XML FeedsGuilt By Association vs Future Behavior by Ryan
By Ryan on Jul 20, 2012 | In News | 5 feedbacks »
Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers are not just some over-blown right-wing distractions meant to falsely impugn Obama's integrity as the left would have us believe. Indeed, these folks and their associations with Obama were NOT properly vetted and put to rest after having properly done so by the press.
- T. Paine, Commenting, July 19, 2012
Now that Obama has been in office for a few years, the implications of his association with Wright and Ayers are less important than the actual policies that he clearly supports. We do not have to wonder what he might do, though it is possible that he might change a bit as a second-term President.
Nevertheless, his association with these people was fair game. Since I was not pleased with some of the Republican candidates' religious and political associations, it would be hypocritical for me to deny conservatives the opportunity to scrutinize Obama's connections.
There are two questions to address:
Just how bad were Ayers and Wright?
- To what extent has Obama adopted their beliefs and desires?
While we have good reasons to condemn both Ayers and Wright, we must also acknowledge their convictions and reasons for action. Both men truly believed that our country or government has caused great harm and should change.
Ayers believed that action against the state and its supporters--the "oppressors"--was the duty of those who support the oppressed. To do nothing, he and his group believed, was to be complicit in the oppression. And as he came to believe that peaceful protest had little effect (a way of feeling like one is making a change while actually accomplishing nothing), he began to apply violent measures to lead to change. Given these beliefs, his actions were perfectly reasonable.
Wright believes that racism permeates our country, that we are hypocritical about when when and to whom violence can be applied, that the government created the AIDS virus to kill off black people, etc. He preaches against it. Again: this is perfectly reasonable behavior, given his beliefs.
But for their behavior to be good, their beliefs must be accurate and their desires must be praiseworthy. Since most of us dispute at least some of both their beliefs and desires, we cannot praise their behavior. Unlike Ayers, we do not really desire world communism, so we condemn him even though we might support similar violence in support of some other goal. Unlike Wright, we do not see racism everywhere, so we condemn his fixation even though we might fixate on some other "-ism."
In any case, it is important to note that these men do not desire to harm others for pleasure. They have acted in accordance with their beliefs and desires for a better country or even world.
Any concern regarding their influence on Obama, then, should focus on how he might try to change our way of life--not how he might want to harm us. Back in 2008, one might have asked: Will he work to implement greater entitlements for non-white people or try to divide us racially? Will he seek to impose communistic laws or devote great amounts of resources toward helping oppressed people in other countries even as we suffer at home? Will he allow or even support the spread of terrible ideologies in other lands?
Before the election, we had his voting record, speeches, books, promises about what he would or would not do, and condemnations of both Ayers' violence and Wright's vitriol--all intended to assure us that he had the best intentions and would continue to support the "American way of life" (whatever that is). This was insufficient for conservatives--and perhaps rightfully so. We expect a man who wishes to be President to condemn associations that would hurt him. We still don't know what led him to associate with these people--particularly Wright, whose church he attended regularly--in the first place and to continue to do so. As T.Paine writes, "This strikes me as an association that is hardly prudent or wise in the formation of the character of the man that was to become our president." It is not that Obama was somehow responsible for what these men had done, but that he associated with them despite their actions and convictions.
I would like to hear Obama address this. Even though I was not afraid that these associations would matter--and even though it seems, after a few years of his presidency, that I was right to not be afraid--it would be interesting to learn what drew him to these men, why he persisted with them despite their behavior, what he took away from his experiences with them, and why he did not take away the violence and vitriol. Perhaps I would learn some of the answers if I read his books, but I confess that I have little to no interest in reading books by politicians.
However, T.Paine is mistaken on another matter. He writes:
"If Obama had been the GOP’s candidate for office, I am certain that a far more thorough examination and subsequent disqualification of candidate Obama would have been the inevitable result."
This is accurate only in the sense that the GOP would never elect a liberal. (I will leave T.Paine to speculate on the reasons for choosing Romney over the other candidates.) Republicans disagree with Ayers and Wright on just about everything, so they would naturally reject the sort of person who might be sympathetic to their causes. But similarly, liberals disagree with what some of the Republican candidates' associations have said and done, so it is also the case that people like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann would never have become viable liberal candidates. What is "anti-American" to one party is not necessarily "anti-American" to the other.
Guilt by association tactics are dangerous. Those who use them open themselves up to the same attacks even when they fail to condemn a constituent in a crowd for making some outrageous claim. We can always wonder: Why didn't he distance himself from that comment?
Fortunately, when someone's actions speak for themselves, as Obama's do, we don't need to speculate so much about his associations. If he did take something terrible away from his time with Ayers and Wright, it is irrelevant as long as it does not impact his behavior as President.
Unfortunately, while Romney's actions also speak for themselves, each of them seems to say something different.
