I think that hit it on the head. I couldn't vote for Obama, and there was much to say about the almost worship given him by his supporters. But I credit him where it is due - he did try to move on from where things have been for so many long, tired years.
Dave G. | 04.30.08 - 1:34 pm | #

Thanks, Mark. Well said.
Joel | 04.30.08 - 1:44 pm | #

I'm afraid I am not so sanguine regarding Obama's basic decency.

He is a gifted, likable, charismatic speaker, with a finely developed instinct for What People Want To Hear - he does "decent" very well - but he is a creature of Chicago ward politics, which means that in one observation, at least, Rev. Wright was right... Obama is first and foremost a politician, saying what he has to say at the moment. I don't know that Obama holds *any* conviction so deeply that it will not be up for review as the political winds change.

I don't think he is as thorough a rotter as either of the Clintons, either, I just think his chosen profession involves personal advancement by creating impressions with words, whether he means them much or not.

Hillary has lagged behind Obama mainly because of a charisma deficit. She's just not very warm and fuzzy, interesting or engaging. It's not a matter of ideas or "change" or "hope"... politically, they are alike as two peas.

She reminds me of third grade. My teacher that year was terse, bossy and efficient... and boy did she make me miss my second grade teacher, the sweet and gentle Mrs. Vollendorf. She may have been competent as hell, but she gave me a knot in the stomach from the first day.
Tim J. | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 1:54 pm | #

I think that, with Obama, he tapped into a belief among many Americans that we have to change. Yes, he is a politician, but he was saying something that people wanted, because people are right - our country cannot go on the way it has. Whether he really cared or not, I can't say. But he at least tapped into that desire people have to push the last 16 years behind us and move onto something else.
Dave G. | 04.30.08 - 1:57 pm | #

Maybe. But Obama's claim that the Rev. Wright we saw this week is somehow a different person from the person who has been close to Obama for 20 years is not very credible. And I suspect we're about to hear more from Rev. Wright in the very near future.
Ed Graham | 04.30.08 - 2:17 pm | #

"people have to push the last 16 years behind us and move onto something else."

But what?

We ought to have learned from the whole Sixties debacle that if you are going to go about tearing down institutions in the name of progress, you had damned well better have something better in mind to put up in their place.

The idea that "anything will be better than what we have now" is tragically and seductively 180 degrees wrong.

Change for the sake of change is just as likely to make things worse as it is to make them better. We need to figure out where we need to go first, *then* make the meaningful changes needed to get there.

“Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.” - C.S. Lewis

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton
Tim J. | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 2:17 pm | #

I tend to agree with Tim, here. Obama has had a long time to get to know Rev. Wright, and to hear him voice the various racist opinions that have been circulating for some time now.

On the one hand, I don't think politicians should have to choose their churches on the basis of political correctness.

But on the other, few people (including Catholics, who used to stick it out at 'bad' parishes as a matter of course) these days would remain active in a church if the pastor repeatedly preached divisive sermons that they disagreed with.

Here's a thought experiment: what if, instead of AIDS, Rev. Wright had decided that abortion was "black genocide" being imposed on whites? What if he traced Planned Parenthood's eugenic history back to its founder's disgusting opinions? What if Wright had thundered against abortion, insisting that the only sane position for a black Christian was to be pro-life, pro-family, and pro-baby?

Would Obama have listened to sermons like *that* for twenty years without making his disagreement clear? Would, in other words, his political commitment to abortion on demand have placed an insuperable bar between him and Rev. Wright, despite their long friendship and spiritual association?

If you believe, as I do, that Obama would most likely have left Wright's church had opposition to abortion ever been the subject of those sermons, then you have to question just why he remained a member of that church for so long despite the blatant racism of Wright's words.
Red Cardigan | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 2:17 pm | #

Obviously, "imposed BY whites" not "ON".

I need coffee.
Red Cardigan | Homepage | 04.30.08 - 2:20 pm | #

I'm not saying that the people are right. I'm saying that was much of the appeal. Obama spoke in a new language, not the same old that people have come to expect. That doesn't mean Obama would or wouldn't be a good elected official. But it accounts for much of his popularity.
Dave G. | 04.30.08 - 2:27 pm | #

What's interesting is that Douthat assumes that Obama is the finer man and that his erstwhile "father-figure" is attempting to leverage Obama's high-visibility to gain something for himself. Perhaps it is the other way around, and Obama used Wright for political purposes only to deny him when he became inconvenient, which might be why the Rev. Wright seems bent on punishing Obama.
Ed Graham | 04.30.08 - 2:38 pm | #

I don't think Mr. Obama's disowning of the man makes him look any better.

