Some semi-final thoughts, written for The Current.
« Obama's Memo On Michigan | Main | Lanny Davis Jabs Obama On Wright (Updated) » Racial Realities And Obama's Speech19 Mar 2008 03:11 pm Comments (20)
seemed to contradict his own earlier statement that he did not personally hear controversial views while sitting in a Trinity pew Obama never said that he had never heard controversial views while sitting in the pews. He said he'd never heard the specific comments which have been played ad nauseum by the media. That is, he claims he hadn't heard "God Damn America" specifically or the other bits that have been turned into soundbytes. I'm not saying that this somewhat thread-the-needle explanation will (or should) satisfy everyone, but nonetheless, there isn't necessarily any contradiction. 
It was interesting reading Marc, although you apparently missed his calls for accepting individual responsibility, particularly in the black community and not expecting government to do everything to solve the problem. In fact, that is one of the major calling cards of Obama's candidacy, that government is not the total answer, that personal responsibility and action is what is required before any problem can be totally solved. I am not sure ezr either listened to or read the speech. Because he answered virtually every question ezr posed. Also, he did not contradict himself about hearing statements. The speech was not perfect, but then no speech can be. Nor can any speech given by anybody reach everybody or get complete agreement from everybody. But it was something that nobody else has had the courage to try. BTW, I agree with ezr that this would have been a great speech to give post the Novemebr election or post inauguration. Unfortunately, those who were attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill did not allow it to wait that long.
The test of whether there was even a morsel of truth in all that blather, is by simply reversing the situation. Substitute black for white or white for black. Were the Obama campaign so "wisely tolerant" when the barest of perceived racial slights were directed from Clinton supporters towards the New Messiah? Not a freaking bit. They were whining and complaining over,(AND FABRICATING), the vaguest of possible "racial slurs" in a manner that put Jackson, Sharpton, and O.J. Simpson's lawyers to shame. Barack H(stands for HYPOCRITE) Obama made a HUGE ISSUE OF RACE when it benefitted him just prior to the votes in South Carolina and Mississippi, but after the MOST VIRULENTLY RACIST SEGMENT OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION had overwhelmingly cast their votes for him, and his SPIRITUAL ADVISOR revealed himself to be a BLACK ADOLPH HITLER, now we have to "put it all behind us". Right.
Did anybody see Huckabee's take on the Wright affair? Extraordinary, really... http://www.marbury.typepad.com
Too bad Bill Clinton is too conflicted running for a third term, so he can't speak in defense of Obama as Democrats could easily expect the ex-President and Elder Stateman to do. Instead a Republican steps up to the plate to fill the vacuum left by Bill's self interest. Oh well. Nothing new there I guess.
Michael Gerson expressed the same concerns in a Washington Post column today. Perhaps my strong support blinds me to the importance of the archeology of Obama's relationship with Wright, his long membership in the church, and exactly what he heard and then said in response to some of the preacher's appalling rhetoric. I don't understand why it's important to continue litigating this matter. Anyone who has been listening to Senator Obama for the last three years has to know that he doesn't share Wright's extreme views. Simply reading his first book would tell you that Obama has engaged in a deep and personal struggle over race and his place in the national conflict between the races since he was a small boy. Do some people, mainly conservatives I would imagine, believe that his candicacy is a lie and that in Obama's inaugural address he's going to rip off a mask and reveal a Wright acolyte who will harrangue white America for four years? My guess is those who prefer to continue digging into the relationship between Obama and Wright are a lot more interested in the political damage it causes. If anyone is truly interested in clues to what may have drawn Obama to Wright please read his "Audacity to Hope" sermon --it was posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog Sunday and I'm sure it's widely available. Here's an excerpt: III. Persistence of Hope The real lesson Hannah gives us from this chapter—the most important word God would have us hear—is how to hope when the love of God is not plainly evident. It's easy to hope when there are evidences all around of how good God is. But to have the audacity to hope when that love is not evident—you don't know where that somewhere is that my grandmother sang about, or if there will ever be that brighter day—that is a true test of a Hannah-type faith. To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope—make music and praise God on and with whatever it is you've got left, even though you can't see what God is going to do—that's the real word God will have us hear from this passage and from Watt's painting. There's a true-life illustration that demonstrates the principles portrayed so powerfully in this periscope. And I close with it. My mom and my dad