If anything, I think you do look at the gray, even if you come to a different conclusion, which is totally valid. But I’m afraid that I stand by my argument. Mind you, this isn’t by any means something I’ve only seen here, it’s everywhere, and very especially on cable news. It’s infantilization combined with polarization. I maybe should have emphasized it more, but it’s not just something I see in Obama opponents, though that seems to be the dominant side these past few days. Some Obama supporters seem to want to think he’s the messiah come down to Earth (though we’d probably disagree with the proportion of his base they are) and therefore simply refuse to consider or critically think about things like Rezko or Wright. It’s the same infantile impulse; don’t make it complicated! He’s the good guy! Good guys never do anything bad!
It’s this need to turn all our political arguments (not just Obama, look at the debate about the Iraq surge) into a Disney movie where the bad guys are simply evil or the good guys are entirely virtuous. I don’t think Obama is entirely virtuous. Rezko smells really bad to me and I think that Wright’s statements are bad enough that if he said them with any degree of frequency, Obama should have left the church, though I personally don’t think he even begins to share those views himself. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I think he’s a big cut above the rest.
4 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 4:53 pm CETClaudia — Bravo. You hit the nail on the head with this post. Obama leads his entire public life in a mode of conciliation and collaboration, and is damned by association with someone who occasionally did not. No wonder so few people run for public office.
5 kreiz
March 21, 2008 @ 5:02 pm CETClaudia, I’m curious, should Barack have been more tolerant of Don Imus? I wasn’t- thought he crossed the line and endorsed his removal. But that means I wasn’t tolerant of him, right?
6 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 5:04 pm CETPete, it’s interesting that you put it that way. I almost hate to bring this up, for fear that it just sounds like I’m grabbing for another club to hit Obama with…but…
Doesn’t that characteristic of running his life in a mode of conciliation and collaboration bother Obama supporters, since it shows that sometimes when you trust people who aren’t worthy of that trust you get burned in the process? It goes to naivete, as Rich suggests, doesn’t it? And isn’t that one of the main criticisms that some of us have on Obama’s foreign policy? That he doesn’t seem to understand that talking to or attempting to negotiate with guys who really have no inclination toward coming to a mutually beneficial agreement, might not be such a good way to handle our nation’s diplomacy?
Particularly with Rezco that seems to be the case. And then with Wright, there’s a similar issue because we see that Obama wasn’t able to separate his personal feelings from the need to call out racism when he saw it. So, again, will he show similar mercy toward other people, or leaders, who have these flawed world views and policies? Will he forgive and overlook too much, and wind up enabling?
7 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 5:05 pm CETI guess what I’m saying is that I would LOVE to see a politician who runs his life on the principle of collaboration- but only if he also shows good judgment on who he collaborates with.
8 Claudia
March 21, 2008 @ 5:09 pm CETkreiz, it absolutely does and I disagree with Obama (and everyone else calling for Imus’s head) on that issue. It’s not too hard to imagine that Obama allowed his personal affection for Wright to get ahead of his politics. I’ve done that before; I know a guy who basically thinks that not everyone should be allowed to vote, since most people are too stupid and ignorant to make the right decision. Not a very nice position eh? I might make an issue out of it publicly if it were said by a stranger, but I don’t do the same in the case of my friend. Not a consistent position, if an understandable one. Thank heavens that when I do that sort of thing, it doesn’t go out on the CNN crawler
9 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 5:20 pm CETSee, that last part is where I think you are going too far with this, Claudia. If your friend were a well known political activist agitating for disenfranchisement of voters, then he might rise to the level of providing some controversy. Include him on your campaign staff or describe him as a mentor to you and you’d certainly be further at risk of having this examined. But really- you don’t actually think that the personally expressed opinions of every friend or relative of candidates are being vetted by the media or by political opponents, do you? I’m guessing you are using hyperbole here, but it’s hard to tell where you actually think the scrutiny is misplaced. What should be fair game in terms of associations with controversial people, in your view?
