« Denominations and Double Standards | Main | Obama's White Grandmother »

Obama's Speech

18 Mar 2008 09:19 am

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole. His decades-long embrace of Wright, seemingly untempered by any serious qualms about what his pastor represents politically, suggests that he isn’t willing to confront the rhetoric of division and polarization within his own community, let alone in the country as whole. Which in turn suggests that that far from being the man who will tell us what we need to hear, rather than what we want to hear, he's a go-along-to-get-along figure, a man who accepts The Way Things Are and doesn't rock the boat. In other words, that he's just another politician.

I don't know exactly what he should say in the speech that he's about to give. I think he needs to acknowledge – and acknowledge with specifics, rather than generalities – the ugliness of Wright’s political rhetoric. At the same time, I think he needs to remind his audience that this ugliness - what you might call the paranoid style in African-American politics - exists for a reason: Wright, and millions more like him, grew up in an era when it was hard for blacks to say "God Bless America" full-throatedly, and an era when paranoia about white conduct was only common sense, since the government of the United States was effectively engaged in a vast conspiracy against its black citizens. Then, while nodding to the persistence of racism, he needs to talk at length about how far we've come: He needs to argue that in many respects, Martin Luther King's dream of equality has been fulfilled, so that for a rising generation of African-Americans, America has finally become the promised land that their ancestors dreamed of all through the long dark night of slavery and segregation. And finally, he needs to explain why his generation - a generation that can say "God bless America" wholeheartedly, a generation that rejects and transcends the politics of division and fear and paranoia - nonetheless has an obligation not to cast out men like Jeremiah Wright, men who did a great deal of good in their time, but men who are now simply too old to recognize that America has changed, and too set in their ways to enter the promised land. He needs to reject his minister's politics, in other words, in the name of a new generation of African-Americans, while simultaneously suggesting that the bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words isn't outrage but rather the mix of pity and tolerance that a white American might feel toward a racist parent or grandparent, who deserves to be loved and accepted in spite of their retrograde opinions.

Could he actually say all this? Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America? Can a man who clearly loves his pastor go so far down the road toward attacking him outright? Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents? I doubt it. But I'd love to see him try.

Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20048

Comments (28)

As you imply, Obama's shortcoming has been that he's not "black enough" to be psychologically comfortable taking a stand independent of black political orthodoxy.

For example, back in 1972, three black celebrities endorsed Nixon: Sammy Davis Jr., James Brown, and Wilt Chamberlain. They all got angry letters from other blacks about it, but while little Sammy was tortured by accusations of racial disloyalty stemming from 1972 for the rest of his life, big Wilt never game a damn, and I doubt if James did either.

Ross,

Thank you for taking the time to spell out exactly what your qualms are about Obama due to his association with Wright.

I probably would disagree with you about the ugliness of Wright's rhetoric (I think some of it is ugly and unacceptable, some of it is uncomfortable but understandable), but I think you come close to describing the difficult task Obama faces in his speech today and the remainder of the campaign.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to contextualize and define your concerns on this. Much better than the shit-throwing that seems to be engulfing the interwebs at the moment.

So on the basis of a few admittedly ugly soundbites, you think you know better than Obama who attended the church for 20 years what Rev. Wright is about? How do you know those soundbites aren't the extreme exception and that the vast bulk of Rev. Wright's sermons weren't of the uplifting kind Obama refers to in his books which brought him to tears? It seems Obama is being held to an absurd and unmeetable standard where nobody he ever associated with can have said anything remotely controversial or else it somehow disproves Obama's entire campaign.

Ross,

I appreciate your first sentence which was sorely lacking from what you wrote on the controversy yesterday.
I also agree with everything you said (as a Liberal Obamaniac).
I would though point out that he HAS at several times confronted the African-American community with its failings. I will refer you to the widely YouTubed speech he made on MLK Day at Ebenezer Church.
It is not new for him and I would not be surprised if he repeated it that criticism the way you framed it.