used to sing a song that I've not been able to find in any of the published hymnals. It's an old song out of the black religious tradition called "Thank you, Jesus." It's a very simple song. Some of you have heard it. It's simply goes, "Thank you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I thank you Lord." To me they always sang that song at the strangest times—when the money got low, or when the food was running out. When I was getting in trouble, they would start singing that song. And I never understood it, because as a child it seemed to me they were thanking God that we didn't have any money, or thanking God that we had no food, or thanking God that I was making a fool out of myself as a kid. But I was only looking at the horizontal level. I did not understand nor could I see back then the vertical hookup that my mother and my father had. I did not know then that they were thanking him in advance for all they dared to hope he would do one day to their son, in their son, and through their son. That's why they prayed. That's why they hoped. That's why they kept on praying with no visible sign on the horizon. And I thank God I had praying parents, because now some thirty-five years later, when I look at what God has done in my life, I understand clearly why Hannah had the audacity to hope. Why my parents had the audacity to hope. And that's why I say to you, hope is what saves us. Keep on hoping; keep on praying. God does hear and answer prayer. -- Ken
The reason that Obama was forced to stand up and confront the issues surrounding his minister is because Pastor Wright's tone was in-your-face and angry. That scares the shit out of white America. It wasn't so much what he said, as much as it was the nature of the delivery. White folks like to make nice; we don't have a history of confronting difficult topics straight-on and honestly. After what they have been through, African-Americans are much more comfortable looking a tough issue right in the eye and speaking to it.
Not mentioned is obama's speech was damage control. obama didn't decide to just give a speech on race. He was and still is in serious trouble. A speech doesn't wipe away 20 years of obama and rev wright.
Of course Obama contradicted himself (AKA lied) about having heard controversial statements (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4480868&page=1): "Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage. "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month." But yesterday, he told a different story. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia. "While Sen. Obama was not in church for the incendiary and offensive statements of Rev. Wright ...yesterday ... he acknowledged that over the course of 20 years, of course he heard statements from Wright that could be considered controversial." Square that circle, Obama defenders. Never mind - you can't. Bonus question: Why do Obama supporters defend a church that preaches against gay marriage and abortion?
I did read the speech several times and have read Dreams From My Father, actually. While EJ's comment may be technically accurate in regard to the HuffPo, on Friday Obama spoke at length with the editorial board of the Chicago Sun Times and said: "The sermons I've always hear[d] were no different than the sermons you hear in many African-American churches. I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit." So perhaps he was only speaking to the most egregious of Wright's remarks, but that would certainly be hairsplitting of the kind we expect from Bill Clinton. It's not particularly forthright. And as a frequenter of a mainstream black church, I'd disagree that Wright's sermon's are "no different." Ken, I don't believe that Obama really shares Wright's beliefs. As a biracial person I think I possibly understand his double bind a bit better than you think. But I think it's impossible to avoid concluding that Wright's rhetoric is at odds with Obama's. And it is entirely legitimate to ask how Obama approached his philosophical divide with Wright, what steps he took to confront Wright, etc. Perhaps you don't understand why this matters to me. If you worked, as I sometimes do, with black drug users with HIV in Washington, DC, you would see firsthand the extraordinary damage caused by beliefs such as the canard about the U.S. creating HIV for the purpose of genocide, and you would understand that this kind of thing cannot be excused by the generational divide Obama cites. At any rate, jpm can claim that Obama answered my questions, but I would have loved to hear him acknowledge some of the more prosaic reasons for joining the congregation; to acknowledge that his backer Oprah Winfrey left the congregation because of its divisiveness; and to explain how he tackled what seems to be an extraordinary divide between Wright's views and his own. (The answer to the latter question seems to be that he ignored it. Wouldn't that create enormous cognitive dissonance?) At any rate, we can agree to disagree, but I should have been a pretty easy sell given my demographics, academic job, etc. I'm sure his strongest supporters feel differently, and that's fine. My gut feeling is that this speech only reached the already converted. And jpm, it's possible to see the speech as a "profile in courage," as some have termed it. It's also possible to see it as an exercise of hubris. I think there's truth in both views.