10 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 5:37 pm CETChristine: each and every person you consider an authority, in one way or another, and have close relationship by and say you are inspired by is fair game imo. By the way, did you know that Obama’s lying a bit about his grandmother? His grandmother wasn’t, it seems, afraid for black guys on a street, she was afraid of a black beggar who threatened her when she declined to give him money. Yeah, that’s racist alright.
Exactly. He’s either a complete idiot or disingenuous. Either case, not presidential material. Claudia: we disagree, but I appreciate you posting your take on it all.
11 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 5:43 pm CETYeah, I mentioned that in my rather long comment under Claudia’s post about reviews of his speech.
I thought it was unseemly for him to even mention that his grandmother harbored racist feelings, even if it was true, esp in context of comparing that to Wright (because presumably she wasn’t preaching white supremacy- so there’s absolutely no equivalence and he implied that there was.)
But then when I read the context of that anecdote- it actually made me sick. Apparently his grandma was shaken up by a particular black guy harassing her, and grandpa scolded her because he felt she was only scared of him because he was black. Can you say, white guilt? Sheesh- no one is allowed to feel frightened when they are treated roughly, if the person doing that is black?
12 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 5:49 pm CETBut then when I read the context of that anecdote- it actually made me sick. Apparently his grandma was shaken up by a particular black guy harassing her, and grandpa scolded her because he felt she was only scared of him because he was black. Can you say, white guilt? Sheesh- no one is allowed to feel frightened when they are treated roughly, if the person doing that is black?
Exactly. Man, the media should perhaps spend some attention to what really happened back then. There’s nothing even remotely racist going on there, Obama and his buddies are simply playing the victim.
- black beggar threatens white woman
- white woman is scared
- thus she’s a racist
13 Jay_C
March 21, 2008 @ 5:52 pm CETI agree with Claudia in the general sense. The "non- acknowlegement of a valid grey area stance" is far too prevalent in general. There are many instances in all areas of media (here and overall), however, where I think "extreme logic" has been mis-applied in place of "moderate logic" so the argument can fit a persons stance on an issue.
14 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 5:54 pm CETWell, to be fair though- it’s not clear to me whether he’s directly referencing that event or if grandma did say or do other things that showed bigotry. His comment in the speech implied that she said/did other things. My initial feeling still applies in that case though- there’s no equivalence between private inability to completely overcome racist fears and the public embrace and advocacy of a philosophy that pits one race against the other.
15 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 5:59 pm CETJay_C, even the moderate’s gray area argument can be misapplied or applied selectively though. Not to pick on Claudia, because she did in fact use this type of reasoning in describing how she views Dick Cheney and his membership in the GOP despite having a gay daughter (with whom he has an apparently good and loving relationship.) Kudos to Claudia for saying that, but for instance, has she ever felt the need to point out the nuance of that opinion when people on other ‘moderate’ blogs rail about Cheney’s hypocrisy?
I’m just saying this to point out that the ‘nuance’ and ‘grey zone’ ideas tend to get trotted out selectively too. Somehow we don’t notice it as much when people are being more extreme about someone we don’t care for very much anyway, or whose political views we oppose.
16 kreiz
March 21, 2008 @ 6:03 pm CETClaudia, my problem with your analysis is that it blurs the practical realities between the private and the public. Most of us aren’t public figures, and frankly, our personal predilictions and associations are completely irrelevant. By and large, we’re free to have unfettered association with anyone we wish. Public officials are held to a different standard, as they represent the public and, to some extent, mirror the public’s values. This scrutiny is a reality, whether fair or not.
17 Jay_C
March 21, 2008 @ 6:05 pm CETClaudia, this is where you hit the nail on the head. "Specifically, the very INSTANT things get complicated, people take the reality to the very extreme and stick with it. To read the blogosphere lately is to believe either that Obama is a saint fallen to earth to heal us, or that he is a crypto-racist terrorist loving hypocrite, who embraces every single controversial and nasty position of anyone close to him. Strangely, all the good and totally contrary positions of people equally close to him aren’t similarly applied to him, nor is the proof of how he has run his life given any credence."
