No Politician is Holy – or Unholy
John Derbyshire says Barack Obama is a “socialist” who is “full of hot air” and thinks anybody who likes him didn’t learn anything from the 20th Century.
Sean Hannity thought that the weak reply he got from a few Obama supporters who were asked to name an accomplishment of the Illinois Senator was proof positive that they were all stupid. Are we to believe that an analogous room full of average McCain supporters when asked the same question could barely have stopped exclamations like ‘The McCain-Feingold Act!’ and ‘The Detainee Treatment Act!!’ from escaping their lips?
If the indignation from conservatives and Republicans over their ability to see through the messianic “hard-left” smokescreen of Barack Obamania doesn’t stop soon, they should expect only to perpetuate the farce that the current president has made of their politics over the past 7 years.
It isn’t because their charges against the Barackers are without merit, mind you–there is far too little skepticism of personality cultism and fervor for charisma on the Obama side.
The reason this choir voice of contempt from the right sounds so absurd is because, as they so rightly say of Mrs. Clinton’s proclivity to cherry- pick from her husband’s career, it begins to sound like ‘everything bad is his, everything good is ours.” The fact is, both sides have some bucking up to do in the department of B.S. detection if the general election is to be anything but malodorous.
Anyone who has been paying attention to messianism in American politics over the last several years has noticed that, while the charge of a burgeoning “American theocracy” is overstated, the current administration has waged a war on science education and research, and has conducted Christian prayer services at important governmental meetings that should be governed by the establishment clause. It has also–to put it mildly–not taken care to see that its charity work in places like Africa and the Middle East is carried out by organizations whose sole aim is humanitarian aid rather than the dissemination of particular religious doctrines. Would that the conservative camp have been so clear-sighted and skeptical while all this was taking place.
Instead, the most dominant strains of conservative media and opinion have conflated atheism with Nazism and Communism and religiosity with patriotism–as if no atheist could be a patriot and as if Nazism and Stalinism didn’t resemble religious cults themselves. Dinesh D’Souza and Bill O’Reilly never tire of these tropes, whether debating Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett. Never do they mind that in the process they have been distorting or burying the historical facts of the American founding. After all, only the most blinded by partisanship and ideology would suggest that texts by Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu conditioned the minds of our founding fathers less than the verses of the Christian Bible. Had that been the case, Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of abridging the Gospels to pamphlet size until all their affronts to Enlightenment rationality had been purged to his satisfaction.
So bravo to this new-found eye for the uncritical zeal of the masses, but it’s long overdue and should invite scrutiny, since it appears mainly to serve the utility of disparaging party opponents. None can try to claim this as a virtue that conservatives will be able to tout by voting for a man who flip-flopped on his willingness to associate with a religious bigot like Jerry Falwell. The differences between Falwell and the repugnant Mr. Farrakhan are slight. Obama has not–and isn’t likely to–openly put aside his differences with the leader of the Nation of Islam and give a speech at one of its functions. McCain, on the other hand, did just this by smoothing over his differences with Falwell and delivering a commencement speech at Liberty University.
And while Barack Obama is rightly being held to account for his ties to the inflammatory Chicago reverend Jeremiah Wright, conservatives remain conveniently mum about McCain’s buddy John Hagee. Wright thinks 9/11 was retribution for American foreign policy while Hagee believes hurricane Katrina was New Orleans’ just desserts for having let their city descend into a “level of sin that was offensive to God.” Isn’t blowback at least a more sophisticated theory to preach from the pulpit than that of morally indignant weather phenomena?
The real lesson to take away isn’t that these choices reflect on the true beliefs and character of the candidates. Cozying up to Hagee and Falwell was and is politically smart for McCain. It’s also not that different from Obama’s relationship to Trinity Church in Chicago. These are political calculations; collusions with superstitious demagogues for access (Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, not only wears bio-electric amulets, she’s been known have psychic conversations with the spirits of long-dead first ladies. No need to consult with lunatic cranks if you are one yourself.)
The truly critical eye would notice that both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are equally capable of logical inconsistencies and populist pandering. A prime example of this was their exchange over Iraq that took place when it seemed apparent that the general election would be a match between the two of them. Mr. Russert’s question to Obama at the Cleveland debate was phrased as a hypothetical that clearly implied an insurrection or civil war had been absent prior and had resurged. Obama’s singling out of Al-Qaeda merely name-dropped the group that would be most likely responsible in that event. McCain’s dig at Obama (“I have some news…”) was made possible only by ignoring the semantics that both men most certainly understand and that McCain hopes his supporters will neither catch nor comprehend.
