Obama disappoints

The New York Times helpfully published the full text of Obama’s Philadelphia speech, in which he tries to do some damage control in the aftermath of a lot of critical media coverage of his long-term relationship with his Chicago pastor and “mentor.” The speech is, of course, eloquent and on-message, but ultimately does not change my diminished feelings about his candidacy. Reviewing the record, Wright seems to be a much more outspoken critic of US policy, both foreign and domestic, than a critic of the American Jewish community, its support for Zionism, or Israeli policy in general. But the fact that his pastor of twenty years has given the public the strong impression (which, I would argue is a reasonable perception) that he supports the work and message of bigoted anti-Semite and anti-Zionist Louis Farrakhan is more enough to make me very disappointed in Obama’s judgement.

I want to make sure I’m being as clear as I can with this statement: I do not believe Obama is in any way anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel or anti-American and I don’t see how anyone else could reasonably think he is any of these things either absent some evidence I’m not aware of. But it shows a total lack of good judgement from the Senator, and this choice of a mentor just doesn’t make sense for someone as smart and purportedly politically inclusive as him. Yes, it’s true other Chicago-based celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey have also chosen Wright as their pastor, it’s true the Reverend counseled Bill Clinton in the wake of the Lewinsky Affair, and it’s true that I know many people who have strongly disagreed with the public pronouncements and stated beliefs of their religious leaders or teachers. But in the end, It is still a sad statement that someone with as much potential as Obama would decide to align himself with an individual who preaches so much hate.

Does this mean I disagree with all of Wright’s critical pronouncements on US foreign and domestic policy for the past four decades? No, I actually agree with a lot of them, as well as Wright’s guiding thesis that racial injustice and bigoted attitudes continue to make the realization of true socioeconomic equality for African Americans impossible in the 21st Century. But my problem with Wright, and by extension Obama’s association with him, is that beyond doing the important public service of educating his followers in the very dark history of America’s gross mistreatment of minorities (as well as its litany of abuses of others both at home and abroad), he stops there and does not encourage reconciliation.

While it’s true that African Americans have been treated in a truly horrific manner by this country since slaves were first brought across the Atlantic Ocean four centuries ago, and while it’s true that the American people must be educated about the sordid history of their chosen homeland in order to ensure future generations can be made to be hyper-aware of future transgressions, some sort of reconciliation is still important, and necessary for this country to move beyond the past and lay the groundwork for a future of racial justice and equality. I just don’t see where Wright has used his clout to push the ball forward, so to speak, so it makes me more than a little concerned with Obama’s constant talk of wanting to create a post-racial American society.

But isn’t this really just an example of assigning guilt by association on my part in tying Obama to Wright to Farrakhan? It is, but I hold presidential candidates who purport to be progressives to an even higher standard than I would a candidate whose positions and vision I disagree with. The company you choose to keep is an important measure of one’s true priorities and beliefs, far moreso than promises casually offered up in a speech. While one should not, I would argue, be found guilty for this sins of his or her parent, those a candidate for the highest public office in the country does have an important bearing and deserves careful consideration.

I was also very disappointed, but not quite disillusioned, by the news a while back that Obama’s economic policy advisor Alastair Goolesby had quietly assured Canadian government officials that the candidate’s public criticisms of NAFTA and Neoliberal “free-trade” policy were mere public posturing. Again, I am completely aware that Hilary Clinton is worse than Obama in terms of her support for these disastrous trade pacts, but that doesn’t make this revelation any less troubling.

So in balance, I still like Obama marginally better than Clinton, but that margin has narrowed significantly in the past few months. In the general election, I’m going to vote for whomever ends up garnering the Democratic party’s nomination, but the difference now is I’ll probably be less disappointed if that person ends up being Clinton. (I do think it is looking increasingly like it will be Obama, however.)