Perhaps part of the problem is that I have too much faith in the checks and balances meant in the system (both on a structural level, and the populace interaction with it) so I don't think it's the end of the world if we take a chance on a leader and they turn out to be not good. That's why in ascending order I'm most angry and frustrated with Bush -> Congress/Courts (depending on the day one rises above the other) -> News -> The People right now. I'm most dismayed about the corrosive culture in general that has led to massive failures over the last 7 years and that is why I am so enthralled with Obama's vision of local and grass roots power structures. It'd be ironic if he helped crafted those and then did something wrong and they led to his downfall, but much more healthy than if the culture had never changed in the first place. I think just the fact that people are seriously debating what it means to come together and talking about groups that are never talked about but are quite large is a positive step.

And that's my bottom line on this topic; Obama has a close relationship with a church with a highly political theology that is offensive to a particular group of Americans, and his supporters are more likely to presume good intentions of Obama- just as some Republicans are more likely to presume that of candidates they support when those politicians have associations with evangelical leaders who espouse political positions which are also divisive even when we disagree strongly with those positions. And the converse is true too: the detractors of each candidate correspondingly tend to be reluctant to give that benefit of the doubt.

mikkel: I believe you when you say that you don't care about the religious beliefs or practices as long as the politician isn't trying to legislate those beliefs, but you have to admit that you're the exception rather than the rule on that. And a lot of the problem politically is that we're not only concerned with what the person's personal belief system is, but there's also concern about the pandering in the sense that voters assume that there's a certain amount of debt to be paid to groups that support and help elect the politician. We assume that he'll 'dance with the one(s) who brung him” so to speak. I think the concern about that is magnified with a candidate who's only been around on the national scene for a short time; there's a feeling that we don't know if he'll act on his own convictions or be pressured to conform more to a group that might expect to be paid back for their support. Or at the very least, in Obama's case, for example, I think theres some reason to wonder at how uniting he can be if certain groups are expecting different, conflicting things of him.

At the end of the day, I think it's nearly impossible he didn't know what his preacher was saying and Obama is doing a disservice by trying to wiggle out of it. Still, politics is politics and he very well could feel that his hands are tied. Several times, Obama has used political pandering — not changing his message or triangulating, but being Politically Correct in the true sense of the term through use of temporary obfuscation. But I think that speeches like I linked and his mountains of other words either accurately show his worldview or else Obama must be the greatest charlatan I've ever heard of.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Just wanted to acknowledge, earliest I can reply is tomorrow, gotta go for now (or else!) . . .

Which judge do you refer to in the above post?

Anyway, I agree with you with most of the post and indeed that is why Andrew Sullivan said that Obama is conservative's worst nightmare. He is potentially their Reagan, where he will capture a large part of a disillusioned generation and change their political views drastically.

It's true, Obama isn't a centrist. He's a pragmatic, rational Liberal. (Following up on my last post, he is criticized a lot from the left for his “compromising” with the Republicans, but they don't realize that he isn't about to change his world view.) To me that means that he believes that the government is a force for good and is ultimately the best device for ensuring basic services and equality. However, he is a far from an ideologue. When you get the chance, read the second link in my last post.

He has explicitly said he thinks affirmative action should be based on class, not race. He has said he thinks that free market capitalism is the best way to have economic progress as long as there are regulations. He is a strong proponent of “free and fair” trade even though it means continued outsourcing. He is for increased R&D research, and decreased subsidies for corporations. He is for letting the housing bubble deflate instead of trying to prop it up through things that won't work like freezes on foreclosures or similar intervention.

To me he is a progressive that is rational and has a very clear view of what the world means to him, but he is humble enough to realize that the actual implementation of that world is constantly changing. As such, he greatly respects experts who are keeping track with the latest science and research, as well as people with varying view points to make sure he doesn't get caught in an echo chamber. It's like someone that has faith in God but realizes that we need science and the sum of our experiences to better understand that faith. From what I've read, he reminds me a lot of the Dalai Lama in his outlook. He has said that he could be persuaded to become a conservative if the data supported their positions, he just doesn't think it'll ever happen, so he is Liberal while making sure to take them serious. The Dalai Lama said that Buddhism is a reflection of Truth and therefore can't go against it. So if science ever definitely disproved reincarnation or other fundamental Buddhist beliefs it would have to change to reflect our new knowledge.

Abortion is a very tough issue because it isn't something that has empirical answers. Your view is entirely dependent on the assumptions that you make about the issue. Here is a speech he gave replying to some one that had concerns about his position.