By the same token, Obama’s retort that ‘there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded’ is total hogwash and takes advantage of his audience’s blindness to sheer fact. Musab al-Zarqawi fled to Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan–a theater Obama openly (and rightly) concedes was worthwhile. Zarqawi’s operation in Iraq existed before it’s 2004 formal declaration of allegiance with bin-Laden’s Al-Qaeda as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which was itself an offshoot of Ansar al-Islam. The shift from Ansar to JTJ to Al-Qaeda had to do with little more than nomenclature. The same people with the same goals, the same enemies and the same ideology had indeed been there before the U.S. arrived and only welcomed the chance to escalate their holy war. One imagines that McCain and Obama aren’t showing their stupidity by making these claims, but instead are merely showing their willingness to employ identical rhetorical tactics against their opponents to the disrespect of the intelligence of their supporters.
As for Obama’s “hard” leftism, one wonders how many hard leftists the folks who make this charge have known or spoken with seriously. I know for certain that somewhere around zero percent of those would ever proclaim Israel’s security to be “sacrosanct,” nor would they utter a positive adjective anywhere near the name “Ronald Reagan” or the word “Republican.” If Obama has ever been a hard leftist, it’s safe to level the flip-flopper charge on him as well.
Despite my general distaste for George W. Bush and his politics, I have spent the better part his last presidential term defending the man from hyperbolic and passionately hateful charges that he was the equivalent of Adolf Hitler or worse than bin-Laden. No matter how, or to what extend the hard left disagreed with Bush, there was no denying that most Americans had friends, family, neighbors and loved ones who would have acted very similarly to the way Mr. Bush did in office. That hardly meant that they endorsed the wholesale and bloody removal of Jews or non-believers from the Earth. The same principle must be applied to Obama. If indeed he has (or has had in the past) sympathies or ties with groups like the Weathermen, then while this is a stain on his record it does not elevate him to treasonous, fifth-columnist status any more so than Bush’s ties to the PNAC made him the “same as” some of the worst mass murderers in recent history.
If the right side of the spectrum wants us to be on the lookout for the worshipfulness of the Obama camp, that is music to my ears. But that tune is muted somewhat by the simultaneously insulting implication that such intellectual clarity escapes liberals and Obama supporters. There are at least as many Obama supporters who are dismayed by their fellow boosters’ infantile fandom as there were Bush Republicans who squirmed as they watched the administration they had supported run a worthwhile war effort and the institution of the presidency into the ditch. The guilt-by-association argument that judges Obama the candidate according to the audience who cheers him will not a more informed electorate make.
McCain and Obama supporters should acknowledge that politics is war, that in each there are direct strikes and there are covert operations, and that the object of the game is not purity but hopefully the largest measure of goodness. McCain’s audience will allow him to say some things that Obama’s will not–things they both know to be true, like that immediate withdrawal from Iraq isn’t even a remote possibility. Obama might know this but know he must be covert, while McCain can be direct. McCain probably didn’t like Falwell any more than Obama–who has openly referred to his upbringing as “humanist”–likes Farrakhan, bin-Laden or any other hateful religious cretin. But McCain tucked his tail and bowed to Falwell anyway, knowing that an outspoken critic of the religious right would have as hard a time winning the GOP nomination as a liberal candidate who conceded the unquestionable need to secure Iraq from descending into absolute chaos before withdrawal.
Surely the ‘change we seek in Washington,’ as Obama is fond of saying, is not a return to isolationism. It isn’t progressive, it’s regressive to say, as he did in Cleveland, that money spent on eliminating dictatorship abroad would be better spent on American bridges (news flash for Derbyshire–most hard left socialists of the 20th century who were worth their salt were internationalist opponents of fascistic regimes). Call it the audacity of hope, but surely a candidate who chose as an advisor one of the foremost intellectuals on ethnic cleansing and genocidal violence knows better. Hope in such an instance is also a form of respect for both Obama and his supporters. It will take a bit more convincing until I fully believe that millions of Americans do not comprehend the notion that a rushed retreat from Iraq will fall into the long list of victories that radical Islamism believes it has won, from the mujahideen’s defeat of the Soviets and the lame U.S. response to Hezbollah activity in the 80′s, to the Kenyan embassy bombings, U.S.S. Cole, and Blackhawk Down incidents of the 90′s, to 9/11, 7/7, and the Madrid and Mumbai attacks. Sadly, though, hope will only last for so long as an option in that department. We should be ready to accept that many Americans and perhaps a wildly popular candidate for president do not realize this. Still, we shouldn’t be so hasty in assuming they don’t, nor should anybody be bending over backwards trying to connect dots that don’t actually connect.
