Jeremiah Wright and the Democrats
By
Richard W.
Crockett
Lanny Davis, a Clinton operative,
appeared on CNNÕs Larry King live Monday night and tried his best to link the
ÒwaywardÓ Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Senator Barak ObamaÕs bid for the
presidency. He repeatedly
expressed his disappointment that Obama had not more forcefully repudiated the
minister. Wright is, of course, as
everybody in the country knows by now, ObamaÕs former pastor at a Chicago
Church of Christ congregation. This is a Christian church. (This is going on by the way while
others are trying to tear down Obama by making him out to be a Muslim.) Why do political campaigns ask their
opponents to repudiate this or that person for remarks they made or views they
hold? Because it is understood that the act of repudiation does more than
simply isolate the controversial associate; it potentially alienates other
voters as well. For an opposing
campaign or a swift boat operation, the sequence involves first making the
association by declaring it to be so, and then requiring the targeted person to
repudiate the contagious associate.
Failure to do so is Òguilt by association,Ó a practice widely denounced
by liberals during the McCarthy era of the 1950Õs. CNN, itself, has gone out of
its way to make the connection between Obama and Wright, Òswift boat
television.Ó It gave the Chicago minister complete coverage of his presentation
before the national Press Club on Monday, which lasted at least an hour. I am not aware that CNN has given an
equal amount of time to either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton at a single
time. CNN followed this
presentation with back-to-back replays of snippets of the ReverendÕs most
vulnerable remarks all day long and especially those that could be made to
appear most controversial by truncating them. It then devoted entire segments
of programming to the pumped up controversy on Larry King and Anderson CooperÕs
tabloid ÒnewsÓ and interview programs. The temptation for the Clinton campaign
is irresistible right before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. If they can just take advantage of this
and bring Obama down a notch, then Hillary can win the nomination and then the
Presidency. But not so fast
Senator Clinton. It may not work out that way. These tactics can be characterized as a Òcampaign of
doubt.Ó A campaign of doubt tries
to create ÒdoubtÓ about Obama among the general public, but such a tactic could
backfire against Clinton in the general election because it may be offensive to
ObamaÕs most loyal supporters, and its affects cannot be easily undone. Also the tactic makes use of
Òwedge issues,Ó aimed at driving a wedge between Obama and white voters. But the tactic may end up driving a
wedge between any Democratic candidate and Black voters. These tactics will
appear to many voters, especially African Americans, as a violation of the
rules of the game, the very definition of rancorous conflict. Ironically it has
the potential making Jeremiah Wrights proclamations appear prophetic and his
liberation theology appear profound.
It does so because it proclaims one part of the aspiration of Black
America as an illegitimate thing for a people to ask for, especially when the
thing in question is the possibility of the first elected African American
president. And it effectively ends
the reign of Bill Clinton, as he liked to say, as Òthe first Black American
President.Ó
With the appearance of stealing the
Democratic nomination through tearing down Barak Obama with a time worn
technique of Òguilt by association,Ó associating Jeremiah WrightÕs strident
opinions with Barak Obama, the Clinton campaign will have alienated African
American voters. This is clumsily
playing the race card against a black candidate who, himself, tried to downplay
race and unify American voters.
Moreover, Senator Clinton may be required to repudiate Reverend Jeremiah
Wright by John McCain in the general election, if the Clinton campaign has not
already given the appearance of having done so, should Senator Clinton happen
to win the Democratic party nomination, even if by exploiting the Wright
controversy. All McCain has to do
is repeatedly ask, and if he is persistent enough, and Senator Clinton refuses
in order to re-acquire black support, Senator Clinton will also be linked to
his so-called controversial positions. Why would McCain do this? As a tactic, nothing more. And if Senator ClintonÕs operatives
think that you can repudiate WrightÕs views without further opening a wound
that estranges African American voters from the Democratic Party for years to
come, they have demonstrated incredible short sightedness. But then, very
bright people frequently have blind spots—Bill did.
If it appears that the party
nomination went to any candidate by a violation of the Òrules of the game,Ó
that the nomination appears to have been stolen, or obtained by illegitimate
means, it could lead to rancorous conflict not merely within our party, but
within the country. That divide would be between black and white voters. The
partyÕs nomination would be of little use to Senator Clinton, or any other
Democrat, in this election, and moreover, that wound would not be healed for
any Democrat, especially Clinton four years from now. And alas, America would be consigned to a continued reign of
corporate elites and vested interest politics, sending America, including poor
working class Republicans and Black Americans, spiraling downward into the
political abyss.