Obama and Liberal Culture -- A Response to David B:
In his post below, my co-blogger David Bernstein argues that Obama "is the product of a particular intellectual culture that finds the likes of Wright and Ayers to be no more objectionable, and likely less so, than the likes of Tom Coburn, or, perhaps, a Rush Limbaugh." I won't be voting for Obama in November, but I don't see the evidence that Obama is part of that "intellectual culture."
David offers two pieces of evidence in support of his claim. The first is that Obama went to Harvard Law School at a time when David went to Yale Law School, and in his experience Yale Law had such an intellectual culture. There are a bunch of problems with this argument, I think. The most obvious is that conservatives who worked with Obama at Harvard saw him as distinct from the "intellectual culture" that David describes. Unlike others, Obama gave conservatives a fair shake.
David uses the "fair shake" comment to effectively connect Obama to the fringe. He reasons that the comment shows that Obama was at a place where it was unusual to treat conservatives fairly. Thus, by implication, Obama is part of an intellectual culture that does not treat conservatives fairly. I think the more relevant point is that Obama himself stood out from that culture, though, not that he was a part of it.
Second, David notes that in distancing himself from Ayers, Obama pointed out that he was good friends with Tom Coburn. David construes that as effectively equating Ayers and Coburn. But I read Obama's comment very differently. In the first part of the answer, Obama distanced himself from Ayers. He then added one sentence about Coburn, which is this: "The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions."
Obama's sentence is inarticulate, because he does not say why this "fact" is relevant. If you read the entire quote in context, though, I think the most natural way to construe that comment is much more innocuous. Obama was just saying that a lot of people have taken crazy or disturbing views, and it makes no sense to assume from Obama's conections to that person that the person's crazy or disturbing views reflect Obama's values. He not only knows Tom Coburn, but he is actually a friend, and yet Coburn's comment in favor of killing abortion doctors doesn't somehow "rub off" on Obama. Similarly, the fact that he knows Ayers doesn't mean that Ayers' views "rub off," either. If you read the full answer to the question, I think you'll see that this is probably what he had in mind.
Like David, I think Obama is very liberal. My sense is that Obama is the most liberal major party candidate for President since George McGovern in 1972. Like David, I won't be voting for him. Still, I don't see the point of connecting Obama to radical views without evidence that Obama himself personally held them.
David offers two pieces of evidence in support of his claim. The first is that Obama went to Harvard Law School at a time when David went to Yale Law School, and in his experience Yale Law had such an intellectual culture. There are a bunch of problems with this argument, I think. The most obvious is that conservatives who worked with Obama at Harvard saw him as distinct from the "intellectual culture" that David describes. Unlike others, Obama gave conservatives a fair shake.
David uses the "fair shake" comment to effectively connect Obama to the fringe. He reasons that the comment shows that Obama was at a place where it was unusual to treat conservatives fairly. Thus, by implication, Obama is part of an intellectual culture that does not treat conservatives fairly. I think the more relevant point is that Obama himself stood out from that culture, though, not that he was a part of it.
Second, David notes that in distancing himself from Ayers, Obama pointed out that he was good friends with Tom Coburn. David construes that as effectively equating Ayers and Coburn. But I read Obama's comment very differently. In the first part of the answer, Obama distanced himself from Ayers. He then added one sentence about Coburn, which is this: "The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions."
Obama's sentence is inarticulate, because he does not say why this "fact" is relevant. If you read the entire quote in context, though, I think the most natural way to construe that comment is much more innocuous. Obama was just saying that a lot of people have taken crazy or disturbing views, and it makes no sense to assume from Obama's conections to that person that the person's crazy or disturbing views reflect Obama's values. He not only knows Tom Coburn, but he is actually a friend, and yet Coburn's comment in favor of killing abortion doctors doesn't somehow "rub off" on Obama. Similarly, the fact that he knows Ayers doesn't mean that Ayers' views "rub off," either. If you read the full answer to the question, I think you'll see that this is probably what he had in mind.