Ultimately, if you disagree with his fundamental ideas about what government ought or can be, then there is no way that you could (or should) support him except perhaps as a better than the other candidates alternative. Personally, I think he has the best idea of what our government should be based on all the conflicting viewpoints and our current idea about what government is. (For instance, I agree with Ron Paul's idea of perfect government quite a bit, if our society was radically different and was built to support that change. To me it would take at least 50 years to change our societal institutions to the point where his government would be effective.)

After slavery, we had the uncle Tom generation, who survived by laying low and not cauing trouble. They didn;t see much progressl though. Their children got angry agaisnt their parents wishes , angry enough to say 'no more' and demand
civil ritghts. That;s where Rev. Wright fits in.

For Obama to leave his church would be the equivalent of denying what his forebears and theri anger achieved. That anger is what gave himhis chance to reach for the stars.

We are listening to yeaterday's anger with today's ears Obams, I'm guessing, can understand the past without , in the least wanting to relive it.

He is of a new genration, yet again, and he is facing today's world as such.
He should not have to aoplogize for what others, of other genrations, have said.
He need only explain what ideas and principles he, himelf, embraces now, today, in today's world.

It strikes me as odd that the political bloc who speak most about the need to renounce is the very same bloc who oppose the notion of apologizing for slavery.

Mikkel is right. Obama is attacked from all sides. He is also being blamed for the past as well as the present.
.

My disillusionment first stems from his campaign's race-baiting tactics (and yes, HRC's is to blame, too) and his lack of candor about his church and his relationship with Rev Wright. I am all too familiar with individuals like Wright; they are prevalent where I lived most of my life. And easy way to look at this would be, how would I feel if the candidate had a long-term, close, religious and political, relationship with Pat Robertson. That would break me out in hives. But Wright is even worse. And I've seen first hand the extent to which the religious/political fusion drives the world view and the politics. Yea, it is not divisive – as long as you subscribe to far-left activist ideology. When I looked more closely, I saw that Obama's stated strategy is not to facilitate centrist compromise, but rather to re-draw the electoral map and gain a mandate, and along with it a solid Democratic majority in Congress, in order to drive what the DailyKos folks would call a progressive, activist agenda. There is a reason he is so popular over there, just look at the posts. This is not being inclusive, this is a strategy to gain leverage.

And when I looked more closely at his political history, his associations with the Daley machine, his campaign mgmt ala Axelrod – what I see is a very gifted, inspirational politician – in bed with the Kennedy's. No thank you. I liked JFK, he was charismatic, too. But I wasn't too happy later when I learned who he really was and how he narrowly won that election. I don't want to be fooled again.

On a more academic level re his constitutional philosophy. (But first an aside, how is Harvard Law the most conservative law school in the country???) My read is that Obama's view is very, very Liberal. His record on judges indicates that he views the judiciary as a vehicle for social change; he has energetically opposed judges that defer to the legislature. My view is that the country has been severely polarized because we have enacted major social change by fiat through the judiciary, rather than Congress. I also believe that judicial activism has undermined our system of checks-and-balances. Where I lived, e.g., there was holy havoc when activist judges drew up a school busing system, as well as a racial-quota school enrollment program. Both were ultimately found unconstitutional, but only after years, lawsuits, civil unrest, and discrimination against in particular Asian children. The legislature should drive change, not the judiciary. I note that Obama strenuously opposed the confirmation a judge that was highly recommended by the ABA (itself Liberal) and by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee; he was even chastised by moderate Sen Fienstein on this. He also attacked SCOTUS on its constitutional upholding of the bi-partisan Partial Abortion Ban. It is understandable that he is considered, at the minimum, one of the most Liberal Senators. In my view, that is a formula for more divisiveness and confrontation.

All for now. I lose my head if I don't get to the dinner table . . .

I strongly disagree with this and think his record clearly shows the opposite. He has voted against bills that he helped craft once he asked his law colleagues and investigated the Illinois constitution and decided that his bills were unconstitutional. Furthermore, as this points out he did work closely with the most conservative major law school in the country and is well respected across the spectrum. He might be strongly into social justice, but it is highly pragmatic and academically oriented as opposed to say an Edwards.

I think Obama is now getting backlash that is as unfocused as his initial support (it's expected and why I was always concerned with the fact that few supporters seemed to realize what he stood for). Originally the criticisms came from the left, and now it seems that they are coming from the right.

First he wasn't black enough because he refused to treat minority audiences different and didn't have a “black” background. Now he's some secret black radical nationalist.

He was strongly criticized for not advocating social justice enough…wanting to work with Republicans to craft compromise bills and being business oriented in contrast to Clinton and especially Edwards. Now he is the “most liberal” Senator.

