Dishonorable strategies for casting doubt on president's faith and citizenship
President Obama’s faith and citizenship have been the subject of doubt and speculation. Was he born in Hawaii? Is he a Christian? Or is he really part of an Islamic sleeper cell, planted to take over our government and destroy the American way of life.
Many notable Republicans have been too cute by half when responding to questions about President Obama. Senator McConnell, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and even gubernatorial candidates like Terry Branstad are using a similar format for their response.
Senator McConnell, for example, said, “I have no idea (if the president is a Christian), but I take the president at his word.” Of course, there is actual evidence about the Christian church Obama attended for many years in Chicago. But there is no direct observation of what a person thinks, so Senator McConnell says he accepts the president’s word without referring to the supporting evidence.
About the president’s birthplace, other Republicans have said, well, they haven’t seen his birth certificate (though the certificate of live birth is widely available on the internet), but they say they take him at his word that he was born in Hawaii.
Taking someone’s word about his memory of where he was born is particularly odd because who among us has a conscious memory of where he or she was born? Did we come out of the womb singing New York, New York or Kansas City, here I come? How would the president know where he was born except with what he was told and the documents he has?
So why would we even consider taking the president’s word alone on this issue. And wouldn’t any elected official who has genuine doubt that the president is a legitimate citizen eligible to be president have an affirmative duty to join in litigation to settle the matter and protect the constitution? Why the nuanced implications of doubt.
The verbal strategies being used by Republicans have the appearance of being part of a coordinated strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the president and to cast doubt on his faith to separate him from Christian Americans.
Republicans say there is no coordinated effort to undermine the president. If I say I take them at their word, am I not really implying that I don’t? Isn’t it better just to state one’s belief, even in the absence of clear evidence?
The Republicans’ technique can be used in lots of ways.
For example, I saw Haley Barbour in an interview in which he said that his generation was truly post-racial and he was not opposed to President Obama because of race. He said he went to college with blacks and “never thought a thing about it.”
In the mid 1960’s. In Mississippi.
Well, there are actual facts about the number of black people in college at the University of Mississippi in the 1960’s. But if I just say, “I take Mr. Barbour at his word that he’s not a racist,” don’t I just imply that he is? (For the record, I don’t think Mr. Barbour is consciously racist, but I think he doesn’t recognize some of his hidden prejudices. Hey, I’m a psychologist. What would you expect me to think?)
Or take Mitt Romney. He says the health care bill he engineered in Massachusetts is really different from the health care bill Democrats just passed.
I’m pretty sure it’s not so different, but if I take Mr. Romney at his word that he thinks the bills are really different, wouldn’t I imply that I’m wondering what planet he’s really from? (For the record, I do not think Mr. Romney is from another planet. Yes, I think he is, at best, being misleading when he denies the similarity between his health care bill and the Democrats’ bill. And I think he knows it. But how could I ever prove it.)
When I was a kid, we used a technique not unlike the Republicans’ “I’ll take him at his word” strategy. Here’s how it went.
If my friend told a whopper, a preposterous tale, I would demand the proof. For example, my friend Jimmy might say he saw a seven foot tall bear in the woods behind his house.
Well, I knew Jimmy to tell tall tall tales to get attention. But I couldn’t easily prove he didn’t see a seven foot tall bear. So I’d say, “OK, Jimmy, whatever you say.” The comment loaded with sarcasm, my true feelings were not disguised at all.
But sometimes there was no way to get facts and the matter was important. If Jimmy said he saw water moccasins in the pond we always swam in, I wouldn’t say, “I’ll take you at your word” or “You’re a liar.” I’d ask Jimmy for details about what he saw, and I’d go to the encyclopedia (because we didn’t have the internet then) to see if water moccasins live in Missouri.
Funny thing. It turns out that some people say there are water moccasins in Missouri and others don’t. Personally, I’m a believer. Sometimes the truth is ambiguous. But I’d try to draw a conclusion based on the evidence I could find. I like my venomous snakes at a distance.
But here’s the other thing. If my friend Jimmy said he was a Christian, would I reply, “Whatever you say, Jimmy” or “I’ll take you at your word.” Would I imply disbelief in his sincerity? Or would I compare his statements with his actions. In the end, whatever people label themselves isn’t as important as what they do.
Except with regard to whether the president is a natural born citizen. This label matters, and doubters have the obligation to pursue it in court and not slime themselves with insinuation.
Poisoning the well by trying to cast doubt on another person’s authenticity is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do unless you’re willing to stand up and show the evidence.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Comments