The Denouncing Gambit: Let’s you and him fight

February 27, 2008

Ooo, people are abuzz about Obama’s unwillingness to sufficiently denounce and reject Farrakhan.

If politics were boxing, I think the “denouncing gambit” is essentially a kick in the shin. Its purpose is both to distract and smear an opponent. The reason you dencounce someone is you disagree strongly with that person. But when someone demands that you denounce a third party — especially in a debate or other political discussion — it forces you to argue with someone who’s not present. It also requires you to perform up to the standards of the person demanding the denunciation. They have to decide that you’re sincere enough. And, as an added benefit, it implies to people that the distance between you and the person you’ve been “prodded” is small enough that an explicit rejection is necessary. Even after you’ve clearly and explicitly stated your disagreement, you can still be characterized as a “secret” sympathizer who was either dishonest or not sufficiently opposed to an odious political position.

If you watch this YouTube clip of last night’s debate you can see that in action. Obama’s response to Russert’s question “do you reject Farrakhan’s support” is reasonable and absolute, but because Obama doesn’t engage in the required five minutes of hate Russert pushes and pushes on the issue. It’s a distraction and a “gotcha” — we’re stuck talking for five minutes on National Television listening to Russert try to determine whether or not Obama’s hatred of Farrakhan is white-hot enough for him to be President.

Posted in Politics