Why President Obama's Mosque Speech Was a Mistake

Talleyrand once famously remarked that a certain action by an opponent was “worse than a crime – it was a blunder.” Was this remark famous because Talleyrand, already famous, could be expected to make famous pronouncements? Or was it famous because writers over the years have declared it to be so, and repeated it enough so that it became ipso facto famous? This is not an issue that we need tarry over, except I will add my own twist here and say that it became famous because it revealed the essence and character of the man. It summed up, in a flash, in one of those sudden illuminations in which you catch he deeper meaning of something or what makes a person tick. In Talleyrand’s case we see him to be a cunning, wily, and delightfully cynical man who is what we might today call a professional politician. In short, he deems it possible or even likely that politicians might have to act in ways that are unsavory and at times even criminal by ordinary standards in order to achieve a larger end. Politics is the arena where “morals and power meet and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises.” What is important is that the politician act knowingly, weighs the consequences, and run the calculated risks that are inevitably involved. A blunder is a hasty action taken impulsively or without adequate weighing of the risks and the secondary and tertiary implications of the action.

And it is in this latter category, we have to say, that President Obama’s Mosque Speech fits. What was actually at issue in this situation – was it freedom of religion or the exercise of a property right? What was the appropriate level of government to deal with the problem? Notice that I concede here that this is not a Hobbes law of the jungle: the disposition of property, and the recognition of rights to a piece of property, especially in a crowded urban area, must be conferred by law --that is to say, by the collective action of the polity within the framework of the constitutional scheme of things. Supreme Court Justice David Souter once gave a speech in which he deplored the lack of knowledge of civics and referred to what he learned as a boy attending town meetings in New Hampshire with his parents. He said he understood early on that there were different areas of governmental competence. If you wanted to get a road repaired because it had potholes from the severe New Hampshire winter, you did not go to the sheriff or the school superintendent. Secondly he learned that there were different levels of government. You had to know whether the road was a county road or a state road because this would affect how to approach the problem. Finally he learned perhaps the most important thing, namely, that the whole purpose of the town hall meetings, and of government itself, was to give citizens a sense of participation, the feeling that they could affect things or at least owed their officials feedback on government action or inaction.

So starting from this premise of divided authority what was involved in the Mosque affair? Here we have eminently a local matter. Various organs of local government contended with the matter. A local planning board (I’ve had some experience with these boards on the Upper West Side). The planning board voted with only one dissenting vote to permit the project to go forward, pending review by the Historic Preservation Office. Historic Office decided the property in question was not a distinguished property within the terms of its mandate, and thus could be renovated or remodeled as the property owner wished (as with any other property, private ownership of land being recognized as a right in our system). The dimension of property might have been more easy to acknowledge had not Jefferson changed the perfectly appropriate reference to “life, liberty, and property” in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence to the mischievous “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The latter phrase must play some part in the narcissism and solecism of our culture. But let this side argument pass and find itself in some later blog devoted to that subject. What is at stake here is how the owner, apparently a young Muslim American man who had made himself a bundle in real estate development, wanted to unload this otherwise unattractive piece of property and found a respectable Imam who could use it for the purposes of a community site much like the 92^nd street Y was used by Manhattan Jews (and others).

That there was going to be room set aside for worship complicates matters a bit because churches across the country have often run into special objections from neighbors. There is in many jurisdictions zoning regulations for the location of churches, and neighbors frequently object for a variety of reasons. They don’t like the traffic on Sunday (or Saturday) mornings; don’t like the organ interrupting the quiet of the morning, etc. But such was apparently not the case in Manhattan. There were no local zoning issues relating to the location of a church (even though one could argue that the proposed site was not, strictly speaking, a place of worship). A local Jewish organization, a chapter of a larger national society, complained about the proposed use of the property. This was apparently the first group to complain or one of the first. Soon enough a branch of the 9/11 victims organization stirred the pot further, and the press (the local press) took up the matter, being always on the alert for good copy. An appearance on national TV by the wife of the Imam, together with a well-spoken representative of the 92^nd Street Y, attempted to quiet the gathering storm but seemed to have the opposite effect. The whole thing seemed too good to be true, and the polished appearance by the well-educated ladies represented to Mr. Average American a too obviously elite affair. If a Jewish and Muslim representative could agree, there must be something wrong.