Like David, I think Obama is very liberal. My sense is that Obama is the most liberal major party candidate for President since George McGovern in 1972. Like David, I won't be voting for him. Still, I don't see the point of connecting Obama to radical views without evidence that Obama himself personally held them.
Related Posts (on one page):
David is implying that it's out of the mainstream to be willing to associate with someone who once bombed Americans, regardless of views. He's probably right.
Personally, I don't begrudge Obama this relationship, and I will be voting for him in November. But I don't think you're understanding David's position right.
Yes, but ignoring any other contact they had, Obama's campaign condones the "mainstream" label. Based on Ayers' own statements, I strongly disagree with that label. Thus "mainstream" must mean something else to them.
(Note that the quote is actually from an AP story in 2001, which I can't find the full text of. But the campaign displays it prominently as a badge of honor, so I'll take it as such.)
Among other things, plausible deniability, as a ruse or tactic of that campaign, is greatly aided by such subterfuge.
Addressing the subject matter, at City Journal, Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family, excerpt:
"Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country."
And that, citizens, is precisely the framing that needs to be brought into full view, absent obfuscations, absent any rank dismissiveness, absent denials, ...
I may have missed this, but do any of the VC bloggers support Obama in the upcoming election?
A simple, "I didn't know Bill Ayers still held to his radical beliefs about violence until recently. If I had known that about him, I would never have served on any boards with him or had him host a fundraiser for me. I believe in redemption, but Bill Ayers hasn't redeemed himself. He's still the same self-centered coward he was 40 years ago. He's not the least bit sorry for what he did. But I am sorry. I am sorry I ever met that man. I am sorry the FBI botched the case against him. Bill Ayer's unrepetant radical views have no place in our society."
Why doesn't Obama say this? Would Ayers come out and say: B.S. Barack knew all along about my unrepetant violent views and never said a word.
Yes, Ayers said he doesn't regret the Weathermen setting bombs to protest the vietnam war. I'm sure the vast vast majority of Americans would find that reprehensible. But he's a "Distinguished Professor" at the University of Illinois and has been granted honorary degrees from other institutions. No only that, he's been consulted by public figures on his ideas on education.
I submit that despite his radical attitudes, he is mainstream. Tom Coburn believes in the death penalty for doctors who preform abortions. That belief is also far seperated from most americans, but Tom Coburn is also mainstream.
I haven't decided to vote for Obama or not, but as far as Senate Ethics Investigations, the Senate has yet to call for an investigation into Obama's purchase of his current house three years ago with the help of Tony Rezko. At the time, Obama knew Rezko was under federal investigation but, because the seller wanted to sell the house and the vacant lot next door in one package, Obama asked for Rezko's help: Obama bought the house and Rezko bought the land next door.
This is at least as bad as Alan Cranston's role in the Keating 5 scandal, and much worse than McCain, Glenn, DeConcini and Riegle's role.
So when is the Senate going to investigate?
Yes, book endorsements and appointments to committees are guilt by association.
I assume that means that you believe the "fair and unbiased" report of the NRO over that of the NYT.
Nunzio,
I agree that Obama's real estate purchase with Rezko's involvement was not a smart move, and Obama has acknowledged that. However, the efforts of the Keating 5 to intimidate federal regulators to stay away from Lincoln Savings reflect a much more serious ethical problem.
Anyone,
I'm still looking for any VC bloggers (not counting commenters) who are Obama supporters. Maybe the big media groups can spare a few. Possibly the VC could even work out a trade so that conservative and libertarian views could be better integrated into the MSM.
If the Senate doesn't investigate, how will we know what Obama promised to do in return for Rezko's favor? Rezko is not the kind of guy who does stuff out of the goodness of his heart and Obama knows that. Again, Obama knew at the time that Rezko was under investigation for bribery.
I'm glad Obama's self-serving answer satisfied you, but that's not enough. The Senate investigated McCain, and the public deserves the same courtesy with respect to Obama's transactions with a major campaign contributor who he had good reason to believe was corrupt.
David Post is one; I suspect there are two others.
You would really have to try hard to reach any other conclusion.
Please prove that "Obama asked for Rezko's help."
juke, please prove to "us" you don't have your head piledriven up your patoot.