Judge the Company They Keep AND the Reasons

Having personally stood with many people on account of whom I have been called a bad Jew, a betrayer of "my people" and a potential enemy of my own United States, I am particularly sensitive to this issue. But if we only stand with the people of whom we already approve, how do we build the bridges which improve things with those of whom we do not? Or as the late Ytizhak Rabin responded when asked how he could sit down with Yassir Arafat, "you can only make peace with your enemies." That doesn't mean that we can sit down with everyone always, and how we choose makes all the difference in the world.

It matters who candidates decide to spend time with, as it does for all of us. And it also matters why they are with them. The mere fact that a person, whether me with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or our candidates for the presidency, spends time with someone is not synonymous with an endorsement of that person and everything for which they stand. And the ability to make that distinction marks the difference between the sickening gotcha politics being played by both sides in this race, and making an honest accounting of the people with whom we hang out and whether or not it is really worth it.

For example, I am far more concerned about Barack Obama's 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright than I am about his episodic and tangential connection to Bill Ayers, even though the latter actually committed very serious crimes. Why? For three reasons: because Wright remains entirely unrepentant about the venomous hate speech which has defined a significant piece of his ministry, because Obama did not repudiate that speech until political expediency forced him to do so and because calling someone your pastor, makes a powerful claim about the esteem in which you hold them.

And even though Pastor Muthee stood at a pulpit with then Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and slammed "Israelites" for their "control of the economy", I am far less worried by that than I am by the "poor judgment" (so said the Senate Ethics Committee) displayed by John McCain when he intervened, however minimally, on behalf of Charles Keating. Why? Because both the nature of the relationship, and what motivates it, are far more troubling in the latter case than in the former.

We are facing huge challenges in this country right now - challenges far bigger than who stood with whom, when. But why they stood together, what their expectations were in maintaining the relationship and what that suggests about the kinds of relationships, partnerships and advisors either candidate will maintain if elected is worth noting.

No one act, or even an ongoing friendship, should define any candidate. But how they manage that relationship, bring us into their confidence about why it was worth it, or how they made a mistake in the past about it - their answers to those questions should inform our thinking about who deserves to be our next president.

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

CCNL (Confused Croissant, Bagel, etc.) writes:

"When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

I doubt that very much, and I'm not alone. The Pharisees were far too busy developing rabbinic Judaism to notice yet another of the 100 or so prophets emerging from the woodwork in their besieged country. This, btw., assumes Yehoshua existed, highly doubtful now that Josephus has been all but tossed.

Still, to be generous, let me concede that if said Yehoshua did walk on the earth, if not on water, a Sadducee or two might have spoken to him--I mean anything is possible. But, this too, is doubtful, since they were busy being wealthy.

Unfortunately, the Sadducees left no written records, leaving us with well, stories....

Posted by: Farnaz2 | October 10, 2008 9:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rabbi,

Finally, some perspective. Good job.

Posted by: homesower | October 10, 2008 8:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To paganplace

Radical toilet-prankers don't bomb public buildings.

Seen with? If someone hosts a party for me, give me money, serves with me, and if I endorse his writings, I'd say the connection is at a deeper level than "seen with".

Posted by: homesower | October 10, 2008 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

How odd- I posted last night a comment which never showed up, taking the rabbi to task for complaining about the rev. Wright while ignoring the relationships of many presidents and McCain with far more offensive religious figures as Hagee, Parsley, Falwell and Robertson. I had the temerity to suggest it is rather racist to worry about Obama's relationship with rev. wright (a decorated former Marine and Navy Man, FYI) but not these antisemitic, yet lily-white preachers.
Most interesting.

Posted by: sparrow4 | October 8, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

McCain supporting and being supported by and showing obligation to the 'Keating Five' is of a somewhat different order than 'Hey, Obama was seen with a guy who turned out to be radical toilet-pranker!'

Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hmmm,

"When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" But when he heard this, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."

This passage from the NT passes the necessary attestation and stratum testing of most historic Jesus exegetes.

e.g.

"(1) P. Oxy. 1224, 2 v ii, lines 1-7
(2a) Mark 2:13-17a = Matt 9:9-12 = Luke 5:27-31
(2b) GEbi. 1c
(2c) Luke 15:1-2

Crossan analysis:
Item: 113
Stratum: I (30-60 CE)
Attestation: Double
Historicity: +

So following the lead of Jesus, John McCain was trying to correct the sinning Mr. Keating???

Brad Hirschfield

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Judge the Company They Keep AND the Reasons

Comments