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician...

To me, the real significance is that this could torpedo Obama in the general election. Even if Obama does everything that Ross advocates, I'm not sure if it will work. I would add to this list that he should say that he will always be thankful for the role Wright played in bringing him to Jesus, etc. And that God works in mysterious ways.

Will this work with mainstream, religious America? As a cynical atheist elitist, its hard for me to tell.

Ross, I had disagreed with your earlier take on Wright but I think you really hit several nails on the head with this post.

I think he can do it, but I'm hardly impartial.

BB

Shakedown politics.

Awesome.

...Sammy was tortured by accusations of racial disloyalty stemming from 1972 for the rest of his life, big Wilt never game a damn, and I doubt if James (Brown) did either.

Funny, I was listening to James Brown while reading this comment. Despite his politics, there's no way you can accuse him of not being black enough.

An attaboy from Steve Sailer and Mike Megennis in the same comments, Ross. Make you proud?

Thanks, Ross, for meeting and engaging criticism.

he isn’t willing to confront the rhetoric... he's a go-along-to-get-along figure, a man who accepts The Way Things Are and doesn't rock the boat.

Obama should be judged on his words, proposed policies, and record. Presidents implement policies. That's why we care about them. He's pretty middle-of-the-road on policy, and he had the good sense to oppose the Iraq invasion when that wasn't the politically safe move for an ambitious young politician. He's also a pretty good rhetorician, which is nice.

I fail to see why his failure to maximize political conflict with his pastor affects anything. The recent all-out media assault does show that white people and black people have funny hang-ups, though.

Good post overall, but Wright isn't "too old". "Too set in his ways", more likely. No one is ever too old to rethink something and change his/her mind.

"to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole"

Well said, that is what many of us hope for. So get ready, Ross, because your time is coming. Whatever Obama says today, there will be an attempt to defeat him by pairing his image with that of one or more Frightening Black Men. And you will have a choice. There will be a Willy Horton ad. When it comes, will you do your part to break the mold and denounce it?

I fail to see why his failure to maximize political conflict with his pastor affects anything.

On the substance, I'm ok with it as well. As for the politics of it, it really seems like a big deal to me. It seems to me that a lot of the liberal blogs are in denial about how bad this stuff looks to the average voter. They seem to have a blind spot on this.

I guess we'll see the text of the speech soon enough, but I hope Obama doesn't focus too much on race. The substance of the criticism is that he showed poor judgment in being closely associated with someone who has wacky views and has said hateful things. These criticisms don't have anything to do with race. At a subconscious level, I'm sure that a lot of the concerns are racial, but the criticisms have become articulated in a non-racial way.

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not.

Isn't this the point?

Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents?

I doubt it. I think we all know there is nothing scarier to the white folks than a ranting, angry black man.

But then, I know that my own grandmother hated Jews and blacks. She didn't know one person who was either Jewish or black, but she hated them anyway. I know she wasn't the only one who felt that way. Those views were perfectly acceptable in her day.

Similarly, Wright comes from a different era. He's stuck in the '60's.

While I don't agree the more inflammatory comments made by Reverend Wright, much of the time, I can at least see where he's coming from. The implication that the new generation of American's can easily be proud of this country, or that we have left the legacy of segregation and slavery behind is not based in reality. While it's true that things are better than they have ever been for Black Americans, pretending that means they are good and we have turned a corner on racial discrimination is absurd. Have you walked around a black city like New Orleans or DC? De jure discrimination is no longer allowable, but de facto discrimination persists. Perhaps Reverend Wright has made hateful/crazy statements in the past, that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time. Most importantly, can't Obama go to a church without agreeing with everything his pastor says? I think millions of Catholics do it every week.

He needs to argue that in many respects, Martin Luther King's dream of equality has been fulfilled, so that for a rising generation of African-Americans, America has finally become the promised land that their ancestors dreamed of all through the long dark night of slavery and segregation

Oh has it now? Racism is SO 90s, I suppose.

