Posted by Jed Lewison on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 4:54 AM Pacific

Ravings of a diseased mind: National Review contributor calls pastor's relationship to Obama family "incestuous"

Victor Davis Hanson writing for the National Review Online:

And it won’t do to suggest that such worry is “guilt by association” or that Rev. Wright is analogous to other controversial religious figures endorsing other candidates. Wright baptized the Obama children; Obama belongs to and attends his church and has listened in the past without objection to these extremist sermons; and he took his “Audacity of Hope” book title from a Wright lecture. In that
incestuous context
, Obama’s weak disclaimer, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial, " is as disingenuous and ‘old politics’ as they come.

Hanson wasn't just talking about Barack Obama -- he was also talking Barack Obama's family, including Obama's young children. And that's really what is so disturbing about Hanson's choice of the phrase "incestuous context." Most normal people would never dream of using such vulgar sexual imagery to make their point, especially when kids are concerned. (And what is an "incestuous context" anyway? What exactly was going through Hanson's mind when he chose to use those words?)

It was totally inappropriate, and sadly typical of the types of attacks that continue throughout this campaign.

The current wave of attacks against Barack Obama focus on the left-of-center political ideology espoused by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The video of Wright is so gripping that it is easy to forget that he is not now -- nor was he ever -- Barack Obama's chief political strategist or adviser. Still, the attacks focus on Wright's political views, the implication being that as a member of Wright's congregation (before Wright retired), Obama must share those same views.

Of course, that is blatantly illogical. Many are troubled by Wright's political views, some with good reason -- but they are not Barack Obama's political views and any implication to the contrary is no different than a deliberate effort to mislead.

If David Axelrod or Susan Rice or someone else in a political position in Barack Obama's organization were espousing the same ideas as Jeremiah Wright, it would be one thing. But this is not that thing.

Obama's relationship with his pastor is primarily a personal one -- a private one. It isn't a political one. Wright isn't a campaign staffer or a lead adviser. He does, however, have a role on one mostly honorary committee. Perhaps that formal relationship with the campaign should be severed, just to make it absolutely clear that Jeremiah Wright's political ideology is not fair game for the political attack machine.

But even if it were fair game, Jeremiah Wright's political ideology is clearly not the same as Barack Obama's. Even a five year-old can see that.

There really isn't anything for Obama -- or any of us -- to get defensive about. This is, after all, just politics. That's why you're seeing more and more vulgar words used to describe Barack Obama, just like the one Victor Davis Hanson used. Right-wing scribes like Hanson are no more concerned about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright than they are about John Hagee or Rod Parsley and John McCain. (Hagee and Parsley are the radical right-wing pastors who have thrown their political muscle behind McCain's candidacy.)

They just see an issue that they think will help them stay in power. So they keep on hammering away at it in an attempt to form a campaign narrative. You can find 28 pages on nationalreview.com about Obama and Wright. There's only seven about McCain and Hagee, and you can't find a single one about McCain and Parsley.

It's true that there's an important difference between the McCain-Hagee and McCain-Parsley relationships and the Obama-Wright relationship.

The difference is that the former are political relationships. The latter is a personal, religious relationship.

McCain actively sought the political endorsement of these two right-wing radicals. Politics is about deals, and given the radical ideology of Hagee and Parsley, the public deserves to know what McCain offered to those two powerful men in exchange for their support.

In contrast, anyone who argues that Wright has anywhere near the power of Hagee and Parsley is a staggering, monumental idiot. Indeed, for the most part Barack Obama has every right to expect that his relationship with Wright should remain private. Yes, it's reasonable to explore the ways in which Wright may have shaped Obama's views, but that is not at all what is happening in the media right now.

The media is now exploiting the shock value of some compelling video, whether or not that video has anything at all to do with the presidential campaign. It's actually very irresponsible. I know their medium thrives on images such as the ones on that video, but what I fear is happening is that the media is allowing the demands of their medium to control the public debate.

That doesn't do anyone any good -- except television commercial salesmen.

Jeremiah Wright's political ideology is all but irrelevant to this campaign. It might be an interesting topic in the abstract, but it reveals little or nothing about the Obama campaign. Even if it did, however, at worst, Wright is an example of an outdated form of identity politics. The fact that he is retired is consistent with that. His impact on politics is dwarfed by that of Geraldine Ferraro and he's no more a terrorist sympathizer than was Ron Paul.

Yet despite all the accusations thrown Jeremiah Wright's way, he has never been accused of being a violent warmonger -- as have both John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

And the key difference between Wright and those two is that Hagee and Parsley engaged in a political relationship with John McCain that is relevant to the public trust.

Jeremiah Wright hasn't.

Barack Obama didn't attend his church to study political philosophy -- he went to Columbia and Harvard for that, and he applied those ideas as a community organizer and elected official.

Indeed, Obama attended church for the same reason as anyone else who attends church -- to worship. That's one thing that I'm not going to judge him on, or anybody else for that matter -- so long as they respect my right to worship however I please, if at all.

There's a reason that our Constitution contains the following text:

No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So far, Victor Davis Hanson and his conservative colleagues have not shown any respect for the principle that gave rise to those words. That's a shame -- but it's not too late for them. They've still got time to show some respect for what made America great: our Constitution.