JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 22, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Mitch McConnell is careful with his words, so this dog-whistle message to the far right during his "Meet the Press" appearance today is notable:
SEN. McCONNELL: The president says he's a--the president says he's a Christian, I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute.
MR. GREGORY: And do you think--how, how do you think it comes to be that this kind of misinformation gets spread around and prevails?
SEN. McCONNELL: I have no idea, but I take the president at his word.
To say that you "take him at his word" means two things. First of all, it suggests that the president's word is the only information we have to go on here. Of course, that is absurd. Second, if further suggests that, the evidence being weak or inconclusive, McConnell is taking the high road by accepting Obama's testimony.
The formulation is a way of putatively siding with the truth so that he can't be pilloried by the media, while subtly suggesting that he is open to the views of Americans who think Obama is Muslim. And, of course, if reporters recognize the sneaky little game he's playing and demand a stronger formulation, all the better! It gets more chatter about Obama and possibly being a Muslim into the news.
McCOnnell used the formulation twice. It's not an accident.
39 comments
"And Brutus is an honorable man...." Old, old move.
- dmillstone
August 22, 2010 at 4:51pm
I'd imagine the Secret Service can't be happy with any of this. They're going to stoke that base till it's flaming red hot because Obama landed a real progressive punch on them with health reform; they know well the dangers they're taking but either they don't care or think they can control it.
- IggyPop
August 22, 2010 at 5:15pm
Many so called progressives are part of the problem, IggyPop. To hear them whine about it, you would think Obama landed the health reform punch not on the GOP, but on the progressives themselves. As usual, they have been sulking and are dispirited, even threatening to sit out the mid-terms. Which, of course, unwittingly makes them allies of the Right. The president gets called a socialist by the crazed wingers, and the progressives call him a corporate tool. Go figure that one.
- scrubby
August 22, 2010 at 5:50pm
Your analysis is more or less accurate, scrubby, but progressive dissatisfaction with Obama has nothing to do with McConnell's sleazy behavior, or Iggy's comment for that matter. I would think a senator who is constantly tamping down rumors about his sexual orientation would be above this kind of thing. But then again, it's Mitch McConnell.
- W_Bombay
August 22, 2010 at 5:57pm
Even paranoids have enemies. Am I reading this wrong? What's not in dispute? That Obama is a Christian? That McConnell takes him at his word? Chait would not be satisfied unless McConnell had affirmatively repudiated any and all wackos in the Republican base. Both parties have small, but very visible contingents of wackos in their bases. To paraphrase LBJ, professional politicians like to keep their wacko supporters in the tent pissing out, rather than outside the tent pissing in.
- lsernoff
August 22, 2010 at 6:10pm
I agree, Woody, McConnell was sleazy in his interview. But Dems can't be too outraged here, it was Hillary, a big Dem, who did exactly the same two years ago.
- scrubby
August 22, 2010 at 6:12pm
scrubby, and Hillary got pounded for doing so. She did lose, after all. Of course Obama is a Christian. President Barack Obama called Reinhold Niebuhr his favorite philosopher and favorite theologian. How many Republicans out there know who Niebuhr even is? Or who can name any prominent Christian theologians of the 20th century (or any century)? Certainly McConnell used weaselly words, and if i asked him to start quoting any Christian theologians he would doubtless sputter, I doubt he would be happy if I just said, "Ok, I will take you at your word that you are a Christian.."
- blackton
August 22, 2010 at 6:55pm
Excellent comment, Bombay, old chap. Mitch 'The Bitch" McConnell is a slimy toad from way back.
- liberal reformer
August 22, 2010 at 7:21pm
I wonder what McConnell would say if asked "Who's your favorite philosopher and you're not allowed to answer "Jesus"?
- ironyroad
August 22, 2010 at 8:11pm
I wonder if McConnell is seeing the lesson of Bob Inglis here. He is in Kentucky and Rand Paul has loosened the forces of nuttiness. He is not up for re-election, but the prevailing wind in the GOP base is the FOX/talk radio paranoia.
- MikeB.
August 22, 2010 at 9:22pm
I am not sure if I am reading Mr. Chait correctly, but he has some doubts about the Honorable Mitch McConnell's sincerity in vouching for President Obama's religious affiliation. Is Mr. Chait calling for the President to release his Baptismal Certificate for scrutiny to prove his communion into the Christian faith?
- CRS9TNR
August 22, 2010 at 9:34pm
It's like when Bush said, "Intelligent Design" is just a different point of view and he doesn't see why alternate points of view should not be taught in the schools. The statement is fine if you don't think teaching scientific theory is an important part of the school system. A statement equivocating on the President's religion is fine if you think political discourse should be like a putrid sewer.
