The Legitimacy of the Obama and Ayers Discussion, Part 1

Just got back from running and wanted to post a few thoughts on political matters before I drop dead. Here goes.

On the question of whether it's appropriate for McCain and Palin to raise questions about Obama's "Ayers" connection. My answer is . . .

Most assuredly yes! Now, before I offer a rationale, let me make an initial observation. I completely understand how, because of the often-times acrimonious nature of politics, those who hear McCain and Palin's attack on Obama as "Palling around with terrorists" get turned off. There are likely several types of people who dislike these attacks:
1) Those who are democrats through and through and at heart just don't want their candidate to be "smeared" in this fashion.
2) Those who pay little attention to politics through disinterest or because of "partisan bickering."
3) Those who used to fall into camp 2 but now are more attracted to the political process because of the hope that Obama seems to hold out for "post-partisan" politics.
4) Neutrals who have investigated the evidence for anything more than a "passing" connection and have come away convinced that Obama's past in this regard is above repute.
5) Those who are Republicans and may think there is a serious connection to be investigated but take issue with the strident terminology in which the subject is broached.

[I, of course, tend more toward 5), but owing to a somewhat realist (cynical?) streak, have come to see politics as a hard-nosed contest. I have to give Obama credit in this respect--though he has had the sore Bush legacy as an ally--because he has managed to establish the national and media narrative for the race in such successful fashion that any serious investigation of his represents smear tactics and a desire for the old partisan bickering that Washington has come to represent and that people want to move past. He's done a great job of this and has taken the arrows out of McCain's quiver.]

Now, I think those who hold to position 1) can be fairly easily dismissed. If Tom Delay was running for president, you can bet that Democrats would be raising as an issue even the remotest of dangerous or rabid ideological acquaintances that he might have had in the past--and rightly so. Someone might say, though, that this is because of Delay's established reputation, he penchant for ideologicaly or power-hungry politics. Well, but that's precisely what is at issue here, one's actual
belief system and tendencies. We don't know much about Barak Obama other than his voting record in the Senate (which speaks against his own narrative). It's important where there is substantial indications of formative relationships and associations to investigate these.

Those who pay little attention to politics because of disinteredness 2a), I have little sympathy for. However, I do have sympathy for those who tend to be turned off because of the strident "dialogue" (2b and 3). Many of my friends fall into this category, as does my wife at times. A preliminary reminder to those new to political interestedness, however, is that there has never been a time in political history, either in this country or I suspect another, where such tones have not existed. In fact, things were much worse at the birth of our country. Duels and beatings occured among members of Congress and the executive branch, and politicians were outright branded traitors and worse on political posters, in newspapers, and on the streets. Politics were run by ruthless bosses who controlled how many on the street would vote (sounds like Ohio, huh?).

This is not to condone this behavior or to say we shouldn't strive for respectable dialogues, but instead to recognize that really important issues are at stake and sometimes the situation calls for serious and, yes, heated debate. Many of those who complain of McCain and Palin's attacks see it as evidence of desperation, to which I say, duh. Of course it is, precisely because they realize that they--and their ideas--are at stack now that polls show Obama solidly winning. It is poor logic, though, that draws the conclusion that such desperation therefore means the point is out of bounds. I will argue, that the Obama-Ayers connections is very much a necessary one to raise insofar as it goes directly to the issue of the narrative that Obama has himself established.

Now, it may be that camp 4) types may exist--those who consider themselves neutral and have thoroughly investigated the details and concluded that Obama has no significant connection to Obama. I think if most of us are honest, though, we would deny that pure neutrals exist at all. I certainly don't consider myself one and I don't ascribe this characterization to The New York Time (or The New York Post, for that matter). In the absence of neutrals, and the indisputable evidence that some relationship existed between the two men, it's only right if dialogue be had. And the dialogue should not stop with, as it might tend to, simply saying that Obama had ties with the terrorist Ayers. This gives rise to the slightly accurate claim of smear politics as well as the aversion by those who might otherwise be interested about knowing more. It must show, as in the court of law, relevance. And I will make a brief case for that in my next post.