Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Jack Squat
Monday October 6, 2008
Categories: Democrats, Republicans
All along I have believed, and have said in this space, that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright matters. As far as we can tell, no single person had a greater influence on Barack Obama's thinking than did the radical, race-baiting Wright....
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
So what should McCain do?
The best position a conservative could have taken vis a vis the "bailout" was to vote against, for any of a myriad of reasons. McCain didn't do that; he surrendered the Conservative moral high ground to the Democratic party on that one.
So, what's he supposed to say? He can't call out Obama for his vote, because McCain voted the same way. McCain did not offer any alternatives to this (by some new estimates) now $1.8 trillion bailout.
Yes, in the past McCain argued for stronger oversight of Fannie and Freddie. Yes, Obama voted against those pieces of legislation (from what I can find). No, it's not current and no one really cares about it now. Main Street (and that's a phrase that does need to die) is tired of hearing about how banks, both foreign and domestic (is that banks or enemies?), are getting bailed out while responsible citizens are getting stuck. There's nothing to differentiate the two candidates on this.
Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.
I'm so fed up & frustrated I'm seriously considering voting "present" in the Presidential election and concerning myself with the down-ballot races.
Maybe I should just write in Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. At least then I'd be voting my conscience and not a "lesser of two evils" vote.
Rod,
About a week ago you mentioned you were going to do some stuff on the connection between Saul Alinsky's philosophy ("Rules for Radicals") and Barack Obama. What happened?
As for the economic crisis and the connection with Wright/Ayers, do you really want a crypto-Marxist in charge of the American economy? Just asking.
What the association says to me is two things:
1) No matter how much he tries to convince the rest of us otherwise, Obama will never jettison the hyphen. He is an "african-american" presidental candidate, not an "american" one. Mc Cain is not the "Scottish-American" candidate. Liebermann was not the "Jewish-American" VP candidate. Lose the hyphen, Barack, and I'll take you more seriously on a national level.
2) Although Obama's US citizenship comes through his white mother, he chose to self-identify with the radical black left. I believe he did this for purely cynical reasons: to get a base as a politician. This is what he chose to be. If he really meant it, why was he so quick to dump Wright when the polls turned against him? Because Wright and his ilk were no longer useful to him. they had done their job by giving Obama an identity and convincing the local black community that depite his mixed-race parentage, Obama isn't really an oreo.
His association with these characters should be an issue. No doubt about it.
"If banging on Wright and Ayers is the best conservatism has to offer at this critical moment, then it truly is intellectually bankrupt."
Amen.
I commend you for your noticing that leadership is what is required now. I question whether you want to go down the road of guilt by association as both republican candidates have associations with organizations and/or people that could reasonably be characterized as "domestic terrorists". McCain, with G. Gordon Liddy,among others, who has unapologetically advocated many unsavory things, including but not limited to, the shooting of federal agents,-domestic terrorism by any standards, I would think, and Palin with the AIP-and other bizarre preachers- and her association with those organizations are at least as personal as those of Obama with Wright- the Ayers thing , I think is a total red herring- read the Times article and read Ayers book for his "unapologetic" stance.
That said, even some of Wright's and Ayer's statements and beliefs are supportable in context, as are some of Liddy's and the AIP. It may very well be that Obama and his ideas are bad for the country but attack those ideas and limit those who disagree with McCain and Palin to similarly trying to explain what is wrong with their proposals and beliefs. As I am sure you must be aware, the long history of guilt-by-association has virtually NO triumphs and many moments and examples of the very worst and most animal like conditioned, rabble-rousing responses that follow naturally from its dismal history. McCain and Palin are losing badly and are resorting to desperate measures. No need for you to , even in passing, reify such contemptible tactics as appropriate at any time.
That said I have seen NO leadership from either side on these important matters and I fear for our country.
Since this is beliefnet--who else was lambasted for his "associations?" With terrorists (read Zealots), with apocalyptic firebrands (read John the Baptist along with a host of Essenes.) Listen to yourself. Why not stop hiding behind this crap and come out and say it--if you really believe it--that Barack Obama is secretly a terrorist intent on blowing up America, or secretly a hotheaded believer in divine justice who wants to start a race war? Did McCain drop bombs on civilians? Did he consort with money lenders in the Temple (read Savings & Loan)? Does the former make him a war criminal? Does the latter make him part of Wall Street Greed? Can we please discuss policies and stop the innuendos!
We might benefit from looking at the Talmud:
"Loshon Hora (the evil tongue ... or slander) is considered among the Jewish people as one of the worst sins imaginable ... one almost tantamount to murder in that the good name, livelihood, reputation, etc. can all be destroyed by a single word, look, expression."
Since this is beliefnet--who else was lambasted for his "associations?" With terrorists (read Zealots), with apocalyptic firebrands (read John the Baptist along with a host of Essenes.) Listen to yourself. Why not stop hiding behind this crap and come out and say it--if you really believe it--that Barack Obama is secretly a terrorist intent on blowing up America, or secretly a hotheaded believer in divine justice who wants to start a race war? Did McCain drop bombs on civilians? Did he consort with money lenders in the Temple (read Savings & Loan)? Does the former make him a war criminal? Does the latter make him part of Wall Street Greed? Can we please discuss policies and stop the innuendos!
We might benefit from looking at the Talmud:
"Loshon Hora (the evil tongue ... or slander) is considered among the Jewish people as one of the worst sins imaginable ... one almost tantamount to murder in that the good name, livelihood, reputation, etc. can all be destroyed by a single word, look, expression."
Good for you, Mr. Dreher.
Mike
Sarah Palin gave a _speech_, says the article. Do you think the only thing she talked about was Obama's connection with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers? I doubt it. But that was all the media reports on, because it is the "hottest" part of the speech.
It bothers me when people who should know better accept the MSM's reports uncritically.
And even if the economy is in free-fall, you should still care about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Because if Obama is elected, people like them will be telling Obama what to do to "fix" the economy.
Obama is a by-the-books leftist who is rather comfortable moving among people who strike most Americans as radical.
The formerly maverick McCain seems to have become a "by-the-books" solve-all-economic-problems-with-tax-cuts-for-the-rich, solve-all-diplomatic-problems-with-military-force conservative. And Sarah Palin seems "rather comfortable" moving among people who believe in warding off witchcraft, who think the world is 6000 years old, who think being an Alaskan is more important that being an American, and who think books ought to be banned from libraries. I think those beliefs would "strike a lot of Americans as radical".
As to calling Obama a leftist, for God's sake, you make him sound like Che Guevara! If that's what you think, fine, but is there evidence for that?
Allowing for the polemical nature of sermons, I didn't find any of the things that Wright is reported to have said to be all that outrageous. I find the apocalyptic rantings of McCain supporter John Hagee far more disturbing.
When the GOP has nothing left with which to sway public opinion, you can bet they will turn to fear. In this case we have two fearful images being conjured: a 60s radical and a black preacher. With these two images the GOP seeks to spread fear among the voters, getting them to ignore the economic news of the day.
A generation ago a wise leader counseled a fearful nation at a time of great calamity. Those words should bring us much needed clarity today as yet another group of fearmongers walks in our midst.