Now, of course, this doesn’t just apply to Obama. IMO, using phrases like "All or most (fill in the blank) supporters beleive, do, don’t do or say "X", should not be applied without documentable statistically valid proof of their stance on X. (which is really hard to do, and far too often we use un-verifiable personal experience that support ones beliefs. Having an opinion is one thing, but wording an argument as if it were based on fact is another.
18 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 6:06 pm CETChristine and Michael,
Apparently there’s nothing anyone can say that will convince you to change your minds on this subject, and that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinions.
But I must say, for the record, once and for all, that I’m entirely baffled by the fact that two intelligent, generally reasonable people are assigning so much to this situation based on "what if’s."
To the best of my knowledge, neither of you sat in Obama’s church for 20 years; neither of you interacted with Rev. Wright on a regular basis; neither of you has any direct, first-hand experience with Obama, his church, or his pastor to justify the level of doubt and skepticism and allegations you’re making.
It’s perfectly fine if you express skepticism, but at least have the basic human decency to admit you’re basing your take on this matter on nothing more than a grotesque extrapolation of the facts available.
Christine – you’ve certainly been more cordial throughout, and more willing to consider other points of view, and I do thank you for that.
Michael — your stubborness is disappointing. Again, it’s entirely your right to form whatever opinion you want, including your unequivocal damnation of Obama as unfit for the presidency, but if you do that, please admit your basing that judgment on something less than all the pertinent facts, and also acknowledge that in expressing such views you are not being anything close to "moderate."
19 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 6:13 pm CETPete, you’ve been cordial as well but I find it frustrating that you don’t believe your views are extrapolations but you do judge mine and Michael’s to be so. As I mentioned in one comment at Donklephant, what I see happening here is that Obama was vague in his defense of why he didn’t speak up at his church or walk out. That vagueness is why some people will extrapolate in one direction or another- and to me, the vagueness itself is cause to extrapolate into a more negative direction (because if there is a benign explanation, then just give it and be done with it- or admit you were wrong in the past but see it differently now, or whatever.)
I’ve also done a reasonable amount of reading on black liberation theology, and that certainly informs part of my judgment on just how plausible it is that Obama didn’t know the extent of the controversy.
So although I appreciate that you appreciate my cordiality, I will cordially attempt to say that I find it a bit offensive that you don’t think my opinion is one that an otherwise intelligent person could reasonably hold, and I don’t think either you or Justin are acknowledging the extent to which your more charitable interpretations of Obama’s statements are extrapolations that lie way in the other direction-essentially giving him a pass.
20 Jay_C
March 21, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CETI see what you are saying Christine, I do see quite a few middle of the road grey area arguments as well. I just think the root cause of of the "extreme mindset" be it, "extreme for", "extreme against", or "extreme middle" are easy "cop-out" arguments (unless verifiable through fact). It is almost as if "thought and reason" are turned off, and "defending a stance" becomes a goal, rather than real thoughful discussion and consession and defense. Without concrete facts, logic can be used to support any stance, and win the argument.
21 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CETThat is correct.
"Moderate" doesn’t mean you can’t call someone who’s unfit to be president, unfit to be president. As an aside, I don’t claim PoliGazette to be a moderate blog; a moderately conservative blog, but not a moderate blog, as TMV for instance claims.
As for my "stubbornness:" it’s amazing to see people like you, who are normally principled, articulate and intelligent, swoon all over one candidate and defend the indefensible.
You see how it is from my perspective? Perhaps you should keep that other perspective in mind when you accuse people of this or that.
