Over ten years ago, Barack Obama was in a bar…
I’m not of the school of thought that considers politicians any more corrupt than the general population. Surely, there’s a dud here and there, but I believe most politicians–though perhaps more ambitious than your average joe–are of strong enough character. Barack Obama is example a politician of particularly strong and noteworthy character.
A story I first heard on BBC radio and written-up here (though the radio version is better), describes Obama’s behavior in 1997 when he attended his sister-in-law’s wedding in London. As is the custom here, before the wedding the men went out for a bachelor party (called “stag party” in Britain). Obama went along. All was going well enough, drinks flowing, until a stripper showed up. At this point the party relocated to a more secluded area of the bar and Obama made his exit. As the stripper began whatever strippers do, Obama left, went downstairs for a drink at the public bar and then returned to his hotel room.
Over ten years ago, in another country, before you tube and digital pictures, before out-of-control 24/7 news sites, Barack Obama made a decision to leave a party that had gone too far. By doing so, he surely alienated himself from the crowd–can you not imagine what those stag party attenders might have said to him as he left. But he left, had a drink by himself in a foreign bar. And he showed his strong and upright character.
No politician is perfect because none of us is perfect. Certainly, Obama has his flaws. But as this story shows, Obama stands up his values even at the risk of public embarrassment. He is of sound moral judgement. For that, and many other reasons, Obama has my vote.
photo from Obama’s flickr stream under CC license
Connect Online
10 years ago he allegedly left a strip club because a stripper did a private dance.
20 years ago he was snorting coke lines at school.
He has great moral character.
The following things from the previous comment are wrong or misleading.
First, “allegedly”–sure, allegedly as reported by the BBC.
Second, it was a pub not a strip club. You can visit it in London today.
Third, it was not 20 years ago, but 30 years ago in high school that he admitted trying cocaine. He made this admission openly and upfront in his award-winning book. His use in college was minimal, though he moved past it and learned from it.
Fourth, though many have investigated, his drug use, if anything, is over-emphasized by him in his book. See this NY Times article for the story.
Fifth, I’m cool if you suggest policy differences, I’m just suggesting his character is rather impressive for a person, especially one who happens to be a politician–there’s lots of other examples, but those are for another day.
he actually went downstairs to the public bar because his mom told him the bar had run out of wine and all they had were these stone jars full of water…
Morality in the public arena is based on whether or not one follows statutory laws.
Watching or being in the presence of a stripper is not illegal.
Possession of cocaine as Obama boasted of is a Class B Felony. Committing this crime supports drug cartels abroad, who murder many, and gang activity in the user nation. The cause and effect relationship is so long I feel it is unnecessary to detail it. The short of it is being a part of the cocaine trade is an abject crime that shows complete lack of moral fortitude and care for society and individual. He was old enough to know it was wrong. He did it anyway.
The BBC story is a second hand account based on an alcohol and maybe coke inhibited memory given by Obama’s brother-in-law ten years after the fact. That the BBC propagated the anecdote does not somehow make it fact. Even if it were fact it is hardly enough to make a judgment on one’s moral character on it alone.
Moral character isn’t like baseball, where you get three strikes. In baseball, you strike out all the time, but if you do something right, just a small percentage of the time, like 3 times out of 10, you are a star. One strike out in real life means you no longer have moral character.
Oh, did Jesus run away from the whores? I’m sure after the dance was over, Obama made sure to tell the stripper sin no more.
“One strike out in real life means you no longer have moral character.”
Cast the first stone then Terrence
Let’s not make this about me because it isn’t.
If the legend in the pub is true, and Obama thinks the stripping business is immoral or amoral, did he not have a duty to do something about it in his position? Ignoring an injustice is as bad as perpetrating the injustice committed. Ghandi or MLK surely said something like that.
Abstinence or negation is not the virtue. Abstinence and action, or negation and propagation of the positive, is the virtue of a moral man: G0 (propagation of the positive) and sin no more (negation of the negative).
it is about you when you seek to hold public figures to an impossible code likely to be shrugged off should the lens be applied to your own life.
one strike out in “real life” does not a moral character break, often a strike provides the deepest opportunity for moral formation-learning.
Person 1 says X is morally upstanding because of z.
Person 2 says z is not significant enough to base a moral judgment on. Shows that y is significant enough to make a moral judgment on.
Person 3 says Person 2 cannot make judgments about X because Person 2 uses criteria that Person 2 does not apply to Person 2′s own life.
Person 3 has no added to the dialog because dialog deals only with X and his doing of z and y. X, z, and y are the only issues here.
I reread the blog entry and was even more shocked that the author concluded Obama “is of sound moral judgement (sic).”
Again, the story on the BBC is not an actual news story. It is his brother-in-law’s retelling of what happened on a drug tainted night ten years ago.
I see someone trying to build up another’s character for irrational reasons. Some people support a religion. Other people support a favorite sports team. Then there are those who support a politician or political party. In their fanaticism, they distort reason to fit their loyalties.
If all it takes to be considered a moral man is walking away from a stripper, then I am a moral man. But I know that I am not, so this criterion is flawed.
I’m not sure I can rescue the conversation at this point. Mostly, I just want to drink my coffee here at the breakfast table. I don’t know, maybe Michael seems to be operating with a post-modern view, living in the gray and relishing the challenges that brings.
Terrence, perhaps, is operating with a more black and white modern view, making stark moral contrasts and clear delineations. Or maybe he just likes messing with Michael, which I agree is quite enjoyable.
Or maybe they just have an old fashioned disagreement, which I welcome and surely deserves discussion.
Regarding Terrence’s last point, though, I will say my re-telling of the story was mostly based on the BBC radio story with interview from several involved–actually, it was a longer story about walking in Obama’s steps in London overall–I can’t find it online so my murky memory will have to suffice.
If a single slip means you have no moral character, only one man has ever had moral character, and he has been dead for a long time. Since we have to elect our officials from among the living (although perhaps those doing the electing do not always have to be among the living, at least in Chicago) I will take this as some evidence in Senator Obama’s favor.
[...] Adam Copeland points to an interesting story that has been circulating about the integrity of Barack Obama. No wonder why he keeps trying to run such a clean campaign…with the race continuing to [...]