Before the political world moves on from the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama’s stirring speech on race in America, it’s worth taking a moment to consider Michael Gerson’s WaPo column today, which I believe is misguided, but is largely representative of the conservative response to the week’s news.
Unlike the cartoonish, knee-jerk responses seen in some (ahem) corners yesterday, Gerson concedes from the outset that Obama made his case “as well as it could be made” yesterday, adding, “It was one of the finest political performances under pressure since John F. Kennedy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960.”
But Gerson seems to believe that there is literally nothing Obama could do. That Obama forcefully rejected Wright’s most offensive remarks is fine, Gerson argues, but it’s too late for history, context, and explanations.
The problem with Obama’s argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the “U.S. of KKK-A” and urges God to “damn” our country.
Obama’s excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor.
Obama, Gerson concluded, “is not a man who hates — but he chose to walk with a man who does.”
This strikes me as a wildly flawed argument, for three reasons.
First, Sullivan notes, “According to Gerson, nothing Obama can say now can remove the taint of some of Wright’s worst moments, and nothing else that Wright has said and done for the good can be weighed in the balance. This from a man who flaunts his Christianity as a job credential.”
Quite right. By Gerson’s reasoning, Obama sat in Wright’s pews, which necessarily and permanently disqualifies him from national office. Obama can reject Wright’s thinking on these contentious issues, and can denounce them forcefully and publicly, but it doesn’t matter and it never will. Gerson’s approach, in this sense, is strikingly unreasonable.
Second, Gerson seems fundamentally confused about what Obama had to say about Wright yesterday. As Gerson sees it, Obama is “tolerant” of Wright’s “anti-Americanism.” Perhaps Gerson should listen to the speech again.
Obama said his former pastor “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country,” and condemned the “shocking ignorance” that sometimes emanated from his pulpit. He lamented Wright’s “offending sermons” that “distort reality,” and Wright’s “profound” mistakes.
What Gerson perceived as “tolerance” was anything but. Obama tried to make this clear: “That anger [expressed by Wright] is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”
And third, if Gerson wants to talk about political leaders who “choose to walk” with those “who hate,” I’m absolutely delighted.
Jerry Falwell blamed Americans for 9/11 and told a national television audience — 48 hours after the attacks, while rescue crews were still looking for survivors — that we deserved the attacks. John McCain sucked up to him shamelessly, stood alongside him, and announced that Falwell was no longer an “agent of intolerance.”
Unlike Obama and Wright, McCain had no long-time ties to Falwell, but sought him and his anti-American ideas out for purely political reasons. Just as he did with John Hagee and Rod Parsley, both of whom have rhetorical records that are at least as shocking as Wright’s. All three, for years, expressed nothing but disgust and disdain for those who don’t think and act as they do.
Does McCain “choose to walk” with those “who hate”? If so, where’s Gerson’s column on the subject?
For that matter, Pat Robertson also blamed 9/11 on Americans, but the Bush White House proceeded to suck up to the televangelist for years. Bush gave Robertson a private audience in 2003 to discuss Iraq policy shortly before the war began, and the administration routinely sends high-ranking officials onto the “700 Club.” Does the president “choose to walk” with those “who hate”? If so, why didn’t Gerson resign?
The double-standard is hard not to notice.