Assessing Obama's judgmentism

By Peter Lemiska

Politicians love to play with words. Like attorneys defending guilty clients, many of them are absolute wizards at obscuring the obvious. They do it by spinning the facts and finessing alternative meanings from words we thought were pretty clear.

Take, for example, the word "patriotism." All along, most of us thought its meaning was fairly straightforward — pride in one's country.

So when Michelle Obama boldly proclaimed that she had never before in her adult life been proud of her country, it's understandable that patriotism might become an issue for the Obamas.

Of course the remark struck a nerve with most proud Americans, especially considering that it was spoken by an Ivy League-educated, highly successful attorney, and beneficiary of the best this country has to offer.

Barack, later called on his rhetorical skills to mitigate the damage to his campaign, characterizing his wife as "feisty," a clever and much more palatable term than unpatriotic or ungrateful.

But there were other factors that lead many to question Obama's feelings toward the country that gave him so much. There was, it seems, another feisty force in his life, his preacher, mentor, and confidant of 20 years, a man who has made a comfortable living condemning this country. Only after Reverend Wright's remarks were exposed, did Obama distance himself from his preacher, claiming that he somehow missed those inflammatory remarks throughout all those years.

And Obama's well-established, but somewhat vague relationship with 1960s homegrown terrorist William Ayers may never be fully understood, but it raises serious questions among many voters.

Then there is the palpable anti-American undercurrent permeating Obama's campaign. It surfaced last May when he suggested to a crowd in Oregon that Americans use more energy than they have a right to, and again in July when he told a group in Georgia that Americans need to learn Spanish to accommodate immigrants who won't learn English. There was also his revealing comment about bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion, and his suggestion that Russia's invasion of a democratic neighbor mirrored America's action in Iraq. And in July, this "citizen if the world" spent far more time pandering to Socialist Europe than extolling America's virtues during his campaign stop in Berlin.

But now Senator Obama needs another strategy to appeal to mainstream America. So, reminiscent of the 1992 campaign, when Bill Clinton convinced so many voters to dismiss his character flaws as irrelevant, Obama indignantly rails against what he calls personal attacks on his patriotism, and tells us we need to focus on the "issues."

Well, patriotism is an issue in the minds of many. Those who still fail to grasp its meaning or importance probably never will. But the rest of us would like to think that our leaders will always put country first, and that any changes they envision would be in the best interest of the nation and would never weaken those basic tenets established by our Founding Fathers. We can only have those assurances if we elect leaders who are driven by love of country, not lust for power.

Now in this era of political correctness, Obama's opponents seem reluctant, almost fearful of publicly questioning his patriotism. Though they rightly continue to raise the issue, they are careful to avoid any reference to the "p" word. So when they talk about those questionable associations, and his underlying theme of American culpability for everything that's wrong in the world, they're careful to use the disclaimer that they are not criticizing his patriotism, only his judgment.

After all, no one would argue that that particular quality is beyond scrutiny, and since he has demonstrated some breathtaking lapses in judgment, there is good reason to look more closely at Obama's. For example, there was his diplomatic faux pas during the debates, when he publicly pledged that, as president, he would neutralize terrorist leaders wherever they hid, even if it meant violating an ally's sovereignty. Likewise, his proclamation that he would negotiate with any despot without preconditions, and his undisputed opposition to the surge and unwillingness to acknowledge its success, all raise questions about his judgment.

But, in the end, his critics are free to call it whatever they want. Most Americans understand the difference between judgment and patriotism, and they expect both in the man they elect to the highest office in the land. More than that, they have a right and an obligation to examine both, along with all the other issues important to this country.

Everyone knows by now that Obama is an inspirational speaker. When he addressed the delegates at the Democratic convention, he also had to convince voters throughout the country that he has the character, capability, and judgment to be president. And, yes, he had to convince them that he is proud of his country. He and Michelle said all the right things during the convention, and they said them eloquently. But how much does a carefully scripted speech reveal about the speaker? And which words were more honest, those that denigrate Americans as greedy, intolerant warmongers, or those spoken in Denver, the ones that were meticulously crafted, well rehearsed, and read from a teleprompter?

Voters will decide in November.

© Peter Lemiska