Michael Gerson: Partisan Hack
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in News
Former Bush speech writer and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson shows himself to be a thoroughly dishonest partisan hack. His column and my responses in bold.
A Speech That Fell Short
By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don’t really matter as much as we thought.
A fraudulent statement. Obama has not run a campaign based on words alone, he has a long list of specific proposals, including, to take one example, a rather more complete and honest approach to health care than the blather offered by John McCain. He has never said that words alone were the point of his campaign. He’s said just the opposite. Gerson uses Hillary Clinton’s parody of Obama as though it were fact.
Obama’s Philadelphia speech made this argument as well as it could be made. He condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views in strong language — and embraced Wright as a wayward member of the family. He made Wright and his congregation a symbol of both the nobility and “shocking ignorance” of the African-American experience — and presented himself as a leader who transcends that conflicted legacy. The speech recognized the historical reasons for black anger — and argued that the best response to those grievances is the adoption of Obama’s own social and economic agenda.It was one of the finest political performances under pressure since John F. Kennedy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. It also fell short in significant ways.
The problem with Obama’s argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of the African-American community. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the “U.S. of KKK-A” and urges God to “damn” our country.
Obama did not say that Wright was a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses. The word symbol does not appear in the speech. What Obama said was:
“But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems. . .”
Obama’s excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor.
Either Mr. Gerson did not read the speech, or he is blind. The bulk of the speech is precisely on this topic. He makes the point at some length that he saw Wright as a spiritual, not political mentor. That Wright brought him to Jesus. That Wright also did some good work in the community, and that it was for these reasons that he admired Rev. Wright.
Take an issue that Obama did not specifically confront in Philadelphia. In a 2003 sermon, Wright claimed, “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
This accusation does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an “occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy.” It makes Wright a dangerous man. He has casually accused America of one of the most monstrous crimes in history, perpetrated by a conspiracy of medical Mengeles. If Wright believes his charge is correct, he should urge the overthrow of the American government, which he views as guilty of unspeakable evil. If I believed Wright were correct, I would join him in that cause.
The Christian right accuses the United States of perpetrating a holocaust through abortion. Mr. Gerson himself believes this. And yet, no revolution for Mr. Gerson. So, it seems, it is utterly inexcusable for Rev. Wright to stupidly accuse the US government of one bit of mass-murder, but perfectly all right for Mr. Gerson’s allies to accuse the US government of a rather larger act of murder.
But Wright’s accusation is batty, reflecting a sputtering, incoherent hatred for America. And his pastoral teaching may put lives at risk, because the HIV virus spreads more readily in an atmosphere of denial, quack science and conspiracy theories.
Much as intolerance of gays by the Christian right puts gays at risk. No? Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell both accused the United States of having deserved, indeed brought on, the attacks of 9-11. Mr. Bush demurred. But he did so in terms far tamer than those used by Mr. Obama to chasten Rev. Wright. And lest we forget, Mr. McCain then made a pilgrimmage to kiss the hem of the Christian right’s garments.
The Philadelphia speech implied that these toxic views are somehow parallel to the stereotyping of black men by Obama’s grandmother, which Obama said made him “cringe” — both are the foibles of family. But while Grandma may have had some issues to work through, Wright is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. There is a difference.
The US government did, of course, manage to murder most of a race, the Native American one. And the US government did in fact deliberately infect black test subjects with syphillis in the experiments in Tuskeegee. All ancient history, yes. But perhaps less ancient for an aging black preacher. And Wright’s accusations are in no way any more inflammatory than statements made by Mr. Gerson’s allies on the far right.
But haven’t George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn’t financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.
Oh, spare me. Mr. Bush and every Republican have taken money from Robertson and Falwell and Dobson and gone begging for more. So it’s morally reprehensible to toss a $20 into Rev. Wright’s collection plate, but acceptable to take millions in donations from right-wing nuts? Even Mr. Gerson can’t be quite that stupid. Which makes this paragraph not just absurd, but actively dishonest: a deliberate lie.
The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church — a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church’s pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.
Again, see Pat and Jerry and a thousand others. The GOP has absorbed religious extremists into its core. Men and women who believe gays deserve to die. Men and women who believe a woman who is raped and aborts the resulting fetus is a murderer. Men and women who hold that an unbaptized baby may well burn in hellfire for all of eternity. Men and women who believe Jews and Muslims not only will, but deserve to be, consigned to eternal torment.