What's lost in all the commentary by white people about an issue that has to do with black people is what black Americans, who have been oppressed by this nation for centuries, feel. The reaction was to cue the pundit class who are so far removed from the realities of America, and black America particularly, that they were pretty useless beyond doing exactly what Obama said they do in circumstances like this, touch the surface and fail to deal with the issues. So were Democrats in fact. Hell Huckabee is more understanding of the situation then most Democrats are.
Good article, Marc. I do agree with you that Obama running as a race transcedent candidate, which was his most attractive characteristic, is over. He never properly explained his behavior but tried to tack a smiley face on it.
For those who ask why Obama didn't leave this church, I must ask: Have any of you questioned the Catholics that you know as to why they remained in a church that protected PEDOPHILES for YEARS, and helped destroy emotionally thousands of lives? How could anyone go into a Catholic Church after finding out the complicity of the Church in hiding Pedophiles? Maybe this is a cultural thing. Maybe White people change churches easily. I don't know. I'm not White. I'm Black. But, Black folk do NOT go around changing churches like purses. As my mother says, ' you'll find something you don't like with every church, so just stay where you are'. And, I did that, staying in the church that I was reared in until our Pastor died, and the new one turned out to be one of those Sellout Prosperity Gospel Hustlers. Trinity UCC is a terrific church. An activist church that not only serves the community, but also serves its worshipers. If you are a parent, it offers a lot for your children, and if you are a parent trying to bring up your children with faith, finding a strong church support system is invaluable.
Have any of you questioned the Catholics that you know as to why they remained in a church that protected PEDOPHILES for YEARS, and helped destroy emotionally thousands of lives? Literally millions of Catholics stopped attending church in the wake of the scandal, and mass attendance among Catholics has slumped to new lows in recent years, as have donations. So, I guess if one were to question Catholics about why "they remained in a church" with such problems, many would respond that they didn't. But apparently subjecting one's own children to racist, hate-filled bile isn't something to get too riled up about. And I'm sure it would have been impossible for the Obamas to find another church that's theologically compatible with their views.
I just don't get that argument. Even if you don't like your pastor or don't agree with him, you should stay? Why on earth would you do that?
I just don't get that argument. Even if you don't like your pastor or don't agree with him, you should stay? Why on earth would you do that? How many sermons of Jeremiah Wright's have you actually read? 1 He has 36 years of work to study. A career of 36 years cannot be collapsed into a 3 minute Youtube soundbite. Let's say that he actually gave a ' wild' sermon once a month. That would mean that the other 3 Sundays he didn't. You'd really throw away a church home over not agreeing with your pastor 25% of the time? Really? Like I said, Black folk don't change churches like purses.
