TO THE TRUTH about Obama and Ayers and the rest, but they’re still a bit shy of it.
At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein asserts that Obama may be more liberal than most of the country, and thus find himself surprised at the vehemence of the objections to his associates.
Here’s my take: Obama is an extremely ambitious man. He’s been interested in a national political career for many years. It’s not that surprising that he wouldn’t find Ayers and Wright objectionable company–in the very liberal, Hyde Park/Ivy League circles that he’s traveled in since attending Columbia, people with such views are more mainstream than, say, the average conservative evangelical Christian. That itself makes Obama far more liberal than the image his campaign attempts to portray.
But what is interesting to me is that not only did Obama not personally find anything especially obnoxious about Wright’s radicalism, anti-Americanism, ties to Farrakahn, and so on, or Ayers’ lack of regret for his terrorist past, he apparently didn’t expect that much of anyone else would care, either. How else do you explain why he didn’t jettison these individuals from his life before they could damage his presidential ambitions? How else do you explain how his campaign seemed to be caught flatfooted when Obama’s ties to Wright and then Ayers became campaign issues? And, perhaps most tellingly, how else do you explain that when Obama was asked in a debate with Clinton about his ties to Ayers, he analogized his friendship with Ayers to his friendship with Senator Tom Coburn, as if being friends with a very conservative senatorial colleague is somehow analogous with being friends with an unrepentant extreme leftist domestic terrorist?
In short, Obama’s ties to Ayers and Wright suggest to me NOT that Obama agrees with their views, but that he is the product of a particular intellectual culture that finds the likes of Wright and Ayers to be no more objectionable, and likely less so, than the likes of Tom Coburn, or, perhaps, a Rush Limbaugh. Not only that, but he has been in his particular intellectual bubble so long that he was unable to recognize just how offensive the views of a Wright are to mainstream America, or how his ties to Ayers would play with the public, especially post-9/11.
I don’ theen’ so!
Either Bernstein is utterly unfamiliar with Marxist radicalism or he’s a red himself and deliberately spreading the scent of a red herring.
By Obama’s statements, actions, and associations, he knows exactly what he’s doing, what his end goals are, and how most Americans would be likely to react were they to apprehend the full truth of them. His intent can only be assumed to be to advance the cause of Marxist socialism, and he and his associates have moved the struggle this direction all along. He’s counting on people’s giving him the benefit of the doubt, with the desire of flying in low, under the radar, and getting by subterfuge what he could never get outright.
And, for the record, I saw Bill Clinton as another of the same, and bless Newt Gingrich and the congressional class of ’95 for reining him in. Nevertheless, you only need to consider Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg and hundreds of other Federal judges appointed by Clinton to understand the systemic damage he’s done to the country. Obama promises worse.
A which point, his motives really don’t matter, now, do they?
No, but understanding them makes it easier to predict what kind of President he’s likely to be, and make dispositive arguments against electing him.
(Hat tip: Instapundit.)