So this whole Rev. Wright thing has gotten me thinking about a million different things. But two things stick out in my mind.
First, sure, his comments were inflammatory — to say the least. (Obviously, making a lasting impression on listeners is a preacher’s job, whether a rabbi, imam, catholic priest or congregationalist minister — so factor that into the analysis here.)
But what do those condemning Barack Obama for listening really worry about? That he’s going to say “God Damn America” in his inaugural address? He won’t. That he’s going to implement policies that punish white people for centuries of oppression? He won’t, and Congress won’t let him. That he’s going to not scramble jets to protect America when Canadian Fighters are inbound to Washington, D.C.? C’mon.
Seriously, what precisely is it that people are worried about actually, practically happening here? I’ve thought about this and read as much as I can over the past week and STILL have yet to see one concrete, realistic, plausible concern that could arise.
If anyone can point me to one, feel do so, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
Second point: anyone who has studied the racial history of this country knows that what Rev. Wright said about the history of the government treating African Americans as less than a whole person IS RIGHT. You can start in the 1600’s and continue right up to 2008 in New Orleans. Black people are not treated the same by our government, by our laws, by our society as white people. They (and I say they because I am an over-educated white, anglo-saxon protestant who can’t even dream of knowing what it is like to be Black in America) have, and will continue to have for a long time, every right in the world to complain, to be nasty, to begrudge this nation for what it has done to them. And I suspect that even Rev. Wright would tell you that when Barack Obama is inaugurated on January 20, 2009, African Americans will be the first ones to do the most honorable, Christian, biblical, Jewish, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu thing of all: forgive. Not forget, but simply forgive. And then we can all truly say, God Bless America for making us who we are. Until then, we say God Bless America out of a need for healing, a need for
reconciliation, a need for true prayer that will play a crucial role in healing our country.
Black America will “forgive” and racial ills of the nation will be forgotten, but only if Obama is elected? It sure is a good thing we’re not pinning too many unrealistic hopes on this guy.
If electing Obama doesn’t help at some level then we’re in deeper doo doo than I thought. It certainly can’t hurt, right? It’s by no means the only reason to support him, but it IS a reason, for sure.
I’ve listened to sermons by adherents of liberation theology before, and Obama himself repudiated it best – it assumes that there has been NO progress, NO reconciliation.
<
p>And it’s interesting – those who defend remarks like the assertion that the government invented AIDS in order to spread it in the black community say, “Well, MANY black people DO believe that…” – without saying that as long as people of responsibility and credibility neglect to refute such remarks, then belief is vindicated.
<
p>Which brings me to the vaguely worrisome part of the whole thing. Many of Rev. Wright’s assertions are factually wrong. They may be hyperbole in service of a greater truth, but they are factually wrong. To what extent is Obama tolerant of such rhetoric? Influenced by it? Exaggerated claims are the lingua franca of community activists – read Tom Wolfe’s ‘Mau-Mauing the Flakcatcher’ for a brilliant analysis – so to what extent is Obama caught up in this hyper-speech?
…in regards to Wright/Obama criticism. People actually listening and making supportable criticisms against Wright. People just say repeat the talking point that Wright is a “racist”, “hate monger”, or “anti-American” and stop there. They never say what specifically bothers them and then engage that piece critically.
<
p>Agree or disagree, here, Peter levels an even-handed, non-histrionic complaint against Wright’s rhetoric. Wright’s speeches were peppered with statements repeating dubious (at best) claims far more than they were peppered with “hate speech”.
<
p>People would rather write the reverend off as a racist then do the work and engage the substance (or lack thereof) in his loud, opinionated speeches, and to me, that’s not reality-based.
I largely agree with Peter’s concerns stated above. I am not concerned with Obama’s being influenced by the statements. By all accounts he appears to be untouched by it.
