While the political world waits for Barack Obama’s speech on race in America to get underway in Philadelphia, it’s worth taking a moment to consider what, exactly, the “controversy” about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is all about. Because, at this point, I’m no longer sure.<\/p>\n
For example, John McCain appeared on Fox News late last week, and Sean Hannity noted the questions about Obama’s Christian congregation and his former pastor. “Would you go to a church like that?” Hannity asked. McCain responded<\/a>, “Obviously, that would not be my choice. But I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.”<\/p>\n And that, to me, is effectively the end of the story. Obama “does not share those views.” He’s denounced Wright’s inflammatory remarks, he’s removed Wright from having any role in his presidential campaign, he offers voters a message that is at odds with Wright’s more divisive sounding comments, and no one, even the Republican presidential nominee, seriously believes that Obama embraces Wright’s more inflammatory views.<\/p>\n So, what are we talking about again? Ezra had an item<\/a> that mirrored my thinking on the subject.<\/p>\n Does anyone believe that Barack Obama shares Jeremiah Wright’s political views? Do folks think Obama believes AIDS a biological weapon made by the American government to harm Africans? That Obama is a great fan of Farrakhan? That he thinks 9\/11 was a merited attack that represented our “chickens coming home to roost?”<\/p>\n So far as I can tell, no one really thinks Obama agrees with Wright. They just know that Wright’s comments are going to be politically troublesome for Obama. And so they’re covering them as if they’re a huge problem for Obama. But there’s a disconnect there. Such views are supposed to be troublesome because they signal that Obama agrees with them. But if no one believes that Obama agrees with them, then they’re just the views of some dude who knows Obama, and talks to him about spirituality. The controversy rests on everyone’s ability to treat it as something no one seems to believe it is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I’m certainly not blind to the political realities. Wright’s sermons included some pretty provocative charges.<\/p>\n But Obama’s conservative critics (and even a few of his liberal detractors) seem to be making assumptions based on almost paranoid notions of secrecy. This sounds silly — because it is — but that seems to be the basis for most of the controversy. It’s no longer enough to judge a presidential candidate on his or her public record and stated beliefs; we must now go further and extrapolate beliefs and motives — which do not appear to exist — based on associations the candidate has with others.<\/p>\n But isn’t that precisely why guilt by association is considered a fallacy? Because it requires an unjustified leap of assumption?<\/p>\n Much of the flap seems to boil down to Wright’s “God damn America” remark. Fine. But John Cole<\/a> reminded me of something very important, which helps expand the context a bit.<\/p>\n A few months ago, several Republican presidential candidates appeared in Florida for a “Values Voter” debate focused on the concerns of the religious right movement. Before the debate began, organizers invited a church choir to sing<\/a> a rendition of “God Bless America,” but in this case, the lyrics were rewritten. Instead of a song about “the land that I love,” and “home sweet home,” this version condemned<\/i> the United States. The song received an enthusiastic and positive response from the conservative Republicans on hand for the event, including the candidates (McCain wasn’t in attendance).<\/p>\n
\n
\nIn other words, I get the sense that Obama’s opponents, who hope to capitalize on the Wright flap, are arguing that the senator’s denunciations aren’t convincing. Obama says<\/i> he rejects Wright’s inflammatory ideas, but maybe he secretly agrees with him. Obama claims<\/i> he wants to bring people together around a sense of common purpose, but maybe he secretly shares the views of his former pastor.<\/p>\n