Ryan is a frequent and generous contributor. He also writes for his own site, where guilt by association is at a minimum, and behavior is the preferred measure of the content of character.
Please visit Secular Ethics.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
5 comments
My opinion tends to be more absolutist, I suppose. I regard guilt by association with skepticism that crosses to hostility when guilt is unsupported by further evidence.
I suppose voters could have conducted a sort of secondary vetting requirement for then candidate Barack Obama. Our vetting could have revealed that he had not, in turn, properly vetted the host of a fund raising party a third person had organized. After all, he had bumped into Professor Ayres at other social gatherings. Could he not have investigated the fellow's background? Pretty thin, except to the most rabid of partisans.
In fact. a goose and gander application of that same standard would not have been comfortable for honest conservatives. It could have been applied to the Republican nominee in 2008, with devastating effect.
To believe four years ago that Obama maintained an association with Ayres, we would have been forced to accept as fact more direct evidence against John McCain.
McCain was an actual member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Council for World Freedom along with white supremacists, death squad organizers, and Nazi collaborators. He allowed these folks to use his name on their letterhead from 1984 to 1986.
He asked them to remove his name in 1986. They insist he never made that request, but I find it easy to believe Senator McCain over these thugs.
National Democrats, surrogates, and organizations declined to accuse John McCain of any association with those white racists and Nazi criminals. Possibly it was because he had no such association. Neither did Obama with Ayres in any way that was meaningful.
Interestingly, even when important members of the McCain campaign were making their accusations about Obama, candidate Obama refused to mention the U.S. Council for World Freedom.
Per Mr. Paine himself, God is his master.
Regarding Wright and Ayers, Ryan states, “In any case, it is important to note that these men do not desire to harm others for pleasure. They have acted in accordance with their beliefs and desires for a better country or even world.” While I acknowledge that this is indeed likely to be true, they and other truly heinous people from history also did violent and/or horrible things while using the justification that they were simply trying to make a better country or world and not simply causing harm for their own pleasure. Is the harm done to others more acceptable simply because such harm was not done for perverse personal pleasure, or because the perpetrator’s intentions were for the greater good?
“Any concern regarding their influence on Obama, then, should focus on how he might try to change our way of life--not how he might want to harm us.” Which is my exact point. As an example of Obama’s wanting to make for a better country as he sees it, he instructed his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to implement the regulation that all places of employment must offer contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care insurance for employees. This is something that I, and MILLIONS of Americans, find absolutely unconscionable and against the practice of our religious faiths or consciences. Further the practice of those faiths, accordingly, is specifically protected in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights. Now I am sure that President Obama is not insisting on this unconstitutional mandate simply for the pleasure of harming millions of Americans, but that is the ultimate outcome nonetheless. Ironically, the myriads (yes far more than three, Mr. Myste) of Catholic hospitals will not comply with this mandate. The very real possibility exists that many doctors and hospitals will cease to exist rather than compromise on this matter. This makes accessibility of health care for many more millions of Americans even more problematic accordingly. In trying to do a greater good, Obama’s philosophy will actually do far greater harm to America.
Ryan continues, “Back in 2008, one might have asked: Will he work to implement greater entitlements for non-white people or try to divide us racially? Will he seek to impose communistic laws or devote great amounts of resources toward helping oppressed people in other countries even as we suffer at home? Will he allow or even support the spread of terrible ideologies in other lands?”
I would submit that Obama has indeed caused great harm in dividing us racially. It creates a very chilling effect on citizens when they are accused of being racist simply because they state objections to certain Obama policies. That does not bring races together. I would further submit that the socialized medicine of the Affordable Healthcare Act and the nationalizing of private companies such as GM and Chrysler find much in common with communistic laws. Continuing, Obama’s deafening silence during the citizens of Iran protesting over their elections and Obama’s implicit and sometimes explicit support for various groups that ultimately mean harm to western civilization such as the Muslim Brotherhood would seem to suggest that he will allow, if not support, the spread of terrible ideologies in other lands.
I had written in my initial rebuttal, "If Obama had been the GOP’s candidate for office, I am certain that a far more thorough examination and subsequent disqualification of candidate Obama would have been the inevitable result”, to which Ryan responded, “This is accurate only in the sense that the GOP would never elect a liberal. (I will leave T.Paine to speculate on the reasons for choosing Romney over the other candidates.) Republicans disagree with Ayers and Wright on just about everything, so they would naturally reject the sort of person who might be sympathetic to their causes.” I wasn’t clear in my meaning evidently. In my hypothetical, Obama would have been a conservative GOP candidate and not the liberal one that he is in reality. It is my contention that the left and the press would have done a much more thorough examination bordering on an anal exam of a GOP candidate if he had questionable ties to unsavory characters the like of which our current president does in actuality have, regardless of color. If a J.C. Watts or Alan West was the GOP nominee but had ties to domestic terrorists or sat in hate-filled churches, I am absolutely certain that these associations would have been given far more scrutiny, to the point of disqualification as a candidate, accordingly.
