Opinion: Why Obama Should Defend the Tea Party

(July 15) -- The NAACP's intemperate denunciation of the tea party movement presents President Barack Obama with a stunning and powerful opportunity; the fact that the president has so far refused to seize it reveals the sad limitations of his leadership.

With the administration's most fervent critics accused of outright racism by the nation's most prestigious African-American organization, Obama ought to reach out to his political enemies on the right, publicly defend their good intentions and call a White House "summit meeting" between leaders of the tea party and the NAACP.

If he did so, his generous actions would confound his critics, make headlines around the world and rekindle the flickering hope that Barack Obama could transcend the tired old politics of polarization.

Undoubtedly, some reporter will ask the president whether he agrees with the charges of racism against tea party activists. Though the final wording of the NAACP resolution on the subject won't be decided till October, Ben Jealous, leader of the NAACP, has already described the populists who have re-energized the Republican Party as the "genetic descendants of the White Citizen Councils" and insisted that they deliberately seek to rip the country apart.

Without explicitly criticizing either Jealous or his organization, the president easily could declare, "I don't think that most people who participate in the tea party movement are motivated by racism. I believe that the great majority are good citizens who provide a great example of civic engagement and activism. I'd like to see every American, Republican and Democrat, white and black, just as fired up as the tea party activists who come out to demonstrations and town halls, who contact their congressmen, who work for candidates who want to change our country."

Can you imagine the reaction of the press and public if Obama responded to slanders against his conservative critics with such a bighearted defense of their right to dissent, while even praising their idealism?

Politically, an Obama defense of the tea party would cost him nothing while delivering big benefits. His liberal base would never desert him on this issue. Even the embattled leaders of the NAACP could praise his healing, unifying leadership, particularly if it involved an invitation to a big White House meeting -- a highly publicized "summit" -- to sit down with some of the constitutionalist protesters they've accused of racial bias.

The president previously elevated a minor spat between a Cambridge police officer and a Harvard professor into a meaningless "beer summit" that provided a fleeting photo op on the theme of reconciliation. A larger, much longer meeting between African-American leaders and prominent tea party organizers could involve more substantive conversation and the search for common ground.

If nothing else, conservatives in attendance could reaffirm their dedication to stand up against all hints of racism from their supporters, while black leaders promise to avoid the temptation to treat all criticism of their agenda as a sign of bigotry.

Most important, Obama could show the country that he can, after all, accept disagreement and criticism without the immature instinct of blaming someone else -- targeting his perennial whipping boy, George W. Bush, or greedy capitalists, or racist demagogues who oppose him simply because of his dark skin and Arabic middle name.

Why won't the president make such an obviously promising move and disassociate himself from the strident rhetoric at the NAACP convention -- an event at which the first lady herself gave a featured address?

After 18 months in office, it's increasingly obvious that Obama won't grab the chance for serious reconciliation because his deep-seated personal instincts push him the other way -- toward a self-righteous sense of personal victimization. For all his superficial self-assurance, there's an unmistakable aspect of his character that's brittle and insecure. He regularly attacks not just the judgment of his opponents but their motives, suggesting that Wall Street bankers or insurance company executives or Republican politicians care only about their selfish gain rather than the long-term interests of the country.

On one level, he may even believe the notion that the personal animus against him stems from his status as our first nonwhite president -- ignoring the fact that his WASP predecessors, Bush and Clinton, both provoked similar bitterness and hysteria and, in Clinton's case, even inspired an impeachment crisis.

At this difficult juncture, with a looming electoral disaster in November, it's still not too late for Obama to reboot and to reactivate his eloquent campaign promises to play a soothing, unifying role that transcended political and racial divisions. If he fails to take the chance to act as a fair-minded mediator in the nasty fight between the NAACP and the tea party, it will send the worst possible message about the future of his presidency.