Gerson can’t make it past the first paragraph without major errors in reasoning.
Why is it everything I read from Michael Gerson is stupid stacked on top of stupid?
Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don’t really matter as much as we thought.
Words of unity and hope aren’t Barack Obama’s premise. Unity and hope themselves are. After hearing a speech in which he recognizes the anger of blacks and whites and still seeks to bring them together instead of ostracizing them, Obama exemplifies unity and hope whereas his detractors ask why he does not lose faith and embrace division. And then they present this as some sort of contradiction on his part. A reader of Andrew Sullivan’s notes a real contradiction:
I thought that one of the few things all us Christians agreed on was the maxim “condemn the sin but love the sinner.”
Barack Obama gave the kind of speech some people will remain diametrically opposed to hearing. The substance of it challenges their rigid calcification. Where he asks Americans to elevate themselves above the old ways, some will refuse. Fortunately, so far, I’ve only seen refusal from rightwing establishment types like Gerson or the bowels of the rightwing blogosphere. The Corner is notable for nothing. How many times have you heard a rightwinger open up his argument with the conclusion, “I am not a racist!” before proving anything? It’s a strategy one should expect first in any sophisticated effort to diminish somebody black.
But do such defensive outward techniques hold water anymore? Or will we start looking inward and see our common faults?
-jb
March 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Our honored host wrote:
I’m trying — and failing — to see the difference here. He communicates to us via words, and his goal is to become President of the United States, not to promote unity and hope.
I don’t know how serious Mr Obama’s preacher problem is; my guess is, not very. The people who are concerned about this were never going to vote for him anyway, and the people who were planning to vote for him won’t be swayed by this.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
As in walking the walk, Dana. Anybody can talk about uniting. See George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign.
I think your assessment about how much of a problem this is for Obama is correct- after this speech. It did get certain portions of the Democratic Party scrambling scared out of their wits…mainly Hillary/DLC type Democrats who are used to basing their positions on fear of what mean Republicans will say about them. It had potential to boost Hillary’s superdelegate numbers. But now she doesn’t have shit to say, because Obama knocked it out of the park with a kind of honesty she can’t compare with. She knows she needs to wait a news cycle or two.
General election wise, if Obama hadn’t nipped this thing in the bud, the GOP could have gained a lot of mileage with queasy swing voters. And they might still. Certainly rightwingers are trying to keep this ball rolling with mock outrage. That won’t work right now, but come October it’ll be Barack X the Muslim terrorist who wants to bone your white daughters 24/7.
That strategy will backfire and fail, ultimately. Why? Because Barack is showing that he isn’t easy to swiftboat. That’s what the new generation of Democrats need to be about: standing up for themselves and being assertively proud to be who they are, politically and personally.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I disagree with both of you. Sure, supporting a bigot wasn’t going to win Obama any Republican voters, but there are a lot of those squishy folks in the middle who probably had developed quite the crush on Obama. This situation is going to make those folks think twice about him, not merely because he supported a bigot for 20 years, but because he used–dare I say it?–Clintonesque tactics in dealing with it. First he said he had never heard of these accusations. Then he said, well, he’d heard something but not those accusations. Then, Tuesday, he said essentially, well, ok. I knew he was a bigot. But I loved him as much as the grandmother who raised me so it’s no big deal. Perhaps there are people so desperate to believe the Obama myth that they’ll buy all that, but I’m betting a sizable portion of those independents are turning a jaundiced eye on Obama now.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Your claims of Obama’s supposed parsing have nothing to do with it, Sharon. It’s about trying to tar him with an angry black man talking crazy shit that we’ve all heard angry black folks talk before, and getting white people to be afraid.
If there weren’t a giant undercurrent of racism for Obama’s opponents to work with, this wouldn’t be a major issue. Republican opponents get elected without even denouncing crazy ass white preachers. McCain denounced the views of Falwell and Robertson and has been facing the backlash from the GOP for 8 years. He butters them up again and voila, he’s the nominee!
Obama denounces the negative views of Wright and you’re still having a fit? What a joke. He’s supposed to disassociate himself from Wright and see him as no more than a bigot? I don’t think that’s how people should run their lives. We’re supposed to be able to look past people’s views that we find reprehensible and form relationships with them. How else am I supposed to ever be friends with a Republican? I’ve befriended some people who would barely rank as the worst sort of rightwing trolls on the net, but in real life, as full-blown people who are more than just soundbites, they can surprise you with their humanity. Politics just ain’t their thing, but they’ll be great joke tellers or something. Obama is an inclusive guy who’ll look for the good in everybody…even you, Sharon.
You should really have more appreciation for such attitudes. Trust me.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
If you don’t want to be “tarred” with the views of a bigot, don’t hang out with him. That means not making excuses for his bigoted remarks or trying to compare him to your blood relatives.
And Obama doesn’t want to “do good for me,” Jeromy. He’s had opportunities to work with Republicans and hasn’t done it. That’s something you can’t say about the Republican candidate.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Eh? Obama has had several high profile collaborations with Republicans, notably Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn. Coburn is especially notable, because that is one high-flying rightwing nutbag.
