Now on to Rev. Wright. Many in the black religious community defend his sermons by saying they were “taken out of context”, that Wright is being “lynched in the media” and misunderstood by those “ignorant of black culture, black expression and the black church.” Whatever. The dude said what he said. Taken out of context? Unless his quotes were preceded by a statement like “what I am about to say is the opposite of how I feel…”, I do not see how “context” will make much difference here.
The fact that Obama attended church with a minister for 20 years who espouses a hardcore black liberation theology…say goodbye to a lot of the white support Obama used to have. I’m fairly open-minded, but it certainly gives me serious pause. Obama named his ‘Audacity of Hope’ book title after one of Wright’s sermons. He has been a member of Wright’s congregation for two decades. Wright married Obama and Michelle; he baptized one of Obama’s children. Wright served in Obama’s campaign (until last week) as his “spiritual advisor”, whatever the hell that means.
Now Obama distances himself from whichever sermons of Wright’s that are distasteful, but insists Wright is still a positive spiritual force? Really?
Elegant Damage Control
Obama gave a remarkable speech yesterday trying to explain this entire situation. He finally took advantage of his half white / half black ancestry as a political tool to show how he is uniquely American. That was cool. I also admire him for not throwing Wright completely under the bus. As one commentator put it, it was the most “elegant damage control” he had ever seen. Yet, it was still damage control at its heart. Obama’s insistence that he has been waiting to make a speech on race like this for awhile is BS. He has wanted to avoid this as long as possible. One speech, however elegant, will not make up the lost ground. Obama indeed transcended the race issue before Rev. Wright became headline news. He was finally making inroads into the working class whites and Hispanics that have been Billary’s base. But now I think he has lost them for good. Even if he beats Billary, this will have lasting consequences into the general election against John McCain. Black liberation theology just doesn’t sit well with working class whites and Hispanics who have their own list of grievances and problems. Frankly, it doesn’t sit well with me either. McCain has never looked better.
19 comments:
You know, if you keep yelling "Billary" loud enough, maybe someone from 1993 will hear you and be your friend.
I don't listen to right wing radio, but if they still say "Billary," that's pathetic.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to be worried about a Hilary Clinton presidency, but "Billary?"
I mean, Jesus.
Even Ann Coulter has moved on from that tired old chestnut.
And if you don't think that context is important, I guess it's OK to believe that John McCain really thinks that we should be in Iraq for the next 100 years and bombing Iran is a good idea.
Obama is the first presidential contender to come along in my lifetime who has not been completely, utterly full of shit.
So the criticism here is that when it comes to his trancendence of the race issue, not he's only "kinda full of shit?"
I'll take it.
Billary?
Really?
I can't help feeling, Dez, that you're making a lot of assumptions here that are unlikely to pan out.
I have never much been an Obama supporter, mostly because I'd love to see grandpa McCain get shafted with GW(TF)'s mess.
Watching this, I got the impression that Barack is unstoppable. Loss of support here, there, or elsewhere? We'll see. In the meantime, show me the numbers.
Oh, yeah, Dez -
Obama's white supporters do not, as a general rule, watch the O'Reilly Factor or give a tinker's damn about what Bill-O has to say; nor, it saddens me to observe, does linking to Fox News do any credit to your posture of objectivity.
Have you seen the entire sermon?
Yeah, there's some raw anger here. Wow; to hear this angry fella tell it, racism was built into the Constitution, and racial segregation persisted for a century after the Emancipation Proclamation. OH WAIT
Gotta agree with Seb and anonymous, Dez. Chink in the armor? Sure. But you already wanted McCain. And honestly, Obama's appealing personality was the only thing that drew you to him -- as an admitted listener of Laura Ingraham (shameful), you're a regular consumer of sensationalism. It makes sense that you would jump at this opportunity to not talk about the issues raised by Obama's relationship with the preacher but to equate Obama with him, as if he would become America's first black-liberation-theology president, an outcome that you know is impossible.
You can be concerned about this development (I certainly am, and I'm an Obama supporter), but this post is straight out of the Fox playbook.
Yeah, I knew the O'Riley intro would garner some response, but it was the best compilation on YouTube that was readily available.
Anon, most of your comment was addressing a very side issue to the main post, but fine. I've always found "Billary" amusing, and just stuck with it as a quick reference to the entire Clinton team. That's all. I haven't actually heard it on talk radio for some time. I know Pockyjack prefers "Shrillary", so we can use that one if you prefer.
When did I ever say that context was never important? I said that I find it hard to believe that "context" would really give new meaning to the quotes. Perhaps you can explain that to me. What context changes the meaning of saying that AIDS was a government conspiracy to clear out the ghettos? Speaking of "tired old chestnuts".
