A Wacky Comparison
Posted on April 16th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
In one of the stranger moments of the debate, Obama tried to minimise the significance of his ties to William Ayers by saying that he’s also “friendly” with Tom Coburn (!), who has supported the death penalty for abortionists, as if to say, “Look, I’m friendly with all kinds of crazy people, but I’m not responsible for them.” See, Obama’s just a friendly guy! But there is a huge difference between expressing a controversial opinion and, well, setting off explosives and killing people, and it is not at all obvious that Coburn’s position is even wrong, much less on par with willful destruction of property. Indeed, it’s a wacky parallel: one person engages in terrorism, the other person wants to punish what he reasonably regards as an act of murder, and they’re supposed to be equivalent? Presumably, they are supposed to be comparable because both are “extremists” in different ways, but of course the content of the “extremism” in question makes all the difference in the world, as do the actions of the two men being compared. This is like the Wright/grandmother comparison in the Philadelphia speech, but much, much more reckless.
Imagine the implausible case of, say, John McCain being “friendly” with Eric Rudolph. Could McCain then say in his defense, “Well, I’m also friendly with Barack Obama, who has refused to support protecting infants who have survived abortion procedures, and obviously I don’t agree with him, either”? Would that make a relationship, any kind of relationship, with Rudolph acceptable? Now, obviously, Obama is not in any way responsible for what Ayers did or even for what Ayers has said now or in the past, but he is responsible for allying with him in local Hyde Park politics and for serving together with him on the same foundation board. While his ties to Ayers are much weaker than those to Wright, the key difference between Wright’s blunders, which have been entirely rhetorical, and Ayers’ crimes is obviously that the former are awful but harmless words and the latter are violent and destructive acts.
It is, of course, inconceivable that a major presidential candidate on the right could get away with having any political associations with domestic terrorists, regardless of how long ago those terrorists were active. That Obama thinks it reasonable to compare such a terrorist to one of his colleagues in the Senate is striking. This is a case of Obama’s urge to demonstrate his capacity for bridge-building spiraling out of control.
Filed under: politics
Did Ayers ever actually kill anyone? I thought the Weathermen only managed to get themselves blown up.
In fact, I think he did not, but the intent to harm certainly seemed to be there.
Remember, this is a Democratic primary debate. For many Democrats, Coburn is far worse than some doofus who blew up his girlfriend.
Also, a tenuous connection with Eric Rudolph probably would have helped McCain in his primary fight in some states.
Obama’s response does not compare a terrorist and a Senator – it is a reductio ad absurdem of the implication that if you are friendly with somebody you agree with everything they stand for.
I realize that this is an era of “gotcha politics” where we twist people’s words for fun and profit. But what part of that is hard to understand?
Okay, then what about the idea that, whether or not you “agree with what they stand for”, you just shouldn’t be “friendly” with known terrorists? Is that thought so hard to understand?
So . . . I might be able to sell on eBay my snapshots of McCain sipping maggies with Timothy McVeigh?
I’d be more impressed with a question about selling clusterbombs to Olmert. Silly me.
Dan, the problem in Hyde Park, as in any college town, is that so many people are out to lunch and extreme, that a new normalcy takes over, one where Weather Underground terrorists are power brokers. Obama was just doing what others told him to do in getting Ayers blessing, and Obama is a complete coward when it comes to offending people he sees as powerful or able to help him accrue power, viz., Wright, Sharpton, Ayers.
What a terrible president he would be. But so would McCain in different ways.
I feel like I’m watching the Iran-Iraq War with this campaign.
Ayers had long since left the Weatherman and renounced his previous life of violent dissent. He had become a very moderate character working to improve local matters. If Obama had associated with him when he was in fact a terrorist, and espousing terrorist ideas, that would be a big deal. That Obama merely attended a meeting with him present when he had long since renounced such things and moved on to moderate and civil politics means precisely the opposite of what critics are saying it implies. It means that Obama can be forgiving if one has changed sincerely. Isn’t that what Jesus would do?
Roach-
I’m not sure if I’m the ‘Dan’ you’re addressing, or if you are talking to our illustrious blog-master, but we both live in Hyde Park (in fact, we live in the same building). I cannot speak for Mr. Larison, but I, for one, am well aware of the socio-political situation ’round these parts.
This does not change the fact that a bunch of Democrats, and not just around here, are more offended by Coburn than an incompetent terrorist wannabe. As a Democrat, I’m certainly not thrilled with that, but there it is.
Hmmm. The minute the Jeremiah Wright nonsense dies down, the Ayers and “elitist” pseudo-scandals suddenly explode. How come I’m not surprised?
If anyone wants to cite Wright, Ayers or “elitism” as pretexts to oppose Obama, fine. (Of course, there’s nothing wrong with associating with wackjobs like John Hagee.) I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, Dan, but if you’re implying that a vote in November for the quagmire-loving, free-trading co-sponsor of McCain/Kennedy shamnesty will be some great victory for the working class or repeal the 1960s or strike a blow against multiculturalism, I’ve got some Enron stocks to sell you.
