An Even More Perfect Union

by Will Wilkinson on March 18, 2008

I see that Megan’s first impression of the speech was very nearly my own, and she beat me to the punch about the fundamental contradiction at its moral core:

I understand the political logic that forces Barack Obama to spend a fair amount of time hating on trade. But I sort of feel–call me a starry-eyed idealist though you will–that a speech urging Americans not to hate and fear people who are different from them, should perhaps itself forgo urging Americans to hate and fear people who are different from them. You know, to set a good example for the children.

Sadly, this misguided and divisive habit of Obama’s isn’t new. The conclusion of Kerry’s column on Clinton and Obama on trade from June pretty well sums up the point:

It’s nice, I guess, that Obama wants to bring people together. Now perhaps his research team can find a social glue superior to a shared xenophobia.

Obama’s idea of unity through mutuality may be far from perfect, but he can always perfect it.

Sanjay

I like the dude. I'll probably vote for him. But he is also the guy who dinged Hillary Clinton hard for raising money from Indian Americans -- that's right, not just for dealing with Indian "outsourcing" companies, which (as per the discussion above) he doesn't much care for, but for associations with Indian Americans. Unity? Gimme a break.

KJ

"Loyalty is wonderful; but the voters in November are going to feel VERY nervous about Mr. Obama’s tolerance for extremists."

But of course there is a double standard at work here. Republicans seem able to tolerate extremists without much effect. Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, etc. Wright is Black so his sort of extremism can't be tolerated as it scares too many white people. The conservative crazies only scare the minority of people with alternative lifestyles or beliefs.

But I think loyalty was the right move here even if there was no good political move. This will all fade as all scandals do. The fact that the war will stagnate at best and more likely get worse along with a failing economy should be more than enough for Obama to win in November. Either that or America is still more racist than I thought.

a Duoist

What is at stake for Mr. Obama's presidential campaign is the sharp contrast between his 'unity' rhetoric and his close, twenty-year association with 'separatist' preaching. He has repudiated the remarks in the sermons, but embraces the preacher who made them. Loyalty is a wonderful character trait, so long as the loyalty is not blind to truly toxic ideas.

Mr. Obama's campaign is suddenly in very serious trouble, and as the presumptive Democratic nominee, he has not demonstrated with his speech that he understands the fundamental problem: He is not going to get a pass on this election because of race, and whatever positive force his race was in the election is utterly lost if his 'unity' message is confused by the rants of a religious friend grounded in racial hatred. Much as Mr. Spitzer's contrast of a moralizing sex client undid him, it is the contrast between a racial 'unity' campaign and a 'separatist' hatred that will undue Mr. Obama.

Loyalty is wonderful; but the voters in November are going to feel VERY nervous about Mr. Obama's tolerance for extremists.

KJ

This point is valid but it seems quite hollow coming from Libertarians and market fundamentalists like Will and Megan. You guys won't even support universal health care (I think you don't or at least you don't care enough to argue much for it). When you show an interest in strengthening the social safety net for our displaced worker friends, then I can take your charges of hypocrisy seriously. In keeping with the recent theme, perhaps a voucher for free sex with a newly legalized prostitute after one loses his or her job.