Regarding our friend Mr. Deming’s comments, as I previously posited, I think there is ample evidence to suggest that Ayers and Obama were not simply casual acquaintances. It is my and many other people far brighter than me that hold the opinion that Ayers and Obama were indeed friends. Further, evidence is pretty damning that Ayers did indeed write Dreams from my Father for or with Obama. If such is the case, it is reasonable to assume that they shared much of their life stories and philosophies with one another. Obama certainly cannot claim ignorance regarding Ayers terrorism and philosophies behind it. To work with and befriend such a person strikes me of, if not implicit approval then at least not a condemnation of such actions that should be an absolute anathema to every American, and most especially to a president.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html
It is more acceptable, but still potentially unacceptable, depending on the nature of the harm and the greater good. I can condemn Ayers' goals and methods while still acknowledging that he is preferable to a psychopath. As I wrote: "But for their behavior to be good, their beliefs must be accurate and their desires must be praiseworthy."
"Now I am sure that President Obama is not insisting on this unconstitutional mandate simply for the pleasure of harming millions of Americans, but that is the ultimate outcome nonetheless."
I and many other liberals see neither real harm nor a violation of constitutional rights. A hospital may indeed choose to shut down rather than adhere to the law. That is their choice--not Obama's. (We have been over all of this on your blog; there is no need to pursue the point further.) According to conservative free market ideology, a new supplier--one that is not bothered by the mandate--will enter the scene to meet the demand anyway.
"It creates a very chilling effect on citizens when they are accused of being racist simply because they state objections to certain Obama policies."
Race-fixated liberals are not the subject here. Obama is. How often has Obama himself "played the race card" in this way?
"I would further submit that the socialized medicine of the Affordable Healthcare Act and the nationalizing of private companies such as GM and Chrysler find much in common with communistic laws."
Those measures were implemented for reasons that have little to nothing to do with granting the state more power. No one is really proposing a communistic system; even most Democrats are capitalists who simply want the government to make up for the needs that the market does not reasonably supply. But do let me know when you advocate the privatization of everything.
"Obama’s deafening silence during the citizens of Iran protesting over their elections and Obama’s implicit and sometimes explicit support for various groups that ultimately mean harm to western civilization such as the Muslim Brotherhood would seem to suggest that he will allow, if not support, the spread of terrible ideologies in other lands."
I shouldn't have used the term "allow." It is not really the President's place to determine which ideologies will take hold elsewhere in the world.
In any case, if Obama is less outspoken against Islam, it is because he wants to encourage peace instead of war. We are in no position to be poking hornets' nests--not that that has stopped us before. If we can maintain peace, there is a chance that exposure to Western and secular ideals, new technology, increasing wealth, and so on will, in the long run, deal with these ideologies more effectively than war could.
Anyway, the world already knows our position. We don't need to broadcast it all the time, which mostly serves to stir up anger.
There is also the possibility that Obama feels (as Ron Paul does) that our meddling in other countries is at least partly to blame for anti-US sentiment. This is certainly far more plausible than the idea that they are "jealous of our freedom," though that is not to say that meddling is never justified.
"I wasn’t clear in my meaning evidently. In my hypothetical, Obama would have been a conservative GOP candidate and not the liberal one that he is in reality."
It was clear. Some of the Republican candidates had associated with hate-filled groups, but that didn't stop Republicans from promoting them as candidates. Moreover, the media did not seem to pay as much attention to these associations as it did to Ayers and Wright, perhaps excepting Ron Paul's tenuous connection to racists.
My point was that conservatives have their own idea of unacceptable associations and liberals have theirs. If Obama were conservative, he probably wouldn't have attended Wright's church, which conservatives condemn but some liberals do not. However, he might have instead attended some church that believes that hurricanes are God's punishment of the United States for pursuing secular laws, which liberals would condemn but some conservatives would not. Whether or not this would be enough to disqualify a candidate is up to voters--not the media.
"Obama certainly cannot claim ignorance regarding Ayers terrorism and philosophies behind it."
Indeed.
"To work with and befriend such a person strikes me of, if not implicit approval then at least not a condemnation of such actions that should be an absolute anathema to every American, and most especially to a president."
Friendships can blossom for many different reasons. Two men need not agree with each other on every issue and criminals need not be condemned to solitude for the rest of their lives. Obama is clearly not a terrorist and is clearly not interested in establishing a communist state, so he probably saw something else of value in Ayers. You might as well if you got to know him. However, I acknowledge that the association is strange and that it does not look good on a president's resume.
Lastly, if you think that that article is compelling evidence that Ayers wrote the book, then I suspect that you are simply inclined to believe so. If the same article were written about a conservative and one of his associations, I would have just as little respect for it.
Leave a comment
| « Colorado Shock, Associative Guilt, Spanish Fox | Vetting Religion » |