The things that Rev. Wright said which caused Mr. Obama to dison him is no different from what he has been saying for the 20 years that they have known one another.

Add to that Mr. Obama's original statements regarding Rev. Wright - that he could no more deny him than deny the black community, etc. The whole thing just comes off making Mr. Obama look like he has no real values at all and is willing to say or do anything to get himself elected.

He just comes across like a guy whom one couldn't trust to tell you if the sun was up. Of course most or all politicians are like this to a certain degree, but not to such a degree that it's blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention.
Shane | 04.30.08 - 2:47 pm | #

"he did try to move on from where things have been for so many long, tired years." .... every candidate of the party out of power claims to want to do this. And occasionally those of the party in the WH.

"change" ... in politics, this is word utterly without meaning and truth

"...genuine in his attempts to transcend the BS that has characterized so much of the Professionally Aggrieved Grievance Professional shakedown industry as characterized by Sharpton, Jackson" ... I can't believe this if he really sat in Rev. Wright's pews for 20 years, and if he is really married to Mrs. Obama. He's keeping his cards closer to the vest is all.

Maybe you are right. Maybe he is decent, but I still see a slick Chicago machine politician with more polish than Jackson et al.

I am convinced that much of the swooning over Obama is being done by people getting emotional and misty-eyed over their own open mindedness.
quasimodo | 04.30.08 - 2:49 pm | #

No, every candidate doesn't, not that way. What we have had for several election cycles has been folks speaking the same language, promising different results. Obama, and others this time, have tried to throw the old terminology out and say it's time to come back together. Bush did it in 2000, or at least tried to, but not nearly as effectively as Obama. Part of it, of course, is the fact that people want to hear this since they - correctly - feel that our country will not survive if it continues along the same trajectory. I'm not saying that Obama is great, wonderful, or unlike anyone we have ever seen. I am saying he tapped into a real need people recognize. A need born of countless years of decline while the various sides engaged in increasingly pointless, fruitless, and valueless warfare amongst themselves - a warfare that even an even like 9/11 was unable to derail.
Dave G. | 04.30.08 - 2:54 pm | #

I too think there are certain other 'incendiary' topics that Rev Wright could have chosen that Mr Obama wouldn't have sat through. Interesting also is the apparently Mrs. Obama (who has always seemed more divisive than he is) was already a member of this church when he joined. So she's been hearinf this 'theology' for more than 20 years. But, if the topic had been the evil effects of abortion or perhaps that the outlook that studying and trying to do well in school is imperative for black youths trying to do better in life, they may not have stayed as long.
On final comment on Catholics sticking it out in a 'bad' parish, we always had the hope that the Bishop would transfer the pastor, or that we'd get a good parochial vicar for a few years at least. No such hope in a protestant church founded by that pastor and with no oversight group above him.
Sally | 04.30.08 - 3:06 pm | #

Based on past reports in the Chicago media, Obama's decision to join that church in the first place was politically based to further his community activist career. Not the right background for someone who claims he will transcend old politics. Statements from his wife reinforce this very strong impression of an angry opportunist. In a sense it is a shame because he did make a smooth first impression as one who transcended the racial divide. But he chose to make himself a black politician rather than one with a non-racial identification. He would have done well to follow Tiger Woods' great example.
Arnold | 04.30.08 - 3:27 pm | #

"No, every candidate doesn't, not that way."

which ones? what way is that?
quasimodo | 04.30.08 - 4:54 pm | #

In other words, not every candidate takes such a broad approach to overhauling the system. For instance Bush in 2000. He ran on the 'change for the better' platform. But much of his talk and tactics was more akin to the previous couple election cycles. Obama, and to a lesser extent Huckabee, and Paul for that matter, ran on the idea that there is much wrong with the machine, and it's time for an overhaul. Including what one does and doesn't engage in. It's been tough for Obama to avoid it, and he is gradually succumbing to the typical. Shame.
Dave G. | 04.30.08 - 6:21 pm | #

Dave G.,

But at the end of the day he is still serving up platitudes, and I would say that the difference is not in what he is saying (after all as you said George Bush was talking about coming together, and every politician speaks of "change").

The difference is that Obama is just more polished at saying it, and has gotten a pass from serious scrutiny-until now.

When I see Obama, I see the same old typical politician saying whatever the biggest majority wants to hear.

There was one politician this election cycle who was different-Ron Paul. He was consistent, honest and didn't pander to anyone. And he was crucified for it.

