The issue is quickly hitting the mainstream, as the Washington Post's Richard Cohen has a column today that starts:
Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.
Obama's close ties to Rev. Wright and Trinity United raise two related issues. First, as I noted yesterday, Obama campaigns as a "uniter." Yet his spiritual mentor, and longtime pastor of his church, is an ardent admirer of Louis Farrakhan. One can even argue that Farrakhan has done some admirable things, despite his racist demagoguery. Unfortunately, Rev. Wright's praise for Farrakhan is precisely based on Farrakhan's racist demagoguery, what Rev. Wright calls Farrakhan's "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" that is "helpful and honest." Such as "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet"? Or "they [the Jews] are the greatest controllers of black minds, black intelligence." For Obama to merely brush this all off as "I don't always agree with Rev. Wright" doesn't exactly satisfy. People are routinely judged, after all, by the company they keep, and one would think that someone running for president as a "uniter" would have kept rather different company.
Relatedly, one implication of electing a president is that his "circle" suddenly becomes much more powerful and influential. At the very least, if Obama wins, if his spiritual life remains constant, Rev. Wright will inevitably become one of the most influential ministers in the world, and his church one of the most important churches. Remember Rabbi Michael Lerner's moment in the sun when Hillary Clinton consulted him about the "politics of meaning"? And Hillary, of course, isn't even Jewish! Rev. Wright is not the most pressing issue facing Democratic voters, but given the relatively small policy differences among the Democratic candidates, it's certainly worth considering on the margin (as is, for example, the implications of returning to power such lovely members of the Clinton circle as Sidney Blumenthal).
Finally, it strikes me as completely fair to raise this issue, at least given the current accepted role of religion in politics in the U.S., and the widespread importance placed on tolerance. Pres. Bush has (properly) been criticized for giving a speech at Bob Jones University, which had a ban on interracial dating based purportedly on its leaders' interpretation of Christian scripture. (I say purportedly because after all the bad publicity that attended Bush's visit, the policy was dropped). Mitt Romney has felt obligated to address the Mormon church's past history of bigoted teachings and policy. Giuliani and McCain have been criticized for playing footsie with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, respectively; imagine if they had announced that these men were their close friends and spiritual mentors! If there's some reason Obama deserves a special pass on this, I can't think of it.
UPDATE: An interesting angle that I noticed perusing some related commentary. Rev. Wright is obviously a smart, savvy individual. He knows that many of his views are controversial, and told the NY Times last year that he understood he could cause some problems for Obama. So why have his magazine honor Farrakhan, and why be quoted praising Farrakhan, in the middle of Obama's campaign for president? Odd.
FURTHER UPDATE: Here's the video created to honor Farrakhan at the Trumpet Gala. After a clip of Farrakhan discussing his willingness to die for "truth," The narrator explains that Farrakhan is being honored for his commitment to truth, education, and leadership. Thanks for ruining my breakfast...
Related Posts (on one page):
- Obama Responds to the Farrakhan Controversy:
- Cohen on Obama's Church and Farrakhan:
- Obama's Minister and Church:
In other words, there's some kind of issue precisely because Obama's campaign speeches make clear he does NOT agree with Farrakhan's idiotic views.
And what exactly is a "spiritual mentor?" Was "pastor of his church" not a strong enough link to suit your purposes?
Finally, it strikes me as completely fair to raise this issue, at least given the current accepted role of religion in politics in the U.S., and the widespread importance placed on tolerance.
Accepted by who? I'm sure it does strike you that way Mr. Rove, and no doubt Fox and Drudge will get the message - repeat "Obama" and "Farrakhan" in the same sentence as many times as possible until Hilary has won the nomination.
To my fellow Obama supporters, if you don't agree with me on principle, agree with me on practicality grounds. Obama will be eaten alive in the general election if the best he can do is, "I don't always agree with Rev. Wright."
As much as I hate to say it, I pretty much agree with David Bernstein on this one.
I say, the personal beliefs of a person who's in some way related to the person running for office isn't the main thing in this campaign: it's the only thing!
Vote against Mark Penn!
Vote against Rev. Wright!
Vote against Dumond!
Vote against that guy who wrote Ron Paul's newsletters!
Vote against Bob Jones University!
Pay no attention to the person *in front of* the curtain. Their actual views are of no consequence in an election. Guilt by association is and must be the only appropriate way adults should judge candidates.
Also, I continue to find almost nothing uplifting, exciting, or admirable in the more invidiously inspired posts at VC.
I look forward to his Honor's posts for less of the same.
All the major GOP candidates have set up shop in the Power Line Forum. It turns out that several of the regulars there have posted multiple comments promoting Holocaust denial, including statements like this:
I realize that it's often not fair to blame a forum operator for what commenters say, but in this instance the administrators are aware of the situation, and they did nothing. More details here.
What does it say about the GOP that their candidates have found a happy home at a site which knowingly hosts Holocaust denial? I thought "anti-Semitism is not to be trifled with?"
IOKIYAR.
"When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”
"But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces."
The story would have traction if Obama himself radiated signs of bigotry. But he doesn't.
Because he's more concerned with advancing his own career than Mr. Obama's?
