What Speech Was Michael Gerson Watching?
It's people like Gerson who make it easy to believe in Thom Hartman's "Theory of Conservatives Vs Liberals;" which is (in a nutshell) that conservatives believe that humanity is bad and that people need to be punished/protected from themselves (by prisons, churches and corporations), and that liberals believe that mankind is basically good and should (on top of being protected by government) be encouraged to fulfill it's potential (that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing).
I say this because of Gerson's response to Sen. Obama's speech on race in America. Here are some highlights (with my commentary):
Sorry, but that's not the premise of Obama's campaign, but close. It's that unity and hope matter to America. Words are just a device. And he never said words (hopeful, hateful or otherwise) won't hold weight; don't you remember when he said that his grandmother's racial remarks used to make him cringe?
Rev. Wright is a reverend. With books like What Makes You So Strong?: Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Adam! Where Are You?: Why Most Black Men Don't Go to Church I can see why someone like Gerson would mistake Wright as a "political" extremist. Actually, I don't. What I see is that Gerson's research into Wright consisted of watching loops of Wright's most controversial statements, and then filling the gaps with images I can only assumed he pulled out of his ass. Despite what Gerson believes, Obama said, "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static." In other words, Rev. Wright was an imperfect mentor, not a "symbol." And while we're on shocking comments, didn't Jerry Falwell say, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen?" Isn't that like saying God had "damned" America? I'm curious.
Oh goody, he did address it (kinda)! But like his article, he "falls short." Gerson wants people to get the impression that pastors are like cult leaders whose words are to go unquestioned. The truth is that they are spiritual teachers who should be questioned just like academic teachers when they say something off-base. True pastors educate, fraud pastors manipulate. And even assuming that Rev. Wright's plan was to "program" Sen. Obama, I'd say that Obama's speech pretty much revealed that it failed. Conservative religious figures, on the other hand, have gone so far as to threaten to expel members of their church for voting for certain people (as a Catholic church threatened to do in the 2004 election). Oh and notice how Gerson equates the taking/receiving of money to being guilty by association; I thought the issue was words, not money. Well, I have three words in response to this "comparison": Carlyle Capital Corporation. Should we arrest the Bush Family right now for their "connections?"
Alot of what Gerson said here has happened to a degree, with the notable exception that religious figures of that nature have not been directly connected with a Republican candidate...unless you count Mike Huckabee (who seemed to agree with what Obama had to say, BTW). Why get a preacher to say what you can say on your own? Of course, Republicans has been notoriously secretive about what they consider "personal affairs" (like George W. Bush and his alcoholism/cocaine use) so in reality I can see them putting this in the same category. But Gerson brings up a good point here without realizing it: why aren't the pastors and reverends of Republicans prominently involved in their campaign? I only ask because the GOP has been traditionally fond of invoking God every occasion. Are these guys going to church or do they just read the Bible on their own on Sundays? Why does the GOP only get backed by the well-known figures in the Religious Right and not the local guys?
Nice try. But the truth is the reverse: Rev. Wright has chosen to walk with Sen. Obama. Obama is the one running for president, after all. As Obama said in his speech, Rev. Wright is like family (albeit a family member who's occasionally incorrigible). Lines like this one helps demonstrate how differently Republicans and Democrats handle these issues: for Republicans a little explanation (or none at all) tends to go a long way ("We do not torture," "The Surge is working," "Smoking Gun = Mushroom Cloud"); with Democrats, they get pressured to explain, explain and explain some more until they're so busy talking about what other people have said that the issues connected to that incident gets lost in the shuffle. Using Gerson's logic, we should question why he differs with the Washington Post's Editorial Section's take on the Senator's speech.
UPDATE: Sadly, No! has a rundown of the conservative Mope Squad.
I say this because of Gerson's response to Sen. Obama's speech on race in America. Here are some highlights (with my commentary):
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.
Sorry, but that's not the premise of Obama's campaign, but close. It's that unity and hope matter to America. Words are just a device. And he never said words (hopeful, hateful or otherwise) won't hold weight; don't you remember when he said that his grandmother's racial remarks used to make him cringe?
The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. 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.
Rev. Wright is a reverend. With books like What Makes You So Strong?: Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Adam! Where Are You?: Why Most Black Men Don't Go to Church I can see why someone like Gerson would mistake Wright as a "political" extremist. Actually, I don't. What I see is that Gerson's research into Wright consisted of watching loops of Wright's most controversial statements, and then filling the gaps with images I can only assumed he pulled out of his ass. Despite what Gerson believes, Obama said, "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static." In other words, Rev. Wright was an imperfect mentor, not a "symbol." And while we're on shocking comments, didn't Jerry Falwell say, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen?" Isn't that like saying God had "damned" America? I'm curious.
Yet didn't George Bush and other Republican politicians accept 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 goody, he did address it (kinda)! But like his article, he "falls short." Gerson wants people to get the impression that pastors are like cult leaders whose words are to go unquestioned. The truth is that they are spiritual teachers who should be questioned just like academic teachers when they say something off-base. True pastors educate, fraud pastors manipulate. And even assuming that Rev. Wright's plan was to "program" Sen. Obama, I'd say that Obama's speech pretty much revealed that it failed. Conservative religious figures, on the other hand, have gone so far as to threaten to expel members of their church for voting for certain people (as a Catholic church threatened to do in the 2004 election). Oh and notice how Gerson equates the taking/receiving of money to being guilty by association; I thought the issue was words, not money. Well, I have three words in response to this "comparison": Carlyle Capital Corporation. Should we arrest the Bush Family right now for their "connections?"
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 U.S. government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists see as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the candidate attending this church lacked judgment and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.
Alot of what Gerson said here has happened to a degree, with the notable exception that religious figures of that nature have not been directly connected with a Republican candidate...unless you count Mike Huckabee (who seemed to agree with what Obama had to say, BTW). Why get a preacher to say what you can say on your own? Of course, Republicans has been notoriously secretive about what they consider "personal affairs" (like George W. Bush and his alcoholism/cocaine use) so in reality I can see them putting this in the same category. But Gerson brings up a good point here without realizing it: why aren't the pastors and reverends of Republicans prominently involved in their campaign? I only ask because the GOP has been traditionally fond of invoking God every occasion. Are these guys going to church or do they just read the Bible on their own on Sundays? Why does the GOP only get backed by the well-known figures in the Religious Right and not the local guys?
Barack Obama is not a man who hates -- but he chose to walk with a man who does.
Nice try. But the truth is the reverse: Rev. Wright has chosen to walk with Sen. Obama. Obama is the one running for president, after all. As Obama said in his speech, Rev. Wright is like family (albeit a family member who's occasionally incorrigible). Lines like this one helps demonstrate how differently Republicans and Democrats handle these issues: for Republicans a little explanation (or none at all) tends to go a long way ("We do not torture," "The Surge is working," "Smoking Gun = Mushroom Cloud"); with Democrats, they get pressured to explain, explain and explain some more until they're so busy talking about what other people have said that the issues connected to that incident gets lost in the shuffle. Using Gerson's logic, we should question why he differs with the Washington Post's Editorial Section's take on the Senator's speech.
UPDATE: Sadly, No! has a rundown of the conservative Mope Squad.
Comments