Once upon a time in Europe, a priest named Martin Luther became disgusted with a Church practice (there was only One Church at the time) called indulgence. Even today, we say that someone “indulges” in a hot fudge sundae or some other treat because of this practice. An indulgence allowed a person, for good works rendered, to do something that otherwise might be a sin. It was seen as a ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card and was often traded for money.

Although Luther was excommunicated and formed the group today known as Protestants, the Catholic church later admitted he had a point about the abuse of indulgences and greatly restrained their use (indeed, the Catholic Encyclopedia greatly disagrees with the definition given above.) How does this relate to the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign?

Senator Obama offers “Change” and is to be considered a “transformational figure” as he stares off nobly into the future. Many on the Right have been ringing alarm bells about Socialism and Obama’s radical ties, but nobody on the left and few in the middle pay attention – because the Right seems to cry “wolf” in every election against the small and incremental increases in Big Government. To understand how this relates to indulgences and whether to vote for Obama, voters need to know what “change” and “transformation” mean. With his thin résumé, he offers nothing else. (Think of the audacity of claiming that McCain “doesn’t get it” on foreign policy, when McCain has spent longer in a POW camp than Obama has in the Senate.) Obama is supposed to be reassuring about foreign and domestic policy, implying a certain steadiness. He will get our troops home, but will fight nebulous and unnamed foreign threats to our security. He will support business, except Joe the Plumber, and give all deserving voters a tax “cut.” Does anyone truly believe that Obama’s campaign offers any change other than the candidate’s skin color? If Socialism is not the big transformation, then “Change” means merely a president with a skin tone darker “than those on the currency.” Obama offers racist voters an indulgence.

Think about it. Any voter can at any time after this election counter charges of racism with, “I voted for Obama.” It is a ‘Get Out of White Guilt Free’ card, traded for a vote. This is made on the assumption that most if not all voters focus on race, and reflects the Obama campaign’s focus on race as the only important issue. (Remember, Obama’s promises are no different than those of other Democratic candidates, and his only warnings are against “more of the same” and “those who would try to scare you” because he “looks different.”) This is a racist appeal to racist white voters, and excuses racist black voters who also vote for Obama merely because he is black. This is a racist campaign.

It is not racist for the McCain camp to point out Obama’s racism, although the news media would certainly present it that way, confirmed by learned professors. Black Studies, Women’s Studies, Chicano Studies, and Gay Studies departments all tell their students that discrimination is “structural,” that is, personal attitudes mean nothing. Having a black friend or a gay friend is not enough to exonerate the guilty white liberal; majorities collectively oppress minorities, meaning that no black can be racist, nor a woman sexist. This is why Governor Palin has seriously been accused of not being a woman; she is not ‘empowering’ her collective group. Therefore, Senator Obama cannot be accused or racism, nor McCain exonerated from the charge, by this redefinition of the term ‘racist.’ No explanation of the false and racist appeal of the Obama campaign can possibly lead to anything but greater and ever more triumphant ‘confirmation’ by the Obama campaign and its media friends that, in fact, McCain is the one using racism to try to win the election.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, his indulgence works whether or not he wins; this may not redound to his electoral advantage.  Racists might still vote against him and lie about their vote. That strategy will certainly be offered as an explanation if Obama loses in the face of seemingly inevitable advantage in the polls.  It has a twofold advantage, excusing both Obama’s shortcomings, and the liberal bias of the news media’s polling practices. Would they admit, or even mention, the racism of a campaign that depended on offering racists such an opportunity in the first place? Asking such a question amounts to a mere indulgence.