First, let's remember that Republican political operatives consider competitors to be opponents and opponents exist to be destroyed.
Secondly, consistent with this atavistic attitude, Republicans go for the opponent's strengths, relying on surprise to weaken the attributes the opponent relies on most. That's why, for example, the Bush II people called into question John Kerry's heroic service in the Vietnam War. That military service was also an area in which their candidate was particularly lacking was lagniappe. Even if Kerry's reputation was not effectively undermined, military service was neutralized as an issue, for all intents and purposes.
Thirdly, we need to take note of the fact that conservatives, perhaps because they are instinct-driven, operate by indirection and deception and have an ulterior motive for everything they do. Their habit of triangulation is part of it. In addition to ulterior motives, they rely on third parties as patsies or henchmen.
So, how does the Reverent Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. fit into these considerations? More important, why was it necessary that he be neutralized when Barack Obama was seeking to be elected President of the United States?
Let me start off by noting that the Rev. Wright did not do himself any favors with his subsequent grand-standing and attraction to the limelight. However, the kerfuffle, as I see it, was never about him. Rev. Wright represented certain of Barack Obama's strengths and by attacking the Reverend, some of those strengths were taken off the table, so to speak. Worse, not only was Barack Obama's commitment to Christian teaching and ethics undermined by calling the role of his mentor into question, but the tactic effectively took religious principles and behaviors out of the agenda.
Of course, it also enabled the specter of the Islamic religion to be raised as a menace, instead of the evolution of Christianity that Islam, like Protestantism, is. But, the greatest detriment lay, and continues to be significant, in removing the ethical basis for government from the discussion by people who care very much about that. What sincere Christians care most about was effectively removed from the political arena by targeting and silencing one of their main messengers. For, the silencing of Reverend Wright had the effect of silencing other religious voices, as well.
And the outfall from that continues, not in the fact that the current Republican presumptive nominee's Mormon religion has been declared taboo as a discussion topic, but in the fact that ethical principles and even the lessons contained in the Bible are being ignored, as if they had no relevance.
So, while there has been some mention of Willard Romney's history of half-truths and mendacity rendering him untrustworthy, nobody's pointing out that the New Testament identified the untrustworthy steward and what to do about him two thousand years ago. That forgiving the debts of his master's debtors was an underhanded, if logical, stratagem way back when and continues to this day, when Congress and Presidential candidates presume to bribe their supporters with other people's money, hardly gets notice.
Ditto for the attacks on women in order to curry favor with male voters or the attacks on immigrants to favorably impress citizens. That both are evidence of the habit of attacking an innocent for the purpose of getting favors from another, which, in turn, is just another variant of the triangulating behavior of the terrorist and the corporate raider. Injury is inflicted on one person to benefit or injure a third, depending, to a large extent, on the amount of empathy available to exploit.
That the attacks on Reverend Wright weren't about the Reverend, or even about Barack Obama, is no consolation. That they served to take religious principles out of the political equation can't be helped at this late date. After all, we now have the advantage of experience. We know how Barack Obama has performed as President.
However, if we look back at the pattern of indirection and deception, I think it will help explain what we are seeing from Republican political operatives, and their presumptive nominee, now. Willard Romney using Ted Kennedy as an excuse for his own behavior (keeping income records secret) eighteen years ago, then ten years age and even now is a good example of triangulation, as well as, and what should probably be more concerning, habitual behavior that doesn't change in response to experience.
Conservatives, it seems, are creatures of habit. They learn by imitation and then they do the same thing over and over again. It makes them predictable and that can be useful, if we believe our eyes and recognize that's what's going on. But, to do that, we have to suspend our belief in change.
How to explain people who do not change? Though their behavior may imitate and mirror those with whom they associate, their basic responses remain the same, responsive to prompts and, apparently, bereft of the ability to think ahead.
If you think that doesn't apply to Willard Romney because, after all, he's been plotting to run for president for decades, consider that he's just imitating what his own father, George Romney, did. But, he's more clever. Willard is not going to make the mistake of handing out information and he's certain to keep what's really important, the money he loves, to himself.
In a sense, to the extent that they do not act themselves, all conservatives could be said to live vicariously. Not only do they rely on agents, especially henchmen to do their dirty work for them, but the initiative or prompts to action are located elsewhere -- for example, in the victim who gets blamed or the star that gets admired.
Living vicariously may be most perfectly exemplified by the world of finance, as the financial engineers have created it for us. If so, and if we're not entirely dissuaded from religious symbolism, then we can note, not only that the golden calf constructed by Aaron for the Israelites is not very different from the bull of Wall Street, but that what the lucrephile Willard Romney is really after is to be crowned Vicar of Lucreville -- the Vicar of Mammon and therefor not sacrilegious. And, as the Vicar of Christ is chosen in secret enclave, why shouldn't the Vicar of Lucreville enjoy the same rite?
See, it is not good to banish religion from the political realm, lest the wisdom of the ages be lost. After all, what was the consequence of Aaron collecting all the gold to make an icon, but the removal of the currency of the day to effectively collapse exchange and trade. And how is that different from what the denizens of Wall Street have done with their hoarding?
I suspect this McCain ad from 2008 was intended to be taken as ironic by liberals and literally by conservatives.
What do you think? Isn't making sport of religious symbolism designed to neutralize?