The guy he credits in his autobiography for converting him and turning his life around.
"Pastor of my church" could be a guy who took over last week and who I don't much like, and is objectively a much weaker link than "personal confessor for the last twenty years, close confidant, and the man who saved me from a life on the streets."
There have been other times in American history when the electorate has been concerned about a churchman having the President's ear. I never much liked Billy Graham, but I like Jeremiah Wright a lot less, and the notion of him in the vicinity of the White House bothers me a lot more.
Of course, having Huckabee in the White House would be even worse....
Nick
Well, David, I guess I come at this from a slightly different perspective as a Catholic. (And I think it would be fair to say that in the opinion of many, the incumbent Pontiff is as far from 'tolerant' as you can get without falling off the edge of the flat earth.) It would be spectacularly disingenuous to pretend my religious beliefs don't affect my politics, but somehow I can form a view - or cast a vote - without a permission slip from my parish priest. If anything, I seem to recall John Kerry getting in a bit of strife four years ago for a voting record that failed to toe the orthodox line.
Neither can I, but I do wonder why anyone should be subject to a rather fatuous form of guilt by association. Even though I'm an Obama supporter, I do think there's more substantive issues in Obama and Clinton's political records that deserve closer scrutiny in a campaign materially different from an episode of America's Next Top Model.
Come back and tell us about it when Powerline honors the antisemites with a prominent article saying they "truly epitomize greatness."
We can all play "six degrees of separation" and it's pretty meaningless if you don't consider the strength of the links. In this case, the link from Wright to Farakhan is self-chosen, strong, and explicitly ideological; and the link from the "at worst racist and at best extremely unwise" Wright to Obama is even stronger - "He changed my life."
That's quite a bit stronger than "posts on Powerline's blog without being kicked off" and "Accepts free publicity on Powerline's front page."
A valid concern has been raised, but it's one that shouldn't be hard to put back down.
All Obama has to do is make an unambiguous statement that (1) Denounces Farakhan's bigotry and says that his "analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation" is in many ways incorrect (while continuing to acknowledge the things Farakhan gets right, like promoting self-reliance, self-discipline and personal dignity, proven ability to reform criminals, etc.)
(2) Says he strongly disagreed with Wright about this whole award thing.
If he can say that, the problem goes away tomorrow.
If he can't say that, he shouldn't be president.
OK Obama, it's "Sister Souljah" time! Got the nads?
I don't know for sure (happy to hear if someone has evidence/experience to the contrary), and I doubt they claim that any objection on scripture, but I will wager that interracial dating isn't exactly welcomed and encouraged at Trinity United Church of Christ.
Kristol's argument is really, really silly. First of all, the fact that the election hadn't happened yet doesn't mean much, because everyone except Rove knew and was admitting that the Dems were going to win. So even though the election hadn't happened yet, the handwriting was already on the wall.
Secondly, I thought we were supposed to believe that the change in attitude on part of the Sunni tribes was driven by The Surge. But here we have Kristol telling us they developed their new attitude on 9/06. The Surge wasn't announced until 1/07. In 9/06, when the Sunni tribes developed a new attitude, everyone knew the Dems were going to win in 11/06. But no one knew that Bush was going to announce The Surge in 1/07.
As usual, Kristol is turning the facts inside-out. The fact he brings (what happened in 9/06) doesn't discredit Obama, it discredits Kristol. And you.
The United Church of Christ is known as an early adopter of democracy in church governance (1630). But in a number of churches--and I don't know what happens in TUCC--this means both that the congregation votes, and that the church is governed in essentially the same manner as a corporation. (In Virginia, some of oldest precedent on corporate governance comes from schizmatic church debates). So, the Committee on Nominations--which choses the nominees to the various church councils--has great power. It's hard, not to mention divisive, to fight the status quo nominations.
So, I haven't been able to find out what entity within TUCC chose to give an award to Farrakhan, or what process was used to select the people who chose to praise Farrakhan. But given church governance structure, it is possible for them to reflect a radical wing within the church, or the majority of the church (as Farrakhan does have his followers). Neither of these is proof that the pastor of TUCC would have chosen Farrakhan as the awardee (on the other hand, maybe he was the behind the scenes pro-Farrakhan agitator). If the pastor privately disagreed with the choice of Farrakhan, this might be logrolling. He could have agreed to publicly not reveal a division between TUCC and Trinity Newsmagazine, in exchange for some other compromise elsewhere within the church.
I think it's most likely that the Rev. Wright is himself sympathetic to Farrakhan and a supporter of Farrakhan on at least some grounds, and that Wright is personally sufficiently untroubled by Farrakhan's anti-Jewish prejudice that Wright doesn't rock the boat. It's bad that Wright is not upset about anti-Jewish racism. Wright is focused on the struggle African-Americans, and anti-Jewish racism is orthagonal to that concern.
I completely agree that Obama should state the obvious: that he disagrees with Farrakhan's odious views. And I agree with those who point out that Obama, in his actions and words, does not appear at all to be anti-Semetic.
But given that controlling a church that is governed by its congregation under rules of corporate governance is like herding cats, I think that questions of what's going on and what Obama thinks ought to precede guilt by association.
