Reign in Hell

Daniel Larison answers a question I asked:

I think they might have avoided mentioning how beautiful Obama finds the Islamic call to prayer, I think they might have eschewed ever referring to his middle name, and I think they could have worked much more strenuously to stress how embarrassingly “pro-Israel” Obama’s positions on Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and the like have been. I take it for granted that his admirers and supporters want him to win, and I assume they are savvy enough to understand that imputing sympathy with Muslims is exactly what Obama’s opponents want people to believe about him, so I have never understood why they have been so keen to talk about those aspects of his life and family history that separate him from most Americans’ experience.

I think this reveals a few things about the two major parties, their approach to campaigning and the American public. Obama’s appeal to the rest of the world and his engagement with the outside world on a level deeper than “USA #1” sloganeering isn’t a bug, it’s a feature for progressives. The idea that the Obama campaign should have actively tried to hide that to appease a group of bigots who are unlikely to vote for him is absurd. As someone who currently lives outside the US, I can say that people here in Eastern Europe are much more excited about Obama than McCain – and with good reason. Obama at least gives the rest of the world the courtesy of pretending that they have cultures worthy of respect. And as a side note, I live close to a mosque, and the call to prayer is beautiful. If Obama loses the election because of people and attitudes like the ones Daniel discusses, it doesn’t have anything to do with Obama and his supporters.

In campaigning, Democratic candidates tend to be more principled than Republicans. (“Republicans,” as opposed to “conservatives”) Look at the campaigns this year. Democrats are always knocked for being weak and on the defensive, because Republicans are more than happy to lie, slander and play political hardball. This is often presented as an admirable trait. When progressives say they like Obama in part because he has an understanding of and even an appreciation for Muslim culture it’s not because we think that it’s going to help Obama get elected. It’s because that’s what we think. The idea of hiding that because it would make Obama more electable is absurd and distasteful to me. Now, could this cause Obama to lose the election? I suppose. I think that would be a real tragedy for the country. But I would much, much prefer that Obama and his supporters run a campaign where they don’t try and pull a white curtain across their candidate’s problematic characteristics.

I don’t think that the Democrats are the holders of all good thoughts, or that the Republicans are simply cynical power addicts (I think they’re much more than just simple cynical power addicts), but clearly they don’t have a problem with naked cynicism when it suits their purposes. Progressives have only recently had much say in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Up until Bush, most progressives were content to say, “I’m taking my ball and going home” when candidates didn’t carry through on promises (see Nader, Ralph). Evangelicals are much more closely tied to their party’s powerbase and are hence much more reluctant to leave the coalition, even though it’s not as if the GOP has ever followed through on all those sweet nothings they whispered into Christians’ ears before taking advantage of them.

What it comes down to is: where progressives see a qualification, others see a liability. What is disgusting about the whole thing – even more than the thought that people would not vote for a candidate who is not Muslim based on how they feel about Islamic culture – is the fact that there are people out there willing to take advantage of those people to gain power. I think we already know that quite a few Republicans are familiar with Milton.