A young Democrat quoted in the Wall Street Journal says of Barack Obama’s association with Trinity Church: “I wouldn’t want to be associated with people who say things like that.” Many have tried to rationalize Obama’s continued presence at Trinity United. But now Stanley Kurtz come along to detail exactly why and how deeply Obama was associated with Wright, Pfleger, and liberation theology in practice. It seems clear that Obama very much wanted to be associated with these people precisely because his “long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright’s radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center.” Kurtz’s article is a must read, and the bottom line is disturbing :
So Obama’s political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama’s ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama’s religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism.
So if some were disturbed by the implication that Obama had “played” the black churches and put up a front to gain political acceptance and support for his blossoming career, it may come as a bigger shock to learn that his embrace of the radicals and their extreme rhetoric and agenda was sincere. His current post-racial, moderate sounding themes may be a front. It would be ironic if those supposedly know-nothing hicks (according to the mainstream media) from West Virginia who told exit pollsters in overwhelming numbers that they believed Obama shared Wright’s views were exactly on the mark.
This explains, perhaps, why Obama took such great personal offense at being called out by Rev. Wright as insincere and acting like a politician. As nutty and vitriolic as he may be, Wright was witness to Obama’s deep involvement in the milieu which Kurtz describes. Wright’s willingness to pull back the curtain and reveal that Obama’s “signature theme” (as Kurtz put it) was in lockstep with Wright’s and Pfleger’s views struck at the heart of Obama’s efforts to win the nomination and the presidency. Because, after all, if Americans came to believe that Obama did not merely tolerate Wright and Pfleger, but agreed wholeheartedly with their outlook and approach then Obama’s chances for the presidency would likely be dashed. That’s enough to get a denouncement from the man who does not do denouncements.
Obama Acts Like Obama
True to form, Barack Obama’s explanation yesterday of his reasons for leaving Trinity Church are a model of double-talk. (And the remarkably passive media pack doesn’t make it very hard for him to avoid further scrutiny.) He has, he explained
And he would have remained in a church for two decades where regularly people spoke out in ways which conflicted with his principles because . . . why, exactly? We don’t know. And no one in the press thought to ask.
But it gets worse. ABC reports:
Yes, remember Obama does not do denouncing. There is nothing a Wright or Pfleger or Ayers can do which deserve condemnation. Unless, of course they visit the National Press Club and critique his sincerity.
And Obama concedes that:
This one gets the trifecta for dishonesty, or perhaps cluelessness. First, it is, of course, not the case that his Christian faith is being questioned. I know of no commentator, critic, or political opponent who has done that. What is at issue is his propensity to hang out with hatemongers who suggest his current post-racial theme is a pose. Second, he apparently lacks any cultural or political compass if he really believed that Wright et al. would not become an issue. Was it self-delusion? Or is he so out of touch with average Americans that he was unable to predict what would be deeply offensive to millions of Americans? And finally, notice how he impugns the motives of those who raise concerns about his association with Trinity. They are on a footing, in his book, with those perpetrating the “He’s a Muslim” canard. But the former are not perpetrating a lie. They are discussing and probing the beliefs, sincerity, and character of the man who wants to be President.
The Trinity cast of characters and Obama’s reaction to them have been more revealing than more a dozen-plus debates, all the speeches, and just about anything that has happened in over a year of campaigning. It might be even more revealing if the media would take their role seriously and press Obama on some of these obvious points. But Obama, however inadvertently, has done a fairly good job of letting us know how he makes both political and moral judgments. And that is perhaps the most important thing to know about a potential President.