"Sister Souljah"ing Farakhan right before the votes in predominantly white states like NH and IA would have been an obvious vote-winner. Having to do it right before the SC primary in which black votes are a big deal takes a lot more political guts.
Oh well:
(1) That's why a smart politican pulls his own skeletons out of the closet in a time and manner of his own chosing.
(2) Now we get to see if Obama's really ready for thbig time. His failure to act in accordance with (1) indicates maybe not, but he's still got a good chance to prove otherwise, and maybe even strengthen his appeal among moderates if he plays this thing right.
If Obama wants the question of "what he thinks" to "precede guilt by association" all he has to do is open his mouth and tell us.
His wife, on the other hand, clearly does.
I have never claimed that anyone should be "kicked off," or that any messages should have been deleted. But there is no excuse for an administrator to be silent, if the situation is brought to their attention.
"We can all play 'six degrees of separation' "
Indeed, and in this instance some anti-Obama folks have decided to play that game. Therefore they should not be surprised that the game can also be played in reverse.
By Cohen's standards, what Hinderaker did is wrong, and it's wrong for the GOP candidates to share a site that knowingly hosts Holocaust denial.
While I put that up as an FYI type of ref. - though also because some were suggesting Obama's church and pastor affiliation merely reflected "guilt by association" (which is dubious, since it's Obama who chose the association as related, presumably, to a significant aspect of his life) - I hardly think the Sunni Arab tribes were considering the predictions of the election in their calculus more than they were considering al Qaeda's terror, dissolution or whatever the better term might be. In that sense "silly" is better applied to your own offering.
No doubt Farrakhan is an anti-semite, but this seams like an odd choice of quotes to condemn. Clearly ignorant, but it doesnt seem too disparaging to me.
This church calls itself "unashamedly Black". Would any candidate as a member of an "unashamedly White" church be running for president?
I may be voting for Obama (certainly in preference to 8 more years of Bush-Clinton), so I hope he can address these things and not let them fester.
(Notice that I'm being nice by ignoring the ignoble history of the party whose origins are based on racism and support of slavery and most of whose history has involved explicit support for Jim Crow and the Klan.)
The issue is that Obama's ostensibly Christian church evidently adores the leader of the Nation of ISLAM!
To put it plainly: This story is intended to raise questions about whether Obama is a crypto-Muslim.
It's a Trojan Horse. We're meant to think the story is another PC-inspired hit about how the candidate has a friend who has a friend who is a bigot. In fact, it's intended to tap into the unspoken fear that we may be electing a fox in sheep's clothing.
I waded through all the posts there until I found the cooment by rocketman and read it and his other posts in the thread. I do not read it as Holocaust denial. Rather, I read it as against obsession with the Holocaust, an event that happened 70 years ago.
And in any case, this is one commenter espousing one point of view. By analogy, because JF Thomas comments on VC posts regularly and his comments are usually not deleted, we would have to assume that Eugene Volokh associates with gun grabbing socialists.
I don't think David Bernstein has it in for Obama -- rather, whatever political damage is done to Obama is acceptable side-effect of marginalizing Farrakhan and Rev. Wright. Farrakhan is the real target, since Bernstein doesn't seem to know or care much about Rev. Wright apart from his apparent support for Farrakhan. Bernstein isn't really worried that Obama supports Farrakhan -- rather, Obama's mild attempt to be rid of the issue "doesn't really satisfy." You might think that the issue in picking a President would be the candidate's character, but not for Bernstein. And then Bernstein says that it's "fair to raise the issue." Note that all he's doing is "raising an issue" -- you search in vain for an argument about Obama. Presumably the argument would be: Because Obama refuses to dissassociate himself more strongly with a pastor who supports Farrakhan, one can conclude that he supports Farrakhan. Bernstein won't say this, because it's borderline loopy. Anyone who has watched Obama speaks understands full well that Obama rejects what Farrakhan is about.
But Bernstein knows this. This post isn't about what Obama thinks -- it's about trying to punish Obama for failing to do more to marginalize Farrakhan.
A better way to marginalize the Farrakhans would be to elect a unifier like Obama, rather than a more divisive figure (from either party). Obama would deprive Farrakhan of oxygen. Bernstein's approach simply fans the flames.
Cohen's article does mention something you neglected to:
It's true that a political aide is likely attempting to spin what may become bad press. But here where nothing about Obama's campaign or in his past suggest that he supports Farrakhan directly, or would ever support Farrakhan's thoughts on race and stance on violence. There is simply no reason to think that the aide was being anything less than honest.
Furthermore there is a qualitative difference between having as your "spiritual advisor" a man who admires a third person who you may or may not admire, and agreeing to speak at an institution that actively promotes segregation.
You have two glaring logical flaws here: 1) imputing to Obama the opinions of his "spiritual advisor" (who is in turn admiring certain aspects of a man who is polarizing and racist); and 2) Equating personal support of a racist institution with accepting the advice of a religious figure who admires a racist (although nothing in anything you have provided indicates that Rev. Wright admired Farrakhan's racism).
When you couple this with the willful omission of the Obama campaign's counter-argument, you reveal your commitment to "fair and balanced" discussion of issues.