His wife was strong and very smart and successful, now she is getting Teresa Kerry'd.

I don't think Obama has changed at all during the campaign.

I have a question: From your current, disillusioned perspective, what is it that you now think Obama would do differently as POTUS, and how is that different from how you thought prior to the Jeremiah Wright exposure?

My wife and I voted for Obama in my state's primary precisely because he positions himself as the voice of a “new politics” that “transcends” divisions such as race, because he is a “uniter.”

We are now both embarrassed. Because of the honesty and judgment concern raised by ELROD and because of what are his inescapable ties to Rev. Wright.

Wright's diatribes are much more disturbing than, e.g., the Jerry Falwell strain (which I find very objectionable). The videos are not uncharacteristic of Wright; these are the foundations upon which the espoused “black value system” is built, which is strongly rooted in early 70's far-left black nationalism. The close association to Farrakhan should surprise no one. While the church definitely does social good, at the same time it preaches a virulent level of hate (against both whites as well as middle-class black Uncle Tom's), anti-Americanism, conspiracy, paranoia, and the politics of victimization and grievance.

This does not fall into the category of still going to a church that you disagree with about this or that. It is much too extreme for that comparison. And it's important to note that we are not talking about Joe Citizen here in the pews, we are talking about an individual promoting himself as the next President of the *entire* U.S. It is one thing to give a speech at a particular church or university, or entertain visits from certain clergy – it is quite another to be an active participant, financial supporter, close associate, one who seeks a Rev Wright's guidance “before making any major political decision.” For twenty years.

Additionally, it is a mistake to make a separation of the spiritual and political, as is commonplace in white, often secularly oriented, churches. Black LIberation Theology is a fusion of the religious with the political. They are inter-twined, inseparable. The former informs the latter. It is every bit as much integrated as, say, Robertson, but more radical.

Which leads to the second problem: He has not been forthright and honest with voters about this. One only need to re-trace the steps. He knew that Wright would be an issue, early on. Yet on each occasion a question was raised, he deftly dodged. “Not particularly controversial.” “Any of you would feel comfortable in my church.” People are “cherry picking” from a “40 yr career” of a “retiring pastor.” Disingenuous, and knowingly so. Even the HuffPo post was parsed: He never heard any of these specific opinions voiced while he was in the pews; no doubt true, but he doesn't say he didn't know. Anyone knowing a Rev Wright knows this can't be true; these positions are to a large extent who he is. Wright even is quoted as telling Obama he would get blow-back for his radical positions. And Obama makes reference to such sermons in his book.

Do I think that Obama shares Wright's vicious views? No. But clearly these views do not disturb him enough to avoid sustaining a long close relationship; why? Do I think that Wright's Black Liberation Theology influences Obama's political thinking? Definitely. For example, I think a close look at his constitutional philosophy reflects his social activist views, i.e., that what he perceives to be the greater social good justifies bypassing the legislative process in favor of change by judicial fiat. Do I think that Obama practices a “new politics” of openness, inclusiveness, and honesty? Not any more. Regrettably, his actions belie his message. And campaigning by the Alexrod playbook only makes me feel that we are being sold a different product that is being advertised.

If he starts being overly 'sensitive' to every public grouping in America, then whom will he represent? He can not represent everyone's interests and sensibilties, because, unless he makes choices, he will represent no one.

It isn't, on an ideological plane, about pandeting to every constituency.. It is about acknoledging irreconcilable differences and, in spite of that, to cooperate, to find common goals where that is possible and doing so in a mannerly way.

He can not be both pro-war and anti-war. But he can co-operate on providing care for the vets, and he can do so honestly without undue deference to the party line either party line.

He has got to be who he is, or he becomes a paper cut-out for everyone to hang their dreams on and then be disppointed when their particular dream doesn't come true.

It's also about reforming the political process, how Washington does poltiics, not about supprting every concievable policy position uner the sun.

My hope is that he will talk about this .in explicit detail, so that we understand better both Obama and his church. I hope he never apoligizes. but confronts and explains, instead.

I work hard at considering all possible points of view to have at least some valid basis, whether I share the conclusions or not. So I have to say that I think I would judge a GOP candidate in the same way.

Having said that — what goes into that judgment is not mere “faith” (so to speak) in that candidate's disavowal. There's no automatic acceptance on my part. In your scenario, I'd look at what that candidate has said in the past that might support the views s/he espouses on a campaign trail.

