Barack Obama gave a thoughtful and excellent speech on race today. There is much to argue about in it, which itself is refreshing in a political speech in this age. Those wishing for more substance from Senator Obama, as I have, got it.
This is a good speech and on the major topic it addresses: race in America, perhaps a great speech. Once again Obama confirms that if he were running only for head of state, that he would make an excellent leader.
Sadly, though we are also voting for a candidate with specific ideas of how to deal with the world, the economy, family break up, and the culture of death. On those issues, Obama is wrong.
On practical matters, he is a very conventional and very liberal politician.
However, the merits of the speech Senator Obama gave today are many. The Senator tells hard truths that many us would rather not hear, but does so in an irenic manner. Racism does exist in modern America. It is intolerable and it often produces nearly unbearable pain for many good people. Reactions to this pain are not always nuanced and careful and some extreme statements are made as a result.
That does not excuse his pastor, who has said inexcusable things over a twenty year period, but it does explain the muted reaction to him in some communities and from otherwise good people. Just as pro-lifers can, without great care, become tolerant of extreme rhetoric in their movement, so those committed to fighting racism can become insensitive to extreme rhetoric. The target is so bad in both cases, that it seems to justify rhetorical extremes.
As Senator Obama pointed out more eloquently today, it is not a good excuse. Such rhetoric is wrong and Obama was courageous to say so.
In my opinion, Obama’s religion and even his association with his pastor do not disqualify him from office in and of themselves. Understood contextually, he stands in the mainstream of liberal thought about Christianity and politics.
However, as a I pointed out with Mitt Romney, the implications of his religious views mean that no conservative or moderate voter is likely to vote for Barack Obama. Obama’s choice of church home confirms his general instincts as a person, just as Romney’s did.
Romney’s Mormonism should have comforted a conservative, even one who thought him very wrong religiously.
Obama’s membership in the very liberal (very, very liberal) United Church of Christ suggest a deeply liberal view of the world. A conservative is not being a religious bigot to say:
“Obama’s religion does not disqualify him nor does his pastor, but what it implies about his politics will mean I shall not vote for him. Of course, I might examine his political views and discover that he is a conservative in a liberal church.”
Most of us know conservative Episcopalians trapped in a church gone left. However, staying in that church would mean that a conservative politically would have to offer a justification for his tolerance of the more extreme leftist rhetoric coming from one’s bishop.
This is a test a good conservative could pass. Senator Obama will not even try to pass this political test since he is a good liberal. His general view of reality matches that of his group.
Romney’s continued adherence to the Mormon Church, even at political cost, suggested a deep affinity for the “family values” ideas likely to be politically relevant. Mormon theological doctrines were not politically important since they had no public policy implications. The same things is true of Obama’s church. It is “mainstream” from a Democrat perspective, though far to the left of the mainstream, so it is is not “disqualifying” but it is disturbing if one is not on the far left.
Whatever nice things Senator Obama says about pro-lifers, it suggests he is never going to govern in our direction.
This is an important, indeed vital distinction, however subtle it seems. The best take on it is at the indispensable blog Article Six.
When faced with the question of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, I argued that voters should examine a religious perspective for three qualities to see if a candidate’s religion should disqualify him or her:
First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner.
Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy.
Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.
Obama’s religious group, the United Church of Christ, easily passes all three tests. Liberal Protestants are numerous. I think the pro-abortion position of the UCC horrific, but sadly it is the mainstream of American politics. Finally, UCC members have participated in good faith in republican institutions without destroying them. Again, the Article Six article has this right.
The difficulty from a right of center voters perspective is not Obama’s church, but what his choice of church tells us about Obama. Now that he has clarified what he thinks, and there is not reason to think he is lying, the pastor’s bad ideas that the Senator does not share can be safely ignored.
Conservatives should avoid the dangerous rhetoric of dismissing a different perspective with words like “weird” and “not mainstream.” It will come back to haunt them.
It is entirely different to attack the public policy implications of a man or woman’s choice of religion.
On that front, it is also plain, after his speech, that Obama does not share his beloved mentor’s crazier views. Many of us in academia have mentors with whom we have marked disagreements. It is a sign of maturity that one can learn, deeply learn, from people that do not share important perspectives.
Bluntly, I don’t trust a man who cannot learn from people with whom he has strong disagreements. Anyone who has worked in academia, as the Senator has, does it all the time.
However, the Senator’s choice of the United Church of Christ does tell us that when it is “gut check time” a President Obama will tend to a very leftist view of reality. Just as Romney could be counted on to come down pro-family when the speech making ended and governing began, so any UCC member can be counted on to come down against the culture of life when it matters.
Barack Obama chose an extremely theologically liberal Protestant denomination.
The theology of this group is very bad from the perspective of a traditional Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. Of course, that is not and should not be relevant to a voter in this Republic, just as Mormon theology was not relevant except where it has public policy implications.
As I said at the time of Romney’s run, secularist pro-abortion voters have good reason to ask a Mormon candidate hard questions. Obama’s choice of the UCC suggest that he really means his pro-abortion rhetoric.
The views of the United Church of Christ, where they relate to politics, are for good or bad on the left side of the mainstream of the Democrat Party. His church does not show him to be an extremist or weird, but a leftist. There is no surprise there.
By itself, the public policy implications of Obama’s church do not disqualify him from reasonable consideration by liberals. Obama would be lucky if the discussion of his candidacy became all about his general views on race in America. There he would have many friends. If he is unlucky the focus will remain on his conventionally leftist views, which his church choice does not prove but only strongly confirms.
I am not a liberal so I will not vote for Barack Obama, but I respect him and the speech he gave today.