And if EV ever runs for office someday, no doubt some people will claim exactly that.
Yea, the minute we start talking about someone's close ties to someone who then has close ties to someone objectionable a whole lot of candidates are going to be in a fix.
These "arguments" seem fairly tenuous and if applied with equal rigor to other candidates would leave one without many choices.
Did we get to Kevin Bacon yet or do we still need a link or two?
Second, fine to note, as Cohen does, that Obama shows no signs of exhibiting personal bigotry. But if I were a member of a church that was honoring Farrakhan for his commitment to truth, I'd at the very least send an email about it to the pastor, and if I were someone as influential as Obama, I'd have a sit-down with the leadership about it. Failure to address my concerns would lead to resignation. I understand Obama's been rather busy lately, but it's not too late to say something about it.
Because he's a Democrat, obviously.
Ok, but you can't seriously think that "pastor for 20 years, prominently mentioned in autobiography" is the same as "troll on an Internet forum"? If someone accepts an interview on Slashdot, does that mean that they support pouring hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants?
Exactly.
And therefore rises the unthinkable question: is he?
That's kind of nice, but it's not the same as hearing it from the horse's mouth. The indirection of it raises the suspicion (not certainty, just suspicion) that Obama is trying to have it both ways: trying to give whites the impression that he's not a Farakhan-like racist, while hoping Farakhan's black fans assume that he is.
All Obama has to do is speak for himself and denounce Farakhan "loud and proud" and the issue goes away. Failure to do so will instead make the above suspicion grow ever stronger, and rightly so.
The Nation of Islam preaches some bizarre things including that the white race was created by the evil big headed scientist Yakub over the course of 600 years on the island of Patmos to oppress the black man for 6000 years. I have no idea why any Christian organization would chose to honor Farrakhan for proclaiming the truth.
I can't imagine what would happen if Obama traded for Jason Kendall.
Kevin BaconLouis Farrakhan is probative of his views on racial equality. On the contrary: it tells us at least something about Obama's tolerance for bigotry and racial demagoguery. Rather, I object to the part of the condemnation game where Obama can make everything right by rebuking the associate for his bigotry. Obama condemns, the press applauds, and everyone moves on to something else. It shouldn't be that simple.Obama should not have been unaware of Wright's admiration for Farrakhan, nor should he have been ignorant of his church's theology. There is no excuse for Obama not to have disassociated himself from Wright and his church, or at least voiced any disagreement he might have had. If Obama comes out tomorrow with a condemnation, it will be plain that he's doing so only because the public outcry began to jeopardize his political viability. No intelligent person should fall for that.
I never call on any politician to fire offensive subordinates or to dissassociate themselves from offensive friends and allies. If they're not smart enough to do that on their own, they're either bigoted themselves or too dumb and tone-deaf for office. When John Edwards hired that foul-mouthed, anti-Christian blogger Amanda Marcotte, Christians demanded that she be fired. I was as offended as anyone, but I didn't demand that Edwards fire her, for the simple reason that firing her in response to demands from Christians would not convince me that there was no room for anti-Christian bigotry in the Edwards campaign. If I demanded that she be fired and Edwards fired her, Edwards could say "look, I did what you wanted, now be quiet." I'm not giving him that opportunity.
Of course, you don't know what Obama has said or done behind closed doors. You want him to make a public stink, notwithstanding that that's not what most people do when they disagree with decisions made within their congregation.
Because he's a campaign aide, duh.
Do you believe anything Karl Rove says?
Obama's got the same kind of "questionable supporters &associates" problem pretty much every politican has. If he addresses it as skillfully as a Bush or a Clinton would, he's still in the game. If he addresses it as badly as Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani have, he's toast.
However, spiritual advisers are not assigned by the Bureau of Spiritual Adviser Assignments. They are chosen. They can be unchosen.
Obama may disagree with Wright on one thing or another, but it's clear that the disagreement doesn't rise to the level of requiring Obama to find a more agreeable SI.
So, what does Wright offer which is so wonderful that supporting Farrakhan and his violence, anti-Semitism, and separatism have to be accepted as unavoidable although distasteful baggage?
Does he have any connections with the Kucinich campaign?
I have no problem with members of an ethnic group asserting solidarity and pride in their ethnicity.
It is erroneous, I think, to assert a parallelism between "Black" and "White" in American society. Blacks, African-Americans, or whatever is the appelation du jour, comprise an ethnic group like Irish, Jewish, or Greek. The "White" experience and culture is more heterogeneous; "Whites" do not share the history and cultural indicia to the same extent that African-Americans do.
For those who argue that I'm implicitly accusing Obama of being a Muslim, or explicitly an anti-Semite, you've either got a fertile imagination, or you're intentionally trying to avoid the issue of whether Obama's associations are consistent with his message by distorting what I wrote.
jukebox:
Obama must be pretty clean if the people who are afraid of him can't come up with anything better than this.
And "the people who are afraid of him" will never come up with anything that will stick precicely b/c he's black. Any attack on him must be motivated by racial animus; ergo, the attackers are racist. Obama never has to lead with the race card; all he has to do is respond with it.