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Okay, myshkin2: Barackasaurus Obamapatamus is a terrorist. There, it's been said. Loshondo haranda besheenda patanda and-a-Bob-Tilton-glossolalia to you, too!
Crypto-Marxist? Leftist? Are Paul Volcker (head of the Federal Reserve who did the hard things in order to the fix the last big Recession), Robert Rubin, and Lawrence Summers all sporting balaclavas over their suits these days? I seriously doubt that Lawrence Wright or Jesse Jackson are even going to be asked to baby-sit, let alone weigh in on economic policy.
What has Obama proposed to do about this crisis?
Tom in TX:
And even if the economy is in free-fall, you should still care about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Because if Obama is elected, people like them will be telling Obama what to do to "fix" the economy.
Prove it, please.
In the spirit of civility, I make an effort to not make negative assumptions about people. Unless you can provide proof, I really have no other option but to put you under the following:
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -- Terry Goodkind, The Sword of Truth series.
Hard facts, Tom. Not assumptions, not fears, and decidedly not because you heard someone else say it. In all seriousness, Tom, if people blithely accept logic such as yours without proof, then I am a war criminal because my father was tried (in absentia) and convicted, then later "pardoned" by an official amnesty. At no point did he think he could go home. Who could have shaped me, my attitudes and beliefs, more than my own father?
If you're going to use the "guilt by association" logic, Rod, that pretty much makes John McCain a homosexual by his life-long association with Jim Kolb, his senate chief of staff and Mark Bingham to name a few. He also accepted campaign donations from Log Cabin Republicans and "Manhunt" the largest gay pick-up web site in the world. Homo, homo, homo! And with an ever widening stance to prove it.
So, yeah, go ahead and throw gasoline on the fire. Wick Allison will be amused. The Keating Five scandal is about to burst into a bonfire all over again and it will be because you enabled it. Sarah Palin is on the virge of being impeached in Alaska, but go ahead and keep making your guilt by association points. I've been reading you for a couple of month because I thought your could actually see through the baloney. I stand corrected, by you.
Let's not forget the connection between B.O. and Dr. Khalid al-Mansour. This man -- an Israeli-hating adviser to a Saudi billionaire and a race-baiting mentor to the Black Panthers -- helped to get an unknown community organizer named Barack Obama into Harvard Law School (HLS) and pay for his education.
Earlier this year on NYC's all-news cable channel, NY1, former Manhattan Borough President and local Democratic Party stalwart and longtime African-American leader Percy Sutton revealed that Dr. al-Mansour, who had raised money for Sutton's mayoral campaign, introduced Sutton to Obama. Dr. al-Mansour asked Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcom X, to write a letter of recommendation on behalf of the unknown Obama. Sutton also claims that al-Mansour raised funds to help Obama pay his way through HLS. This was at a time when al-Mansour was working for Saudi interests as a lobbyist in this country.
Born Donald Warden, Dr. al-Mansour has written extensively on his belief that America has and is continuing to plot genocide against African Americans. When he was known as Donald Warden, al-Monsour was the mentor to Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his associate, Bobby Seale. This is according to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkeley.
What did the radical extremist Dr. al-Mansour see in young Barack Obama that he would seek to sponsor and finance Obama's legal education? Now that we know the father of Bristol Palin's child, perhaps the media can do some real journalism and check this out.
Today's candidate is in an impossible position.
In the first place, what, exactly, is a candidate to do to make the markets stop melting down? Assuming there is anything they COULD do to make it stop instantly, would you want a politician to have that kind of power? This thing is correcting itself. It's going to hurt. Grit your teeth and take it like a man.
In the second place, social engineering policies and rank corruption, both largely coming from the ranks of Democrats in the mid to late 1990s and again after the re-taking of Congress in the early 2000s, got us to where we are. However, how do you expect these candidates to present this information? It would take a Ross Perot style chart, times three or four, to show all the flows in this thing, plus a 30-minute informercial spot. Who'd watch it? (OK...a lot of the geek types here would. But who else?)
In the third place, talking about this problem gores a lot of other people's oxen. How many people do YOU know who have a subprime mortgage? How many do you know who have less then 3% equity in their homes, aided and abetted by federal housing policies? How many bought the "home of a lifetime" just KNOWING that prices were going nowhere but up? In an election season, who wants to hear that they're PART OF THE PROBLEM!? You think THAT will get you elected?
In the face of all this, the Republican candidates are simply trying to get elected. They'll likely make a lot more headway against their polling slump by talking about something easily explained -- that one of Obama's patrons and friends is an unrepentant terrorist and that his pastor of twenty years thinks America is fundamentally wrong -- than they will by trying to present complex financial policies.
(BTW, American conservatism isn't bankrupt. Rather, it's headless. The grit we used to see from Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and, dare I say it, Tom DeLay, is gone. Without a champion, the bold ideas to challenge all this will simply languish. The bold ideas are nonetheless there, but so few want to listen.)
I do not personally find it too troubling that a man would associate with some radical types. However, I read last week that in an interview Obama said that he is not personally close with any right wingers. Given his rhetoric about uniting and being a different kind of politician, this is a HUGE red flag for me. I still don't find his association with radicals troubling on its own. However, we've spent the last 8 years with a man in an echo chamber at the helm. I have no desire to have another man who lives in his own echo chamber in office. If you can find nothing else good to say about McCain, one must admit that he actually lives out his rhetoric of being willing to work across the aisle and find new ways to approach things (I don't always like those ways, of course). Not only has McCain worked with those he professionally disagrees with, but he has maintained close personal friendships with them as well.
As far as how smart it is for McCain and Palin to go after this, I can only say that if Obama fires back with Keating 5 stuff, it's worth it. The facts behind the Keating 5 case work so well in McCain's favor to demonstrate that he is honest, willing to do whatever it takes to put himself above even the appearance of wrong doing and willing to work against his own party to remedy harm done. Kind of the opposite of Obama, one might say.
Rod:
The reason Wright, Ayers-Dohrn, etc., matter, is not just what Reaganite said -- that they indicate what BHO thinks is the acceptable range of normal opinion and association (which is a near-infallible indicator of who he will appoint, who will advise him, what ideas he will be hearing, etc.).
It's also because the Wall Street woes are irrelevant as a presidential political issue on a score of fronts. The president doesn't control the economy and can affect it only marginally. Neither man will be in office until January and will not be able to do anything terribly major until March, by which point whatever will happen to the markets will have been determined or at least developed VERY strong momentum. Neither man will be able to repeal either the laws of the market or the business cycle, which dictate a recession right now. The two men don't have terribly different ideas on what to do (and the marginal ones where they do differ, Obama is worse -- we'll see more diversity-promoting practices such as subprime mortgages and ACORN mau-mauing in an Obama administration).
But most importantly rodbud, if one is conservative for reason having to do with culture and morality rather than economics (I think that's a fair paraphrase of you) ... why should this matter in principle? You posted recently Esolen's rules for picking a husband. Most of them had to do with character, not "policy position" (OK ... an imperfect analogy, but my point is clear I hope). Character and kulturkampf ideology (why Ayers-Dohrn and Wright are relevant) always trump economics in principle.
Yep, Rod, and it is YOUR party. Enjoy.
"Here, Here!" (background sounds of cheering natives reading Rod's thread, while boo-ing those whose partisan myopia denies them a larger vision of national purpose.)