Finally it’s interesting to see that supporters of the guy who says he’s all about tolerance, unity and reasonable political discourse purposefully attack and insult those who choose not to be part of the ‘unity.’ Do you see me or Christine accusing you all, initially, of things, ulterior motives, unmoderate, etc.? Personally, if we talk about what’s not moderate and what is, I find the idea to stand by a politician no matter what, to cover up all his failings, all his weaknesses and to attack everyone who dares disagree, not moderate. I also find it not moderate not to hold people responsible for their own choices.
Funny that. Reminds me of this big European movement…
22 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CETI’m not extrapoloating. I’m taking Obama at his word. You can criticize that, if you like, and fairly so. However, without direct experience with Obama’s church or Rev. Wright, and with the consideration given Obama’s public track record, in which he has consistently acted in a way that rejects Wright’s meanest comments, I think giving Obama the benefit of the doubt is the most reasonable, fairest reaction.
23 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 6:24 pm CETThe extrapolation though is the willingness to take him at his word even when the actions didn’t match the words. You point out that his actions do back up the idea that he doesn’t really buy into Wright’s philosophy. But the disconnect is why he now says those ideas are divisive and harmful, and that it’s important to move beyond them, yet he didn’t see the need to tell anyone that at TUCC. He seemed to think it was OK for them to be led by someone preaching that harmful, divisive philosophy.
24 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 6:28 pm CETI disagree completely. Without direct experience? The clips tell all you need to know. So does the entire theology of the church and so does the fact that Obama and Wright talked a year ago, when Obama said that he may be forced to distance himself from Wright, because he can get "a bit carried away" in his sermons. He also admitted to having heard controversial statements, in the Church. Perhaps not the exact same remarks, but similar ones. And his defense: he was almost going to retire is ludicrous. Wright’s goddamn america speech was delivered in 2001. 1+1+1=3, not 0.
He stayed with this church and this pastor for over 20 years. Knowing full well that many people would be insulted if they heard some of the stuff Wright said, yet he stuck with him.
That’s an act. Your ‘acts’ aren’t acts, they’re words of Obama. His trackrecord is ultra-liberal. His Church is radical. He has accepted it all and has never spoken out against it. That’s not a leader.
Man, I hope that Clinton went to a white supremacist church for 20 years or so, and that we’ll see some clips of some controversial sermons. There’s no doubt in my mind about the reaction of many if not most Obama supporters to that.
25 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 6:30 pm CETMichael — my final two thought on this subject.
1. Yes, I like Obama, but I have also been critical of him. I would not define that as a "swoon." Certainly not a permanent one. My eyes are wide open, believe me.
2. I was very careful not to attack you, but to express my disappointment and frustration with your approach to this particular subject, an approach that seems to this observer and others to be an all-out, almost hysterical attack on Obama, a refusal to even acknowledge that you don’t have all the perintent facts in making that attack, and a refusal to even concede you might be wrong.
If it helps: I’ll repeat what I essentially said in my response to Christine: I’m giving Obama the benefit of the doubt because I don’t have all the facts, but the facts I do have seem to argue in his favor. I’ll also concede that I might be wrong.
Now — if you’re a moderate, be it right-moderate or left-moderate, or smack-dab-in-the-middle moderate — it’s your turn to acknowledge the same about your opinion. If you don’t, or won’t, admit that, then at least admit on this subject — as I’ve admitted on other subjects, like stem-cell research — you’re not any kind of moderate.
26 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 6:31 pm CETExactly. All words, no action. Where I’m from, we call that hypocrisy.
And lets not even start talking about what he considers to be white racism (black beggar, etc.), whereas a black person probably has to call for the genocide of whites before Obama finds his words offensive (yeah, exaggerating to make a point).
Double, double, double standard.
27 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 6:31 pm CETLively thread, by the way!
28 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 6:50 pm CETActually, it’s clear to me that I’ve got all the "facts" I need to point out that Obama had no problem going to an anti-Semitic, anti-American and Black Supremacist church for over 20 years; that he never spoke out against extreme statements made by his pastor; that he only spoke out and condemned it when he was forced to; yet still can’t explain why he went to that church and accepted those "controversial remarks" for 20 years.