- Nusholtz
August 22, 2010 at 9:36pm
The Republicans are doing to Obama what they did to Clinton. Remember how they tried to insinuate that Vince Foster was murdered by the White House, or that Hilary was a lesbian? Clinton was such a great politician that he smacked them in the end anyway. I don't see Obama with the same gifts, his reelection in 2012 is in serious doubt. On the other hand, who are the Republicans going to nominate? Palin? Huckabee? Or do we get the Mormon candidate? That will put the nutjobs in a quandary. The right hates Obama because he got healthcare done over their dead bodies. Even if he loses in 2012, his place in history is secure.
- nayyer_ali
August 22, 2010 at 11:19pm
aside from the news today that the Democrats are suddenly promising to 'fix' that landmark Health Care Reform legislation... Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe Mitch McConnell believes what is so obvious? Obama is neither a Muslim nor a Christian. His mother was a secular humanist, and so is he. Really lame excuse that the Obamas do not want to disrupt churches in D.C. by actually attending one as a family on anything like a regular basis. Obama's biggest problem is that he lacks the cheery optimism of FDR. Stop complaining about how hard it is to be President, or resign and move to Norway already.
- K2K
August 22, 2010 at 11:47pm
- And I quote: "ok. if you do not understand me, ok. exiting Chait-world" - K2K Oh. I thought the EXIT was clearly marked. Someone call security, an unhappy visitor has been wandering around for a week. He's loster than hell and he can't get out.
- michaelg
August 23, 2010 at 10:17am
I don't understand what your problem is. We always take people at their word for the real representation of who they are. Look, I take McConnell on his word that his mother was not a horned-up she-goat. I take McCain on his word that he was not a Navy rent-boy. I had to take Cheney at his word that he was not the real inspiration for Dexter. I take Rumsfeld at his word that he does not torture kittens for fun. I take Palin at her word that she is not a syphillitic floozie. I take Levi at his word that he, Bristol and Todd did not do a "Levi Sandwich" when the Palin was out goring moose. I take each Republican at his or her word that he or she is a sentient human being. I take Anne Coulter at her word that she is not a tranny. Well, OK, not the last one, but you get my drift.
- icarusr
August 23, 2010 at 10:47am
K2K, please. Who is your favorite Christian theologian of the 20th century? Of course he is a Christian and the faith of his mother and father are utterly irrelevant. He lived with his grandparents from the ago of 10 on and they are the ones who took him to church on weekends. And for 2 of his 4 years in Indonesia his atheist mother sent him to a parochial school. I am sure the nuns there had no impact, right?
- blackton
August 23, 2010 at 10:57am
The truly nefarious way for McConnell to have responded would have been to repeat the falsehood in the course of denying it, since studies show that repetition of a falsehood increases perception of its accuracy. So a response more like, "The president says he's not a Muslim, and I take him at his word," would have more competently achieved the ends Chait (correctly, I believe) ascribes to McConnell.
- rhubarbs
August 23, 2010 at 11:01am
Quick, K2K, can you name the last president who regularly attended church services?
- W_Bombay
August 23, 2010 at 11:49am
I still say the in matters of intellect and association, BHO is America's first Jewish PResident
- NR027810
August 23, 2010 at 11:58am
- I think David Gregory is in over his head. On the website the encounter is billed:
Skipping whether his questions were "What issues really matter..." he was deferential, as if Mitch was a senile uncle. For weeks Gregory hasn't been able to land a glove on any Republican on the cost of tax cuts or specific spending targets. In a one on one match with these guys he should be able to mop up the floor with them. Even worse, he allows the non-accidents (Jonathan's words) to propagate while the GOP considers his outfit to be evil. What a wimp.- michaelg
August 23, 2010 at 12:15pm
Woody, would that be Carter? (I assume you mean public church services. Obama, like Bush the Lesser, attends regular private services at Camp David. Clinton and Bush the Elder I believe were not regulars at any service, and Reagan couldn't have found a church if you gave him a map, despite Bush the Lesser's maudlin, preachy eulogy.)
- rhubarbs
August 23, 2010 at 12:41pm
Rhubs, I thought Clinton made quite a public show of his church attendance, especially around Monica-time. I seem to recall a TNR article some years back that contrasted the religious fanatic W's absence of public church attendance with Clinton's very public attendance. On the subject at hand, can I ask Mitch McConnell if he eats children for breakfast and, when asked about it by someone else, say that "I take his word on it" that he does not?