In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain Wright’s anger as typical of the civil rights generation, with its “memories of humiliation and doubt and fear.” But Wright’s problem is exactly the opposite: He ignored the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and introduced a new generation to the politics of hatred.
No, Obama did not attempt to pass of Wright as “typical.” He attempted to put the kookery in some context. Oprah Winfrey has attended this church. Was she introduced to the politics of hate? Is she the next radical we’ll see being denounced? And just how out of touch with reality is Mr. Gerson that he can, with a straight face, suggest that African Americans would otherwise never have noticed that there was still race hatred in this country?
King drew a different lesson from the oppression he experienced: “I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate myself; hate is too great a burden to bear. I’ve seen it on the faces of too many sheriffs of the South. … Hate distorts the personality. … The man who hates can’t think straight; the man who hates can’t reason right; the man who hates can’t see right; the man who hates can’t walk right.”
Barack Obama is not a man who hates — but he chose to walk with a man who does.
You mean, like the guy in the picture above?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 and is filed under News. 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.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
There is no Falwell/Robertson/Wright equivalence.
McCain met with Falwell/Robertson/Hagee etc for 1 hour.
Obama met with Wright for 20 years.
It is not a question of religion, but of judgement.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
You’re right, there’s no equivalence. Wright is a fringe figure with no role in the Democratic party. Robertson is a former GOP presidential candidate and he, Falwell (RIP) and Dobson are central to the GOP.
The Republican party is in hock to religious nuts. No equivalence at all.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Pretty much everyone in the nation knows who Jerry Falwell is and what he stands for. Somebody… who was it again… once called him an “agent of intolerance” and decried Falwell and Pat Robertson as “corrupting influences on religion and politics”. ( http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/29/bush.2.t_9.php )
Now McCain’s openly embraces the likes of John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“Wright is a fringe figure with no role in the Democratic party.”
Yes, a fringe figure who happens to be a vile, anti-American, anti-Semitic, racist demagogue, who teeny tiny detail also happens to be Obama’s chosen preacher/mentor for the past 20 years, a very influential figure per Obama himself. No biggie.
Nothing to see here, move along. Black racism ok, sorta (at the very least “understandable” dontcha know *wink, wink*)…white racism, especially coming from conservatives, The Greatest Evil In The History Of The Universe…off with their heads, no mercy.
Gotta love liberal hypocrisy and double standards. Liberal identity politics at their finest or worst.
“The Republican party is in hock to religious nuts. No equivalence at all.”
Of course, because it’s *known* that conservatives are racist at their core. It’s just a fact…as opposed to the innate goodness, love and brotherhood of liberals.
And you have the audacity to call Gershon a hack. Pot meet kettle.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Phin:
White racism caused millions of human beings to be held in slavery. It caused them to be whipped, shackled, worked to death. It caused children to be torn from the arms of their mothers. It allowed rape on a wide scale of women who could not defend themselves.
Black racism has thus far caused . . . what exactly? Some discomfort?
Racism, whether black or white is wrong. Period. But white racism was a centuries-long atrocity. Black racism is a tiny echo.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Phin:
And I want to add one thing: Gerson, as big a hack as he is, would be among the first to denounce your interpretation of history.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
The 2008 Presidential candidates are Obama, McCain, and Clinton. I don’t believe Robertson and Dobson are running.
Presidential candidates meet many people in the course of campaigning for an electorate of 300 million.
McCain met with Hagee and Parsley for 1 hour
Obama met with Wright for 20 years
Judgement, not religion
March 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
none keeps trying to create a false argument, completely ignoring what people like Robertson and Dobson mean to the Republican Party, which McCain hopes to lead. He keeps mentioning one hour, ignoring the praise that McCain gives Hagee while (Gasp, shock!) not actually in the same room with him. McCain says once that he doesn’t agree with all of Hagee’s statements and doesn’t have the fortitude to address anything concerning the two men in detail as Obama has. And if we’re going to discuss judgment let’s discuss McCain’s unquestioning acceptance of the Iraq war and the claims concerning terrorism and Iraq. Now that’s a lack of judgment. Let’s also discuss the claims that McCain makes that the most important thing we can do for the economy’s current problems is to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent and eliminate the estate tax. Anyone who thinks that any of those things shows good judgment has judgment issues of their own.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
“White racism caused millions of human beings to be held in slavery. It caused them to be whipped, shackled, worked to death. It caused children to be torn from the arms of their mothers. It allowed rape on a wide scale of women who could not defend themselves.”