Those are facts. And those are all the facts any objective observer needs to conclude that Obama is all talk, and no walk.
As for "wrong": No I’m not wrong. He associated with this pastor for over 20 years, and so on. He swallowed the hatred, he accepted it. My opinion isn’t that Obama is anti-American or racist, or whatever. So no; I’ve got my facts right and I am right.
"Hysterical attack": spare me the bullshit. I’ve seen people like you and Justin Gardner defend Obama as if you’re hired by him as his lawyers. That’s fine, but stop attacking me for disagreeing with you in my eyes extremely weak defense.
If speaking out against racism, anti-semitism and anti-americanism, and a person’s cowardice in not objecting to it years ago, makes me not a moderate in your eyes on this issue, fine.
But I consider your "moderate" approach, not to be moderate. I consider it to be one of those mistakes progressives in Europe make a lot: they forget that some principles aren’t negotiable. They are rare, these principles, but they exist.
So, in my view, you’re confusing not having a strong opinion, and not calling bullshit out when you see it, with ‘moderate.’ There’s nothing even remotely ‘moderate’ about defending Obama on this one.
Lastly; stop telling people what is moderate and what’s not moderate. Lets just say that we disagree very strongly on this subject, as history has taught us.
29 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 6:59 pm CETMy more cordial way of saying what Micheal is saying:
It’s neither moderate, nor wise, to excuse the inexcusable. There are some black/white lines that shouldn’t be blurred into gray ones- and that’s what some of us feel is being done in this case, excusing black racism or excusing Obama for excusing it by not speaking out against it when the opportunities presented themselves before now.
30 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 7:01 pm CETYou say it so much sweeter than I do, Christine!
31 C Stanley
March 21, 2008 @ 7:15 pm CETNaturally, Michael!
32 kreiz
March 21, 2008 @ 7:43 pm CETPeter @ 18 and 22. You’re right- we’ve never sat in Wright’s church for the past 20 years. But we have seen video of specific bombastic and hostile rhetoric against the US, whites and Jews. Implicit in your analysis @ 18 is that there is a sea of positive comments that mitigate against Wright’s radical statements. Is this merely an abstract argument, or are there specific examples that tend to show that Wright’s blow-torch rhetoric was cherry-picked and unrepresentative of his true beliefs? The last paragraph @ 18 chastises Michael for clinging to beliefs without facts. It’s not unfair, therefore, for you to identify the facts upon which you rely in making your cherry-picking argument.
33 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 7:54 pm CETI’ll agree that there are points of moral certitude that we must, as civilized people, not compromise. Murder is one of them. Racism is another. Judging a situation on partial facts is another.
For instance, you present as fact that Obama’s church is "anti-Semitic, anti-American and Black Supremacist."
Yet, a church is defined by its members, and thus naturally by a majority of its members. In that light, you have no evidence that a majority of the members of that Church are anti-Semitic, anti-American, and Black Supremacist. Some might be. But there’s no evidence that I’m aware of that the majority are. I have no seen evidence that a majority of the members of that church attempted to overthrow "white society." No evidence that they protested Israel’s right to exist or harassed Jews in any way. No evidence that they worked collectively to undermine the Constitution.
With respect to Obama, he has a reviewable public record, including as an activist and public official. I see no evidence in that record that he ever promoted or supported policies or actions of any kind that would undermine America or Jews, or take steps toward "Black Supremacy." The man’s life has been an open book in more ways than any of ours have ever been — and again, I see no evidence that he acted in any way but a civil, respectful manner.
So if there’s NO evidence of morally reprehensible behavior in the deeds or words of the majority of the people of this church, nor any such evidence in Obama’s words or deeds, then you are assigning to them guilt that is nothing more than your interpretation. It is not a matter of fact; not a matter of indisputable evidence.