We get the politicians we deserve.
rmichael | 04.30.08 - 7:09 pm | #

Yes he is. But there was a difference. There was a call to stop saying us vs. them, good vs. evil. Since 1988, it has pretty much been damn the liberals, to hell with the conservatives (or vice versa if you wish). That it's us against them has been pretty much the stage play the presidency has been acting out for the past 20 years. Of course other presidents let fly in days of yore, but it has gradually degenerated beyond anything that we have seen in the modern era. Again, look at 9/11. Barely a hiccup in the chorus of us vs. evil that has defined modern political dialogue. Which is why we are unraveling before the encroaching threats to our nation's future. And Hillary's initial speech in Iowa ("Only I can save you from the evil vast Right-Wing conspiracy!"), showed she had every intention of continuing the march. Obama, and others like Huckabee and Paul, were at least saying there better be some major shake-ups or else, and it reached people desperate for a solution to our unraveling. Now watch folks become disillusioned as they see Obama fall from the heights out of political necessity.
Dave G. | 04.30.08 - 7:26 pm | #

I don't think it's out of political necessity that Mr. Obama will fall. I think it's out of who he is. In other words, he is a politician, and he is going to act like a politician.

Had he been less like a politician in the past, then nothing that could possibly happen would necessitate him to act in any particular way. He isn't any different from anyone else other than that he is a better politician than they have been. It just happens that his opponents didn't get the trash out on him as quickly as it has been gotten out on others, and so he has come across as clean for far longer.
Shane | 04.30.08 - 8:10 pm | #

it's a tragedy that he should be betrayed by the sabotage efforts not of white racists, but of black ones.

And yet not surprising since in our society white racists are (rightly) sneered at black racists are (wrongly) encouraged. My brother has lived in Chicago for 5 years and has often told me "everybody knows about that church." Obama chose that church for political reasons. Pastor Wright's current popularity in the media, his leveraging of his infamy into greater infamy and his coming book for which he will score a hefty advance are examples of Obama's "chickens coming home to roost".
Pauli | Homepage | 05.01.08 - 8:08 am | #

You know there was a time, not too long ago, when many in our society said that it was impossible for blacks to be racist. Racism was unique to white Americans (and Europeans of course). So you may want to rethink that. I don't know if that is still the vogue way of thinking, but in my college and graduate days, saying black racist was as problematic as saying kosher ham.
Dave G. | 05.01.08 - 9:17 am | #

Re Obama as a Chicago ward heeler/ machine pol -- I don't think he ever held office in Chicago. Certainly he has allies there, but he went right to the Illinois legislature as his first political job. Now, the Illinois legislature is not exactly a Carmelite cloister, either -- it was Adlai Stevenson who said "Cleanliness is next to Godliness, but in the Illinois legislature, it's next to impossible."

Having noted the general corruption of the Illinois legislature, however - the WORST thing anybody can come up with on Obama is that he got a deal on a house, and later bought a 10-foot wide strip of backyard from the influence peddler Tony Rezko. There's no evidence that Obama ever paid Rezko back with a favor. So I'd submit that the dismissals of him as 'corrupt' are uncharitable.

"He's a politician, and they're not to be trusted," said Obi Wan. Why not just play 'Minority Report,' and throw them all in jail as soon as they announce their candidacy for anything from County Clerk up? Some people are really in politics to serve the public. They have ambition and ego, or they wouldn't be running for office; but that doesn't preclude actual public spiritedness. It's just as naive to assume anything Obama says is a politically motivated lie as it is to swoon over him.

"Further his community activist career?" Say again, over? Community activism CAN be a career, but it's not really a 'careerist' occupation. Joined TUCC to improve his credibility with the community he was trying to, er, act on or for, sure. Politics IS a careerist's career, so he's *gasp* guilty of ambition. But we knew that when we found out he was one of those people who have the chutzpah to WANT to be 'the leader of the free world.' Unlike the college of cardinals, We the People don't have a mechanism for electing somebody who prays to be passed over.

About joining that church, and listening to a man who says stupid stuff like 'AIDS is a conspiracy.' I find Obama's original 'crazy uncle' explanation plausible. It was a church that supported community activism, was socially liberal, etc, etc, and there was this pastor, who clearly cared about the poor, and talked about white institutional and historical racism, but didn't hate white people one on one -- so the social gospel was the oatmeal, and the occasional crazy comments were the raisins that you could eat around. People who didn't buy this or that crackpot claim just shrugged it off and got on with Meals on Wheels.

Why didn't he challenge Wright and correct the 'AIDS conspiracy' claim? well, the thing about crazy uncles is, they know what they know, and what they don't know doesn't faze them. Had one in my family - actually a sane uncle's VFW buddy - who read a few crackpot books, believed them, and accordingly became, if not a Holocaust denier, at least a Holocaust minimizer. You couldn't argue with him - he'd read more books than you had. He just didn't apply his critical thinking skills to them. I may be wrong, but that's who Wright reminds me of.