And there was, in fact, a context to McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement. He was not talking about fighting in Iraq for 100 years. He was acknowledging the possibility of having some number of U.S. troops in Iraq for a long, long time going forward. Even in a time of Iraqi peace, he was saying that we might need/want some troops there. Similar to how we have troops stationed in Germany to this day. They still aren't fighting Nazi resistence fighters in the hills.
Seb, I understand what you mean by the numbers. We are so far down the road here, Obama it is unlikely that he will not get the nomination at this point. But I was more addressing the effect in the general election. And you really are pulling for someone to win the election based on some sort of cosmic payback for a political party, vs. who you think would do the best job?
My "posture of objectivity"? I don't claim to be absolutely objective on many things. I've got my viewpoint like anyone else. I admit that it is shaped by many factors.
And no, I have not sat through hours of Rev. Wright's sermons. I admit that. But again, it would have to be a hell of a context to change the meaning of some of those statements.
JMW, because I am a listener of certain shows as I am driving to and fro the office, does not mean that I am a hardcore conservative. You know me personally to know that I am fairly moderate, just a little right of center. I listen primarily for entertainment purposes. Especially someone as absurd as Michael Savage in the evenings. I may listen, but I am not a subscribing member of the Savage Nation. At the same time, they do on occasion stumble on some legitimate points. Even Fox News does that, too.
Good stuff. I am glad we've got some good political sparring here again.
...Oh, and JMW, I don't think Obama would be a black liberation theology president. But as an intelligent being, I find it difficult that you can deny that someone who attends a church for two decades and has otherwise very close ties to the Rev. Wright, doesn't at some level hold on to those beliefs. In his speech, Obama likened it to not agreeing with his Grandmother but he still could not dissassociate himself from her. It is a bit harder to dissassociate yourself from family members vs. from a church congregation that you freely chose to join. He presumably chose to join because his beliefs were in line with the pastor's views. Otherwise, he had plenty of other choices in Chicago for spiritual nurishment. Again, does it bother you that Obama would feel comfortable under the influence of a man who espouses such beliefs? Even a little?
Sad to say it, but Dez is mostly right. It should be Shrillary. It is more 2008.
Also, he is right about the rest of it too.
that was some of the best damage control I have seen in a long time. But a fact is a fact. Obama made his name being the great balck hope, starting our as an urban organizer out of law school. Does he espose those beliefs? I have no idea. Is he beholden to those who got him where he is now? Probably.
There was a pretty good article in the Wal stree journal yesterday, where the writer basically defines the obama inconsistancy in regard to the wright issue, and the race issue in general. His point was that Obama clearly wants to rise above the discussion of race, but that his racial identity is defined, in some ways, for him, and therefore feels he has to try to prove his "blackness," which in this election is somewhat of an asset, as it has been in his previous elections. Yet, the problem is that the man is not being true to himself, as someone who is generally agnistic, or at least ambivalent toward his own racial identification. Therefore, he should never have gotten involved with that church in the first place (which is odd since that denomination is known for its socal tolerance). It was the right thing to do, but in doing so he was worried that he would be offending the "black" regime.
And let's use Shrillary. Billary sounds pretty stupid at this point. Als, this is getting just as much airpay on CNN
My "posture of objectivity"? I don't claim to be absolutely objective on many things.
Fair enough. Withdrawn.
Oh, sorry, forgot to address the more substantive question -
And you really are pulling for someone to win the election based on some sort of cosmic payback for a political party, vs. who you think would do the best job?
That's a difficult question for me to answer with complete candor. I will try.
1) Given the way the electoral college works, I don't see the significance of my support. As an open-ended question, is there any doubt that McCain will take Texas in November?
2) Honestly, I like Obama as an icon - quite a lot, really, and even more after watching that speech. I don't want him to be called a disaster as president simply because of his color(s). If I thought there were any prayer of reasonably objective (to say nothing of intelligent) discourse about his performance as a politician, his race wouldn't matter to me. Symbolically speaking, I think he's important as hell, and I think it's too early for him to run for many reasons. Having said that, I still think he looks very, very tough if not unstoppable in the coming election.
3) I have a hard time choosing between Obama and McCain. As Jack Aubrey puts it, it is the lesser of two weevils. Is trying to manage international affairs intelligently, for the good of this country and many others, more important to me than working to heal my native (and favorite) country's many wounds? I can't say. I think both men would honestly try, and given that I think both situations are in a state of near if not absolute unmanageability, I think either man will fail.