“…do good for me…” Where did that come from? I said Obama could see the good in you, which would be an impressive feat considering your bigotry towards homosexuals. He’d probably take your pseudo-concerns about “the children” halfway seriously.
You advocate a world where everybody disassociates themselves from anybody with objectionable viewpoints, where division and reducing people to soundbites is the norm. I just think that’s a highly unrealistic world and a kind of politics that has infected the news cycle so thoroughly, but it’s not one most Americans live in. I think a lot of people are like Obama and try to be kind to others, and generally return kindnesses offered. You may find out the neighbor who helped you out was a 9/11 truther. You may find that the person who agrees with you about the gays took your wallet when you dropped it.
Shit, I like Dana more than I like Jesurgislac, and Dana is near pathological in his desire to throw people in jail. He’s a messed-up monkey, but I still feel his humanity despite some of the missing parts.
Jeremiah Wright largely served as Obama’s pastor and likely spent 99% of his lectures talking about Jesus and positive efforts to uplift black people. Andrew Sullivan has made some efforts to draw a larger portrait of the man’s character. And your efforts to diminish Obama’s personal connection are immediately contradicted by your need to reinforce how personal Obama was with Wright. You can’t have it both ways.
But I’m glad you realize trying to convince us that Obama is actually hateful and angry is a losing gambit…and it was always a gambit. You never believed it yourself and you still don’t.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:59 am
You advocate a world where everybody disassociates themselves from anybody with objectionable viewpoints, where division and reducing people to soundbites is the norm. I just think that’s a highly unrealistic world and a kind of politics that has infected the news cycle so thoroughly, but it’s not one most Americans live in. I think a lot of people are like Obama and try to be kind to others, and generally return kindnesses offered.
Online, we tend to know only the limited edge of other people: even in that limited edge, it is still possible to look for the good in them.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:18 am
Sharon: And Obama doesn’t want to “do good for me,†Jeromy.
He wants you and your husband and your children to be able to get health insurance, Sharon. That would be good for you.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:13 am
LOL @ righties who’re always pulling out the “religious freedom” & “why do you hate Christians?” card when one of theirs goes to talk at super-crazy Bob Jones U or Liberty U or any center of hateful Christian bile that isn’t also black (for those keeping score: when black preachers say hateful things, it’s horrible! when white preachers say hateful things: why do you liberals hate Christianity?)
sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around anybody else’s, righties
March 21st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Our esteemed host wrote:
Can I use this on my Testimonials page?
Of course, I might need another good zinger from J to go along with it.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:08 am
As long as you use the whole paragraph, Dana:)
March 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
OK, it’s done, though using the whole paragraph made it kinda long. But I still need a really good zinger from J, being certain to include how ugly and stupid I am.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
OK, no need: I found a good one!
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 am
I said Obama could see the good in you, which would be an impressive feat considering your bigotry towards homosexuals. He’d probably take your pseudo-concerns about “the children†halfway seriously.
Surely, you already know Obama’s position vis-a-vis gay marriage. He’s not in favor of that, either. I guess you would call him a bigot against homosexuals as well. Quite the contortion you must go through to continue your adoration of the guy.
You advocate a world where everybody disassociates themselves from anybody with objectionable viewpoints, where division and reducing people to soundbites is the norm.
It’s so pitiful that you can’t make arguments without setting up strawmen, Jeromy. Nowhere, in any writing of mine anywhere, will you find a statement that remotely advocates this point of view. I think there’s a big difference between chance encounters, close friendships, and blood relations, which is seemingly more than Obama does.
But I’m glad you realize trying to convince us that Obama is actually hateful and angry is a losing gambit
Another strawman. Where have I said any of this? Because I question that he stayed in a church that preached hatred and doesn’t embrace that? Because I think one chooses one’s church, especially when one hasn’t been tethered to a particular religion since childhood, because it coincides with one’s values and the values one chooses to teach one’s children? Obama is a one-term senator, Jeromy. He hasn’t done much of anything other than run for president. It’s pretty difficult to look at his non-record and say that the absense of radicalism means he didn’t and doesn’t agree with things Wright has said. Where are the church members who can come forward to tell us about the tolerant Obama shaking his head in disbelief at the crazy pastor?
You don’t like me pointing out that the people one chooses to hang out with are a good indication of who one is, but that’s really the point here. If a white candidate went to a racist church for 20 years, he would be branded a racist regardless of his personal actions. But then, I guess there is a different standard.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Surely, you already know Obama’s position vis-a-vis gay marriage. He’s not in favor of that, either.
He’s in favor of repealing DOMA. Once DOMA has been repealed, a same-sex couple who want to get married may have to travel to Massachusetts, but will be able to return to their home state and have their marriage recognised there, as the Constitution requires – all states must give “full faith and credit” to marriages performed in other states. So while Obama may personally oppose gay marriage, he isn’t trying to impose his religious beliefs on others. Unlike Bush, who has no particular religious beliefs that anyone’s been able to discover, but who is quite willing to ban gay marriage for Americans because it makes conservative Christians happy bunnies.
Either Obama or Clinton will make a good President. Assuming McCain can escape being prosecuted for electoral fraud, he doesn’t stand a chance against either of them.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
[...] Our good friend Jeromy once wrote: Dana is near pathological in his desire to throw people in jail. [...]