raise is wonderful  Just so, it makes all the difference who is doing the praising.  And it sometimes seems that silence is not just golden but an extraordinary moral virtue.  Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam sang the praises of Barack Obama at the annual Saviors’ Day Celebration.  And one might very well ask whether this is a blessing or a curse for Obama.  Farrakhan’s singing the praises of Obama is quite different from, say, Hugo Cévez’s doing so, although both have been terribly controversial. 

Cévez has been terribly anti-American.  Yet, he is not known for being either racist or anti-semitic as such.  He may think that Americans are all devils; and by this he really means that whites generally are devils.  But Cévez has never made the claim that he takes whites to be devils.  Alas, Minister Farrakhn has.  He is also the man who claimed that Judaism is gutter religion. 

Now, it seems that Farrakhan has mellowed in his later years.  He is now 74.  The vitriolic remarks against Jews and whites that once peppered his speeches were absent on this occasion.  And that is no doubt a good thing. 

The problem, alas, is this: Farrakhan has never really distanced himself from his vicious remarks against whites and Jews.  He has not done a moral turn-about in the way that George Wallace did.  Wallace’s life was clearly and demonstrably marked by two distinct periods: the segregationist Wallace versus the racial equality Wallace.  We have no such clear demarcation with Minister Farrakhan; and there is the rub. 

Now, Barack Obama has certainly kept his distance from Farrakhan.  But the real issue is whether or not Farrakhan should have kept his distance from Obama.  That is, should Farrakhan have kept his mouth shut because in singing the praises of Obama it turns out that Farrakhan does Obama more harm than good. 

This issue is not whether Farrakhan has the freedom to publicly endorse anyone he please.  Indeed, he does.  Rather, the issue is whether the moral baggage of his very own life makes his singing the praises of anyone a liability rather than an asset.  And I do mean: anyone.  Thus, the concern that I have raised would apply with equal forced had Farrakhan sang the praises of Hilary Clinton in his annual Saviors’ Day message rather than Barack Obama. 

If Farrakhan’s singing the praises of Obama constitutes a liability for Obama, then prudence ought to have counseled silence in this regard on Farrakhan’s part.  There is something mean-spirited and arrogant about Farrakhan not bearing in mind the reality that (i) his legacy as Minister of the Nation of Islam has hardly died and (2) his venomous hatred of whites and Jews is seen by all sorts of people as parallel to the venomous hatred on the part of Nazis of blacks and Jews.    

Free speech is one thing.  Prudence is quite another.  And prudence sometimes counsels us to refrain from doing what we have every right to do.  Farrakhan’s singing the praises of Obama could very well have people taking a second look at Obama with an eye towards discerning what it is that makes Obama attractive to Farrakhan of all people. 

Here are some of Farrakhan’s words at the Saviors’ Day speech:

This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.  This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow.  If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.

In glancing over those words, the first thing I wondered is whether Farrakhan was seeing the same images rallies for Obama that I was seeing.  For there have been lots and of whites attending those rallies.  Farrakhan did not mention this.  And it is not a good thing that he did not.  Indeed, why did he not think—as apparently he did not—that the presence of one white after another at rallies for Obama stand as an amazing sign that America has already shown an incredible transformation? 

After all, if Obama is going to get elected to the presidency, it most certainly will not be solely on the strength of yellow and black and brown votes.  Presumably, a lot of white devils—to use Farrakhan’s language—will have to vote for Obama.  This would have made it ever so prudent for Farrakhan to have added one more color to his panoply of colors. 

Minister Farrakhan’s enthusiasm for Barack Obama has not gone unnoticed, as a simple Google search will reveal.  And the fact that Obama has rushed to distance himself from Farrakhan’s remarks makes it clear that he sees Farrakhan’s laudatory words as a considerable liability. 

Insofar as Farrakhan really sees Obama as America’s savior, then Farrakhan is either a fool or a stridently arrogant person.  For it does not take great wisdom to grasp the the reality that a Farrakhan endorsement of Obama is about as counterproductive as smacking a spouse in the hopes of winning the person’s affection.  At least with the latter, there is the outside chance that the spouse is really into S & M.  But surely Farrakhan is no fool.  So, the idea that there might be a political analogue to S & M could not possibly been Farrakhan’s fallback strategy.  This leaves us with strident arrogance on Farrakhan’s, which would explain why he has never bothered to distance himself from his venomous past.