Progressive World Review

I’ve written previously on this nation’s insistence with choosing its leaders based on traits (or perceived traits).  And nowhere is this truer than with our obsession with Barack Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright.  I’ve also about Wright, and while I wouldn’t want to try and defend his every utterance, most of what he’s said has not been that unreasonable.

While Wright’s remarks have been front page news, when it comes to unholy alliances the right gets what amounts to a free pass.  When John McCain sought and received the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee you didn’t hear a negative word from the press, not until the blogosphere picked up the story anyway.  Hagee is famous (or should be) for spewing anti-Catholic remarks like, “This is the Great Whore of Revelation 17″ and calling the Catholic church “the anti-Christ system.”  So when Wright says “god damn America,” you might fault him for not giving enough credit for the progress that has been made, but at least his remarks are somewhat based in reality.  After all, blacks were brought to this country in chains, segregation and Jim Crow actually existed, and not all that long ago either.  And aside from the very real progress that has been made, the disproportionate number of blacks still living in poverty or jail attests to the fact that racism is not over.  Meanwhile, have the Catholics harmed Hagee’s people in any way, other than in his own fevered imagination?  Yet the coverage of the McCain/Hagee connection pales in comparison to the coverage of the Obama/Wright connection.

But the real point has nothing to do with defending Wright or condemning Hagee because neither of these men are actually running for president.  And while I don’t mean to suggest that we should completely ignore the associations of the candidates for elected office, I do think we should put it in its proper perspective.  When it comes down to it, trying to gauge the qualifications of a candidate on their perceived personality, or that of their associations, will invariably lead us astray.  When George Bush first ran for president, the perception of his personality was that he’d be the kind of guy you could sit down and “have a beer with.”  For all of Bush’s supposed down-home charm, I really don’t think that this privileged, spoon fed, spoiled frat boy really has much in common with the men and women in this country that actually have to work for a living.  But even if it were true, what difference did it make?  Bush, deservedly, has job approval ratings hovering somewhat lower than the spotted owl.  Among other things, he lied is unto an unpopular, multi-trillion dollar war, turned a surplus into a huge deficit, gave tax breaks to the rich and tried to dismantle one of the most popular government programs ever created-Social Security.  So have a beer with him if you must, but please don’t allow him to be in charge of anything larger than the local Boy Scout troop ever again.

And the same fatal flaw arises when you try to assess Obama’s qualifications for president by judging the remarks of his Pastor.  Because even if Wright really is the wing nut he’s been portrayed to be does anyone really believe that Obama shares Wright’s judgment or temperament?   From Obama’s time as an activist to his stint in state government to Senate term and especially as a presidential candidate, Obama has endorsed cooperation rather than divisiveness and regardless of anything else Obama is certainly the most likely candidate to ease the racial tensions in this country rather than to exacerbate them.  But in order to recognize that fact, you have to put away the politics of personality and judge the candidate on the totality of what he represents.

–Paul Wilden

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.