Humotropy » Obama the Hater
Obama the Hater
I may be a bit late on the hoopla regarding Wright and Obama (hey, the blog hasn’t existed for that long), but I’d like to ask the following question: Does anyone actually believe that Obama shares in the “god damn America” meme? Does anyone honestly believe that Obama hates America?
Because if not, then I don’t see why the Wright issue is still an issue. Isn’t the reason for disavowal to offer some assurance that Obama doesn’t share Wright’s views? And if we aren’t honestly mulling over the possibility that the man is ACTUALLY a super-secret-crypto-manchurian-devilworshiping-islamic-fundamentalist-jihadist-amerikkka-hater, then a curt “He’s wrong. Go USA!” should suffice, regardless of the number of times Obama sat in his pew.
Though I love his blog and his work on economic justice vis. eminent domain, I just don’t get why
But Obama’s speech, well-written as it is, cannot distract us from the bottom line: he is refusing to “disown” a man who embraces an explicit and thorough ideology of collectivist anti-Americanism; whose considered opinion is that the United States deserved the September 11th attacks because of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; who truly believes that blacks ought to say “not God bless America, but God damn America.” That is simply inexcusable.
My emphasis. But why? To show that he doesn’t believe that the Sept. 11 attacks were deserved? He’s already said as much - do you not believe him?
There is none. And if there is none, then I think Jason Kuznicki, er…Dr. Kuznicki…um, I mean that one guy on that blog o’er there is right when he calls “A More Perfect Union” Obama’s Rorschach Test since denunciation and disownment are nothing more than empty gestures. I suspect that it is actually Obama’s liberal leanings and statist policies which make Obama’s inaction “inexcusable.”
I believe (and could be wrong) that Sadefur’s insistence is based on the unseemlyness and ickyness of not leaping, with lapel pin at the fore, to rail against wrong-headed ideas spoken too close to the candidate. But I see this a just haggling over the margins of propriety rather than a substantive gesture.
2 Comments
1. Jason Kuznicki replies at 23rd March 2008, 2:00 pm :
Thanks for the feedback.
There’s something problematic to the demand that a candidate denounce someone or something: You can always declare yourself unsatisfied with the denunciation, no matter how vehement it is. You can always say it’s insufficient. Then either the candidate must abase himself before you even further (unlikely in the Sandefur/Obama pairing), or else you can say “see, he really supports the thing he claimed to denounce.”
Which is hardly fair play, but that’s just politics.
2. Aaron replies at 24th March 2008, 4:34 am :
Hi Jason! Congrats on being the very first comment. I would offer you some kind of prize, but that would require organization and forethought, and we’ll have none of that here.
I think that many people’s ongoing demands for deeper and more heartfelt denunciations is more a function of Obama’s leftish policies than anything to do with Wright. That’s why I think you were right to phrase the issue as a matter of the psychology of the demanders rather than the disposition of Obama.
Confirmation bias, I think they call it.
Leave a comment