If you haven't had a bellyful of the Wright debate by now, I recommend Chris Hayes's Nation piece on the subject, and Reihan's response.
« Obama's Speech (II) | Main | David Simon Is Still Talking, Dammit » Wright and Left18 Mar 2008 04:25 pm Comments (9)
Am I the only one who can't get Reihan's response to load? 
David - Having same problem; I think their server is overloaded.
Agree with the others that the abortion thing was a stretch in Hayes' article and he didn't address some of Wright's craziest crazy talk, but I think he nails the hypocrisy of the right getting in a blather about it, given the crazy, hateful things very mainstream rightwingers say every day. Can you imagine if someone on the left called a Republican a fascist? John Hannity would burst an artery. But slap it on a book by a Republican, add the word "liberal" and it's a runaway bestseller. Obviously the right has no problem with brazen hypocrisy, but it still doesn't hurt to point it out from time to time.
Oops, meant Sean Hannity obviously. Shows how much I watch that junk network.
Hayes says, If Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency is derailed by a few intemperate remarks that his retiring pastor gave to a church which did not even contain the senator in its pews, it leads one to think that Wright's skepticism about America's treatment of black Americans and a black presidential candidate is wholly justified. The whole point is that this is not a "few intemperate remarks" - it's his whole theology. Which makes Obama's presence at any particular sermon irrelevant. But the right wants to talk about it, discretion be damned. So now, after years of Democrats being hectored for being insufficiently pious we have candidate who speaks openly and genuinely about his Christian faith, and what happens? The man whom the candidate says brought him to Jesus is transformed into a political liability. The entire episode has a familiar Lucy-and-the-football quality to it. Four years ago Democrats, having been told they had to prove their patriotism and military bona fides, nominated a war hero, and what happened? He was promptly attacked precisely for his record of military service. It's a rigged game. That's hilarious. Candidates who cynically exploit their military service or their church membership for political gain aren't very convincing under the scrutiny of a presidential race. Shocking! Can you imagine if someone on the left called a Republican a fascist? This is a daily occurrence (e.g. Olberman). Liberal Fascism is a serious argument, not a polemic. One of it's central points is that "fascist" has devolved into an all-purpose insult, which is how you are using the term. The book provides a definition of fascism, describes in detail how the Progressives shared many of the same views as the European fascists, and also explains how some of the same views are held by some on the Right in America.
Wow, you guys are bizarro world over here. Liberal Fascism is a serious argument? No, it is an attempt to rehabilitate fascism.
In my view it is not useful to debate the analogies. The situation is what it is, so we need not create a fantastical scenario to analyze it properly. My issue with the reactions from the "right-wing" is their unwillingness to take a nuanced view. Let's face it, it's easy to attack Wright. It's easy to say Obama was present during a hate speech. But what actual conclusions about Obama are drawn from this? About the only conclusion I've heard is Obama has shown poor judgement by associating himself with Wright. Fair enough. But then what? Is he unfit to hold office because of his association with this man? Where are they going with this story? Seems to be nowhere. A hamster wheel atop a soapbox.
My issue with the reactions from the "right-wing" is their unwillingness to take a nuanced view. Let's face it, it's easy to attack Wright. Ah, yes - just like all the "nuance" that was thrown at Don Imus (as the latest example). (Note that I'm not defending Imus, just pointing out the double standard.) It's easy to say Obama was present during a hate speech. It's also easy to say that Obama was comfortable for 20 years in a church preaching this kind of racial antagonism, including kook theories about the US government creating HIV to kill black people, etc. (By the way, where are all the liberal defenders of science on that one?) And he was OK having his daughters baptized there and regularly exposed to that rhetoric. But what actual conclusions about Obama are drawn from this? Is he unfit to hold office because of his association with this man? Well, I think he's unfit for office aside from Wright, but the problem is that he has no record to run on - he's only where he is because a) he's a talented speaker, and b) he's promising to rise above the racial battles of the past and move America towards more racial reconciliation. His 20 year association with Wright puts a major dent in b). And there are plenty of good speakers out there - that's hardly much of a qualification for being President.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Read the Hayes peice although it was painful; the analogies are killing me. I mean really, an analogy for the Wright-Obama relationship based on abortion?
The headlines. The opinion pieces. The rebuttals. The blogs. The spin.
I find the amount of fodder over this one story disturbing in a way. It's like watching a bunch a crazed animals chew the meat off the bones of prey.
No wonder Matt is sick today.
Posted by AKBY | March 18, 2008 4:59 PM