Given the intensity with which Barack Obama was attacked for his association with former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers during the campaign — most famously by vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists” — I read this New York Times Op-Ed by Ayers with great interest.
Ayers characterizes the use of his past against Obama as a “profoundly dishonest drama” and says he “sat it out” because he saw no “viable path to a rational discussion” given the pre-election excitement of the campaign. He figured anything he said would only fan the flames.
He then explains his background — that he was never a “terrorist” who killed people, making the distinction that his organization only attacked property — never people — to make an anti-war statement.
The most interesting part of Ayers essay, for me, is the latter half in which he addresses the assumption that if two people spend time together they must share the same ideas.
The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.
Ayers says he and Obama never did “pal around,” that Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s positions, and that like millions of Americans he wishes he knew Obama better.