Rod,
What do you think about the conversation over at God's Politics, the Sojourners blog? A group of "new monastics" (= white folk) have "re-located to the forgotten places of the empire" (= living among the people of language and color who are at the bottom of society's ladder) and are finding that race DOES matter.
You might not like Wright and Ayers' rhetoric and means of achieving racial justice, but race DOES matter. Again, see the New Monastics discussion. This is a group extremely motivated. They are demonstrating sacrificial love. Yet they are finding barriers within themselves and the culture.
Assuming that we are followers of Jesus and not frauds, how do we overcome the "dividing wall of hostility" today? I worry that the current political conversation is adding bricks to the diving wall so quickly that the wall is becoming layers thick.
Stay in One Peace, Duh-sciple
Duh-sciple: "Assuming that we are followers of Jesus and not frauds, how do we overcome the 'dividing wall of hostility' today?"
Well, for starters, let's speak truthfully to one another and dispense with leftist cant such as the description of their work as "re-locating to the forgotten places of the empire."
I'll check this group out. If they're truly living by the Gospel, we should support them. If, however, they're like these folks who claim that "Jesus was a community organizer while Pilate was a Governor" then we'll know they're just Marxists masquerading as Christians.
Rod, I'll see your Rev Wright, and raise you a genuine "hands-on voodoo witch doctor" straight out of Africa Palin was video-taped praying with.
Then I'll see your Bill Ayers and raise you a Jews for Jesus rally Palin attended, apparently to alienate every Jew in America. Given the history of Jews for Jesus, and given the history of Jewish open and vocal complaint about its' deceptive "recruiting" tactics, we have a vice presidental candidate who has declared open religious warfare on any non-fundamentalist Christian. Who next, the Catholics? The Mormons? The Baptists?
McCain/Palin appreciates your support.
Can't find anything substantive on that Khalid al-Mansour story. You're gonna have to do a lot better than quote cable TV or NewsMax to get that dog to hunt, Reaganite.
They're also hitting back on Obama's lying about regulation...
Insane Kitten:
Re: Dr. al-Mansour, the local NYC Cable TV program host who interviewed Percy Sutton was Dominick Carter. Both are African-American and they're hardly GOP card-carring members. Don't know what Newsmax has to do with this. The print source is Investor's Business Daily, a very sane newspaper (and a priceless gem in American journalism).
A lot of curiosity about B.O.'s "past" has to do with the dogged efforts by B.O. and his Chicago campaign bully-boys to keep reporters from sniffing around his past and to intimidate those who get past first base (Stanley Kurtz is a good example of the intimidation). What's he hiding?
The POTUS is simply too important to let this hipster of hype slide into the Oval Office without due diligence and a thorough inspection.
Companies know more about the management interns they're hiring than we do about B.O.
Ray Foster: Sarah Palin has a record of praying with Jews for Jesus and this Kenyan preacher exactly once each.
Obama prayed with Rev. Wright for 20 years, had his daughters baptized by him, called him a friend and father figure, and borrowed the title of one of his sermons for his autobiography. So, your comparison doesn't work.
Reaganite in NYC,
First of all, I imagine it's lonely being a "reaganite in the big apple"- kind of like it's lonely for me being a "blue voter" in a bright red county. Maybe we should trade places, ha!
Second, if you google "new monasticism" you can locate their "12 marks" or "rule of life":
1) Relocation to the abandoned places of Empire.
2) Sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the needy among us.
3) Hospitality to the stranger
4) Lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities
combined with the active pursuit of a just reconciliation.
5) Humble submission to Christ’s body, the church.
6) Intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the
community along the lines of the old novitiate.
7) Nurturing common life among members of intentional community.
8) Support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children.
9) Geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life.
10) Care for the plot of God’s earth given to us along with support of our local economies.
11) Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18.
12) Commitment to a disciplined contemplative life.
Finally, I see some relationship with "crunchy con" in that both approaches seem to value community living and seek to overcome the hyper-individualism of the culture.
Here's the latest conversational link in the "race discussion"= http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=2682
Peace, Duh-sciple
Franklin:
By definition, there is no "proof" of future events. What would you consider "proof" (Obama's associaitons with Ayers-Dohrn and Wright are "hard facts") of what a man will do, or in this case "whom he will associate with," when he holds an office he does not yet hold.
All there is to go by is "assumptions" (which one can also call "fears" if you don't like the ends being pursued) based on what he has done in the past.
Palin wants to bring up Reverend Wright? Check out this Youtube video. Sarah Palin lives in a glass house.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4HIc-yfgM
Start it at 7:03
"Companies know more about the management interns they're hiring than we do about B.O."
"Companies know more about the management interns they're hiring than we do about S.P."
That be Sarah Peron, err, I mean, Palin.
Good point, Victor. I'd apply the same rhetorical standard to the assertion that Obama will act or decide a certain way based on his past associations. That was my intended point in citing my personal example. I suppose it was a poor choice on my part. :-\
To answer your question, though: documented evidence that Obama has acted that way in the past, has stated that he will act that way in the future, or that his current advisers have acted or stated so.
I'll concede that my call for proof is tantamount to a trick question. The original point remains: if people are stupid enough to see or hear a bald assumption and believe that it will be true, then no amount of rhetorical rebuttal -- including the absence of any objective evidence -- is going to change their belief... but I will likely continue to succumb to the temptation of calling them stupid.
No one has had a greater influence on Obama's thinking than the race-baiting Reverend Wright?
You may be right, but if so, that only makes the renunciation of Wright all the more profound. It is possible to outgrow one's teachers, as this Mennonite turned Methodist turned Catholic knows.
Reaganite: Marxists can't be Christians? News to me. I wonder if God knows this.
I'm so sick of these arguments. Thank God, I believe, McCain and Palin will lose decisively in 4 weeks, and we can start trying to heal from all this bitterness. To think I was foolish enough to believe back in January, along with Sullivan, that we'd be blessed by an Obama/McCain race because it would be honorably run, and a genuine exercise in examining the issues facing the country and the options before us.
I doubt I'll rouse myself to argue against these petty poison snipes filling the final days of a too-long campaign. All I'll say at this point is that anyone who has sat, or continues to sit, in a Catholic pew after the revelation of the sex abuse scandal, or anyone like Palin who has sat through a sermons that blithely include disparagement of Jews, is a hypocrite for believing there is something nefarious about Obama's attendance at Trinity Unity Church.
Second, anyone who bases their critique of Obama on the fact that he is a "crypto-" anything, or secretly in allegiance to some agenda defined by cherrypicked associations from his long career, is not even worth listening to unless they bring a raft of evidence. Obama's been on the trail for 2 years, answering every question put to him. His "associates" are his fellow senators and the vast range of mainstream professionals he's been working with the past 6 years. His plans are publicly accessible. If you really want to argue that this is all a dupe, that he some kind of Manichurean Candidate and we shouldn't believe our eyes, but rather your conspiracy theory based on a couple of vague data points, please explain why - other than racism - we shouldn't take the exact same stance in regards to McCain.
