after-words.org

Man, you have screwed up mightily when you can make Bill O'Reilly even want to present himself as reasonable and measured.

O'Reilly aside, here's the thing: Jackson isn't wrong. I mean, yes, perhaps it could have been more felicitously phrased, but the "nuts" comment aside, Jackson is entirely right. With his stated desire to strengthen Bush's faith-based programs -- programs where not only have the organizations themselves had problems because the government can't waive equal opportunity laws for religious organizations to receive government funds, but also some rather sharp separation of church and state issues -- Obama is explicitly and obviously pandering, primarily but not purely to religious blacks.

Consider it an extended hangover, courtesy of the Reverend Wright. Obama and Wright were both justifiably taken by surprise when two-year-old comments blew up into a campaign issue media feeding frenzy. Wright was understandably upset and hurt by Obama distancing himself from those remarks. That said, while Wright may have felt -- I think somewhat without cause -- that Obama initially threw him under the bus to feed his political ambitions, he himself pretty much went and sought the bus out by amplifying said comments once people were paying attention to him. Obama really had no choice, if he wanted to maintain his presidential aspirations, than to withdraw from Trinity Church and its congregation. However, doing so caused many religious people to question Obama's religious principles. (I say now, as I have said many times before: a candidate's religious identity should not be at issue in a secular state. But I digress.) And this was an easy way to try to allay people's doubts; easy because the programs are there, easy because it's only a campaign promise, easy because if he really tried to expand those programs, not only would Congress possibly hesitate, but they'd be challenged in courts, and it's not unlikely that courts would strike down expansion as a violation of equal oportunity laws and a violation of the Establishment clause.

The problem is, this is transparent pandering. Understand: most people get that politicians make promises during a campaign to draw your vote. We only seem to ask that said promises not be so cynical that the only reasonable response is to roll your eyes and say, "Oh, please. Surely you can do better than THAT." Obama is trying to paper over his difficulties with black evangelicals and nonblack religious moderates with this promise, and pretty much all of them seem to be regarding this promise with deep contempt. Additionally, it's one more thing causing Obama problems with the liberal voters. While most of them are prepared to hold their nose and vote for him regardless -- the alternative being much much worse from almost every angle -- a lot of liberal voters threw in with him because he seemed to represent change. The "audacity of hope", as he has said. It's beginning to look as though the audacity comes only from him daring to present himself as being even slightly different that the average politician.

Some commentators have noted that this is a gift by Jackson to the Obama campaign. White moderates and others who loathe and despise Jackson, for whatever reason, may be more inclined to view Obama favorably if Jackson dislikes him. That is, to put it mildly, a rather cynical view of the electorate.

But perhaps ... not much more cynically than Obama and his campaign seem to be.

Recent posts