It was fine for Gore's people to discuss Bush's drug and alcohol use in 2000, but god forbid anyone (even another black man, Bob Johnson) do that to Obama.
Of course not. But a parishoner of St. Patrick's, St. Anthony's, or St. Casimir's could proudly claim to belong to an Irish, Italian, or Polish church without raising an eyebrow.
Most people are not running for President of the United States.
Hello Pot, I'd like you to meet the Kettle.
And there's the problem. For some reason, we seem compelled to pay attention to religious leaders (whether they are political figures like Farrakhan or "spiritual advisors" like Wright) simply because they are self-professed religious leaders.
Let's face it, we wouldn't give these crackpots the time of day if they were merely wandering the streets spouting this garbage. But add "Rev." or "Nation of Islam" to the title, however, and you get instant credibility and media attention.
I say we reject the "current accepted role of religion in politics" in the U.S.
Or, if we're really going to talk about the religious views of candidates, let's get down to the nitty gritty: do they really believe the crazy stuff in their sacred texts?
Doesn't mean they ought to be.
If you want to make a Saileresque argument that this reveals he retains some hangups and resentments and is likely to be act as a Big Man in office, go ahead. I think that as President he will wield a lot of power and we should be concerned by things more important than who his reverend endorses.
It's unclear to me why running for President should change one's relationship with one's church.
I voted for Bush twice and there's no way I'm voting for Obama, but I do see a bit of a difference between the two. A presidential candidate's past drug use or (other) illegal activity is a fair point of discussion. Bush wasn't candid about his recreational drug use, and the public deserved answers. It's unfortunate that Gore had to raise the issue, but I do think Bush had to take responsibility for his past.
I'm satisfied with Obama's candor on the subject. I don't think there's really anything else we need to know. If for no other reason than a spirit of fair play, I don't think we should be beating Obama over the head with activities that he has freely admitted to and explained to my satisfaction.
On the other hand, I do think it would be fair to ask Obama how his drug use has shaped his attitude to the War on Drugs. For the past 15 years we've had someone in the White House who has used illegal drugs, and if Obama wins that will be another four or eight years. In light of the fact that winners occasionally use drugs, presidential candidates who have used drugs should be pressed particularly hard on why the War on Drugs must continue.
My problem is that Obama hangs with people who do give crackpots not just the the time of day, but awards for being an all-around great guy.
The guy Obama chose for a "personal spiritual advisor" seems to have judgement problems - is Obama going to be any better picking an Attorney General? I don't want another Janet Reno.
And I don't want elect another idiot who'll look Vladimir Putin in the eye, "see his soul" and decide he's a great guy.
A big part of the President's job is judging people's character, and another big part is holding the people around you responsible when they screw up. We've had seven years of a guy who was average at the first and terrible at the second. If Obama wants to replace him he must demonstrate that he's better at both.
To summarize, Obama is not an anti-semite, his past drug use is not a legitimate issue, and we don't owe Orin a beer.
Neither do African-Americans, either; compare the backgrounds of Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, and, oh, I don't know, maybe Obama himself if you need an example.
I don't think people are criticizing Obama for what Wright did, they're criticizing him for failing to dissociate himself from it. You can still disagree that the latter is important, or necessary, but it's a quite different thing.
The Republicans were asked this question in an early debate. I believe the question was phrased as "do you believe that every word of the Bible is true?" I recall it being a show-of-hands question, which I don't think is particularly fair, but your question has been asked.
Let's say that Mitt Romney identified a "spiritual advisor" on the par of Rev. Wright, who converted him to being a religious Mormon. This spiritual advisor led a very successful church, to which Romney belongs, with all sorts of wonderful youth and other programs. The church also recently gave an award to a leader of one of the polygamous, heretical Mormon churches that believes that men have the right and duty to beat their wives for disobedience. The "spiritual advisor" praised this individual as someone with a "helpful," "honest," "eyeopening" , etc. perspective on relations between the sexes. Think this isn't going to be an issue.
In many ways, I'm inclined to agree with your point on candor. My main point (perhaps not well articulated) is that Obama, by virtue of being black, has the power to turn any criticism into a racial issue ("Why woul you ask about [insert issue here]? Is it because he's a black man?")
It's the same boy-who-cried-wolf mentality that motivates the likes of Sharpton and Jackson. Any issue that remotely touches the black community, and is then referenced by a white person, must be turned into a divisive wedge issue that plays upon white guilt(Jena 6, Imus, the Tiger Woods lynching comment on ESPN).
Sadly, like the boy who cried wolf, people may begin to ignore these voices when a serious issue actually does come up. If we can't separate the serious from the asinine (and hold both blacks and whites to the same standard), then forget about progress on the race issue.
And yet here are you and I at VC, jukeboxgrad, despite frequent posts by Farfaman.
If you have a question about Obama, you're not asking it. Neither is Richard Cohen, who writes: "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan." The point of the exercise is to try to pressure Obama to disown Wright and Farrakhan.
The other candidates you mention were all held to acount for their own statements, actions, or declarations of faith. Bush made a deliberate choice to speak at a notoriously racist, reactionary institution at a time when it practiced racial segregation. Romney was a declared member of a church with explicitly racist beliefs, for a lengthy period during which that dogma was in official effect. Giuliani and McCain personally courted and praised racist, misogynist, homophobic extremists and appeared at institutions promoting their beliefs.