The contours of dishonesty are a given in politics, just as the dynamics of persona dictate the rise and fall of junior and senior Senators alike (witty war-hero or eloquent, multi-ethnic savior, take your pick). Both conservative and liberal, pro-Obama and pro-McCain voters would do well to keep in mind that honesty and clarity aren’t the exclusive domain of their party or candidate, but that critical vigilance is the only safeguard against tyranny of all stripes–including of the majorities. Focus in that department will provide the only compass for gauging who will be less the scoundrel upon their exit from the Oval Office and how much better or worse off we’ll be as a nation once all is said and done.
Josh Strawn a writer and musician based in New York. His band is Blacklist.
This attempt to mitigate and/or exonerate via relativism and equivalence is rather pathetic. While it’s true that all humans are flawed and no political party has a claim on purity, at least the GOP – despite all its faults – makes an attempt to purge bad behavior. The Democrats make excuses for theirs.
Obama is a duplicitous fraud. Wright is an outright fraud.
No amount of squirming is going to change it.
What is the point of this essay? That both Obama and McCain can be equally criticized? That both parties may be guilty of messianism or dishonesty or lack of clarity?
Clarity is important in writing too. I suggest the basics of essay writing: the Funnel. In the first paragraph, start with an opening invitation–maybe the Derbyshire quote works–and conclude that paragraph with a thesis statement for the whole piece. In the final paragraph, reword the thesis with broader implications.
Here Strawn presents a laundry list of complaints about everyone involved in the current election year–both parties, both candidates and their supporterss–and concludes with a vague plea for honesty and clarity. Thanks ever so much.
Neither Falwell nor Hagee are 20-year personal mentors and spiritual advisors, nor are they or were they employed by the campaign as was Rev. Wright. To compare their loose connection to McCain to Obama and his ridiculous reverend is absurd. I hereby sue you for the time it took to read this fraud–I’d like those minutes back please.
Nice to see you bending over backwards to be fair to everyone, but…
Re the line ‘news flash for Derbyshire – most hard left socialists of the 20th century who were worth their salt were internationalist opponents of fascistic regimes’:
Can I suggest you read ‘Liberal Fascism’, by Derbyshire’s NRO colleague Jonah Goldberg? Prior to WWII, most hard-left socialists century were enthusiastic supporters of the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, and after the war they became supporters of the equally fascistic Soviet Union.
And don’t be taken in by Obama’s words about Israel – his real views are probably nearer to those of Samantha Power (the ‘foremost intellectuals on ethnic cleansing and genocidal violence’ you mentioned). She may have been ‘fired’, but no doubt she’s still advising him.
…and thanks for the link to Derbyshire’s article.
Having read it, Derbyshire’s complaints are perfectly legitimate, and you don’t address any of them. The thrust of your article is based on the Wright/Hagee comparison, but Derbyshire doesn’t even mention Wright.
Do you have any comparable examples of empty McCain rhetoric, or examples of McCain polices that would prove as disastrous as Obama’s?
Oh Josh, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Ask yourself if McCain has written a book, dedicated to Hagee, using part of a sermon of his as the title.
Ask yourself if McCain calls Hagee his “mentor.”
Ask yourself if McCain consults Hagee on each important piece of legislation before voting.
Ask yourself if McCain brought his child to hear year after year of racist, anti-American hate speech.
Ask yourself if McCain had his child baptized by Hagee.
Ask yourself if McCain let Hagee marry him and his wife.
Ask yourself if McCain attended Hagee’s church for 20 years, claiming in his own autobiography, “to gain street cred.”
“Anyone who has been paying attention to messianism in American politics over the last several years has noticed that, while the charge of a burgeoning “American theocracy” is overstated, the current administration has waged a war on science education and research, and has conducted Christian prayer services at important governmental meetings that should be governed by the establishment clause.”
This is as far as I could get. The blatant bias is nauseating.
Perhaps a closer reading of the clause is in order.Maybe the author could provide proof that saying a prayer before a meeting is establishing a religion.
You lost me at “stupid” in the first paragraph. It is indicative of Lefties whether avowed or subliminal, that they do the “well, what about….” fill in the blank. Bad behavior is what it is. The problem with Mr. and Mrs. Obama is that she lets her disdain and hatred for whitey out, he smiles his way through it. There is no way in the world his association with Wright can be excused on any grounds other than that he believed his mentor, reverend, friend and associate. Nothing said or done can change that, ever. It is like saying that Hitler was my pal and mentor but I never heard him say one bad thing about anybody and he didn’t start a war! Just does not wash, period, paragraph..the end.