I have not heard support for Wright's radical views from Obama anywhere… anymore than I've heard John McCain demonizing gay people and suggesting New Orleans should perhaps stop holding Gay Pride parades (or something related that might indicate support for a Pat Robertson-type radicalism).

We have to judge people on their merits, words, and deeds, and not automatically make assumptions. But I'll admit that sometimes, it's very hard to do that — particularly when one is disinclined to like a particular candidate in the first place.

Now the second that a politician acts on those beliefs by trying to get laws passed, or in the case of Bush there is ample insider information that he is stubborn because he thinks that God is on his side and therefore our policies are righteous and will work out…well then that's the time to vigorously oppose it. Of course, even in those instances it's not the decision making process that is most important, but the check and balances throughout the government. I've never actually gotten upset with an individual politician over their support or command (not even Bush) but with the whole system when there is an obvious failure.

So, the second question is: why would he continue to attend the church of a man whose political views he disagrees with? Again, the answer has to do with why we go to church in the first place. If we go for political lectures or social lectures then we'd be right to ask what it was about Wright's politics that drew Obama there. But if we go for faith, Jesus and family, then the rabble-rousing sermons are besides the point. Obama didn't go to TUCC and have his kids baptized there because he “damns America” or whatever. He had his kids baptized there because Jeremiah Wright was the one who first introduced him to Jesus Christ. A spiritual connection does not translate into endorsement of someone's political views and rhetoric.

Yes, this would be true of Republican attending a right-wing church too. I personally find the theology of Hagee and Parsley much more troubling than I find Wright's. But I still recognize that one can go to church and not share all the political sentiment of the pastor.

CStanley,
You are accusing Obama of not acting like a typical politician and kicking his pastor to the curb because of controversial remarks. I actually think Obama's continued embrace of Wright the pastor and rejection of Wright's rhetorical and political extremism is a sign of character. I sure as hell wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton to stand up for somebody who embarrassed her politically.

I agree with CStanley with regard to never having heard that particular scripture taught in a political context.

However, if any pastor were to teach that women were to be subservient to men as a rule, I WOULD leave that church as I personally don't believe that is scripturally sound. I can't imagine gaining spiritual understanding from someone who is that ignorant from a doctrinal perspective – actually making that a perfect case in point on the Mr. Obama / Pastor Wright situation.

Although you find it perfectly acceptable for individuals to remain in a church where they disagree on certain points, do you not see how it reflects differently on a person with political aspirations to remain in that congregation and describe the controversial pastor as a spiritual mentor? Again, not that I can't see that Obama might remain there for personal reasons, but I find his judgment lacking if he seriously thought people would easily accept his general statement of having some points of disagreements as sufficient.

And the double standard is that I have a hard time believing that people would accept that a GOP candidate could perhaps be a spiritual follower of Falwell or Dobson and not question whether or not that candidate espoused the political views of those pastors that most of us find abhorrent. Wouldn't you question whether it was good judgment for a white Republican to be so closely allied with one of those types, even if he said as Obama has that he's always had some points of disagreement? And if the statements became more clear and explicit about the points of disagreement only after the issue became a public debate which was showing signs of harming the candidate, don't you think many would question either the sincerity or the judgment in waiting so long instead of getting ahead of the story?

That said, I concede your point about the difference between preaching (or promoting) a gender role vs. preaching a radical feminist agenda. It's a matter of degree, though, and the offsetting rewards to be found in a church are myriad.

But even putting aside whether or not people ought to be offended by what some perceive as sexism, there's still one other big difference- I've NEVER heard any of the teachings about gender roles being described in a political way. It's something that people either voluntarily accept, or not- and yes, some do choose to remain in as a member of a congregation even if they disagree with that part of the teaching.

I think the only way to make your analogy work would be if the opposing viewpoint were being preached in a political context: in other words, if a radical feminist political agenda were being preached from the pulpit, which stirred up a huge amount of animosity among women against their male oppressors. If that were the case, then I do think it would be unthinkable that people would remain in the congregation if they weren't sympathetic to that viewpoint- they'd clearly see it as something harmful rather than a benign point of disagreement.

I also made the point at your blog, that I think there's another issue at stake for a politician who doesn't realize that his spiritual leanings are going to be critically examined, and that these statements would make him highly suspect among a certain portion of the population. Either Obama didn't even realize that, or he felt it didn't matter- and neither of those possibilities is very positive in light of the hopes that he'd be a healer of racial tensions.

But we go to these churches anyway. Is there no possible scenario in which you can visualize a reason why we would still attend such churches? Or is it assumed that by attending churches that preach this, we all have bought into this thinking? That we reserve no place in our hearts, minds, or foundational psyches, that rejects it?