Legal Commentary

I must confess that I simply do not understand the Reverend Wright ?controversy,? at least as it purports to say something about Barack Obama. Maybe I?m out of touch with ordinary, mainstream media pundits and political operatives. But, since when did a candidate become responsible for all the past statements and views of others to whom he or she is, or has been, connected?

Last night?s twenty-first Democratic debate featured two sets of questions directed to Obama about his associations: first, a re-run of the Rev. Wright affair, and second questions about his tenuous connections to a University of Illinois, Chicago professor who was a former member of the Weather Underground. When a person is a member of a candidate?s campaign, then I understand having to answer for their statements to some degree. Even then, when Samantha Power in an unguarded, off-the-record, moment called Hillary a monster, that did not mean that Obama would do the same, or holds the same opinion of Hillary. Nonetheless, it is appropriate for Prof. Power to resign to signal that her gaff does not reflect the views of Obama or his campaign as a whole.

But Rev. Wright does not speak for the campaign. He speaks for himself as pastor of a church. So why is Obama being held accountable?

My best guest is that this whole affair is a mask for suspicion of the black church, and therefore suspicion of Obama as a black man. Perhaps for many whites, black churches, having nurtured the civil rights movement, retain a level of suspicion. What political views do they express, or what social movement might they initiate? So when Rev. Wright provides political commentary on his view of the state of America, some white voters, and mainstream media pundits, are suspicious. Of what? That Obama is a black man, nurtured in a black church, who may hold views, and associate with people who hold views, that may be disruptive of some image of the proper social order (which also compels candidates to wear flag lapel pins, lest their patriotism be questioned). From last night?s debate, one would have little indication that Obama had given an extended speech that attempted to address many of these suppressed issues on race in an eloquent and authentic way. Nuance and understanding are erased so that Charles Gibson can repeat the questions about, and thereby insinuate the responsibility for, another person?s views.

But what kind of principle or rule does holding Obama responsible for the statements of his Pastor create? What is the scope of a candidate?s, or a person?s, responsibility for the views and actions of others with whom he or she associates? Apparently, the scope of this rule is quite expansive, since Stephanopoulos asked Obama to answer for his tenuous association with a former member of the Weather Underground. It appears that they both sat on the board of a charity together. Do we really want to hold candidates accountable for the views and actions of others with whom they have professional contact in this manner? This strikes me as patently absurd, and politically dangerous. It also sounds eerily similar to other guilt by association questions: are you, or have you ever been, associated with a member of the X party. (Or, imagine a similar line of questioning directed towards Sen. Clinton: Senator, as we all know your husband lied to the American people and lied under oath, are you willing to distance yourself from your husband, nay are you willing to repudiate him and his dishonesty? Such a question would be equally absurd.). Of course, we do learn something about a person by the friends he or she has. So I?m not suggesting that the company a candidate keeps is entirely irrelevant. The Rev. Wright affair, however, does seem to take such considerations to an entirely new level, especially given its connection to religious belief and practice. One's religious leader probably expresses many views with which one agrees, but many with which one does not. That is often the nature of religious practice.

One further thought. The new rule also makes all of us academic types infinitely suspicious too. We tend to associate with others who hold views with which we disagree, and we even like it. That must make us an awfully suspicious lot. Though I might like our intellectual disagreements, I don't want to have to answer for the views of others. It is difficult enough answering for my own.