<
p>As to your desire to see the Reverand’s comments specifically discussed and debated as we go along, I think that is unnecessary at this point. Obama himself has said there were comments he heard Rev Wright make while he himself was in the pew and he has come to know some of the Reverand’s positions which he disavows, disagrees or condemns. And for my part, I will conceed that there are many reasons for him to feel anger or resentment for what he feels is not enough progress on the race issue in the US. So I think the discussion is less about what the Reverend said and more how Obama did or did not react to it.
<
p>My concern is that Obama gives no indication he reacted in any way until this week. After 20 years of a close relationship, why didn’t he mention an instance in which he confronted the Reverend, even if only in private, sometime earlier?
<
p>The longer the relationship went on and the more public Obama’s position has become, the larger the burden for Obama to have that conversation, I think. No to condemn him or disavow him, but to try to persuade him to change whatever tactics or language the Reverend used that Obama thought were offensive or counterproductive. He had an obligation to not stand by and let those things influence others.
<
p>Any one of us can have a private conversation with a coworker after hearing them make a statement in front of a group that we find misguided, offensive or impolite. I expect a community organizer, state politician and then Senator would feel some personal responsibility to help an individual member of his “family” to do better, to create a more perfect church.
<
p>After all, he’s running for President because he wants to lead this nation in finding a better way. How is he going to stand up and correct this corporation or that wild card nation if he avoided doing it in his own church?
And I agree with some of what you have said.
<
p>The main gripe I was addressing above was the fact that people are dismissing Wright as a “hate-filled, anti-American bigot” with out citing the specific things that bother them and addressing the underlying sentiment behind the inflammatory speech.
<
p>Criticize Obama, criticize Wright. I was just refreshed to see a criticism of Wright based on the merits rather than a knee-jerk talking point regurgitation. And I think your comment is well-based in the merits of the situation as well.
There are all kinds of stupid resentment issues and resentment-of-resentment things going on, that’s the basic chatter about the Wright thing in the public arena. But those are not the real reason Obama is getting hurt by it all.
<
p>IMHO the reason it’s sticking to and bleeding Obama is that it gets at a defect in his thinking and campaign, but one shared by a lot of people. Which is that Obama, despite or because he runs on the reparative ideas he does, seems not have figured out what to make a core portion of it. What is missing is his operative principle of justice, the spirit of which is needed to inform a sustainable compassionate approach.
<
p>Not having that figured out means a certain amount of floundering when dealing with e.g. the problematic part of Jeremiah Wright. People ask “how could Obama listen to this as often as he did?” Which is really a question of: what is Obama’s real principle, his real, bottom line, standard of what is just and unjust?
<
p>Obama’s answer seems good to quite a few people at least initially. It’s that it’s largely an extended family thing, that it’s a history of pain that has to be accommodated, that it can’t quite be taken literally, and that there’s sort of a blanket excuse and solution in being Christians and taking Christian attitudes and that one ought to trust in Christian values prevailing.
<
p>I think if you try to spell out his response out in writing, it’s clear that the question isn’t really answered in a satisfactory way. It’s basically to trust in his Christian values and not demand a simpler and secular formulation.
<
p>You can predict where the next Republican attack is going to be directed. It’s more fire directed at Wright’s and Obama’s Christianity- as aberrant, hypocritical, inconsistent, heretical, African rather than American. Republicans have few black Christian votes to lose (under half a million) and everything to gain, so it’s going to happen and go full bore.
<
p>Obama’s mistake in the matter, and it’s a flaw throughout his social issue stances and choices, is that he has consistently preferred to stand on the Bible- on what he sees construed as Christian- rather than politically difficult bits of Constitution (the guarantees in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment). The problem is that a Biblical interpretation is always a construct that can be attacked and disavowed by authorities whose claimed loyalty and understanding of the Bible is greater. Obama has constructed his political life on the premise that this pillar of his career can’t be attacked very effectively. Well, John Kerry thought his Vietnam service couldn’t be attacked to much effect either.
then try this rebut to Obama by a preacher in NYC
<
p>http://youtube.com/watch?v=khu…