I would like to explain to those liberals and fans of Barack Obama who are alternately mystified and angry about the whole Rev. Wright affair. At best, they think the hubbub is a giant waste of time. At worst, they think it’s a not-so-thinly veiled racist attack on both Wright and Obama with no merit or precedent.

Let’s take the precedent issue first. Our memory is so short. Doesn’t anyone remember how Mitt Romney was dragged over the coals for being a member of the LDS Church, which at one time refused to grant membership to blacks? Romney betrayed no evidence of racism, yet he was smeared with the suspicion of being racist due to his being an LDS member. Guilt by association.

Or what about President Bush in the 2000 election? He spoke at Bob Jones University, an extremely conservative Christian university that had denied blacks admission and whose founder had made bigoted statements about Catholics. The press made a heyday out of that, even though Bush had not attended the university nor endorsed its views. He simply spoke to the people there and sought their support.

In short, this game of guilt by association is nothing new in politics, and so those Obama defenders who cry and wail in the streets about him being treated so unfairly need to grow up, remember history, and realize that in politics, this stuff is going to happen.

Now let me address the merits of the case of why people ought to be concerned about Obama’s 20-year association with Wright. The main reason is that Wright’s rhetoric and hatred towards America cast doubt on Obama’s claims to be a new kind of leader, one whose sunny and optimistic outlook was a break from the past, especially with past black political leadership who specialized in racial guilt and with past liberal/leftist leadership who specialized in convincing us all how horrible America is.

We, even some on the right, bought Obama’s happy talk and were at least glad he was not some sort of angry demagogue motivated primarily by resentment and grievance.

We were glad he wasn’t going to accuse us white folks of being racist at every turn, and for those who voted for him and supported him in general, he offered the chance of “racial innocence,” meaning that by supporting him, no one can question whether or not you are a racist (such things must nearly be proven in today’s society).

So when we found out he attended a church whose pastor cursed the U.S., believed the government intentionally spread AIDS amongst blacks, and generally exemplified the anger and vitriol of “the politics of the past,” forgive us if we were a bit worried.

We then triangulated Wright’s comments with Obama’s left-leaning (although very thin) voting record, where he supported things like partial-birth abortion and was given nearly perfect liberal voting credentials, and his wife’s comment about never being proud of America until her husband won a primary, and we wonder: is Obama who he says he is?

I have to give him credit for his recent, unequivocal denunciation of Wright. It must have been hard, and I do sympathize with him in terms of the personal impact.

At the same time, these are the chickens coming home to roost for liberals. They spend the vast majority of the time trying to convince Americans that their country is little more than an agent of injustice, racism, sexism, greed, and intolerance, and that the only ones who can save America from itself are correct-thinking liberal politicians and their bureaucratic allies in government.

Instead of viewing the great strides our country has made by eliminating such things as slavery or child labor, or by gradually but surely improving the civil rights of minorities, they view the past existence of those inequalities as proof that America is bad to the core.

Their solution to that rotten core is a rash of left-leaning policies and laws that would further redistribute income, restrict economic and religious freedom, and generally insulate the less productive members of our society from having to take any responsibility for their own well-being.

So, those of us of the opposite mindset, who instead have faith that the essential goodness of this country will continue to improve the lot of everyone, are suspicious and concerned about those who would rather continue to punish the country for its sins, past and present, real or imagined.

That is why Obama’s association with Wright was so troubling, and why no Democrat who strongly and openly embraces that party’s core philosophies and policies can win the White House.

One last point: I’m sick of being told I can’t be critical of Wright’s crazy accusations just because he is black. The Rev. King said we ought to judge men on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

You don’t get a free pass for saying false and irresponsible things just because of your skin color. We ought to be allowed to judge the comments in a substantive way and not fear being labeled (yet again) racist because we disagree with a black person.

And, by the way, why is the Rev. Wright so angry? He’s certainly done quite well for himself in this horrible, god-forsaken country. But then again, hate-America-first and fear-mongering demagoguery has been his meal ticket, so why quit now?

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.