Do We Disdain Candor That Much?

Every time Obama or someone from his campaign makes a candid statement, the Democratic and Republican establishment reacts by saying, "How dare he/she say that? This proves Obama's completely out of touch and a horrible candidate!" From Michelle's expression of new found pride, to Samantha's characterization of Hillary's monstrous political tactics, to Jeremiah's justifiable critique of America, to now Obama's analyses of race and cultural ideology, the establishment's consensus from both sides of the aisle is the same: "He's not fit!"

The most recent brouhaha is over the following comment recorded by telephone at a fundraiser in San Francisco and cited in this Huffington Post article:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I understand that as a political strategy it's expedient, but I wish for once a politician wouldn't backtrack for fear of being further misconstrued. Neo-cons dig in for ideological reasons in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary of the position they are taking. Why should Obama, a college professor as well as community organizer, not be allowed to publicly assess and validate the cultural antagonisms that have had America in conflict with itself and others for the past 15 years? He didn't say cultural conservatives have no right to be. He totally legitmated the right to be culturally conservative, while honestly disagreeing with political positions conservatism compels adherents to take. Isn't that refreshing? Isn't that what we want from politicians, or would we rather they pander for fear of the political cost? One may disagree with his position or his particular choice of words, "bitter" and "cling," yet mitigation only grows out of respectful, generative public exchange of authentically expressed views.

Perhaps more importantly, we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union, have to allow those who would lead to express themselves candidly without worry for how opponents can turn statements into political fodder. If we want to be outraged, should it not be at the political and cultural interpreters of society (journalists and pundits) who obscure the substance of public discourse and spotlight the sensational?

Kudos to Chris Matthews who chose not to fan the flames of this beside-the-point non-story this morning.

*Update: Matthews too fell victim to the sensationalism.