Obama has no direct connection with Farrakhan. He is a member of a church that publishes a magazine that gave Farrakhan an award - but that award is not part of the churche's official dogma, and membership in the church does not imply agreement with the award, nor is the award an ongoing point of doctrine that would be expected to shape Obama's beliefs over his lifetime. Obama is close to the minister of the church, but the minister is not the publisher of the magazine, and at any rate the minister's opinions are not Obama's responsibility, nor are Farrakhan's opinions the minister's opinions, necessarily. Obama has not courted or praised Farrakhan, as many Republicans have done with Falwell and Robertson, and he has not even explicitly endorsed the beliefs of his minister, who himself has not explicitly endorsed the inflammatory statements of Farrakhan that you attempt to link him to. In fact, Obama has disavowed the minister's opinion of Farrakhan - something the Republican candidates never did with Falwell or Robertson, and only did so very grudgingly and very late with Bob Jones.
The situations are in no way comparable, and it makes no sense to hold Obama accountable for the statements of someone who was profiled in a magazine article that quoted a minister of a church that Obama attends. You could hardly find a more circuitous "linkage" between the two - but when confronted with this "connection" Obama disavowed it. That's more than could reasonably be asked in the first place.
No, Obama's campaign manager says he thinks Obama would disavow it. Not quite the same.
But what do you want? It's not okay for Obama to belong to a "proudly black" church, but would it be okay for him to belong to a "proudly Kenyan" church or, more broadly, a "proudly African" church? Is there enough daylight between Caribbean slaves and American slaves that Powell could only belong to a "proudly Caribbean" church, and not a "proudly black" church? Or do descendents of Caribbean slaves have enough in common with descendents of American slaves that they can belong to churches made up of predominantly the latter?
I don't know what your rules are, but I think this is silly. The closest parallel for the cultural heritage that blacks in America share is the cultural heritage that individual white ethnicities share. For the most part it's difficult if not impossible to determine anything about the specific African cultural heritage of American blacks. Pan-Africanism is all they've got, so I don't have any exception to them celebrating it.
There are positive and normative questions here. Is it going to be an issue? Most likely. In the current situation, I suspect that Obama is doing his level best to keep it from becoming an issue by indicating mildly that he doesn't agree with Wright on all issues (read: Farrakhan), but by saying it in a sufficiently low-key way that the disavowal doesn't become an issue. If all you're talking about is press management and what becomes an issue, then you should realize that there's no upside for Obama here. If he were perceived as beholden to the sort of people who like Farrakhan, then he could use this to move to the middle a la Bill Clinton's Sistah Souljah moment. But that's not where his support is coming from, and he doesn't gain anything by reminding white voters that he's black or distancing himself from (some) blacks.
But you're not just talking about the positive question of what will be an issue. You are making an effort to make it an issue, while remaining coy about what you're doing.
At the same time, you're not working very hard to explain why this saga tells us much about Obama, because it doesn't. Obama's message is the polar opposite of Farrakhan's. If you wanted to rebuke Farrakhan, you would support Obama. In a United States that can elect Obama President, what currency does Farrakhan's message still have?
Also, the Prof's wonderful little post here is amazingly biased. The first clue is that he never even points out that Obama's advisor said that Obama disagrees with Wright. The second is the conclusion that "Rev. Wright's praise for Farrakhan is precisely based on Farrakhan's racist demagoguery." How he reaches this conclusion- because Wright said Farrakhan's "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" ... is "helpful and honest." Obviously this is a poorly chosen statement (at the very least), but I don't see anywhere where Wright says it was the "racist demagoguery" that he is praising. That's a conclusion that's just not supported by the evidence. The next conclusion is "Rev. Wright will inevitably become one of the most influential ministers in the world, and his church one of the most important churches." Um... who is Bush's priest anyone? Oh wait, nobody knows. Why should we assume that Wright will gain this substantial influence? Well according to Bernstein it's just because of his bizarre example of how Rabbi Michael Lerner got a "moment in the sun" after being consulted by Clinton. Next, the Professor provides tries to explain how this is fair play.. but he doesn't explain why it's okay, just a lame attempt to say, look it happened here, so it must be okay.
We've stooped to outright lying now Ralph? You're quickly destroying your credibility. Here's the quote;
Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.
Very mature.
Over the course of many years, Richard Cohen has repeatedly and very commendably called out Farrakhan and his bigotry, along with those who would focus only on the "good" in Farrakhan, whatever that may be. (As an aside, let it be noted that Malcolm X's family earnestly believed that Farrakhan was implicated in Malcolm's assassination.) It is ridiculous to suggest now that Cohen is anyone's cat's-paw in this latest Farrakhan business, really out "to raise questions about whether Obama is a crypto-Muslim."
Those who saw George W's appearance at Bob Jones U as a gesture to the bigots in South Carolina and elsewhere had good reason to see it as such. Those who saw Reagan's '84 campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, MS, where Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney were so cruelly murdered by Klan types, as another reach out to bigots had very good reason to see that too as such. When those seeking to defend Obama's failure to distance himself from his church's celebration of Farrakhan cite Bush's appearance at Bob Jones U, they are not only doing the tu quoque thing, they are also implicitly accepting a likeness between Bush at Bob Jones U and Obama having as his spiritual mentor someone who admires Farrakhan. That is a defense?