I never thought so-called conservatives would so thoroughly embrace postmodernism. There is no objective reality. There is no weight of evidence. There is no rational, factual debate. There is no standard, universal assumption of credibility and honesty unless proven otherwise when dealing with other human beings. It's so obvious that so many conservatives have irrevocably poisoned their hearts against Obama, they have decided that their own narrative about his core identity, allegiances and beliefs is true, and Obama's own account of the same is a lie. What can any man do to sway hearts that have reached this point? Hell, we Christians all believe it is possible to poison one's heart falsely against God Himself. Of course it's possible to forever and falsely poison one's heart against a mere fallen man like Barack Obama.
Enjoy your suspicions and your attacks. I don't really want to talk anymore about Wright, or Ayers, or Rezko, or Keating, or Liddy, or Dubya. Let's just get a functional administration in place and start seeing if there's enough common sense of American identity to even come together and rebuild a country worth passing to our children.
Lord have mercy on us all.
Doug
Thank you, Mr. Dreher, for recognizing that to be a sustainable political movement in the 21st century, "conservative" must mean more than "attacks Democrats." Though it may take some time in the political wilderness for this to dawn on the GOP, the country appears to have grasped this concept already.
The good news for the GOP is that if past history holds true, Obama will be less ideological than Bush, and quite willing to work with GOP members towards common goals. (Which, by the way, will bring howls of complaint from the Left.)
In this light, it's interesting to note how many wise old men of the GOP -- such as Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft -- have not endorsed or appeared with or advised McCain. They may hope to get a better hearing from the new President than they got from the last one.
Marxists can't be Christians? News to me. I wonder if God knows this.
No, orthodox Christians cannot be "orthodox" Marxists. Marxism presupposes atheism in the form of a materialist dialectic, now you can be a Christian and use elements of Marxism like Marxist economic analysis. That just makes you dumb, not non-Christian, but the results are likely to be a mess because of the conflicting presuppositions of your starting positions (Marxism and Christianity). I'm pretty sure God is aware of this.
McCain's very close association with Phil Gramm, and his critical role in the credit default swaps which has played a large role in the economic mess we are in troubles me much more than Obama talking with Ayers.
Since the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama ... he literally can get away with anything! When the media is one sided in reporting the truth, they are worse than a witness who is convicted of perjury. A biased media paves the way for despots and dictators who rise to power. Hitler could not have risen to power without his minister of propaganda, Joseph Gobbels ... who controlled what the public saw,heard, and eventually believed. In time, a biased media can even revise history, turning young minds into automatons, who think and act in unison ... even to the point of strapping on suicide bombs. I'm in my 60's, and I've never seen such a biased media before. Our wonderful country is starting to change in very bad ways. It seems that an organized group of malcontents have infiltrated our media and our schools ... in an effort to change America beyond recognition. These arrogant fools are going to turn America into a defenseless third world country. I believe that our only hope to save America, is to reject the biased media's candidate, and elect the candidate who has always represented truth, jusice, and the American way. Elect Senator John McCain in November. God Bless America.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+youth+junior+fraternity+regiment&search_type=&aq=f
Doug Cramer: You may vote for whom you wish, but don't you compare the Catholic Church to Rev. Wright who preaches for the ruin of the United States of America. For all of her sins, the Catholic Church has been an overwhelming force for good in this country.
And your own Orthodox faith isn't exactly clean when it comes to clerical abuse and scandal, so if you are interested in the good will of Catholic believers in this forum, I suggest that you think twice before making such dubious comparisons.
Elmo:
My own conversion to Christianity (and Orthodoxy) was strongly influenced by the writings of a monastic who was later defrocked amidst scandal, as well as others who later fell prey to wicked acts.
My Church, as well as the Catholic Church, I believe, pray for the intercessions of folks like St. Constantine the Great, who had his own wife boiled alive. No, the Orthodox Church's hands are as bloody as any. We are all fallen.
So, right back at you: "For all her sins, Trinity United Church has been an overwhelming force for good in her community." Wright didn't call for anything except God's righteousness. He didn't call for God to slaughter innocents. The man seems to sincerely believe that as a nation we have sinned greatly in waging wars on foreign soil over the past decades, and that no sin is missed by God. I don't agree with him, but I also know personally dozens of prominent Orthodox and Catholic theologians who would agree with the basic point.
So again, what is it that makes Trinity United Church different?
Bless,
Doug
elmo,
What do you make of the original Jeremiah, as in the prophet, who preached destruction against the Temple in Jeremiah 7 and 26?
Certainly, Jeremiah the Prophet was considered unpatriotic because of his ruinous preaching.
He was thrown down a well and left to die.
His own family plotted to assassinate him.
He was the most hated preacher in the land, losing a debate to the prophet, Hananiah.
Seriously, how do we distinguish wicked critique versus godly critique?
I find that when you're in the middle of it- it is difficult to be faithful. Christians in Germany during WWII. Christians in Rwanda. Are we really any better than they were?
Remember, the vast majority of Judah in Jeremiah's time got it wrong!
The "devil's advocate" (how's that for a phrase!),
Duh-sciple
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related
Rod, not sure if you have watched the entire clip of Rev. Wright's sermon. I thought perhaps if you are going to raise it as a concern you might want to put the entire quote in context...unlike so many conservative commentators have done over the past few months. Taken in context the whole message makes sense, is Biblical, and should resonate with Christians.
Doug Cramer: The obvious answer is that Wright begged God to dammn the United States. The Catholic Church doesn't preach dammnation of anyone. Wright preaches malice. Big difference. Also, Wright serves his community. The Catholic Church serves all who are in need.
I honestly can't believe you don't know the difference between the Catholic Church and Rev. Wright. I don't believe it is possible that you can be that ignorant; disingenous, yes.
Duh-sciple, your question deserves better than this, but I am at work and don't have time to look at the chapters in Jeremiah that you cite. I'll try to work up a better answer once I've had the chance to take a look.
It's sad to see: war hero McCain sends out to do his dirty work a hockey mom in a pantsuit. Sad. He's cooked......his true colors are showing. Mr. Angry goes down grinning, letting someone else do his fighting for him.
JLF: Reaganite: Marxists can't be Christians? News to me. I wonder if God knows this.
Depends on what you mean. Marx himself described his system as "dialectical materialism". "Dialectical" describes the philosophical method (thesis, antithesis, synthesis, borrowed from Hegel); "materialism" describes the metaphysic, i.e. that only material things are considered to exist. Thus, Marxism in its pure form as conceived by Marx himself is indeed incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any theistic religion. Marx, of course, was an atheist who thought that religion, along with the state, would ultimately wither away after the perfect communist state was instituted.
If, however, one defines Marxism broadly as a type of economic or socio-political system, some forms of it could be held by Christians or other theists, and in fact have been. So it's all a matter of definitions.
"I honestly can't believe you don't know the difference between the Catholic Church and Rev. Wright. I don't believe it is possible that you can be that ignorant; disingenous, yes."
Elmo. Listen to more than 15 second soundbites from the man's career as a minister. Understand the context. You owe it to yourself to understand what he was saying and the context instead of just buying what the conservative pundit class tell you.