You also assume that a majority of people in a given church pay attention to every word uttered by their minister, and read every word printed in Church publications. I can assure you from years of attending multiple Churches from multiple denomination that this not the case.
(Hell, if I didn’t know what I was listening for in those excerpted Wright videos, I’m not sure I would have even understood his remarks. His pace of talking and method of enunciation seems remarkably indecipherable when he gets worked up. And he’s not the only one like that. I’ve sat in Churches where I certainly couldn’t understand every word uttered by preachers with that style of oratory. Considering which, it’s entirely believable to me that those preachers might have said something terribly racist, which I missed and very few others picked up on. If you think that’s impossible, attend those churches with a highligy capable stenographer and then ask him/her to transcribe verbatim what was said. He/she won’t be able to.)
In short, Michael, have taken a remarkably big leap in logic in judging Obama and an entire congregation on the basis of a handful of morally bankrupt remarks by their pastor, remarks that may have legitmately been glossed over not because anyone was complicit, but because they didn’t pick up on the message — or flat out didn’t pay attention — or, simply weren’t there.
In my prior comment, I characterized it as "final thoughts." I’ve violated that rule. But I won’t again. There are other debates to have, other work to be done. So I’ll leave you with this:
I’m not perfect. I could be terribly wrong. I’m willing to admit as much, in the face of the arguments you’ve made. You are seemingly not willing to admit the same, despite the equally sound arguments I’ve made, despite the repeated times I’ve demonstrated where your "facts" are not all together as robust as you believe they are. I’ll let your readers and the larger ’sphere be the judge of who’s more "moderate" or "reasonable" in that case.
34 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 8:04 pm CETkreiz — good question. I think I answered some of it in comment 33, but you might also want to reference this post by Andrew Sullivan, as one example among many. There are also, from what I understand, Chicago Trib and Sun-Times articles about the positive community impact of the Church — and no articles, to my knowledge, of the Church acting in a way that would be destructive of non-Black audiences. There are also many searchable articles on the Rev. Wright’s attendance at and participation in public events, where the setting and discussion was supportive of America and American interests. I also have not found anywhere an article where Rev. Wright participated in an event or activity that attempted to apply or advance racist policies or approaches to non-Black groups. Hope that helps.
35 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 8:12 pm CETJust guessing that the Hamas pamphlet doesn’t count?
Listen: even if 80% of Wright’s message was positive, the other 20% would still be reason enough for most people to walk out - and rightfully so. This is like saying that that murder killed a few innocent people, sure, but 80% of the time he was a jolly good fellow (exaggerating to make point).
The point is that if Obama was so courageous and so principled he would’ve objected to Wright’s extreme views a long time ago. He didn’t. And that says a lot about his character.
36 kreiz
March 21, 2008 @ 8:22 pm CETThanks for the reference, Pete. I’ll go there & follow up. By the way, the least you can do is give guarantee us perfection.
Christine, I really liked this simple statement: It’s neither moderate, nor wise, to excuse the inexcusable. My visceral reaction to Claudia’s original post was that, at some point, it is critical and necesssary not to embrace a wholly repulsive belief (or its speaker). Your statement helps me to clarify my gut reaction.
37 BJ
March 21, 2008 @ 8:25 pm CETKreiz,
i have read extracts of other sermons from Rev. Wright that directly contradict the language in the YouTube clips that have initiated this controversy. Sermons that are tolerant, inclusive, and very much in keeping with the kind of rhetoric that Obama’s actions and his campaign have been based on. Whether or not those kinds of sermons were more or less prevalent than the divisive ones, I can’t say.
38 Pete Abel
March 21, 2008 @ 9:09 pm CETBJ — do you have links or copies of those other sermons you can share?