I personally think that Ron Paul is more closely linked to racism through those newsletters than Obama through his church. But that said, I don't recall that those who are saying now in defense of Obama that he has not espoused anything like what Farrakhan espouses have said in the course of other recent threads that Paul shouldn't be taken to task for the hateful stuff in the newsletters because he never openly espoused those things as a candidate or officeholder.
And jukeboxgrad, why isn't it "Sister Souljah" time for Obama, as Ralph Phelan puts it? I think it would be a most opportune time for it, as it was for Bill back in '92. At the moment, Obama and his camp are all over Hillary for her remark that you needed an LBJ in the White House for Martin Luther King's goals to become a reality. That might be seen as playing the race card, so why not play another race card in the most excellent of ways, denouncing racism no matter the source, calling out Farrakhan in particular.
Most African-Americans in the United states (though not Powell or Obama) share a history of enslavement of their ancestors in the Soputh (true of Powell, but in the West Indies) followed by life under de jure or de facto segregation for at least another 100 years.
this has resulted in unique speech patterns, diet, music, rleigious expression, etc., shared my many or most African-Americans, but distinct from the majority culture.
Yes, I appreciate that Kathleen Battle and Charlie Pride have musical careers atypical for African Americans, that Reuben Greenburg's religious expression is different, etc.
Similarly, there is sufficient variation in the expression and variation of members of other ethnic groups that it is unfair to generalize of stereotype one person on the basis of therse commonalities.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to regard most Blacks as belonging to an ethnic group here in the US. Whitres are fragmented into ethnic groups. Being proud that you share a hommon heritage with Einstein of Yeats, or that your ancestors came over on the Mayflower, strikes one as different as saying that one is proud that one's ancestors are European. Reveling in your Sunday spaghetti dinner or teaching you kids Greek has no counterpart with some sort of pan-White identification. In the context of the contemporary US, Black identification seems more ethnic, though not all Blacks share the slave/Jim Crow ehistorical experience and the cultural attributes of the descendants of those who did.
Nevertheless,
If he doesn't he's a hypocrite trying to have it both ways.
I'm not sure that works -- nearly every evil figure in history did some good for his/her people. Saddam Hussein did all sorts of charity and was beloved in his home province. And particularly in Christianity, one does not make up for evil by doing good works. I'm sure some of the pedophile Catholic priests did some good for their parishoners, but they still deserve utter contempt. You can't be *that* harmful to one group and excuse it with your good works to another.
In any event, it's not just Farrakhan -- I can't imagine Jews are that comfortable with Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Obama foreign policy brain trust. And Obama's community, Hyde Park in Chicago, is as out-there-lefty as anywhere in the country, the handful of conservative economists and lawyers out of the University of Chicago notwithstanding. Jews and Israel supporters have to be thinking "if this guy gets into office and needs to build some good will with Arab nations to help withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, what would keep him from following Brzezinski's advice?" And being nonchalant about someone like Farrakhan can't help that.
Voters in the general election are not as stupid as you think.
That is actually an excellent defense. "I do not always agree with Rev. Wright."
Many people have also been in the position of agreeing with a pastor of a Church they attend on an issue or two.
That doesn't mean they abandon all the social networks they have built with others in the church.
Oh wait. Is David Bernstein going to condemn everyone in the congregation? They must all be bad people to go to this church.
Give me a break. This is a stupid and pathetic smear campaign. David Bernstein is the one who should be ashamed of himself. I would expect this from a crass political operative, but not a supposedly intelligent law professor.
Hey, but maybe I am giving Bernstein too much credit. This is a guy who defends Lochner.
No, the point is just to get Obama to talk about Farrakhan so clips of him doing so can be replayed endlessly by all the usual suspects. Even a clip of Obama saying nothing more than "I have never met Farrakhan" will be sufficient for that purpose.
The above concerns me.
But this:
reassures me a bit, but not completely.
And given Wright's undeniable influence and undeniable whackitude, Obama will have to show convincingly that it's the latter if he wants to be President.
I'm sorry. Seeing you try to attack someone because he didn't turn his back on his "spiritual advisor," who apparently has done a lot of good for him in his personal life, merely because he also has some objectionable views that are unrelated to the good he did.
That is called loyalty. That is called realizing that someone is more than their views, however flawed. Admirably qualities that you apparently lack.
Guess what. If everyone turned their back on everyone who had some objectionable views, you would have no friends. Alas, I don't condemn Eugene Volokh for his associations with you, even while I find your views to be totally objectionable and repugnant.
Grow up.
Seems appropriate.
I don't think it will matter in the primary. Not many people in the Democratic primary get all that upset by these things. By the general, it may be forgotten.
When your "spiritual advisor" is a wing-nut, people rightly start to wonder about you.
I love this argument. Other people make racist attacks on Obama. Obama (or his supporters) respond by pointing out that these are racist attacks, and Obama is the one guilty of "playing the race card"? Why not the people making the racist attacks?