Elmo,
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. I've said here countless times and will say it again. I'm a religious media professional for Orthodox Christian ministries, and if we want to be technically precise I consider Jeremiah Wright a heretic, along with a vast majority of American protestantism. I'm happy to spend hours - and have - slicing apart the failings in his theology, or any other heretic's. But as a political matter, the fact is that the specific quote by which people are defining Wright is simply not to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills "preaching malice" or "begging" God to damn America. Here's the quote:
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
This is really just logic 101; it's an "if/then" statement. IF America is killing innocent people and treating citizens as less than human and acts like she is God and is supreme, THEN God should damn America. Especially once you add that last one, would you honestly say that you disagree with this statement? I don't. I assume you and I both believe that Wright is wrong about the facts. But what's so exceptional about that?
Believe me, I can dig up hundreds of quotes from saints and pastors from the past 2000 years that would support my assertion that this statement is completely unremarkable in the annals of Christian anti-war polemics.
Bless
Doug
Doug Cramer, I thank you for that post. I am so sorry that there is still those that will prolong the division and ill will between us and to support the same politicians who have been in power for eight long years and continue to support the decline they have brought to us. It is sad they need to resort to the same tactics that they have used over and over again to just erode the US for their own benefit and agenda. If the current administration and its members had been doing right they would not need to slander Obama to try to keep a hold onto what they have had in their grips for the last 8 years.
Didn't Sarah Palin chastise Biden for "looking back," when he blamed Bush--our current, sitting president--for the shape our country's in right now?
So how come the campaign's looking back 40 years to blame Obama for something a bunch of hippies did back in the 1960s? I'm about the same age as Obama, and I'd never heard of the Weather Underground until a few years ago when I saw a documentary about the 1960s on the HISTORY channel!
And conservatives have always made way too much of the Reverend Wright thing. Liberals don't "follow" people like that in the same way conservatives "follow" the thinking of Jerry Falwell--who gave a similar assessment of God's opinion of America to Wright's, following the 9/11 attacks. Liberals listen to a wide range of thinkers, take the best of each and discard the rest.
But as long as McCain's interested in talking about past associations, let's talk about his involvement with the Keating 5, Phil Gramm, the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, and how those past deeds led to what we're facing today. That's a recent history lesson we all need to hear.
Just for fun, here's one. Can you imagine if a presidential candidate's preacher said that Christians shouldn't consider the victories of American soldiers among the "fruits of earthly blessings"?
But so say St. Gregory of Nyssa:
"How do we count the fruits of earthly blessings? If we … add to our account those who have fared well in combat through inflicting defeats in battle and other recorded deeds, these examples do not suit our objective. A Christian is ashamed at anything contrary to the faith and rejoices at praise coming from persons who love Christ much like those in the shadow of a notable person exult in his victories. Let us be silent about this world’s glories despite their numerous accounts."
Doug
Thank you for this moment of sanity.
I figure we all make mistakes and Ayers is an old man now; Obama was a kid when Ayers made those errors.
But the McCain-Palin campaign are taking this nation to the dog house.
Personally, I resent that. Hugely.
Or perhaps Tertullian:
"Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and torture and the punishment [of execution], who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?"
Or Chrysostom:
"Many, throwing themselves prostrate, and striking the ground with their forehead, and pouring forth hot tears, and groaning bitterly from the heart and stretching out their hands, and displaying much earnestness, employ this warmth and forwardness against their own salvation. For it is not on behalf of their own sins that they beseech God; nor are they asking forgiveness of the offences committed by them; but they are exerting this earnestness against their enemies, doing just the same thing as if one, after whetting his sword, were not to use the weapon against his enemies, but to thrust it through his own throat. So these also use their prayers not for the remission of their own sins, but about revenge on their enemies; which is to thrust the sword against themselves."
Or Cyprian:
"The world is soaked with mutual blood. When individuals commit homicide, it is a crime; it is called a virtue when it is done in the name of the state. Impunity is acquired for crimes not by reason of innocence but by the magnitude of the cruelty."
Lord have mercy on us all.
Doug
I believe, McCain and Palin will lose decisively in 4 weeks, and we can start trying to heal from all this bitterness.
Actually, the more one believes this campaign has descended into race-based and/or kulturkampf bitterness, the less rational basis one has for believing that latter clause.
An Obama presidency, as this campaign proves, will be (only, God willing) four more years of the same. Four more years of every political criticism being given the anal probe for racial correctness. Four more years of every one of the sharp elbows and infighting that are part and parcel of politics in a free democracy becoming the basis for the claim that the Obama critic is a racist. And the inevitable hardening among those of us who have good ideological reasons for thinking Obama detestable.
Read this post at Patterico -- every single permutation of "Obama is like X" has already been criticized (and in respectable media outlets -- the examples are AP, NYT, Time and HuffPo -- not by the Black Panthers) as racist. The exhortations from the conservative blogosphere to McCain in the past couple of days has been to "go nuclear" since "they call us racists anyway."
Victor: So? That's no less frightening a scenario than the what American blacks and American poor do after a McCain victory. Maybe my hope for reconciliation is foolish, but I can't help but at least hope for healing. What's the alternative?
Doug
If McCain is to win, I want him to win because he offers sensible policies and reliable leadership to the country. I can't imagine -- really, I can't imagine -- that winning on Bill Ayers (and, if it comes to that, Jeremiah Wright) is going to be worth it. I say that as somebody who agrees with Victor that the significance of Ayers and Wright in Obama's life is showing what he considers "normal," or at least acceptable.
That said, I also agree with Victor that there is absolutely no basis for believing that an Obama presidency will bring about healing. That's no reason not to vote for the man if you believe in him and his platform. But I talked the other day to a Republican friend disgusted with our party who said he's thinking of voting for Obama for reasons of "racial healing." Dream on, brother, I said. I believed that too, once. Then I learned about Rev. Wright.
Except that the "God damn America" quote isn't about war at all, as the context you provide makes clear.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ ..."
Who is "them" in the first clause? Certainly not some foreign enemy. And who is the "us" in that last clause? In both cases, he means blacks. The intervening clauses that sentence make it obvious that his overall point is that the US government is affirmatively out to "get" the black population ("gives them the drugs" ... who knew?) and uses "laws" as a means to that end. He made the same rant at the National Press Club and even used the incantation "Tuskegee" to justify his buffoonish view that the US invented the AIDS virus as an anti-black genocide weapon.
Wright is a paranoid fool, and the audience was cheering him along for it in Those Scarlet Sermons. Which tells me that this was normal, despite what Obama says now. There was no "wtf is he babbling about?" reactions as there would have been if these were extraordinary thoughts to hear from him.
The fact that Wright has academic credentials and courtiers and is widely respected in certain circles says much more about the academy and those circles than it vindicates him.
Rod: I do hope you're sensitive to what is happening in these final weeks, and realize this is not the kind of "healing" that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about any grand racial healing. Heck, I'd be shocked if we make up all the ground we've lost over the past 18 months.
I'm talking about the kind of healing that will keep us from breaking down as a country. Here's just one random hypothetical, in illustration of what I mean: If the bailout really doesn't help and we hit a depression, might we honestly in some regions of the country see blatant "no Obama voters need apply" attached to want ads? We've got a presidential candidate all but calling the other candidate treasonous, during a time of war on the cusp of perhaps a depression, with the other side convinced that the party in power for the past 8 years is literally guilty of war crimes.
Sure, election rhetoric always gets heated. But am I the only one to sense that we'd best be very, very careful this time through? Am I the only one who can picture many possible future paths that result in gunfire across America by late November?