It was, in many ways, a brilliantly written and delivered speech—something we've come to expect, of course, from Barack Obama. It did an excellent job of providing context for the black experience in America, explaining how the average African-American could gravitate to a controversial church like Jeremiah Wright's, and how those experiences might understandably be misunderstood by white America. It took a stab at uniting the black and white American experiences under the common problem of economic anxiety, brought on by the real enemy of working people in our country: unfettered corporate greed. In this regard, the speech still should have gone much further. More on that in a minute. It was a brave speech. Barack Obama has been running as a post-racial candidate this entire election cycle. Today, he turned into the wind, and tackled the racial crimes, conundrums, and tragedies that have buffeted our nation since its inception. Obama challenged our country to deal with the race issue in the here and now, to no longer keep this conversation tucked away in our racially homogeneous tribes, where our separate white and black safety zones allow us to say what we really think about the other. He did so knowing that after today, there is no going back. As an unnamed Obama adviser was quoted as saying, "Race is now officially on the table. It’s not going away after this,”. Race will be a part of his candidacy for the remainder of the primary, and, if he is so lucky, the general election. This is not something Obama wanted to happen, but at this point in the midst of the Wright controversy, it is obvious he felt he had little choice. Even braver, rather than offering banalities on unity and togetherness, he picked at some of the ugliest scabs in our national discourse, in effect claiming that his candidacy possesses the unifying power to do so without making the wounds worse. That said, while I feel that the speech was a rhetorical victory, I am worried that in certain ways, it was a missed opportunity, and possibly a political failure. The speech can be judged by who its intended audience was, and who it ended up becoming. His intended audience should have been the white blue collar males that, after the Virginia primary, were flooding towards his candidacy, but after Ohio, and Jeremiah Wright, have been flooding away from it. Instead, the speech seemed more tailored towards the media, and Obama's base. Political journalists have swooned over it all day long. Chris Matthews probably had to change his pants twice on Hardball tonight, calling it "the greatest speech on civil rights in our nation's history". It's a fine civil rights speech, and deserves much praise, but Barack Obama is not running to make a point, or win the argument about race in this country. He is not running for Civil Rights Leader of America. He is running for President of the United States. In a country with a still-white majority population, the two are unfortunately incompatible. Fascinating frames like the following are crack for the media:
But I've since heard more than a handful of other white folks—on both the left and right—say things like, "that wasn't a very nice thing to say about his poor old grandmother." Instead of getting the intent of the story—to remind people that Obama's experience is actually as a black and white man—a lot of white blue-collar folks hear that anecdote and think how rude it was for this young black man to say that about that poor old white woman. Plus, they're reminded about how they too, sometimes get scared around young black men. And soul-searching introspection on those feelings is likely not their next step. As Obama himself said today, "I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own." So why is he attempting to do that very thing at its greatest crisis point? I've even heard from some Democrats—yes, Democrats—who say maybe it was Obama's resentment of his white grandmother's attitudes towards blacks, that led him to a racially charged church like Jeremiah Wright's. I think such arguments are absurd and deeply narrow-minded. Unfortunately, so is the state of typical white racial thinking in this country. What Obama also did not do with the speech was explain why he spent 20 years listening to a pastor condemn America, hate on white people, and spit on Israel. That's not what's really been happening the last 20 years in the Trinity Church of Christ, of course, but it effectively is what much of white America has come to believe. Yes, Obama described Wright's outlook as "a profoundly distorted view of this country". And yes, Obama explained that Wright is more than the sum of these snippets of controversy: "The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor." Fine. The retort I hear then is why does Wright say the U.S. government gave AIDS to black people? What the speech really needed to do today was, at length, directly address the economic considerations from on high that have intentionally spurred the racial divisions in our country since the American Revolution. It needed to be, in many ways, his Howard Zinn speech. It was good for Obama to start by empathizing with lower-income white Americans who feel robbed by affirmative action, who see no special value in their own white skin, who "don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race." But the argument stopped with empathy. It is absolutely critical that if you venture into why lower-income whites are resentful of affirmative action, you must complete the circle by explaining how our corrupt economic system requires