One word could be blamed for the intellectual muddle that led to war in Iraq. The constant refrain of 2003 was: "support the troops." The word support was aptly chosen, of course, by the war party, as the poll question used the same word when asking whether Americans favored war: do you support the President's decision to go to war? Do you support the war? People supported the troops, so of course they supported the war.
Now the word support has a new job: do you repudiate (or reject!) the support of x? Colbert I King reports the following question (which he got from the Politico.com, but I can't find it there) asked of Hillary Clinton:
"But you criticized Obama for not rejecting the support of Farrakhan."
Here's Tim Russert badgering Obama about Louis Farrakhan's support:
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments. On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. [laughter] You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."
OBAMA: Tim, I think — I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. This is something that — I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, Audacity of Hope, you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Muammar Qaddafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."
What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically — it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign, and it's true in this presidency — is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was — just the last point I would make — when I was giving — had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.
BRIAN WILLIAMS (co-moderator): Senator —
CLINTON: Tim, I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
Even McCain has the same problem:
"Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.
"I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society."
This is all kind of dumb. One would expect a candidate to have enough self-confidence and independence to distinguish herself or himself from the views of every last voter. Besides, I wonder what the appropriate remedy is here. Does Obama have to beg Farrakhan to vote for someone else? Can't Obama (or McCain or Clinton) say: "I'm glad to have the votes of Hagee, Farrakhan or whomever, but they ought to know that I won't advance core aspects of their agenda?"? What does "reject support" even mean?
More fundamentally, if the implication is that the support of Hagee et alia means there's something Hagee-like (because birds of a feather. . . ), then why not just talk about the Hagee-like bits of McCain's view? That's more efficient.
Hi,
That may all be fine when you are a mainstream candidate with a broad base of support, however, for third tier candidates like Ron Paul, who sees significant portion of his support drawn from movements like 9/11 deniers and other groups of unsavoury reputation… does it then become a relevant question ?
I understand that this can be irrelevant when the said support is just a very small portion of your electorate, but does the principle still hold when it accounts for a significant portion of it ? Does one come at the risk to be defined by his supporters and if so, what is the appropriate response I wonder.
I think I’d agree with you on that Eric. I think that question however ought to be resolved by reference to the candidate’s actual views. If there is something Farrakhan-like about Obama’s views, then there’s an easy way to settle that–look at Obama’s views. It’s certainly a legitimate question. I just think there’s an easier way to resolve it.
I’ll use this meaning for "support" = to uphold or defend as valid or right How about this argument:1) Obama supports his pastor. 2) His pastor supports Farrakhan.Conclusion: Obama supports Farrakhan.Of course this will only be true if either Obama shares all his views with his pastor, or he shares his views with his pastor on those crucial issues. From what he said, however, Obama made it clear that he does not share the views of Farrakhan. Now the question I have is, why is Obama still a member at a church where the pastor is a supporter of someone with those radical views?
BN. Interesting point. But I’d say support in your sense isn’t transitive. Consider this. If you love some person x who loves some person y, do you love y?
I think you’re right. Sometimes it could be the reverse of transitive. I hate some person x who hates some person y, I probably love y :)Back to my argument, I guess I can reformulate it like this: 1) Obama upholds his pastor views in all things. 2) His pastor shares the views of Farrakhan. Conclusion: Obama upholds Farrakhan in his views. Now, this might be a valid argument; however, I would agree that it’s not sound. The first premise is probably false. It is, however, strange to have your pastor, your spiritual "leader" supporting a man like Farrakhan.
Good one about the hating–I don’t think your emoticon came through. Your revision of the argument seems reasonable, but, as you say, unsound. Obama does not agree with everything his Pastor believes.
In a more general sense, people we admire–or even support!–may have views we do not agree with. I admire much of Aristotle’s ideas. I don’t agree with his views on slavery, however. I admire Abe Lincoln, but I doubt I’d follow him in all things.
I think these arguments about Obama, however, are even sillier in the context of McCain and John Hagee. Hagee’s views about Catholics are obviously atrocious. McCain doesn’t seem to share them. That doesn’t seem to be a problem for anyone. Seems like they could make the same inference with regard to Obama.
I totally agree. The difference, however, is that the democratic fight has been so far one about details. Obama and Hillary have a lot in common. Therefore, all they have left is to play this rhetorical game, appeal to people’s emotions and/or fears.