Enter the national politicians who should have kept their noses out of the matter. We have Nancy Pelosi saying that she might like to investigate the funding sources of those opposed to the Mosque. What! Nancy revealed her true stripes in a chilling fashion. Hastily enough, her staff quickly “clarified” what the Speaker had said. She of course had not meant to chill free speech in any fashion. The Speaker welcomed debate of important issues, certainly would yield to no man or woman in her respect for free expression, etc., etc. Mayor Bloomberg himself, normally a canny politician, deserves to be faulted for magnifying the problem by intoning that the constitution protects the free expression of religion, and tut-tutting about intolerance in a rather patronizing fashion. The shrewder pols, like Hilary Clinton, Chuck Shumer, and Ms. Gilliland who was seeking to retain her Senate seat conferred by the Governor, said nothing and stayed out of the matter. The President meanwhile had a perfect out provided for him by his press secretary, Mr. Robert Gibbs. Gibbs, not one of the more likable figures on the national scene, must be given his due and recognized as a pro. He has been ducking, dodging, and wrestling with the press for some time, and knows when a non-answer is called for. He declared that the Mosque was a local matter and not one calling for presidential comment. The representatives of the media, recognizing the evasion for what it was, were rather laid back and did not press Gibbs. They knew instinctively what Gibbs (and anybody who has lived a long time) knew as a law of life and not just of politics: don’t get involved in fights you don’t have to.

What led the President to enter this minefield? He had invited various representative of the Islamic faith community to the White House for a fancy dinner. He had to say something to this group, it appeared, or risk being branded as a moral coward. Could he get sick and not show up? Pretend he was called away to an urgent national security meeting in Florida and let the Vice President regale the assembled dignitaries? No, this wouldn’t work. He could not, like one of FDR’s advisers after the President had made an incautious pledge in a Pittsburgh speech, and have the President deny that he was ever in Pittsburgh. No, the President might as well take advantage of the situation and made a ringing statement in defense of freedom of worship. This would reassure our allies, please the Muslim world, and shame the critics of the proposed community center. There was no downside, or was there? I don’t wish to mock the President and his advises. This was certainly a tough call. The most serious argument for saying something was doubtless that he could no longer duck the issue. You have to have sympathy for the President. He is not a moral coward. But Talleyrand might have made a strong defense of moral cowardice in these circumstances. For my part I much prefer my politicians to be moral cowards than to be bold, especially in their pronouncements. If you want to show courage, as you must occasionally, do so quietly through your actions, without a lot of fanfare. Speak softly and carry the big stick.

Before we get to the denouement of this little drama reflect for the moment on what politicians really love. The politician’s favorite event is something like the opening of a bridge, or a library, where everybody is gathered in a good mood. The mayor is there, the builder, the local Boy Scout chapter, the union chief, the editor of the local paper, philanthropists, etc., and kudos are handed out all around. The politician, modestly staying in the background, nevertheless acts as the orchestrator of the whole thing. The widow of the individual for whom the bridge or the library is named cuts the ribbon, flashbulbs pop, the band plays, and everybody sings everybody sings Auld Lang Syne. Nobody can possibly be mad at anybody. Of course, when the bridge falls down some years later, the politician will be among the first (not THE first, never the very first) to denounce the builder for his faulty construction and call for an investigation. But let’s get back to President Obama. He is certainly bold, like a professor (or blogger) might be bold, saying what he thinks and counting on the power of his words to sway the masses and awaken the better angels of our nature.

It looks great – at first. The talking heads solemnly intone that the President has made a ringing statement. Then the storm hits. The President, asked a question the next day, modifies the purity of his stance by saying that of course he was not talking about the advisability of locating the Mosque near the World Trade location. He would not say anything about that; he was merely affirming the right of freedom of worship and local property use. The talking heads who had just praised his courage now denounced his cowardice. Al Qaeda argued it either way. The President’s original statement was an implicit acknowledgement that American society was racist, etc. Now the President’s waffy stance gave the lie to his co-called moral leadership of the West. The President now averred that he would say no more on the subject, precisely the position from which he started thanks to his press secretary. This was a local matter to be settled locally. Amen, brother! Let’s hear it for moral cowardice – remember Talleyrand!