I mean, if McCain's assertions are valid, why should a state like Alaska or Texas not begin active resistance, rhetorically at first as these things always go, against a federal government led by Obama and a Democratic Congress?
Bless,
Doug
I can't imagine -- really, I can't imagine -- winning on Bill Ayers (and, if it comes to that, Jeremiah Wright) is going to be worth it.
Why ... and I don't mean that in an "every end justifies any means" sense.
If an issue is relevant at all (as you acknowledge), then under some scenarios and/or for some voters, it has to be decisive. And given both that either party gets 40 percent just by showing up, and that by this point in the race "high-information" voters are sewn up either way
And as for an absolute moral defense -- you note yourself that Wright and Ayers speak to worldview. I certainly think that worldview is far more important than policy (and I know that when it's posed that way, you agree). After all, history is uncertain and we have no way of knowing in principle what challenges presidents will face (there was no mention of Osama bin Laden in the 2000 debates; near-enough-nothing about sub-prime lending in the 2006 campaign). All we can really do is vote for the person who thinks about the world and sees it in the terms we do.
Thank you, Doug. Great posts and right on the mark.
I'm still at eye-rolling at this faux and shallow outrage thrown at Jeremiah Wright. He's powerless in that he can achieve no material change in anything, and yet he is pretended to be a threat. He reminds white people that the evils of racial discrimination and oppression made victims and leave terrible scars, which they can't reconcile with their high opinion of themselves and their parents and grandparents (aka "America"). Dwelling on memory would appear to be the unbearable sin he commits.
Ooops ... left thought unfinished. Add is in italics:
And given both that either party gets 40 percent just by showing up, and that by this point in the race "high-information" voters are sewn up either way, October is about appealing to people for whom The Big Policy Issues are a wash, nearly so or effectively irrelevant (all three can be the case with different people for all sorts of good and bad reasons)
Doug Cramer: Religious media professional or not, none of the quotes you cite asks God to dammn another, as Wright does and do not prove wrong my point that when one begs God to dammn another, as Wright does, regardless of whether the facts he is basing his own judgment on are correct (which they are not), you are preaching malice.
You didn't address my point that Wright's congregation helps themselves; while the Roman Catholic Church helps the world.
I do not think Orthodoxy preaches dammnation. I know for fact Roman Catholicism does not. As a professional Orthodox fellow, you should know this. Yet, I haven't received an apology from you for comparing the Roman Catholic clerical abuse crisis to Wright's rantings, as if millions of Catholics were sitting in the pews week after week listening to preaching on the goodness of raping children which is what your statement implies. Nor have you expressed regret for pointing out the Catholic Church's sins as if there were none in your own denomination, which I would think if you were interested in healing that is what you would do.
might we honestly in some regions of the country see blatant "no Obama voters need apply" attached to want ads?
Does "Obama voter" mean "black" in this sentence? Or something else? After all, if meant literally, this statement is nonsense-on-stilts on its face. There's no way to know how someone else voted, particularly if he is primed to know what not to say, as this hypothetical assumes.
Ayers and Wrights views and how they factor regarding Obama should concern us. The warped view of Ayers/Wright also extends to their views on economics...views, which I find it hard to believe Obama is not aware of...and of which, I have not been reassured sufficiently, that he does not secretly agree with on some level.
Victor: "Obama voter" means "Obama voter". The point I'm trying to raise is that the next 30 days has the potential to radically divide this nation in ways that make Bush v. Gore in 2000 seem like a quaint sitcom. Regardless of who wins, I believe that the rhetoric and passions behind them across the electorate may have reached a tipping point where the election, and the resulting government, are destabilized to the point where violence begins to break out in the United States.
Doug
The Weathermen were arrogant and delusional, but the only people they ever killed were their own members in the explosion of their Greenwich Village townhouse. They even gave warnings and timed their bombings for times when no one would be injured.
In contrast, LBJ, Nixon and Kissinger ordered the slaughter of millions of Indochinese though invasion, carpet bombing and chemical ecocide, and Nixon was prepared to massacre millions more by bombing the dikes of North Vietnam. A certain J.S. McCain III did his part for this "noble cause," in spite of his penchant for crashing his planes.
And Ayers is the unrepentant terrorist?
What do those of you who call yourselves Christians have to say about this?
And will Mr. Dreher delete this comment too?
Whoever caught it, you're quite right that I mistakenly wrote that this Wright sermon was about foreign policy; it's not, it's about the government's treatment of it's own citizens.
I was briefly confusing it with the other "famous" Wright sermon, the "chickens are coming home to roost" sermon, which is about foreign policy.
Here's the core quote from that:
Here's the full text, or most of it at least:
""
Again, I can pull down my patristic volumes if need be, and start filling the thread with quotes from Chrysostom and such imploring God to judge the state for what they believed was factual evidence of wickedness.
The line of thinking is entirely prosaic in homiletics. A pastor considers his nation guilty of wicked acts collectively, so he calls for God's judgment. End of rhetorical tool. Heck, I've used it in speeches I've written for religious speakers.
Wright's error is not in his argumentation. It is in his observations. He believes things to be facts that are not, and then argues reasonably from these false premises. So? I don't believe that Obama believes, for example, that the American government spread HIV. So, even if his entire thought process works like Wright's (which is highly doubtful) he would never end up at the same end point as Wright.
Are we going to judge presidential candidates on their willingness to disassociate themselves from religious figures whose teachings are based on assumptions of fact that can proven to be false? If so, doesn't it follow that that conservatives need to disassociate themselves from young earth creationists?
Finally, as to Rod's mention of the world "normal". Seems like a fascinating thread to explore further. What is "normal"? I don't think there is, nor should be, such a thing as "normal" American behavior or speech. It doesn't really bother me that Obama is the kind of person able to have a polite discussion, and probably even a fruitful exchange of ideas, with people who believe all sorts of crazy things, like that the American government spread HIV; or the earth is 6000 years old; or America is the greatest force for good in the world; or that America is shackled by her ancient thievery of the land from the Indians.
Maybe it's just me acting out of the biases of a biracial marriage and a majority minority city, but I'm happy to take my chances with an America where there is no "normal" and no one is considered an "inappropriate association" as long as they're law-abiding.
Bless,
Doug
The point I'm trying to raise is that the next 30 days has the potential to radically divide this nation in ways that make Bush v. Gore in 2000 seem like a quaint sitcom.
I don't agree. Or rather, I do agree, but I wouldn't put much causal blame on what happens in the next 30 days (except to the extent that it affects who wins ... and it can't not do that). This has been brewing for 30 years, and 30 days of detail can be nothing more than the cherry. It's what a culture-war looks like.
Given how commentariat liberals reacted to their defeats in 2000 and 2004 (they were actually angrier in 2004 ... that spawned the "Jesusland/USC" maps), a McCain win has the real potential to bring about violence, for several reasons not the least of which being that liberals are far more convinced than in either '00 and '04 of their candidate's intrinsic superiority. Hence "it must be racism." So the best-possible outcome of a McCain victory is four more years of "AmeriKKKa is racist" as the norm among the Information Class (actually more than four, because a McCain victory would live on in memory as AmeriKKKa's latest outrage).