What commentators like you are really asking of Obama is to accept white racism while repudiating, rejecting, and denouncing black racism. He needs to acknowledge the racism that Wright was subjected to (and Obama is implicitly being subjected to by Ferraro, others) while rejecting the racism that Wright expresses. Oh, and Obama, while you're at it, don't play the race card (whatever that even means).

Obama may be the only person in America who can walk this tight-rope, but the day an African American doesn't have to answer for all of the ills of both races in some sort of twisted collective hand-wringing by the American people and press --- that will be the day America becomes a promised land for whites and African-Americans alike.

So he speaks eloquently about black anger not being expressed in public, I call complete and total B.S. on that statement. If I did not encounter insulting foul-mouthed hateful black youth and not-so-youthful people, I would probably be more inclined to give a crap about the current cries of racism. I have never been anything but respectful of all people and have ALWAYS believed in the Golden Rule of "Treat others as you would have others treat you"... I am a multi-racial person myself but because of my fair complexion, I have endured pure and unsolicited hatred directed toward me by Blacks since high school... once simply for the fact that some black chic didn't like me talking to the black kid sitting next to me in English class. By doing nothing more than treating seeing others as equals, I have been conditioned to expect the worst of behavior from those who have only seen the best of behavior from me. So, blah blah blah, Barack comes from a mixed-racial family, well so do I. And blah blah blah some people feel anger toward other people for perceived racism... well so do I. So sorry, Obama, you can't guilt me into voting for you. You are not the most qualified.

"Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America?"

Parents tend to be surprisingly in tune with the challenges faced by their children. Let's not forget that this half-white, half-Kenyan politician has two daughters who are, and will continue to be, very much a part of the experience of black America.

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not.

That is why you are interesting as a new voice on the Right. If you didn't notice, Newt Gingrich, for one, does not share your views. The partner for Hope across the isle ... is not empowered, if you will.

...grew up in an era when it was hard for blacks to say "God Bless America" full-throatedly,..

Just to keep this in perspective: hard for blacks AND hard for many non-blacks, yes? There were many white people involved in the civil rights struggles in the past 30-40 years. What's more, the legacy of the civil rights struggles is one that the Conservative Right is willing to accept but not recognize - the sweeping changes included such things as expanding the rights of women to vote, too, in some locations, yes?

...bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words ...

I'm not going to let you have a facile description of Dr. Wright as "noxious" and "ugly" or sweep in "bigotry".

What specifically are you talking about and reacting to?

Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which someone could say, "God Damn America"? Do you really believe that every American act is blessed by God? What is it that Reagan-era, modern norms of Conservative Patriotism demand of your conscience?

I think Obama's speech was wonderful and will challenge all Americans to look within to determine the type of America we want in the future. Obama tried to highlight many of discriminating and segregating events, laws, policies, and social practices which form the foundation for the opinions of people like Dr Wright. He also said they had no place in our society if they don't acknowledge the progress we've made as a society and the hope for continued improvement. Obama touched on both sides of the black-white paradigm. Many 'white' people feel frustration from affirmative action, integrated schools, and equal opportunity programs taking away or tainting what they felt entitled to receive. He acknowledged these frustrations are real (on all sides) and will take time to work through and heal.

He didn't side-step the truth, no matter what people wanted to hear! To me, that was the beauty of his speech. Many peole have the notion America is a zero sum game. It's 'your dream' vs 'my dream', 'your success' vs 'my success', etc. He has challenged all to overcome the 'fear of others' and work together as Amercans to solve American problems.

Many will retreat to their polarized comfort zones and make ignorant, absurd comments that are factually untrue. I'm interested to see how many people will accept Obama's challenge and strive for an America where race, sex, religion, etc. are not the overriding characteristics for an American.

BTW, something has been bothering me for a few days now. Can someone remind me of the hateful message of Dr Wright?

