Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Deconstructing the Guilt By Association Tactic--Obama's Best Defense
An unappreciated reason that guilt by association tactics work is that the reasonable sounding accusers only imply a devastating criticism. And victims of this tactic tend to respond only to the stated, somewhat harmless accusation. I'll illustrate.
Regarding Obama's association with Wright, Hillary has only said, "I would have left the church." Obama then explains why he stayed in the church. The implied attack, that Obama is a closet black radical, too seldom is addressed.
Some swing voters are infected by this attack. The ones I know of are worried, but they too only repeat Hillary's charge, "Why didn't he leave that church; he should have." They seldom say, "Because he stayed in that church, he must be a closet black radical." They're not even thinking about the implied charge, but when I probe, they realize that it is a worry for them. That subliminal effect of guilt by association charges is what gives them their power.
Obama must offer this and other deconstructions of guilt by association tactics, as I've suggested in other posts. If he rose above the fray and began to lead us out of our vulnerability to guilt by association charges, he would once again dominate this election.
Comments (11)
There is a giant swarm of guilt-by-association tactics descending on American voters this week.
It is an all-out media blitz, coming from all directions.
When I've asked friends what the Rev. Wright issue means about Obama, they don't really have an answer. There's a bridge people don't easily cross between "he attended that church for 20 years" and what that implies.
I do think that those who press this as the issue that will finish Obama's candidacy, are furious it hasn't.
April 30, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
About right! Folks are tired it smell to much like rove and fellow travelers; the racial subtext will not work either other than on folks who would create it anyway.
April 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, among other reasons, is why I can not vote for Hillary Clinton. I won't even care if she finishes with more pledged delegates than Barack. At this point, on principle alone, I will not reward her for such reprehensible behavior.
Clinton trolls, spare me the rationalization that says the Republicans will only do the same. This isn't the GE. You've seen absolutely no other candidate, in either party's primary, sink so low against another candidate of their own party.
April 30, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spin all you want but Obama cannot credibly walk away from his pastor, friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor after 20 years as if doing so erases 20 years of history. In more convenient times Obama has written and often talked about Wright's role in his life. They are now tied together--Obama being shocked and Wright calling him a liar for political expediency.
They deserve each other and the Democratic party and nation deserve someone better than Obama as candidate and potential president. At this point, if the Democrats do go forward with Obama the Republicans won't need Rove to guide them to victory in the fall as the Democrats would be handing them the election on a silver platter.
Matthew
April 30, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I still haven't figured out what you were implying in a previous post when you commented on:
"Barack Obama putting his half-Black arm around a White supporter."
Sounds like you've got some big racial issues here, if it bothers you to see a bi-racial man having physical contact with a white woman. I like how you capitalize "Black" and "White", just like the Aryan Nation likes to do in its hate propaganda.
April 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, again, Matthew. Wow, you're on a roll today.
Everyday, husbands and wives credibly walk away from each other after 20 year marriages, or longer. As Bill is soon to find out when Hill loses the nomination.
April 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew:
It seems that you agree that having an association with someone means that they are guilty of being like that person. Mikel Gilmore, brother of serial killer, Gary Gilmore, might have a bone to pick with you. Mikel is a successful writer. There's no there there, Matthew, no specific concrete evidence that Obama is a closet black radical. Every feature of his history is allied with mainstream american politics. He taught constitutional law for 10 years at the U. of Chicago. The people who know him intimately say is saintly, amazingly good hearted and caring. I don't know where you get specific, concrete evidence that he's not a good capable guy.
April 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice try, Obamatrons. look, this is not "guilt by association" in the sense that some of us think Obama = Wright. this is yet another example of Obama's own lack of judgment--and THAT is what some of us worry about.
I don't for a minute believe that Obama holds the same distasteful views that Rev. Wright does. but I think it says volumes about the man that he thought of Wright as a "mentor" for lack of a better word.
McCain got an endorsement from the disgusting Rev. Hagee, and liberals are up in arms about that. but Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years...yet we're not allowed to question THAT?
and btw, Obama fans: if your guy does get the nomination, you will need us Hillary fans, so you might want to stop calling us all racists now. it isn't true, and it really isn't a very smart way to get our support.
May 1, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not always true that either someone shares another person's views on some issues or not. Sharing views involves sharing beliefs and what one believes in is determined--at least in part--by our actions. If I believe it is going to rain soon and I'm planning to go out, I take an umbrella with me (that's an action). There is no evidence that Obama has taken any actions that would lead us to believe that he actually believes what Reverend Wright says. At least not yet.
Someone however might be in a different situation than belief/non-belief. One could admire what the other person says yet not necessarily believe it. That might be the case with Obama vis-à-vis Wright. In any case to criticize Obama for maintaining a 20 year relationship with Wright does not necessarily imply that we think he shares the particular offensive beliefs that Wright seems to have. It might mean that he tolerated those views without giving those views much credence.
So why would he maintain a 20 year relationship with the reverend? My guess is that he actually liked the guy. That is he liked the guy not necessarily for having those particular (offensive) views, but for other reasons.
For one Rev. Wright was a political operator in the Southside of Chicago. It might have been an association Obama maintained merely to advance his political ambitions. May also be, that Wright is a fun guy to be around. I don't know.
The main point is that those of us who think that Obama's maintaining a 20 year relationship with the Rev constitutes at least an implicit toleration of the shady side of Wright are not wrong about that and we are not guilty of the fallacy of Guilt by Association. The fact of the matter is that Obama maintained a 20 year relationship with the guy. Whether he believed the offensive things that Wright preached or not is not the point of criticism. The point of criticism was put succinctly by Senator Clinton herself. When asked, she said "he would not have been my pastor". It was not politically expedient for one, but it might also constituted grounds for not associating with the guy regardless of how much fun he was to be around or any other reason. If he was trying to climb the ladder to becoming President of the United States, he should have--as a matter of expediency--not associated with the controversial pastor. By not having realizized that he shows a lack of judgment. He showed the same kind of lack of judgement with his association with Rezko.
What is NOT credible is to maintain that Obama was aware of the reverend’s views on these matters and that Obama was appalled by these views and yet maintained this association for all these years despite his being appalled. That is really one step over the line of supposition.
All you guys who want to say that Obama is clean as a whistle in his relationship with the Reverend can't really believe what you are saying. And if you do believe such a thing your mind is severely clouded by your uncritical ardor for Obama.
May 1, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary supporters who are worried about what Obama heard sitting in that pew for 20 years should really see/read the Call to Renewal speech he gave in 2006. This really embodies what he has learned being part of Rev Wright's church.
He was a guest speaker discussing the role of faith and politics. This is a topic which we dems usually shy away from for fear of getting preachy or offending anyone. This has left a huge swath of faithful Americans to have fallen prey to the GOP for so long.
But read/see it. These are the lessons that Barack took away from all those sermons, not the fiery tidbits that are playing in a continual loop on all the cable stations.
Video
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938
Transcript:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
May 2, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your article seems to be less about guilt by association, and more about associating Obama's problems with Hillary. Obama's problems with Wright began 20 years ago, and Wright was still a member of Obama's campaign until the "GD America" videos hit the media in March. Hillary has nothing to do with it. This one's all on Obama. If Obama and his supporters want to waste their time trying to turn this mess into Hillary's problem, fine with me.
May 2, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment