Word Games
1 May 2008
–by Mike Murray
Barack Obama launched his campaign for the presidency in Illinois, the “land of Lincoln.” Evoking the memory of Honest Abe was a deliberate act; Obama aimed to create a connection between himself and – quite possibly – the most beloved figure in American History. Certainly, Lincoln is among our most cherished presidents.
Employing lofty rhetoric (much of it borrowed, without attribution), Obama has sought to win over the masses with uplifting turns of phrase. And, to be sure, many people have been inspired. Moved, even. Countless members of the mainstream media likewise have swooned. Several reporters and television talking heads have owned up to being wowed, one saying that listening to Barack imparts a “tingling” in his leg.
Still other members of the news and entertainment media reveal that it is difficult for them to remain objective after witnessing America’s latest sensation, after experiencing first-hand the rapture that attends Obama happenings.
But a few intrepid media types have proven immune to the hysteria. Those sober souls have repeatedly asked, “Where’s the beef?” They demand more than pretty prose. They aren’t satisfied by vague slogans such as “yes we can,” and “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.”
They want Obama to explain, in some detail, his policy positions. They require examples of his contention that he is a new kind of politician, a non-partisan collaborator. An examination of his record – both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois state legislature – reveals no such thing. To the contrary, Obama earned a rating in 2007 as the Senate’s most liberal member. That’s hardly proof of any willingness to work with those on the “other side” of the political aisle.
When pushed to go beyond vague platitudes, Obama becomes indignant. He challenges his critics by asking: Were the declarations of our nation’s Founding Fathers “just words?” (Another rhetorical device, by the way, that Barack appropriated from someone else.)
Editorial writers at newspapers that have endorsed Obama routinely leap to his defense. They have provided the political cover that has enabled Barack to coast for so long. No doubt about it, Barack has been cruising. He has been clipping along at a brisk pace, piling up primary and caucus wins.
But an ill wind eventually began to blow, in the form of Obama’s 20-year spiritual mentor: Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. When video of Rev. Wright’s pulpit rantings finally hit the Internet, the doo-doo hit the fan. Wright’s fiery, false, and divisive accusations put Obama’s White House ambition in jeopardy. How, many wanted to know, could a self-proclaimed racial healer like Obama have for so long taken spiritual guidance from a race-baiter like Wright?
No problem. Obama gave a speech. You recall the one. The one that was hailed by the media as the defining statement on race relations in America. It is no surprise that Obama sought to extricate himself from trouble by doing what he does best: resorting to words – some his, some other people’s.
Praise from a mostly fawning media followed, and Obama resumed his smooth sail. But as it had before, misfortune again visited. The sky turned dark, the sea angry. The SS Obama once more found itself in rough chop, this time thanks to the Huffington Post’s publication of comments that Barack made at a San Francisco fundraising event.
Words did not serve Obama well that day. Holding court at an event attended by millionaires (and hosted by a billionaire), Barack really stepped in it. When asked by the Left Coast fat cats why he wasn’t leading in surveys heading into Pennsylvania’s primary, Obama stuck his foot firmly in his mouth. Unaware that there was a recording device in the room, he spoke candidly.
Obama said that people in small towns are “bitter.” And that they “cling” to religion and guns.
Although the utterance played well in the room, to most Americans it seemed aloof, snotty. But Obama denigrated rural folk still more, in my judgment, when he further accused them of being “anti-immigrant,” and of having “antipathy” for those who “look different.” There is only one way to interpret those remarks: Barack Obama had accused white folks who don’t support his candidacy of nothing less than bigotry. Racism.
Many seized on the “bitter” characterization. Others, the hint of elitism. And still others, the guns and religion insult. But for me, the ridiculous charge of prejudice rankled most. (An Obama campaign official later expanded on that absurd notion, telling members of the media that those who “would never vote for an African American are probably already supporting John McCain.”
Got it? If you’re white and you don’t favor Barack Obama, you’re racist. Especially if you live in a small town, attend church, and own a gun.
The fallout from the “bitter” comments was swift. The progress that Obama had been making in Pennsylvania ground to a screeching halt. Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers stabilized, then rose. Obama’s fell. Coming from a 20-point deficit only a month or two earlier, Obama had been slowing closing the gap. But that all ended when he spoke those disturbing words.
Predictably, the media again came to Barack’s defense. Editorials (such as the one that ran in the Cleveland Plain Dealer) instructed the electorate to ignore meaningless words. Actions are what count, the print media declared. Now that’s chutzpah! Newspapers – whose very stock in trade is, after all, words – encouraging its readers to ignore words. (If we all took that advice, the print media would soon be completely out of business – rather than merely in decline.)
For Obama, more trouble followed. There were the damaging comments of William Ayers, a member of the now-defunct Weather Underground. As a member of the Weathermen, Ayers bombed several government facilities. Police deaths followed one such explosion set by the domestic terrorist group.
Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama – in Ayers’ own home – that marked Barack’s official foray into politics. Obama has lately said that he shouldn’t be held accountable for something that Ayers did “when I was only 8 years old.”
Nice try. But that’s not what voters are concerned about. What worries them is that – when Obama was an adult running for political office (and, therefore, plenty old enough to know better) – he embraced an unrepentant terrorist. To this day, Ayers says he wishes that he’d “done more.” And still, Barack maintains a “friendly” relationship with him.
What voters are concerned about is a potential president – a person sworn to defend America “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” – who counts among his friends a man like Ayers.
As if all that weren’t enough, more inane statements have lately been issued by Jeremiah Wright. During a recent National Press Club speech, Wright expanded upon many of his most outrageous accusations. Among them: that the U.S. government developed and spread the AIDS virus in a deliberate attempt to kill African Americans.
After a day of pussyfooting (and of claiming that the media was exaggerating the offensiveness of Wright’s remarks), Obama woke up and smelled the electoral coffee. Finally, he renounced Wright in strong terms.
The media took its cue. The following day, newspapers (Cleveland’s PD among them), reversed gears. After weeks of running pieces intended to soften Jeremiah Wright’s image, usually by quoting other black ministers who support him, they attacked. After Obama’s words turned harsh with respect to Jeremiah Wright, the media’s did, too.
Barack Obama is playing word games with us. It is clear that he has been, all along. He uses vacant, if pithy, phrases to wow the faithful. And when skeptics complain about the lack of substance behind his rhetoric, he scolds.
Conversely, when his words and the words of those close to him don’t play well, he demands that we ignore them. He says a great many things, he informs us. And sometimes he gets things wrong. At those times when he does, he asserts that critics “make too much” of his words.
For Barack Obama and his supporters, prose is often everything. But every now and then, words are meaningless. Trust them, they demand, to tell you in every instance which condition applies. A soaring campaign speech? Those words matter. A defensive lecture designed to deflect criticism? Those words matter, too. But words that don’t work well, ones that wind up doing his candidacy harm? Those ones are inconsequential; forget you ever heard them.
It seems obvious that when Barack Obama began his campaign, he believed himself capable of talking his way into the White House. But he must now realize that words – as do deeds – eventually “come home to roost.” Obama cannot pick and choose the parts of his background that the voting public is allowed to evaluate in determining his suitability for the highest elective office in the land.
Neither can he dictate which of his words we are permitted to consider.
Copyright © 2008 Michael F. Murray All rights reserved.