"Hillary has never been called a N*****." Well, she's definitely not black, so I don't know why someone would call her the word used to demean black people. I took that statement to mean she has never experienced the racism and prejudice that has been targeted towards people of African descent in this country since before it's founding. Is that a hate message?

"America is run by white people". Is this a hate message? Has anyone checked the US Fortune 500 President, CEO, CIO, CFO, COO... statistics along racial lines?

American foreign policy and immoral corporate practices have spawned more aggressive foes who we blamed for the 9/11 tragedy (i.e. Taliban, Al Quaida, et. al.) Is that a hate message?

Dr Wright's statements may be confusing (since it's only a 30 sec clip of an hour sermon) OR even uncomfortable, but I didn't see where he was preaching a hate message. Maybe it was because he was loud? I always forget; African Americans who are loud are "threatening & dangerous". Maybe that overides content.

The first problem is that Obama failed to specifically name and repudiate Wright's paranoid and hateful ravings--e.g., that the US government deliberately created AIDS to kill black people. This means that we don't know which parts of the message he agrees with, and which parts he doesn't. Saying "some of his statements" or "his controversial statements" doesn't cut it.

The second problem is that Obama's long-time promotion, financially and personally, of the church's hateful and unhinged ideology--just check out their website and the views of their spiritual guide, Rev. Cone--is not consistent with him becoming a unifier who transcends racial grievance. Rather, he has participated in stoking and inflaming racial grievance and irrational discourse.

The third problem is that Obama resorted to scapegoating unnamed business evildoers, using classic demagoguery patented by the hard left. The theory that the left should use economic resentments to unify the downtrodden of all races has been rife among left-wing opponents of identity politics as long as I can remember. Now Obama moves in that direction aggressively. His economics adviser Austan Goolsbee probably has already told him that corporations shipping jobs overseas has nothing to do with the problems of the poor and working classes in the United States; but it solves his tactical problem and helps his "progressive" street cred (or worse, he actually believes it), so we get an extra dose of this nonsense.

The fourth problem is that the speech did not clearly affirm a belief in the essential rightness of America's use of power. Lots of Americans don't believe in that rightness, of course, but the overwhelming majority do. One of Wright's greatest hits involves criticism of our use of the atomic bomb to end World War II; Obama didn't address that, either. We don't know what kind of foreign policy president Obama would be, but there is a danger that he is actually a blame-America-first, love our enemies squish who will damage us a la Jimmy Carter (or worse). That's why everybody who knows worries about his unwillingness to make routine patriotic gestures, about his wife's apparent animus against the country, about his easy associations with unrepentant Weatherman bombers, etc. In today's speech, even when he had a chance to laud the courage and sacrifice of the Union soldiers who bled and died to end slavery he managed to slide past with a minimal acknowledgement.

So it's unlikely that this speech will get Obama out of trouble with those not already disposed to support him.

Freddie -- I hope it's clear I was being sarcastic.

Freddie -- I hope it's clear I was being sarcastic.

oh, I'll go one round, I guess, srp.

First, Wright himself should correct the factually incorrect statements about AIDS/HIV, that's all. As for the rest of "paranoid", keep reading American history ...

Second, this is false to the point of being a smear. You can listen to Cone's interview with Bill Moyers, to start.

Third, until you've lived through how plant closings and "economic realignment" can devastate communities, where is your own "street cred"? Put another way, can't we do better than just close doors and offer people unemployment (canceling their pension and health coverage and, in some case, life insurance), so that the same factory can open up in Mexico or China?

Fourth, putting aside what seems to be a fanciful interpretation of the Emancipation Proclamation, why isn't the context for the apt use of American power part of a debate that includes all of the Presidential candidates? I'd like to know what your faith teaches about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Within reason, I'd like to know why John McCain did not oppose the Vietnam war, wouldn't you? He requested combat just around the time that MLK had decided to openly oppose the war. While he was grateful to Nixon for his inspiration, I wonder what McCain thinks now of Nixon's willingness to break the damns or his talk about using nuclear weapons in the conflict not being off the table? Does he agree with the carpet bombing that occurred in Cambodia? It's relevant, because Iran is a little bit like Cambodia, vis-a-vis the effort in Iraq.

