I am cautiously optimistic about this November's election. I think Obama can win, and I think that an Obama presidency will be one modest step toward repairing the damage of the Bush presidency. I am, however, saddened by the direction the McCain campaign has recently taken with exaggerating Obama's connections with William Ayres, former domestic bomber. A critical component of the Ayres connection is apparently to use innuendo rather than substance to scare people into thinking Obama is a terrorist, supporter of terrorists, Muslim, Muslim terrorist, etc. Amazingly, if one actually takes the time to do no more than five minutes of research--i.e. by reading
Ayres' Wikipedia entry--to better understand what this man did during the tumultuous 1960s, what he regretted, and what he has done since. Labeling Bill Ayres a "terrorist" is a terribly shallow gesture that neutralizes critical thought about our country's history, about how our society was divided in the 1960s and early 1970s, or what to think of people who once made poor decisions and have since tried to change their lives. It is not really an argument to label someone a "terrorist" rather, it is a position that refuses to engage in dialogue. In this case, the refusal is merely an unwillingness (or inability?) to acknowledge others in society that disagree with you. Yes, there was this time in American history when our society was polarized. And, dare I say, there were people on both sides that were saying and thinking sensible things. There were also people who were unyielding, dogmatic, or even dangerous. Is it really so much to ask to spend a little bit of time trying to think about what those who disagree with you think? The "Ayres=terrorist" seems to be this kind of sad flattening of thought.
Not only does this sad refusal undermine our society's efforts to find common ground and develop shared goals but it's patently reactionary. Is Bill Ayres redeemable? What sins are redeemable? Can we look at his past actions and make an informed decision about his humanity? Apparently, John McCain and Sarah Palin cannot.
The sad position of those who refuse to understand is a position of ignorance. When we have to deal with real terrorists, I want an elected leader who isn't afraid to understand what motivates our enemies. You can't win "hearts and minds" when you're not willing to understand what's in them.