- wildboy
August 23, 2010 at 2:00pm
Many of the real true believers who occupy the Republican base would not "take the President (or anybody else) at his (their) word." They would categorically exclude Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, many Lutherans, certainly members of the United Church of Christ or of, as a co-worker once put it, "any church which is a part of the National Council of Churches", from the ranks of true Christians. Coming from this perspective, McConnell's sleazy formulation is the height of generosity. That it also serves to impugn the President by implying that the truth is not knowable, is icing on the rhetorical cake.
- aduncanson
August 23, 2010 at 3:13pm
As far as I know, rhubarbs, that's right. Some of the others you mentioned would hit a public Easter or Christmas service now and again, and do Camp David, but Carter was the last regular church-goer (and before Carter, who knows?). And didn't right-wing Internet types recently brand Carter the Worst American Ever, or something like that? So. Actually, I wish K2K's theory about Obama was true. I think all elected officials should either be 1) secular humanists, or 2) able to demonstrate their religious beliefs won't interfere unduly with their public works. There is no place for religion in government and public policy because 1) the constitutionally mandated separation, and 2) involvement in government and public policy only cheapens religion. and faith. And finally (yes, finally!) -- McConnell's formulation is so sleazy and hackneyed that's been immortalized in one of the touchstones of recent Western culture, "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy." To wit: Ron Burgundy: I'm sure Wes here is just upset over finishing second in the ratings again. Wes Mantooth: Ooh! That's completely uncalled for, Burgundy. You know those rating systems are flawed. They don't take into account houses that have more than two television sets and other things of that nature. Burgundy: I guess I have to take you at your word, Number Two. You have a great day, fellas. We'll see you around the bend.
- W_Bombay
August 23, 2010 at 5:07pm
So secular humanists can have their beliefs and act on them but theists cannot? Sounds like a fair system to me, Dr. Bombay. My mentor, the late philosopher and nonbeliever, Richard Rorty, demonstrated how unnecessary the belief system of secular humanism is.
- liberal reformer
August 23, 2010 at 7:03pm
McConnell claims that he's not the product of a Moreauean experimental attempt to create a human-turtle hybrid, and I take him at his word.
- miceelf
August 23, 2010 at 8:24pm
The article is wrong. Nobody knows what Obama believed. He attended a Christian church when it was convenient, then disowned all the teachings of that church when it was convenient. There is simply no way to know what he really believes, if anything. My guess is that Obama's an atheist or an agnostic, or perhaps a deist. The most charitable thing would be to accept Obama at his word, but given his history with disowning the UCC that's tough to do.
- yukon
August 23, 2010 at 8:30pm
That is ridiculous, yukon. Barack Obama is certainly a theist. And he didn't disown a church, he disowned a pastor. Now, I was critical of Obama at this very website in 2008 for his statements about Jeremiah Wright and I thought his speech about it was not so great as many on the port side thought. But you are engaged in rank speculation here.
- liberal reformer
August 23, 2010 at 9:03pm
Yukon: "He attended a Christian church when it was convenient, then disowned all the teachings of that church when it was convenient." That is, at best, an acontextual statement infused with two unprovable suppositions and an unprovable generalization. Whether or not he attended the church or disowned it because it was "convenient" is your reading into the actions and minds of someone you cannot possibly know in person, unless you are the Reverend Wright himself. And so that part of your statement is just silly, if not maliciously mendacious. He attended, you noted "a" Christian church, and disavowed specific statements by "a" preacher (not all of the teachings of the Faith), though important; there is no evidence that he did not believe in the teachings of the the Faith - to be found not in the church, any church, but, if you know anything or protestantism, in the personal relationship with God, or that, when he left the particular church, he stopped believing in Christianity, or disowned any of its teaching (and not the rants of a pompous preacher). Whether the article is wrong or right, I don't know, but regardless of what Obama believes, in one sentence of yours, there are half a dozen logical problems. I would stop posting and start repenting, if I were you.
- icarusr
August 23, 2010 at 9:06pm
Mice - plus, the turtle has disowned him as a disgrace to the species.
- icarusr
August 23, 2010 at 9:07pm
Are you even familiar with Rorty's works, libref?