Anyway, the list goes on. I'm sure you'd have some to add, too.

Amicus,

Right on.

I'd like to know exactly when America's 'use of power', since about 1955 or so, has ever had any 'essential rightness'. The essential purpose of the US military and foreign policy establishment has been to bully smaller and weaker countries, and to prop up decadent oligarchies and make the world safe for American capitalism. See Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and now Iraq. America's use of power, in the post WWII period, has had no more 'essential rightness' than that of a gangster. This is the truth, and the Rev. Wright deserves commendation for drawing attention to it, even if some of what he says (US government creating HIV, etc.) is false.

True, I'd like to know why John McCain didn't oppose the Vietnam war.

Corporations have _everything_ to do with poor and working class Americans being out of work. Accusing the rich of greed, callousness, social parasitism and downright usuriousness is the simple truth, it's not demagoguery.

There's very little about modern America that _I_ feel proud of, and definitely nothing in our foreign policy. I'm with the Reverend Wright most of the way on this.

If Obama is pigeonholed as a believer in Hector's theory of American history and foreign policy, then he is electorally dead. In my opinion, deservedly so, but that is not the main point. Most people do not want a President running our national security apparatus who is not against our enemies or who does not recognize that we have enemies or who thinks that all will be sweetness and light if the US surrenders to our enemies' policy goals. Period. The support of people with Hector's beliefs is precisely the albatross that Obama now carries around his neck. Most Americans are proud of the country and don't trust a leader who isn't.

Amicus: It is Obama's responsibility, as a uniter and not a divider, to correct his previous error in funding and supporting the promulgation of vicious and destructive lies about the AIDS virus and the black community. Vague generalities are inadequate. He must come out and say that Wright is not just "angry" and "divisive" but a liar. Obama is not just a passive member of this church. It's like Tom Cruise with Scientology--he has a much bigger responsiblity here.

Have you read Cone's rants about how a God that doesn't hate white people can't be his God? QED. There is no way to finesse or recontextualize that stuff. I've read about Christian Identity and other wacko hate-churches on the right; Trinity is the left-wing, black equivalent. It is so far out of the mainstream of black churches that it is an insult to the pastors and congregants of those churches to try to normalize it.

As for the economic issues, the whole point is that "street cred" is stupid. It has no bearing on correct policy at all. I did go to high school right next to the late Fairless Steel Works in Pennsylvania, but my knowledge of why there are many fewer steel workers today does not come from that proximity. It comes from reading Up From the Ashes by Donald Barnett and Robert Crandall and American Steel by Richard Preston and other informed sources.

And the truth is that labor productivity in steel has gone up hugely, the demand for steel hasn't gone up commensurately, and so there are many fewer jobs for steelworkers (although total steel production is higher than ever). I also know that China is losing manufacturing jobs even faster than the US (they have a lot of dinosaur factories that are competitively hopeless). You will find it hard to locate any trained economists, of any political philosophy, who will tell you that Obama's schtick about corporations sending jobs overseas has any significant quantitative impact on the American worker. It's cheap demagoguery, pure and simple.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I am with the vast majority of informed Americans, then and now, who are thankful that the atomic bombs prevented the need for a contested invasion of Honshu. (I am aware of the historians' debates about this, and I am fairly convinced that Truman was right.) Faith has nothing to do with it--as it happens, I am not a believer. Few of the critics of the bombing are committed pacificists, which makes the whole discussion peculiar. It always puzzles me that people wail about the A-Bombs but ignore the even more deadly conventional strategic bombing using incendiaries that burned out most of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities.