I'd also point out that I've yet to see any clear evidence Wright is prejudiced, as I've explained his regard for Farrakhan shows a lack of judgment, but it's a stretch to presume it shows prejudice. Has the Rev. actually made any statements that directly show he is bigoted? And how does running for President change the equation? People running for President can't have friends and mentors who make ill considered statements or acts? Obama has already said he disagrees with Wright on this, he also has to burn the bridge too? And did I miss the memo where Barrack said he was putting Wright on his cabinet when he gets elected?
Ralph Phelan: When your "spiritual advisor" is a wing-nut, people rightly start to wonder about you.
Apart from the Farrakhan thing, what makes him a "wing-nut?"
The story connects Obama to Farrakhan. Reasonable people can disagree over how strong that connection that is and, therefore, how fair it is to make the connection. But the connection to Farrakhan is the central point of the story.
In connecting Obama to Farrakhan, the story connects Obama to (a) racist and anti-semitic views inconsistent with Obama's image as a "uniter"; and (b) the Nation of Islam.
For all I know, Cohen didn't give a moment of thought to the fact that Farrakhan is the leader of the "Nation of Islam." It may have had nothing to do with his particular motivations in writing the story and it may say nothing of the significance he, in particular, attaches to the Farrakhan association. Nevertheless, you can't write a story connecting Obama to Farrakhan without ipso facto connecting Obama to "Islam."
Obama wants to find racism where there isn't any for political gain. But he doesn't want to find racism where it might hurt him politically.
He needs to denounce both Wright and Farrakhan today and completely distance himself from both of them. If he doesn't, he has no credibility.
I hadn't noticed. Could you be more specific?
But you don't mind quoting Kristol, who seems to think that the Sunni tribes acted in 9/06 in response to a surge that wasn't announced until 1/07. Makes perfect sense!
And I think it takes a lot of naivete on your part to believe that folks in Iraq aren't paying close attention to the way the political wind is blowing over here. So the silliness is all yours.
You didn't look around very carefully, because you seem to have missed this:
Let us know if you're claiming those words amount to something other than Holocaust denial.
"this is one commenter espousing one point of view"
You didn't look around very carefully, because there were multiple commenters espousing this point of view. And that's not the key point. The key point is that Hinderaker was notified, and he responded by sitting on his hands.
"By analogy, because JF Thomas comments on VC posts regularly and his comments are usually not deleted"
I have said nothing anywhere to suggest that any comments should have been deleted. If JF Thomas (or anyone else) posted Holocaust denial here, and an adminstrator was informed about that, I would expect the reaction to be something other than silence.
"we would have to assume that Eugene Volokh associates with gun grabbing socialists"
I'm not sure what a 'gun-grabbing socialist' is. If you've seen comments on VC that are equivalent in offensiveness to Holocaust denial, I'd be interested in seeing them.
I can easily imagine legitimate reasons why I would choose a spiritual advisor even though we have important differences. I cannot imagine a legitimate reason to sit on my hands after I'm notified that a forum I run is hosting Holocaust denial.
And a troll is usually someone who hits and runs. One of the offenders at Power Line has posted there roughly ten thousand times.
Such fawning is hardly surprising given that Dr Wright himself — who in his sermons and interviews has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with apartheid South Africa, who said on the Sunday after 9/11 that the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies, and who suggested four years later that 9/11 was retribution for America’s racism ( views from which Obama has distanced himself) – appears to enjoy a close relationship with Farrakhan. In the Trumpet feature article, Wright raves:And in this story on NewsMax, Ronald Kessler reports:Considering the fact that the very mention of George W Bush’s belief in God is enough to give Democrats an aneurysm, and that Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are currently being dismissed as religious nutjobs, isn’t the Democrat (and media) silence over Obama’s choice of a black power church which is more akin to a cult, and the obnoxious views of the pastor who he says brought him into Christianity in the first place, more than a little remarkable?
Would any candidate as a member of an 'unashamedly Jewish' church ever be running for president? What about 'unashamedly Hispanic?'
Right, like when a famous Democrat chose to launch his campaign in Neshoba County, of all places.
Thank goodness there are no major candidates associated with religions that teach bizarre things.
Bill Clinton says Obama's foriegn policy claims, or perhaps his entire campaign, is "fairy tale." Obama's supporters claim it's a "racist attack." Huh?
Oratory and charisma are Obama's strong points. Hillary Clinton points out that all of MLK's oratory and JFK's charisma weren't enough to get civil rights legislation passed, you need an ass-kicker like her or LBJ to actually get stuff through Congress. "You're no LBJ" is a reasonable response [as is 'So what was Eisenhower, chopped liver?'], but racist? Huh?
Hillary Clinton cries in NH because her campaign looks like it's going down the tubes, and she gets accused of racism for not crying about Katrina victims. Why should she, when Katrina wasn't about her? Call her a narcissist, but racist? Huh?
Obama's supporters didn't just play the race card, they bluffed with it and had their bluff called.
There's no excuse for you to pretend that Obama, via his campaign, has not already indicated his disagreement.
Attacks on him which have a racial component, like this one, are going to be