As a (reluctant) Obama supporter along the lines of Bacevich and Raimondo, I concede that whatever shot he had at “transforming” politics is pretty much blown to hell at this point. Chalk up another victory for post-1968 Bread & Circus politics — and watch your country circle the drain for yet another four years.
From WIkipedia entry on Ayers:
“In 2001, Ayers published Fugitive Days: A Memoir. Ayers’s interview with the New York Times about his book was published on September 11, 2001, and opens with his statement, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.” The interview also includes his reaction (in his book) to Emile De Antonio’s 1976 documentary film about the Weathermen: “He was ‘embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.”[1] Ayers stated that by “no regrets” he meant that he didn’t regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that “we didn’t do enough” meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade.”
One would assume that when he said he didn’t regret setting bombs, he meant that, well, he didn’t regret setting bombs.
As I’m sure you know, I have repeatedly argued that associating with Hagee is far worse than associating with Wright (or, for that matter, with Ayers), because Hagee agitates for deeply wrong and dangerous policies and has the political clout to influence people in government. Obviously, a victory for McCain will bring nothing good, and I’m not saying any of this to suggest that McCain somehow represents Middle American interests, when he clearly does not serve their interests at all. He is an enemy of Middle America, but then I have difficulty seeing how he differs substantially from Obama, except that he is not in favour of even more unaffordable entitlements.
As the immigration debate showed, McCain has the same kind of contempt for Middle Americans that his competitors seem to have, and as I was saying in an earlier post the GOP exploits cultural conservatives with this pretense that they respect and value their way of life and their concerns. None of this is a brief for McCain. I am appalled that the Democrats have apparently wasted one of their best electoral chances in a generation and in the process are jeopardising the antiwar agenda by putting forward a candidate who will, I think, prove to be a very weak general election candidate. The crux of the Bacevich and Raimondo arguments is the idea that Obama can win and therefore discredit the neocons/War Party. If we invest the ‘08 election with the kind of significance that they have, and Obama winds up losing, as I think is quite possible, I foresee years and years’ worth of people bragging that the American people have endorsed the ruinous policies of the modern GOP, when it will have been a fluke of the weakness of the Democratic nominee. The problem is that the Democrats are putting forward someone who could actually lose an election that a Democrat has no business losing in this environment, and every time he plays the part of the conventional liberal he is aiding in his own defeat. As it happens, I think he *is* a conventional liberal, which is why he was never much of an ideal messenger for the antiwar cause.
Daniel,
Finally you’re making some sense. The Democrats certainly can lose this election, and certainly Hillary is trying hard to make that possible. But so is the media in general. They seem to love playing gotcha games with Democrats that undermine their patriotism and credibility. The point is, these issues are essentially meaningless to most people, even those who play them up. The notion that Obama is somehow uniquely vulnerable here is simply not true. Any Democrat, any liberal, Hillary included, would be subject to the same kinds of meaningless attacks and gotcha games. It’s certainly a legitimate question to ask which Democrat can defend against these kind of distracting attacks the best. I think Obama can do that, and the last few months have shown how strong he is at warding off the kind of attacks that would have killed off a lesser candidate.
As for him being a “conventional” liberal that depends on the definition. His policy is fairly “conventional” in the mode of Hart-Dukakis-Bill Clinton etc. The first two of those could easily have been elected if they hadn’t either self-destructed or been unable to respond to personal attacks. (Dukakis was leading in the polls until the whole flag-willie-horton-patriotism thing began). If Obama doesn’t self-destruct or fail to respond to personal attacks – and he’s done very well on both counts so far – he will probably win by about the same margin as Bill Clinton. 5-6 points. Better, I think, than Hillary would do.
Of course, he can still lose. Gore found a way to lose in 2000 (or at least let it be so close he allowed it to be stolen from him). So anything’s possible. You are assuming that there actually is some Democratic candidate out there who would be guaranteed to win. Every Democrat is vulnerable simply by virtue of being a Democrat.
What I think you are really looking for is an Obama who is a conservative Republican. You’re not likely to find someone like that in the Democratic party, and forget about even imagining such a thing in the Republican party.
I appreciate the reply, Dan. If I may clarify one thing: I know you’re no fan of Hagee. My comment about him was generalized sarcasm; it was not aimed specifically at you.
“One would assume that when he said he didn’t regret setting bombs, he meant that, well, he didn’t regret setting bombs.”
I”m not sure we can assume that he approves of what he did, or advocates such things, even if he has no regrets. My guess is that he views it in the same vein as the Boston Tea Party – a violent protest directed at “things”, not people. Haven’t read his books, but the general impression I get is that he feels the violent bombing route was a mistake, in that it didn’t help end the war sooner, but may have prolonged it. You could say he doesn’t regret the bombings (of buildings, not of people) in and of itself, only in that it was an arrogant and failed tactic. Whatever the case, he no longer advocates such tactics, so we can safely say he’s renounced that approach.