I don’t know what history you think I’m talking about, but whatever. Of course white racism caused millions of human beings to be held in slavery. Did I somehow argue otherwise? I don’t have a problem with history as it was, both ugly and at times good. Human beings have been, over and over again, extremely nasty and brutal to each other, regardless of race, religion, tribe, nationality, etc I might add. Nor will I pretend that it doesn’t matter today..to an extent. I should hasten to add that whites did a remarkable job throughout history in enslaving other whites as well. Slavery was not solely a white-black affair. The Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Persians come to mind, among many many others. And the African slave trade would not have been so successful without the eager aid of Africans themselves btw.
But you know what? It wasn’t me that enslaved millions of other human beings including blacks, other whites or miscellaneous. The year is 2008. From my perspective, the idea of judging another human being solely on the basis of his skin or any other characteristic determined by his genetic makeup is completely and utterly nonsensical and illogical, not to mention disgusting and vile. It makes no friggin’ sense to judge someone on things (inherited physical characteristics for example) that they had absolutely no control over. That includes their sexuality btw.
Now if we are to say that indeed we are striving for a real post racial world, then every human being should be judged by the same standards, by his/her actions, his/her words, his/her deeds regardless of race, gender, religion, color, etc. And you don’t do that by using one standard for whites, another standard for blacks, another standard for browns, another one for friggin red, blue and green people for all I care.
I don’t friggin care that Obama is black. I really don’t, other than it would be really cool that an American who happens of black descent (and hopefully Hispanic, Asian or whatever down the line) is running for POTUS and has a real chance to win. It would be also cool if, sorry *when* that eventually happens in Canada, provided he/she deserves the job based on merit.
But I do care about what his policies are and I do think that his judgment, which he has made such an issue of, is even more important, given his very real inexperience, especially in governing. And don’t forget, if a Dem wins, he’s likely to have a fully Dem Congress. Given the disaster in the 6 years of full GOP governance and the disarray in the Dem primaries (which frankly should scare the crap out of anyone when these incompetents *try* to govern), a full Dem control of the government seems to me a disaster waiting to happen. And that judgment, given his long association with Wright, has, I’m sorry to say, been piss poor, at best. And you know what, he does use race to his advantage, even though he and his supporters pretend he doesn’t. And I find that unseemly, especially as his campaign is supposed to be post-racial and post-partisan. I call bullshit on that.
The fact remains that if he was white, and he had that kind of an association, he would be finished by now. Period. And God forbid if he was a conservative. The media and the liberal establishment would be crucifying him until he became political poison…and then some And you know what, rightly so. But because he is black, and because the media love the narrative, he gets a pass, and liberals, who have been busy demonizing conservatives for over a generation at the slightest bit of racism (whether real or not and I might add regardless of the context or circumstances) have been swooning all over him, marveling at his courage and bravery?!?! Seriously!?! It’s a load of shit, reeks of identity politics and is actually condescending to blacks as a whole, holding them to a lower standard than you would whites. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. Period.
“Racism, whether black or white is wrong. Period. But white racism was a centuries-long atrocity. Black racism is a tiny echo.”
Human beings are human beings, regardless of race, religion, language, whatever. At their core, blacks are no more or less racist than whites and vice-versa or anybody else for that matter. The determining factor is power (which virtually all human beings crave, regardless of race, religion, color, nationality) to feed their ego, their “immortality”. Self-preservation is at the core of every human being and the best way to enhance ones chances in life is through the achievement of power. It just so happens that Europeans were far more successful in achieving and maintaining power (for any number of reasons) than most of their contemporaries. The manner with which they did so appears barbaric to us, obviously, but that’s relative within the context of their eras. But, on the hole, they were no better and no worse than most of their contemporaries, only more successful. And they happen to be Caucasians, and like virtually all of their contemporary human beings at various stages in their history, thought that their beliefs, their “race”, their religion, their “tribes”, their ideologies were superior to everyone else’s (including between themselves; after all Europeans were most efficient in slaughtering their fellow Europeans). Universal human rights are a relatively recent, modern and I might add Western phenomenon, obviously.
