Jeremiah Wright and the consistency trap
Posted 23 weeks 9 hours ago byI would like to talk about Barack Obama's grandmother.
I have nothing against the woman, understand. Obama seems to regard her fondly, even if he thinks she has sometimes-retrograde racial opinions. Certainly, he wouldn't disown her. But this week, he did disown Jeremiah Wright -- and, in so doing, fell straight into the Consistency Trap.
What's that? Well, let us rewind a couple of weeks to Obama's big race speech, in which he explained that he disagreed with some of Wright's comments, but that he still loved and respected the man. It was there he uttered some fateful words:
I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.
Now, of course, we have conservatives jumping up and down gleefully. Charles Krauthammer takes his shot this morning: " Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia 'race' speech is to be believed."
Consistency, somehow, has become our highest political virtue -- more important than being right. Barack Obama wouldn't disown Jeremiah Wright and now he has, so ha! Inconsistency! Do you really want a flip-flopping president?
But here's the thing: I expect that if Barack Obama's grandmother did something embarrassing or wrong, he would issue a statement saying that he couldn't disown her. But if, after that statement, she decided to go on a national media tour luxuriating in that wrongness, acting angry that anybody could consider her wrong and furthermore doing it all in a style that seemed specifically aimed at destroying her grandson's presidential candidacy -- well, then, I hope Barack Obama would throw his grandmother under the proverbial bus.
Sometimes, circumstances change. Did Wright's views change all that much? No. But dynamic of the Wright-Obama relationship clearly did; Obama showed, in his "race" speech, some loyalty to Wright. But Wright, with his subsequent statements and high-profile appearances, showed none to Obama. The situation changed, and Obama acted accordingly
We have had, the last eight years, a president who fetishized consistency -- who kept calling the war in Iraq a "success" that we were "winnning" long after everybody, including his fellow conservatives, had to concede that wasn't true. It was only after the Democrats won Congress that he got rid of Donald Rumsfeld and sent extra troops to Iraq to try and stabilize the situation. I'd rather have a president who can acknowledge when a situation has taken a turn for the worse and cut the losses. Inconsistency -- if that's what you want to call it -- can sometimes be a virtue.
Thoughts
from GoEnglish.com
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by John 2000"Beating a Dead Horse":
To repeatedly bring up a particular topic with no chance of affecting the outcome is beating a dead horse. Example: "Dad, are you sure we can't get a new computer for the upstairs?" Reply: "Son, we talked about this and the decision was 'no'. You are beating a dead horse."
Re: Re: Heh
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Jim LakelyAh, yes. But you cleverly neglected to mention what happens right after that ... You fool!
I win!
(Just remembering, and re-hearing in my head, the way Wallace Shawn delivered those lines brings a big grin to my face. Classic, but no blunder.)
Re: Heh
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by JoelSee. Now you fell into my trap, Jim. I knew you'd quote "The Princess Bride." That allows me to mention THIS:
Heh ... heh
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Jim LakelyMAN IN BLACK: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
VIZZINI: Wait till I get going! Where was I?
MAN IN BLACK: Australia.
VIZZINI: Yes! Australia ...
:-)
No worse than McCain hugging Falwell
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Bull MooseMcCain has no room to talk about inconsistency. This Keating Five fellow has flipped more than Olga and Nadia put together.
But since this election is the worst of 3 evils so far, what else to do? I don't see much anyone can do to clean up after the Bush/Cheney disaster of the past 8 years.
Unless Americans can wake up and see we need to circle the wagons as a country, without going over the line into Nationalisic fervor ala Nazi Germany,the road ahead is bumpy.
We can start with scrapping this ethanol nonsense that is a subsidy for corporate Agri-business. Then we might be able to feed people instead of cars and big oil companies.
Heh.
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by JoelI'm done defending Wright. I think I can defend Obama's decision to stop defending Wright, too.
Inconsistent in his consistent dodge
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Jim LakelyJoel writes:
Actually, I don't want to focus on how Obama's latest scramble is inconsistent -- though it assuredly is. What Obama did was worse: It was dishonorable and dishonest.
Obama propped up Granny as a shield to protect his foul pastor -- caring not a whit that there is a huge difference between not wanting to be harassed by aggressive panhandlers who happen to be black and a racist crank like Jeremiah "white brains and black brains are different" Wright. Go after Wright, and you'll have to go through Granny first! Nice.
That cynical political move -- what Krauthammer called a "rhetorical trick" -- was designed to take the heat off of him and Wright and change the subject. In so doing, Obama impuned the honor of his grandmother, which doesn't go down as a great character move in my book. It was also a dishonest representation of what he knew to be Wright's consistent views (not mere "snippets.")
Yeah. Obama was forced to give up the dishonest dodge. There would have been no situation undergoing any "change" if he'd been honest and honorable in the first place.
(As a side note, Joel, I thought you were done defending The Wrong Stuff. That's a good policy, I think, at this point.) :-)