In any case, as a person I actually like Obama more than the other two. I don't mind that he is a politician who spins and stretches the truth sometimes--the other two are just as bad or worse. Rezko is not that big a deal for someone coming out of a cesspool like Chicago politics--Hillary and McCain have plenty of their own baggage. Obama may even be the best executive out of this managerially challenged bunch. But his ideological commitments, especially on foreign policy but also domestically, seem disqualifying to me.

It is Obama's responsibility, as a uniter and not a divider, to correct his previous error in funding and supporting the promulgation of vicious and destructive lies about the AIDS virus and the black community.

I doubt it. The factual mistake belongs to Wright. It would be a smear to suggest that Obama has not already acquitted himself on the issue of HIV awareness and nondiscrimination, by legislative action, even. He has no further work to do (I think).

As I understand it, Churches like Trinity would qualify for Federal tax dollars under the Bush-instigated faith-based initiatives, to pay for their outreach programs. Many of them teach that gays will go to hell, never mind simply die of a horrible virus.

The attempt to paint Cone's theology as "hate" will ultimately fail. You are welcome to keep trying. Tell me, is there anything that Christ said that could be construed as "hate speech", in your view?

It is hard to imagine how 'black empowerment' could occur, without some devaluation of a white-dominated majority. You are welcome to keep trying to call it "radical". God knows, the U.S. government agreed with you. They tapped phones and created FBI files on so many people, including MLK, right? [That's right, the tax dollars of black people went into a Federal system that viewed members of the civil rights movement as an internal security threat, within some limits].

We'll just part ways on whether throwing your borders open to a practically endless supply of cheap labor is "smart" (including from a communist country, who competes militarily).

By the way, the question I asked was what your faith taught about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not a public opinion poll on the matter ["profound sorrow"?]. You seem well read enough to realize how gravely you have shaded this, by not considering what other options Truman had.

I take your point that many people are too caught up on old notions of what is "strong foreign policy", so much that liberals have a lot of work to do to clear away the damage wrought...

Amicus:

Now that the cool kids have migrated to the more recent threads, it looks like we have this one to ourselves.

On the issue of specifically rejecting Wright's ravings about AIDS and other subjects, you persist in writing as though Obama's link to Wright and the Trinity church is casual and incidental. It is not. Obama is now the public face of this congregation, a huge donor to it, and he has said explicitly that Wright is one of the most important advisers in his life. He cribs lines from Wright in his books and speeches. Yet he has yet to specify in public exactly which things Wright said that he disargees with. All of them? Some of them? No one can know for sure.

Obama's deliberate ambiguity here leaves open the possiblity that he either believes some of this stuff--which I find unlikely though alarming--or he wants to play it both ways and benefit from Wright's poison among the hard core haters while snowing everybody else into thinking he's repudiated it. It isn't going to work, and it ought not to work.

I completely disagree that black empowerment requires essentialist denigration of the white majority. If God is only acceptable if he hates white people, a la Cone, that is a mirror image of Christian Identity (although they have common ground in their Jew-hating aspects). Can you imagine what would happen if someone in an Identity church ran for president?

On Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I thought my previous comment was very clear that I am not a believer--I am an atheist of sorts, so asking me what my faith says is unlikely to be productive. Truman had alternatives, but they all involved greater American deaths for sure and probably greater Japanese deaths as well. I also notice that you had nothing to say about non-pacifists freaking out about atomic weapons while not caring at all about conventional fire bombings. I'll go further and speculate that Wright would probably be equally angry about that and in the end would probably go all the way to blaming the US for World War II, condemning us for our participation in it.

As for your throwaway line about open borders, as phrased it seems like you're confusing immigration with trade. It doesn't bear at all on what we were talking about earlier (and China had virtually nothing to do with job loss in the auto, steel, or other Rust Belt industries during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, so I don't know what the Red-baiting is for in this context). The bottom line is the same--Obama's claim that corporations moving jobs overseas is a big problem for American workers is demagogic bunk. And it fails the categorical imperative--should we stop Honda and Toyota and BMW from "harming" workers in their countries by building US plants?

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.