So while black racism is an “echo” (primarily because blacks have never really been in a position of power relative to whites, historically, for any number of reasons), it doesn’t diminish its potential damage, nor does it somehow make it any less contemptible, poisonous and morally reprehensible than white racism or racism of any kind for that matter. Not too mention that the people it hurts the most are blacks themselves.
Sorry for the long post…
March 20th, 2008 at 6:29 am
michael, I’d submit to you that what you are doing is excusing things on the Dem side in a way that will easily lead to the same problems you see in the GOP. Wright isn’t influential? First off, he’s more so than you admit- but even leaving that aside, Obama not only had a personal relationship but a political one (until last week, Wright was head of the religious outreach part of Obama’s campaign.) So, do you want to hold your party accountable to make sure that the same cancer doesn’t take root that you see in the GOP, or do you want to keep telling everyone that we’re wrong to point out the problem here?
And same goes for black racism. The point isn’t that there’s some sort of equivalence between white on black vs. black on white racism, in terms of harm done. But what are you really saying? That until we equal the score we can’t get over racism? No, the point is that racism doesn’t cure racism- it has to stop, on both sides. If Obama and his supporters won’t hold blacks accountable for that, then there’s absolutely no way that we’re ready for a postracist society.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:34 am
I also see in michael’s argument the tendency to think of the Dems as the ‘good guys’ who won’t fall prey to the same foibles as the GOP. It’s as though some think we don’t have to worry about Democratic politicians pandering to, or closely associating with, black supremacists the same way we’d worry about a white conservative doing the same with white supremacists, because, you know, wink, wink, we know that the Dems don’t really buy into all of that.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
One week the line is, “Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a secret Muslim who fakes Christian belief as part of a plot to take over the country.” The next week it’s Gerson-style suggestions that “Barack Obama has attended the same Christian church for 20 years, and is thus responsible for every statement of his pastor that he has not specifically repudiated in the past, because present repudiations don’t count” It would be easier to stomach this stuff if the anti-Obama attack machine were doing something apart from throwing mud to see what sticks.
“none”, falsely suggesting that McCain has only spent an hour, total, with his religious extremist supporters doesn’t exactly inspire me to believe that you are interested in the facts. You’re aware that Rod Parsley is McCain’s spiritual advisor, aren’t you? Or don’t you care? Hagee? That endorsement was actively solicited. McCain’s been making overtures to him for at least a year.
There is a difference, of course, with attending a church where the minister periodically says absurd and inflammatory things over the course of two decades, and actively soliciting the endorsement of an extremist minister whose record you know from day one. Who is of the type you have previously condemned as an “agent of intolerance.” In the former context, you may come to understand the minister as man and to appreciate his other teachings, even as you reject his extremism. In the latter case, you walk in with your eyes wide open. In the former case you may at some time feel you have to move on from your church, or you may decide that the minister’s positive side and your participation in the church community outweigh the negative. In the latter case it’s the minister’s large fan base, a population that largely accepts and endorses the extremist message, that makes the minister attractive - and that’s all you care about.
There is no indication that Wright was seeking to aggrandize himself, profit, or inject his views into public policy through his association with Obama. There’s every indication that ministers like Robertson, Hagee and Parsley not only want that, they make it a prerequisite for their support.
Even if we hold the statements of Obama’s minister equivalent with those of the likes of Hagee, Robertson and Parsley, by what measure wouldn’t McCain’s choices reflect far worse judgment than Obama’s?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
McCain not a member of an extremist church.
You’re almost as bad as Wright!
May 1st, 2008 at 6:03 am
just a reminder to everyone here
mccain might not have a “pastor” for 20 years
but
mccain himself said “i hate gooks”
out of his own mouth
so its ok for the candidate mccain himself to be racist
but its not ok for obama’s pastor to say some racist things.
not obama mind you, obama has never himself said anything close
but mccain… wow “gooks” “tar babies” obviously is against homosexuality and voted against the ability to fight for equal wages
sounds like a great leader for america