whites to focus their anger on tiny programs like affirmative action, rather than the massive, non-racial corporate forces that are taking away black and white jobs, black and white health care, black and white homes. The reason Obama must focus primarily on economics, rather than race, is that with two wars being fought abroad, a looming recession, a housing crisis, trade deals shipping our entire manufacturing base overseas, blue-collar white Democrats really don't feel the urgent need to solve this race problem in America. It is, unfortunately, probably the last issue on the plate—if it's even on the plate. With one candidate focusing his attention on a controversial topic, which, though eloquently discussed, isn't at the top of voters' concerns, which other candidate is poised to jump right into an opening on the economy? Yep. But, you say, Obama had to address this Wright controversy—it was eating his candidacy alive! I completely agree. The way in which I believe he would have been better served is by unifying the discussion of race more fully with the economic pressures that have caused these racial fractures in American life in the first place. It was still a brilliant speech. He has retaken the news cycle—no small feat after what he's been through the last couple of weeks. But it's just a news cycle, and the questions will continue to linger among lower-income white voters about Obama's racially questionable church-going. It's not fair that Barack Obama should be judged by what Rev. Wright has occasionally said. But as life is not fair, many white voters still will do so. He is still the front-runner for the nomination, and will still likely obtain it. The problem isn't with getting the nomination—it's how does he defeat a cultural icon like John McCain in the general election without grabbing a big share of independent white votes in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri. His current base—young, affluent educated whites, and black voters—can't bring him over the finish line. And if he is ever going to silence the critics who say he is all hope and no results, he is going to have to throw some serious economic red meat on the table—sooner, rather than later. If he cannot get away from the race discussion, he must drag it over to the economic one. My advice? Call John Edwards, and start the rewrites. Pennsylvania is a month away.
Everyone is going to read what they want into the speech anyway. Maybe some white working class folks paused when he recognized and understood some of their own sources of fear or resentment. But if they paused it would have been for a moment only, or maybe they didn't pause at all because they were picking up on other things in the speech--that black anger is real, that America began under the stain of slavery, etc. etc. Maybe black audiences understood and heard what he was saying, but then faced with the one-sided depictions of the speech that have abounded, they retreated into Wrightian anger and denunciation. Meanwhile, the Clinton's sent out an email that same night titled "Obama's advantage" and asking potential doners to "help level the playing field." Subtle, barely noticeable, but perhaps effective attempts to play on affirmative action resentments, a strategy on the face of it diametrically opposed to what we need as a nation. And meanwhile, both democrats negatives go up, McCain is unscathed, digging up dirt I'm sure on both Obama and Clinton.
It seems to me to be a bit of a stretch to compare elderly granny in a Kansas cornfield to the Rev with a subsidized platform and decidedly gifted oratorical skill as having similar impacts on the world, on him, on the rest of us.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Enjoyable reading, Marc. I myself would have liked to see Obama give this speech after his election, because my sense is that he was addressing a broad concern at the expense of replying to more concrete voter questions about his own relationship with Jeremiah Wright. In other words, I felt that he changed the subject somewhat. He ensured that left-wing pundits would discuss his brilliant oratory for days, but left unanswered essential questions and, indeed seemed to contradict his own earlier statement that he did not personally hear controversial views while sitting in a Trinity pew. I'm sure it's enough to secure the nomination, but it doesn't answer my questions and I suspect it will not be enough to win the general election. Which is a shame, because as president he would be in a position to give just such a big speech, but a more inclusive one that examines the intersection of race and class; that truly advances us beyond the grievance politics of so many discussions of race; and that does more than pay lip service to the inclusion of Latinos, Asians, and American Indians. Think of what a biracial or black president could accomplish; look at the example of Adrian Fenty, the biracial mayor of DC who is finally working to fix the terribly broken public school system by appointing a powerful Asian-American woman as the system's chancellor. But in order to reach that position, Obama will need to explain how he chose this particular congregation, why he stayed in it and participated in it so deeply, and how he addressed his philosophical disagreements with Wright. For now he has left those questions largely unanswered. They may not matter to the far left or to African Americans, but they will matter to millions of other Americans whose support Obama will need to win the White House.
Posted by ezr | March 19, 2008 3:26 PM