Yes, there are more false equivalences in Strawn’s piece than in Obama’s speech.
I like that PJ Media will offer new writers in its buffet, but so often the resulting essays do not sustain scrutiny.
Although long-winded and unclear – the basic point is right. All politicians and their supporters smear the other side. The difference is that most Republicans will call the other side names and hint at them being lessor Christians. Let’s remind ourselves how they stick to those Commandments they should love so much. http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/09/breaking-the-commandments-republican-style/
OK, you made valid points. I don’t know many people who will actually be voting for John McCain and are completely happy with the decision, though; I’m certainly not. Vast swaths of Obama’s supporters, by contrast, seem only to care that he’ll change the country. (Which begs the related question, “Into what?”)
All in all, this seems to me like a rather feeble “Well, both sides do it” refutation — which isn’t a refutation at all. Opposing political ideologies will always fight each other — that’s why they’re opposites. Comparing the methods they use to do so is important, but it’s more important (especially now) to look at what they’re fighting about and debate that.
It seems quite fatuous to try to compare the messianic fervor of Obama’s supporters with anyone’s support of John McCain. Consider that admiration for McCain is based on a real record of heroism as a POW and a real record of decades in Congress.
I don’t support McCain or anyone remaining in either party, but at least those who admire him can point to a real record.
Obama has run as all things to all liberals. Those who compare him to JKF strike me as particularly guilty of distorting President Kennedy’s legacy, or of never re-reading his speeches, since the most prominent of them are his own family. He strikes me as the Jayson Blair of politics, bright and well-spoken but with little to recommend it for President of the U.S.
As for Hillary Clinton, the main reason anybody supports her is that she’s the first woman who’s come this close.
Conservatives at this moment are the least likely to hold anybody in the kind of awe that Obama supporters seem to have for him. They’ve learned that having control of the White House and Congress is no guarantee that things will go the way you wish they would. They will be the most surprised if McCain wins and then is actually a good, effective president.
The moral equvalence in Strawn’s article can only digust informed readers, and comments above prove it. This vain shallow desperate attempt to smear those on the right with the hypocrisy of the left is odious. If Mr. Strawn, who somehow always accomplishes getting it wrong, actually read conservative sites and commentaries, or listened to conservative radio, he’d know that Bush’s eight year tenure has been far from a lovefest. Today at Michelle Malkon’s site, there’s a blistering condemnation of Bush “cronyism” (her word), and links to other places where this topic has been beaten to death.
News Flash! McCain, has not been treated as saint by the right. Strewn apparently forgets a mere few months ago the bitter rancour of the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter, who threatened to vote for the detested ahillary if McCain becomes the nominee.
I’ve wondered before what might PajamasMedia management thinking in giving column space to this clueless wonder? Perhaps Roger L. Simon is attempting to provide specimens of the witless leftist MSM mentality which gave rise to PM in the first place?
Strawn’s caution to conservatives is good in theory, but his own examples undermine his argument. Others in the comment thread have done well showing that the supposed equivalences aren’t uh, equal. That there are some conservatives who get excessive in their claims that conservatism = Christianity – sure; but where is the evidence that these are numerous or influential in McCain’s stable?
I followed Angry African’s link. Sorry, son, but each of those points would only take about two paragraphs apiece to deep-six.
I have to ask both of you – was that your best shot?
Mer,
Wow, you read a hack book by a right wing jerk and now you know everything about Fascism. Do you ever read anything besides neo-con trash? Ah, since about half the left in the 30′s was composed of Jews or people friendly to Jews, are you goign to tell me they all enthusiastically supported Hitler and Mussolini? that is a lie. The left supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War while the fascists and the Nazis supported the Nationalists. Honestly, you are a patsy.
Far from Messianic worship, Conservatives view McCain with skepticism. I support him not because of some fuzzy idea of how he “makes me feel good,” but because his view of the world is more in parallel with my own.
The closest thing to a Messianic figure Conservatives have was Reagan, but again, not because of empty rhetoric. We knew his policies would rebuild our economy and our defense; that he would strongly oppose Soviet tyranny; that he would make government less intrusive in our lives.
This is far different from incidents of (staged) fainting over a candidates visual appeal or (prepared) speech making abilities. What is the content of his beliefs and to whom does he attribute America’s greatness – individuals or the almighty government?