The list of objectionable figures — Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers,
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Father Michael Pfleger — surrounding
Barack Obama is growing. But the one who is the most infamous
garners the least attention: Louis Farrakhan.
Let’s admit that Obama does not agree
with Farrakhan that Judaism is a “gutter” or “dirty” religion and
finds his comments that whites are “blue eyed devils” and Jews are
“bloodsuckers” to be objectionable. When asked about Farrakhan in a
presidential debate Obama stated that he had been “very clear in my
denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think
that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”
But let’s conduct a 30-second thought experiment: If John McCain
went to a David Duke rally, belonged to a church which, through its
magazine, gave Duke an award and had close colleagues who
celebrated Duke’s achievements would McCain still be a presidential
candidate?
Time’s up. The reason for the obvious “no” is that we expect
presidential candidates to disassociate themselves from incendiary
characters without reservation, not immerse themselves in the stew
of their bigotry and hate.
Yet that is the cardinal failing of Obama when it came to
Farrakhan. He never took affirmative steps to reject Farrakhan and
halt Farrakhan’s influence in Obama’s community.
In a Chicago Reader profile on Obama, Hank De Zutter
writes that Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to
attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C. His
experiences there only reinforced his reasons for jumping into
politics.”
In fact, Obama told De Zutter: “What I saw was a powerful
demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to
come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place
in the society. There was a profound sense that African-American
men were ready to make a commitment to bring about change in our
communities and lives.”
THIS OCCURRED IN 1995, when Obama was no college kid, but rather a
candidate for state senate in his mid-30s. And the Million Man
March was no ordinary rally.
The Anti-Defamation League had pleaded with African American
leaders not to attend, citing not only Farrakhan’s role but that of
Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the New Black Panther Party, as
co-convener of the March. Shabazz had a long history of
anti-Semitic spewing as well, having told a university audience
that Jews bear special responsibility for the slave trade and
consider blacks to be “cursed.”
As A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times wrote at the
time, “To march with Louis Farrakhan in Washington is to strengthen
a man who leads a crusade against whites and for resegregation, to
march with his goon squads, to march with anti-Semites — to march
straight into that swamp of hatred.”
Yet into the swamp went Obama.
More recently in 2007, Trumpet magazine, the
publication of Obama’s Trinity United Church, presented Farrakhan
with its “Trumpeter Award” for someone who “truly epitomized
greatness.” In January 2008, the Washington Post’s Richard
Cohen pondered why it was that Obama could not muster any “outrage”
over the award.
Obama issued the most tepid of responses, saying that “I assume
that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor
Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it
is not a decision with which I agree.”
More telling than the lame humor (equating Farrakhan with the
“ex-offenders”) was Obama’s failure to remove himself at that point
from the church where Farrakhan was lionized. Obama instead
affected the passive role of a cynical observer, disclaiming any
responsibility for events swirling around him.
Farrakhan’s expression of support for Obama’s presidential
candidacy in February 2008 brought a nonchalant reaction from
Obama’s campaign the day before the presidential debate.
“Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister
Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the
minister’s support,” said his spokesman when asked about
Farrakhan’s support. Ho hum.
At the debate the next day when asked about Farrakhan’s
endorsement Obama seemed to harken back to his words of praise in
1995, saying, “He [Farrakhan] expressed pride in an
African-American who seems to be bringing the country
together.”
He then assured everyone that he had been an inert player in the
endorsement, saying, “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.”
After reiterating his denouncement of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism,
Obama got needled by Hillary Clinton, who piped up with a reminder
that she had rejected anti-Semites’ support in the past. Obama
pleaded, “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing
and rejecting.”
But he grudgingly offered: “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton
feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to
concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
FARRAKHAN’S CLOSE association with his mentor Wright may have
caused Obama to temper his reaction.
In the debate Tim Russert asked what Obama could do to reassure
Jewish voters in light of the fact that Obama’s pastor had “said
that Louis Farrakhan ‘epitomizes greatness.’ He said that he went
to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi
and that, when your political opponents found out about that,
quote, ‘your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in
Hell.’”
Obama did not respond directly to Russert’s description of the
Wright-Farrakhan relationship. Instead he reiterated his support
for the Jewish community. Obama could not bring himself to
criticize, let alone reject or denounce, the close relationship
between his mentor Wright and Farrakhan.
In all this Obama was a follower, not a leader, a compliant
figure observing the vile influences of Farrakhan seep into his
church and intoxicate those closest to him.
Even in retrospect Obama has never said that the Million Man
March was something he should have avoided, no matter how many
African-American men Farrakhan was bringing together. Likewise his
spiritual mentors’ infatuation with Farrakhan never provoked
concern or signaled to Obama that he needed new mentors.
While acknowledging that Obama may share few if any of
Farrakhan’s views, it is nevertheless reasonable to have expected
something more than passivity from the man who wants to be
president. It is a truism that “all that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” While Farrakhanism
triumphed in Trinity United, what did Obama do?
Obama did not run from the orbit of Farrakhan, but participated
and lingered in the “swamp of hatred” which Farrakhan spread.
Rather that abate Farrakhan’s ever-growing influence, he followed
the crowd — literally in the case of the Million Man March.
It is not clear why. We are left to wonder why he failed to
disentangle himself from Farrakhan’s tentacles. Whether it was poor
judgment, cowardice or a bizarrely high tolerance for hateful
figures, Obama’s inactivity is puzzling in the extreme.
And the excuse for that Obama has employed with Rezko and Wright
— that this is not the man he knew — is certainly not going to
fly on this one.
