My Interview, Part II

This is a continuation of an interview by me, of me. I started this interview as a way to answer some questions that have been posed to me from a number of posts. It didn't feel appropriate to answer them then, so I decided to create a time to answer them. My interview series is that creation. I hope you enjoy…

We took a small break while Andy grabbed us fresh coffee. I learned that one of Andy's vices is an addiction to coffee. Who knew?

Interviewer: Let's break from definitions for a few minutes. One of your readers asked, "The underprivileged and minorities have the right to be outraged by a political system that doesn't truly represent them since the majority of elected officials are privileged wealthy white men." Would you agree with this?

Andy: I don't think so. Where I live, I have a wealthy (compared to me) black man who is my representative in the U.S. Congress. He doesn't represent my views not because he is black, but because he is a Blue Dog Democrat. I don't think a person has to be from my same background to represent me. That would be a bit of a narrow viewpoint. I believe it is racist to think a Black man can't represent me. Similarly, I think it is racist to think a white man can't represent underprivileged people or minorities. An elected official has to try to view issues from his constituent's viewpoints. I think many do a good job of it, and some don't. I don't think it has anything to do with what race the representative is.

Interviewer: So you don't think minorities should be upset with their representation in government?

Andy: Look at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a woman, a black man, a Jewish man, and the son of an Italian immigrant in addition to the white men on the court. I think that is a diverse group of people. Our current presidential front runners are a white woman, a black man, and an older white man. While there are a lot of well off white people in government, if we were ruled by elite white men, surely John Edwards would be well on his way to the presidency. Instead, he bowed out some time ago.

Interviewer: Another question we received for you surrounded Rev. Wright…

Andy: Uh-oh.

Interviewer: What do you mean by that?

Andy: I am starting to look at him the same way Obama does, he is becoming more and more trouble for me. Many of Obama's supporters can't stand the fact that Obama might have someone around him that has some very bad ideas. If the Ayers family gets much more coverage, those Obama supporters might really be upset.

Interviewer: Well, I leave the discussions surrounding those three to you. Anyway, the question was about Rev. Wright, and the reader wrote, "A wise person is not an infallible person…

Andy: … I would agree with that…

Interviewer: …Should you castigate a trusted advisor because you disagree with them on one or more key points? " The reader pointed to examples of Rev. Wright encouraging his congregation to get tested for AIDS and wanted to know if you thought the congregation should dismiss this advice out of hand because of Rev. Wrights more controversial remarks.

Andy: The short answer is no, you don't throw an advisor under the bus simply because you disagree with them on a point. I think most people, and the reader who asked this question, would agree with me on this point. But this begs to other questions: Since Obama threw Wright under the bus, was he a trusted advisor? And secondly, should Wrights congregation ignore this advice.

Interviewer: What are your thoughts on those questions?

Andy: Well, to the first, I take Obama at his word on this point. Obama had noted numerous times how important Wright was to him. He called him his mentor; he was the individual that brought Obama to the Christian faith. Wright was definitely important to Obama. But I think Obama threw Wright out because it was the political thing to do. Obama is a politician first and foremost, no matter how much he would like to be perceived as above politics.

Secondly, I think Wrights flock considers him a trusted advisor. I also think many of them would agree with Wright's "controversial remarks" as you called them. Because of that, they would see no reason from Wright to avoid getting tested.

And on that note, we will end this portion of the interview. There are still more questions to answer, so look for another installment of the interview. Feel free to throw any other questions you would like to see answered in as well.