- W_Bombay
August 24, 2010 at 12:50am
What the hell is this, first the Virginia nebbish says I haven't read the books I have indeed read, and now you, Bombay? I have read and reread Richard Rorty; Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity I have read probably six times straight through, I have also given multiple readings to the first two volumes of his Philosophical Papers, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth and Essays on Heidegger And Others. The third volume, Truth And Progress, I have read a couple of times through, and some of the best essays in this volume I have read six or more times, such as the absolutely wonderful one on philosophical canon formation and the essay on the untenability of radical politics. I have read Philosophy as Cultural Politics (v. 4, PP) at least once through. I have digested Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature and I have read and reread Philosophy and Social Hope and I recommend to anyone who will listen this work's stunning essay on Martin Heidegger and how his life might have gone differently if he had divorced Elfride and married a Jewish girl and wound up in America. Also, that volume's piece on Umberto Eco is extremely fine, too, and Trotsky and the Wild Orchids is not to be missed. I blew through Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth Century America in 1998 or 1999 and absolutely loved it. Lastly, I had the great good fortune to talk with Richard Rorty on either February 4th or 5th of 2004 (I simply have forgotten the exact date). Professor Rorty said that is was very flattering to know that he had such an impact upon my life. If you would stop being a girly girl and boogie on over, you would see my Rorty volumes and their pride of place in my bookshelf in the dining room. What the hell is it with you dipsticks? I don't question whether you have read this or that book, not that reading does you any good anyway.
- liberal reformer
August 24, 2010 at 4:50am
I should point out that my turtle human hybrid comment came at 8:24 pm EDT, before the airing of last night's colbert report. And, no, I don't write for Colbert.
- miceelf
August 24, 2010 at 12:34pm
Right, but we don't showboat our reading and our acquaintance with writers like you do, lib ref. You may not mean to do it, but that's where the problem lies -- with diction and a sense of audience, one might say. I am very widely read (as are other dipsticks here), I teach literature for a living, and I have a large and diverse library. But those facts are not strictly relevant to discussions on these threads and don't in and of themselves give my arguments (except occasionally in matters of fact) any extra weight. Incidentally, I also admire "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity."
- ironyroad
August 24, 2010 at 12:35pm
I certainly do not think of you as a dipstick, irony, and I have so written. I regard your posts as among the best. So I am most puzzled by your remark. In the last fortnight I have been challenged twice as to whether I have read what I have indeed read. It has made me more than a little angry. Would you not take umbrage if you were so insulted? Mr. Professor of Literature, if someone out here accused you of not reading what you had read and you lit out after them and used an unflattering term, I would not adopt that term as if you were referring to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but your conduct here sure smacks of the clubbiness that I note and take down on a regular basis. I observed this clubbiness immediately after I arrived at this site in the spring of 2008. There is one standard of conduct for the cronies and the groupthinkers and another for the outsiders. What does this remind me of? ... wait, a high school clique and the Bush administration (second one).
- liberal reformer
August 24, 2010 at 12:57pm
Herewith some more thoughts on your last post, irony. I am in love with books and reading and i just love to share. But you wish to put the worst construction on it and call my way "showboating." Pretty sad for a teacher of literature. And, given that I read over 100 books a year all of the way through, if I were interested in "showboating", I certainly would mention what I read a lot more than I do. I have a very odd disability that came on when I was fifteen in 1969 that has tremendously changed my life and has gotten far worse over time. I never have driven and in the last couple of decades, going almost anywhere is problematic in the extreme because I can tolerate almost no motion. It is so strange a malady that trying to explain what it is and its effects to people is almost impossible. At its worst, my condition makes it hard for me to even read, but I am an extremely determined person. So my glories are books, magazines, ideas, writing, and conversation. I always want to draw people further into my world, not lord it over them. Squint hard at your texts, Professor Irony and you shall find pinched and narrow characters like yourself. You are a Madame Bovary in your provincialism and you seem to harbor a ressentiment that is redolent of Palinesque faux populists and is just bizarre emanating from a professor of literature. Not that you would know, but as much as I value the life of the mind, I value understanding and kindness and love far more and therefore I don't think that much of educated people, often. Sometimes, education and understanding come together and for a superb example, try reading (if you already haven't; and I know, more showboating) Recovering Your Story by Arnold Weinstein. Weinstein possesses the understanding that you manifestly lack.
- liberal reformer
August 24, 2010 at 1:19pm
"every girl I go out with becomes my mother in the end."
- miceelf
August 24, 2010 at 2:07pm
Well, lib ref, one revealing indicator might be that you begin by reassuring me I'm that "not a dipstick" and end by recommending a text to me by an author who "possesses the understanding that [I] manifestly lack." It doesn't, in some essential way, make sense. Is the author of the beginning of your response the same one who concludes it?
- ironyroad
August 24, 2010 at 3:40pm