Egad, forgot those "chickens" quotes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-wright-transcripts-webmar29,0,5774556.story
"We've bombed Hiroshima, we've bombed Nagasaki, we've nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism." J. Wright
Doug
Victor, re. that last assessment about violence, I pretty much agree. I do think it matters what happens over the next 30 days, though. Just to pick one example, I remember the post-2000 stories about blacks in Florida convinced they were denied access to the polls by the police. Then in 2004 there was the tire-slashing in Illinois of a van used to get Democratic voters to the polls. I think if the rhetorical temperature gets much higher, we may get to the point where these kinds of incidents in the days immediately around election day will happened between people who have armed themselves, and believe their political opponent is their visceral enemy. This, during a time when jobs and homes are being lost left and right. I think this could be a powderkeg, and we'd all benefit from starting to hear some language from both campaigns about "accepting the will of the electorate" post-election day.
Doug
Mr. Cramer:
The line of thinking is entirely prosaic in homiletics. A pastor considers his nation guilty of wicked acts collectively, so he calls for God's judgment. End of rhetorical tool. Heck, I've used it in speeches I've written for religious speakers.
If that were all there were to why Trinity UCC is so ... um, interesting ... it wouldn't be interesting. You would be right. But to name the most obvious fact ... and it's visible on the tapes ... why would an audience of Americans be cheering and whooping up and applauding Wright as he goes on this jeremiad? If they identified with their country and understood what Wright was saying, they should silent in stunned terror if they thought it true or walk out in anger if they thought it false (three guesses which one I would do).
It really is as simple as "people don't cheer prophetic judgment being called upon oneself, though they may cheer it being brought against the Other." No ... what "the chickens coming home to roost" sermon + the reaction prove is that at Trinity UCC, "America" is the Other, They, The Man, whites, etc.
Wright's error is not in his argumentation. It is in his observations. He believes things to be facts that are not, and then argues reasonably from these false premises.
And here's the other reason Wright has stepped far beyond standard Christian prophetic judgment, and why it is correct to dismiss Trinity UCC simpliciter.
Believing the American government invented HIV for the purpose of killing minorities (or ships drugs into black neighborhoods) is not simply a false observation about the details of epidemiology. It is the intellectual equivalent of a capital offense -- something so contrary to every possible standard of reason that, like Holocaust denial, the person simply cannot be meaningfully argued with and so should not be. The person who defends it has not committed a rational error, but is displaying irrationalism per se and almost certainly a disease of the soul (anti-Americanism and paranoia in one case, anti-Semitism and dishonesty in the other).
So? I don't believe that Obama believes, for example, that the American government spread HIV. So, even if his entire thought process works like Wright's (which is highly doubtful) he would never end up at the same end point as Wright.
I don't either. The reason that Wright is relevant to Obama is more subtle -- that Wright helps define what Obama considers the universe of reasonable and acceptable views. And that's not a pretty universe.
Just to pick one example, I remember the post-2000 stories about blacks in Florida convinced they were denied access to the polls by the police. Then in 2004 there was the tire-slashing in Illinois of a van used to get Democratic voters to the polls.
Not to revisit 2000 ... but that was a crock (all the details are here). And a crock doesn't cease to be a crock because a lot of people believe it or by dint of repetition.
In the fact the "blacks were disenfranchised in Florida" meme is a near-pitch-perfect example of the dynamic by which an Obama presidency will be a disaster for race relations. Every bureaucratic snafu (which, like political attacks, do occur), every judgment call, every urban legend, will be magnified into a racial incident because it will offer short-term political benefit for the Democrats under a President Obama to make it that.
Why do you think so many blacks were convinced that they were denied access to the Florida polls while not a single person has actually been shown to have been kept away? Because it suited Democrats in November and early December of 2000 to delegitimate Florida voting procedures as much as possible and on racial grounds if need be.
Doug,
What statements in the "chickens coming home to roost" sermon are untrue? Even if one believes the atomic bombings of Japan were horrible but necessary, as I do, the vast majority of Americans are unaware of or, worse, untroubled by the human toll of the last 60 years of making the world safe for capitalism and empire, including, but not limited to:
the 1953 Iran coup and decades of the shah's torture regime; the 1954 Guatemala coup and decades of genocide against the Maya; the 1960 Lumumba assassination and decades of Mobutu's bloodthirsty tyranny; the half-million (minimum) murdered in Indonesia in 1965; the millions slaughtered in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the 1973 Pinochet coup (on Sept. 11!) and tens of thousands tortured, murdered and disappeared in the Southern Cone; the U.S.-supported terror wars in East Timor, Angola and Mozambique; Reagan's terror wars in Central America, with priests and nuns singled out for rape and murder; the black slum destroyed in Bush I's Panama invasion to silence his former asset Noriega; the half-million Iraqi children killed by sanctions under Clinton; and of course our current glorious adventure in Mesopotamia.
I'm sorry it's such a long list, but not nearly as sorry as the unmourned victims must be.
How many theological conservatives have ever uttered a protest in the face of this record? Just the hated "religious left."
Does "God damn America" really seem so outlandish a judgment?
And which of Wright's other statements, other than the AIDS lunacy (look up "Tuskegee Experiment" to see where that comes from), are factually inaccurate?
(Sorry for the earlier double posting.)
What amazes me is that all these conspiracy theories abound when there is no evidence whatsoever that Ayers ever informed Senator Obama's politics outside of education, or that Barack Obama is an angry, radical Black Liberation Theorist thanks to Jeremiah Wright. None whatsoever.
This is all hype, brought to you by the right-wing smear machine. And I'm saddened that Christians could even come close to buying this crap. The crypto-Marxist lie is a real hoot, too. His plans are open for all to see, and yet everyone wonders about this crazy stuff.
What is wrong with you people?
Thank you, Doug, for making sense.
when there is no evidence whatsoever that Ayers ever informed Senator Obama's politics outside of education
Just the left-wing denial machine (see ... isn't that stuff so easy).
This is a far too programmatic approach to a candidate, as if a man can be reduced to a set of policy positions. But it'd be bad enough if Obama were merely influenced by Ayers' ideas on education, on account of Ayers is a Marxoid nut. Ayers denounces grades, mandatory attendance, tracking, standards, the teacher-student hierarchy. All these things are remnants of white supremacy and eugenics that must be destroyed in the name of liberation, Hugo Chavez and the end of the racist Empire, you understand. He thinks all education is political -- either fomenting revolution or supporting the status quo. Why, it's as if Ayers' work on education were just a continuation of his 60s/70s "work." (Don't anyone call me on this ... I will cram it down their throat.)
there is no evidence whatsoever ... that Barack Obama is an angry, radical Black Liberation Theorist thanks to Jeremiah Wright.
"Angry," I'll give you. Obama is a smoothie and his manner is professorial, no question about that.
But calling to ignore Wright is ... remarkable in its ostrichness. Obama himself could not have been more explicit when Wright was convenient (we can safely ignore what happened during the primaries -- that was political necessity talking). Obama viewed Wright then as a mentor and hero; he named his book after one of Wright's sermons; Wright presided over his wedding and baptized his children. This isn't "some priest I happened to know."