Last point: in his speech the other day, Obama said that he was personally offended by Wright's performance at the National Press Club. I think that's the explanation -- he had disagreements, but he wouldn't disown Wright - then Wright turns around and claims that Obama is throwing him under the bus for political expediency, when that's exactly what Obama expressly refused to do in Philadelphia. So Obama feels betrayed, and is understandably angry. I think there's a good human explanation - it doesn't have to be all political, all the time. He really doesn't have smoking black pits where his eyes used to be.
S Murphy | Homepage | 05.01.08 - 10:43 am | #

"I will never vote for him, as I will never vote for any candidate who supports intrinsic moral evil."

I thought you voted for Bush.
phosphorious | 05.01.08 - 11:57 am | #

c'mon, Phosphorius... Bush didn't vote for, allude to, or acknowledge a pro-torture plank prior to running for office...
We are talking INTRINSIC evil, right? Not, evil according-to-my personal-definition of evil as supported by popular-couch-potato-media-driven Americans.
Because I'm personally unaware of any other INTRINSICALLY evil act Bush publicly supports.
so... unless you're in Bush's inner circle and know something we don't, your comment really doesn't counter Mark's reasonable, properly ordered voting decisions.
kc | 05.01.08 - 8:12 pm | #

technically, "will never" refers to future actions. So a past vote for Bush is not relevant. also what kc said.
c matt | 05.02.08 - 9:24 am | #

You're being very charitable to Obama Mark. He listened to that racist paranoia for 20 years and did zero until it was politically expedient. I have no sympathy for the highly privileged Senator who's too self important to put his hand over his heart for the national anthem. He asked for this level of scrutiny when he entered the race. He may be smoother than Jackson and Sharpton but that's form not substance.
Memphis Aggie | 05.02.08 - 9:30 am | #

I can't tell if kc is being snarky or not.

And of course we are talking about voting for Bush in 2004. . .when his enthusaism for the intrinsic evil of torture was part of his appeal.

Aren't we?
phosphorious | 05.02.08 - 3:26 pm | #

No, Phos. My first engagement with the issue of torture was in the fall of 2004, when I still naively believed that the Bushies had nothing to do with it, but was concerned that some righty pundits were being tempted to justify it.

I wrote "Toying with Evil" then

http://www.mark-shea.com/toying.html

It appeared in the March 2005 issue of Crisis. To my amazement, the Right continued its course of approval and enthusiasm for torture. Only slowly did it dawn on me that no small part of this was due to the administration's committment to war crimes and its encouragement of this kind of thinking among its shills and media whores. If I had known in 2004 that this was what the Administration had opted to make policy, I would never have voted for Bush.

Biggest voting mistake of my life.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 4:01 pm | #

I suppose that even as late as November 2004, Bush did have a fig-leaf of plausible denialbility concerning the torture.
phosphorious | 05.02.08 - 6:29 pm | #

snarky about the "average" American's willingness to think deeply about important issues?...yep. (this blog would be an anomaly)

Snarky about Mark's thinking on many issues, including voting for Obama... nope.

I like the way Bush at least had the sense to lie about torturing people, at least for awhile. Shows potential for some moral compass. Could be mere political manuevering, but I think less cynically about Bush than the raving hostile cynics I'm surrounded by here where I live (close by Mark).

If Obama would at least show some shame or regret, or heck, prevarication of some sort on the issue of torturing plus killing babies in the womb (for mercy's sake, can't you at least anesthesize the viable ones?), I'd at least have a reason to hope for a better moral compass on his part, too. Abortion is something worth being ashamed of; if you are lying about it, at least you realize on some level it's wrong.
kc | 05.02.08 - 8:58 pm | #

"I like the way Bush at least had the sense to lie about torturing people, at least for awhile. Shows potential for some moral compass. "

Words fail me.

Torture= Intrinsically Evil

Torture + Lying about it = Not intrinsically evil.

And this is a willingness to think deeply abpot moral issues.
phosphorious | 05.02.08 - 10:54 pm | #

C'mon, Phosphorious --

You've heard "hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue," no?

Of course I'd isn't saying that doing evil and lying about it is good -- only noting the possibilty that the lie indicates consciousness that the thing being lied about IS evil.
S Murphy | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 10:44 am | #

Phosphorius appears to be a prosecuting attorney seeking a conviction, not somebody who is interested in understanding what people mean.

It takes a special kind of dumb to zero in on *this* blog and search for grounds to accuse it of support for torture.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 1:14 pm | #