39 BJ
March 21, 2008 @ 9:49 pm CETPete,
Unfortunately not. I only read them in passing last weekend when this whole thing came to the forefront, mostly through comment links on other threads. The only one I can find now is Sullivan’s copy of the "Audacity of Hope" sermon.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html
40 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 10:19 pm CETBJ: that’s 100% irrelevant. Amazing stuff this. Even if he said in 90% of the cases that we should all just get along, etc. that other 10% should still have been enough for Obama to walk out of the church. But Obama didn’t care enough to walk out.
If my religious leader would ever say something like what Wright said, I’d walk out. No matter how good of a relationship we’d have.
In fact, he knew Wright would become a problem because he knew Wright made controversial statements. He knew it. It’s why he didn’t put Wright in the forefront of the campaign.
Man. O. Man. Again, you all are forgiving a murderer because he’s a good guy when he doesn’t kill.
41 Michael van der Galien
March 21, 2008 @ 10:20 pm CETAnd Andrew Sullivan?
Come.On.
42 Jason
March 21, 2008 @ 10:28 pm CETMichael, Do you really want to propagate the general standard that people should walk out and sever all ties with their family, friends, and/or pastors whenever those people make a pattern of saying offensive things even 10% of the time? I would like a clear yes or no answer, please.
43 kreiz
March 21, 2008 @ 10:54 pm CETMy difficulty with Claudia and Pete’s position is that I really don’t elieve that either would endorse sitting for 2 decades in a church that preached fierce anti-Semitic or anti-homosexual messages. Often, it’s not just you that sitting there- it’s your kids- who are unlikely to have the ability to make the same principled moral distinctions. Is this substantively different from Obama’s decision vis-a-vis Wright?
44 BJ
March 21, 2008 @ 11:02 pm CETMichael
I was raised Catholic. In my lifetime the Church leadership has protected and excused pedophiles, demonized homosexuals, and just recently re-introduced a traditional Latin mass that specifically targets Jews to be “delivered from their darkness”.
Will you now call upon every Catholic politician the world over to leave the Church and renounce all of its teachings? Slam anyone who considers JP II a great man and spiritual leader? Tear into anyone who has nice things to say about Pope Benedict?
45 BJ
March 21, 2008 @ 11:16 pm CETOh, and if CNN can be believed, the "Chickens come home to roost" line was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force.
46 kreiz
March 21, 2008 @ 11:24 pm CETI thought Ward Churchill told me he got it from Malcom X.
47 Kevin H
March 22, 2008 @ 1:07 am CETto #40, MvdG the big problem with your muder analogy is that Obama isn’t a murderer. We are not looking to forgive Wright for speaking his message, but rather Obama for simply listening to it. Obama has CONSISTENTLY advocated unity. he is no murderer.
48 C Stanley
March 22, 2008 @ 1:50 am CETJason- I don’t understand why people are saying that repudiating Wright’s ideas is the same as severing personal ties. Obama now, for example, is renouncing many of Wright’s statements, yet apparently the two will still have a personal relationship (notwithstanding that there will probably be some hurt feelings and pride.) If he can do it now, when he’s been forced to do it, then why not 10-20 years ago or whenever he first realized that there was a cancerous streak to some of the teachings?
And I completely agree with Kreiz about the kids. If Obama believes as he says he does, that those divisive ideas have harmed black and white America, then how can he justify having his girls growing up with this influence? That part of it is personal, of course, and I’ll concede it’s not really my business, but since it’s something that has come to light as a result of the public parts of his life, I still can’t help but look at that fact in an unfavorable light.
49 C Stanley
March 22, 2008 @ 1:57 am CETKevin: the analogy about the murderer applies to Wright, not Obama. Thus Obama would be someone who’s arguing that it is correct for him to have not turned the murderer in because when the guy isn’t killing, he’s a pretty good guy.
It’s certainly a grossly exaggerated analogy, no real equivalence in the bad actions- but that’s the way it matches up (not an implication of any direct wrongdoing by Obama except for his excusing himself for giving cover to the bad guy.)