Rod and I have been quite explicit on why WE think it is relevant -- that Wright (and Ayers-Dohrn) shows the water in which Obama has been swimming, and thus shape his sense of what is normal. All that matters is that Obama continued to go to Trinity, to consider that man a hero. It logically means either he agrees explicitly -- "why yes, Jeremiah ... God should damn America for inventing AIDS" (unlikely, I acknowledge). Or it means that he disagrees but considers that disagreement a minor offense, one worth tolerating for the sake of other things. Once you acknowledge that Wright is an insane, racist loon, the comparisons make themselves on the double standards to which blacks are held on matters of race-baiting; either Wright or Obama.
This is why I cited to Rod above Esolen's marriage rules and the importance of character. Your friends are an indication of your character. There is no way to know in advance what someone will do when you're stuck with him; only surmises based on his character and education (in the broadest sense). As Plato points out in the Republic, a man's character is the most important thing about him (ultimately, the only thing, some say) because it determines how he processes and reacts to everything else, and what he thinks the universes of reason and of possibility are.
As for explicit influence of racialism, I'll cite at least two things (it's too late and I'm too drunk to be exhaustive). First of all, calling his grandmother "a typical white person" -- the very phrasing is offensive according to codes of racialism ("typical black person"?). But the substantive idea, that Obama thinks racism and hostility toward blacks is the norm for whites and morally comparable to Wright's frothing is even worse. Second of all, the whole "bittergate" answer was bad enough as an attempt to explain "not voting for me" as some kind of pathology, something needing explanation -- the arrogance and self-righteousness isn't terribly dependent on what the explanation was. But explaining religion and racism as simply functions of economic bitterness is unbelievably self-righteous Racial-Marxism 101.
And lastly the most poisonous thing about an Obama victory would not be Obama himself, but his race-obsessed supporters. Indeed, I'll even say that by the standards of liberal black politicians, Obama is ... let's just say no Maxine Waters or Cynthia McKinney. But you don't elect (just) a person, you elect a party and a coalition. I linked above to where every single permutation of association against Obama already has been denounced as racist. The first black president will not be a post-racial president unless (1) he is a conservative (2008 obviously does not qualify); or (2) liberals already will have gotten over turning every disagreement and conflict into a racial matter (2008 does not qualify here either).
His plans are open for all to see
Do you honestly think politicians can be reduced to an easily produced set of platform planks???
Conservatism lost its way when it embraced the same double-standard that liberalism embraces, applying one logic of governance to individual behavior and a diametrically opposed logic to corporate behavior. Unsurprisingly, many leaders of movement conservatism are ex-liberals, They flipped the content of their thought, but kept the process of their thought intact.
Movement conservatism is as intellectually bankrupt as the radical liberalism from which it sprung. Perhaps that is why they're obsessed with Hugo Chavez?
Obama is a radical socialist. This is evident. He is probably going to win. He will be an utter failure. He will not be able to implement any of his hairbrained ideas. He will raise taxes during an economic contraction and serve during the worst Depression since 1929. He will be the most ineffectual president since Jimmy Carter. He will set race relations back two hundred years.
He will not be able to implement any of his hairbrained ideas.
Of course he will. With the expected big Dem majority in both houses, look for a new New Deal. Brought to you by the same people who gave us the old New Deal.
In other words, look for 14% unemployment.
"He will set race relations back two hundred years." Robin Thomas
He's going to bring back slavery? Whippings? Hmm I kind of doubt that.
Let's not also forget Raila Odinga. Who's he, you ask? The current Prime Minister of Kenya, whom Obama advised and assisted when Odinga ran for the job in 2007.
News reports today indicate that Odinga's government has detained an American reporter, Jerome Corsi, who's in Nairobi this week to do research and hold a press conference today detailing the connection between Odinga and Obama.
Corsi was set to show Obama advised Odinga on campaign strategy and helped him raise money in the U.S. for the Kenya presidential campaign.
Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign strategy exploited anti-Kikuyu tribal sentiments, claiming victory and charging voter fraud even if the campaign knew the election had been legitimately lost. Corsi claims tht Odinga was willing to fan the flames of ethnic tribal tensions and use violence as a last resort by calling for mass action that led to the destruction of properties, injuries, loss of life and the displacement of over 500,000 Kenyans.
Now that the press has determined the father of Bristol Palin's child ... maybe they can do some real journalism and examine Obama's role in the now violent politics of his Daddy's homeland.
Boy, I do admire the Obama supporters with the courage and energy to go comment-to-comment with the lockstep McCain/Palin supporters. I don't have the stamina. They are up in arms about Wright/Ayers, but complacent about convicted felons Keating and Liddy, who demonstrably had far more influence and friendship on McCain. Not to mention secessionist Sarah, and her condoning of anti-Semitic diatribes. See? This stuff cuts both ways, the guilt-by-association nonsense, but keep playing it McCain supporters -- the wide swath of open-minded and reasonable Americans that are finally waking up after the Bush calamity aren't buying it, and the more you peddle it, the faster McCain drops. If McCain had a shred of dignity or honor, he would lose with honor -- instead, he's going to trash what's left of his reputation, and taint the incoming Obama administration. Country First ... right. It's "me first" or I upset the checkers board and stomp off home. That's the real McCain.
Do you realize where all this racist-tinged hate-mongering is going? Someone called out "kill him!" at a Palin rally yesterday. If something horrible happens, anyone who fed this Wright/Ayers BS will be complicit.
One more thing -- I just have to laugh when people say Obama will raise taxes and unemployment will go through the roof. Didn't we just finally put to rest the notion that tax cuts create jobs? I know facts are annoying, but 8 years of tax cuts, and unemployment is at a record high. Is it just that one last tax cut that will turn it all around? Right...
Boy, the Arkansas Project is starting to look like kindergarten, aina?
So, Victor, you're basically saying that you have to believe in conspiracy theories to conclude that Ayers influenced Obama in more than just education, because you spouted a whole load of NOTHING. Show something concrete, some action, some vote that shows that Obama agrees with the laundry list of junk that you said Ayers believes, other than the fact that they sat on the same board together.
As for Jeremiah Wright - that was his pastor, and he most informed Obama about his Christianity. He is the reason why Obama became a Christian. There is no evidence that he supports Black Liberation Theology. You again cited a whole load of NOTHING.
The guilt by association game cuts against McCain too, and has even more sinister implications - that our country may be controlled by foreign interests, since so many of his lobbyist friends got paid for lobbying for some of the scummiest dictators. Please.
They are up in arms about Wright/Ayers, but complacent about convicted felons Keating and Liddy, who demonstrably had far more influence and friendship on McCain.
Hey, hey. Let's not forget the mass-murderer Henry Kissinger. (For those who disagree with my word choice, look up the definition of 'murder', which is 'unlawful killing', and then explain how the president has the legal ability to bomb a neutral country for that amount of time without informing Congress.)
As long as Kissinger is roaming around free in politics, no complaint about Ayers has any legitimacy at all. Ayers, at least, didn't kill people. He was just an extreme and rather flashy vandal.
Doug Cramer, thank you. You have put it in the proper perspective.
Please realize, though, that the people who are arguing with you were always convinced that Obama is what they are claiming based on their assumptions and pronouncements. They didn't need the governess from Alaska to point it out to them. They have been expressing their hate for Obama all along. They just need to regurgitate it some more, taste it again, and then swallow.
That's all.
That's their way.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.