50 kreiz
March 22, 2008 @ 3:48 am CETReturning back to the original post, unfortunately, a candidate’s personal religious construct may be material in terms of substantive policy. Lest we forget, Bush’s incursion into Iraq was informed in no small degree by his religious beliefs. Similarly, Jimmy Carter’s well-meaning, naive and misguided foreign policy views were informed by his religious views.
Claudia’s original post suggests that the blogosphere thinks that Obama is either "a saint fallen to earth to heal us, or that he is a crypto-racist terrorist loving hypocrite." I don’t subscribe to either view. My concern is that, based upon the evidence as we know it, Obama may be overtolerant of abhorrent views and/or naive about their impact. That is a concern that could bleed into foreign policy. It’s not immature or childish or not grown up to evaulate these concerns based upon recent revelations. If further facts develop, those concerns may grow or be allayed- but the analysis itself is hardly not grown up.
51 Jason
March 22, 2008 @ 4:00 am CETChristine, it is quite clear that Obama’s rejection of Wright’s ideas is not sufficient for most around here, therefore, there is no other possible conclusion except that they demand a complete cutoff as the price of Obama’s proving his honesty (though I have no doubt at all that too would be waved away as inadequate by the truly obsessed).
I just want to know if they want that principle applied more broadly, or whether it is just "special" for Obama.
52 C Stanley
March 22, 2008 @ 1:51 pm CETJason, I think that’s a fair question, though I’d have to ask you to clarify what you mean by applying that principle more broadly.
I was actually thinking about that general idea- that perhaps in order to stop everyone from accusing everyone else of having double standards, it would be helpful to define HOW we all believe principles should be applied. But I’d have to know what you mean by that before I could answer yes or no, whether this particular principle applies in all cases.
I think Kreiz’s comment just above yours lays out some criteria that I agree with in this case. IOW, should a candidate ALWAYS completely (and without equivocation) repudiate ideas that people might find offensive? No, I don’t think that’s always a necessary criteria. People in our society can agree to disagree on many issues-even when sometimes those agreements can be quite contentious and offensive to some. But there are cases where those areas of contention cross lines where a particular view can’t be tolerated at all- and racism and antisemitism are such cases. THAT is why I feel the principle applies in this case. I think by equivocating or giving reasons for Wright’s views, Obama harms the overall atmosphere for racial reconciliation; he’s allowing for a double standard where people can say Wright has reason to feel angry and thus we can excuse his overgeneralizations and blame of all whites collectively as a race, as though this is similar to a white lady of an older generation having some justification of her fear of all black people collectively.
Now of course, some might feel that the degree of racism in Wright’s comments doesn’t rise to that completely unacceptable level, or perhaps some people disagree with me that there is that line in the sand at all- and those are the points at which we can agree to disagree. But to those who are on the other side of that view from me, I’d ask the same question of them that you posed to me: do you really apply YOUR standard equally? Would you feel that there was some level of anti-black racist thought that someone could excuse in some way, or homophobia?
Another point about double standards here is the degree to which many on the left seem to be completely unconcerned about the religious left even though they are sometimes obsessively concerned with the religious right. When you look at the video of Wright where he talks about Obama and Clinton, it’s clear that he’s doing nothing short of giving a political endorsement and campaign speech from the pulpit. Conservative churches have had their IRS exemption status challenged for much less than that.
Plus, getting back again to Kreiz’s comments, there is an effect that religion can have on liberal political policies just as it can on conservative policies. Many of us saw the religious left influence on Carter’s foreign policy decisions, for example, and we have concerns about whether Obama tends to lean that way. Turning the other cheek is something I completely agree with in personal relationships, but not geopolitical ones.
And in domestic policy too, we could be looking at the beginning of a shift from compassionate conservatism to compassionate liberalism, where Christian voters (esp black, but perhaps then being joined by some white evangelicals and Catholics whose concerns for social justice are expressed through liberal politics) become a large force on the left.