My wanting to see the GOP sort out GW's legacy isn't about karmic retribution, Dez, which even if I believed in would take care of itself. I am genuinely convinced that the Republican Party must address the question of its dependence on the religious/social (as opposed to the fiscal or military) right to which Karl Rove so shamelessly pandered. Trying to put Intelligent Design in schools isn't helping anybody. Anybody. Moreover, since McCain is committed to sorting out our situation in the global theater, I wouldn't mind seeing him try. The effort in Iraq is a "war" started by Republicans on false premises, and from which no one but KBR/ Halliburton, Blackwell, and the like seem to have benefited. McCain's manic/depressive commitment to financial restraint would be a welcome alternative to the grotesque waste of American resources here and abroad, even though I wonder how much the sound of the cash-register will deafen the man. I don't have a solution; Obama is committed to withdrawal, which I think is a strategic mistake on many levels, and his position's voter-appeal makes me doubt his political honesty (see, again, Mencken). As tempted as I am to write in Cthulhu ("why vote for the lesser of two evils?"), at the moment I think McCain might be a better president than Obama given the current situation domestically and abroad. Might. I have severe reservations about the man, and I am not entirely convinced Obama shouldn't be given at least a shot at trying to live up to his own rhetoric.
Sorry, I keep forgetting stuff:
But again, it would have to be a hell of a context to change the meaning of some of those statements.
How's this for context: Wright is a veteran, Dez. He put his life on the line for my country, and as such a man I think he can say anything he damn well wants about it - more significantly, I think he has the obligation, as a vet, to speak his mind.
I'm not asking you to see the phrase "God damn America" in some sort of rhetorical context. I'm asking you to consider, even for a moment, why a former Marine (of whom my father was one - SEMPER FI, MOTHERF-----S!) and a Christian black man would even want to say such a thing, let alone bellow it at the top of his voice.
There can be only one reason: rage. This rage did not occur in a vacuum. If there is any context in which I would ask you to view this statement, it must be the entire history of this great nation.
Dez,
I'm confused. Are you saying that we SHOULD NOT assume you are a hardcore conservative just because you voluntarily choose to listen to Michael Savage, but that we SHOULD assume that Obama agrees with every sermon his pastor gave because he voluntarily chose to go to that church and has a relationship with him?
My mom and stepfather have been going to the same church for over 30 years. I've heard them complain many times about the sermons given by the pastors at their church. My parents are very conservative and at times their pastors have expressed some liberal views. They don't go to church to discuss or hear about politics, but to their dismay the pastors have occasionally used current political or social topics as a basis for their sermons. I suppose I should assume that they really agree with the liberal views expressed by their pastors since they still go to that church. In fact, they've even socialized with their pastors and considered them friends. How odd.
I thought Obama's speech was amazing and my initial reaction is that he would be unstoppable in this election after hearing that speech. He's had a few mis-steps in this campaign, but for the most part he consistently rises to the top and stays positive and inclusive in spite of the various strategies Clinton and others have used to attack him. I think he would make a great President.
Unfortunately, I think you might be right about the ultimate impact this issue will have. I hope not and initially I didn't think so. But it sounds like Obama's speech has not had the positive impact on the polls I expected. It probably helped to control the damage to a certain degree, and I think it has energized most of his supporters even more. But I'm afraid there are too many people like you who are concerned about his connection to Reverend Wright. There are too many whites that are still afraid of black anger and resentment. They don't want to hear about it, especially from their President. They'd rather pretend it doesn't exist and they'd especially prefer to pretend that none of it is justified.
I firmly believe that Obama is offended and embarrassed by some of the comments made and sermons given by Rev. Wright. But I also believe him when he says the reverend has been a great spiritual guide for him. Spirituality and politics are separate things, at least they should be. It's a shame that some pastors choose to occasionally insert their politics into their sermons. It often makes some of their church members angry, but they don't always quit because of it, especially if it doesn't happen often.
Anyway, this is another very interesting chapter in this very long election season.
What's next?
Well said, Dre, about the talk-show comparison.
And it speaks to the thing that upsets me most about this -- not that Obama's getting criticized. That's fine. It's a worthwhile discussion. But that it seems like fewer and fewer people in this country are willing to acknowledge complexity in OTHER people. Themselves? Oh, yeah -- they could be the subject of a 900-page novel. But others? Nope.
More reading would probably help.
Seb, you don't disappoint. I agree: at some point the Republicans are going to have a day of reckoning with the Religious Right. That beast was stirred and was beneficial to them for awhile, but now it is biting them in the ass. The party is splintered. (Not that the Dems are ever a picture of unity, either.) But I'm not sure if this election is the right time or place to have that reckoning.
In some ways I feel much like you do in really liking Obama as an icon and a man (see my Reagan post), but having many misgivings as to policy.
I appreciate your attempt to provide me with some context for Rev. Wright's rants. I would never question anyone's (vet or not) right to say "whatever they damn well want" about this country or most any other matter. I'm a big supporter of free speech. But then, other folks have the same freedom of speech to question what he has bellowed from the pulpit. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for said speech. Yes, he has rage, as many people from his generation do. But Obama himself addressed the fault in that thinking when he said that Wright's mistake is being stuck in the old way of thinking and not moving forward. As the Notorious B.I.G. once said, "things done changed." Not that everything is peachy, but come on, how long must we loath ourselves for the sins of our ancestors?
Dre, there is a difference between tuning in to a radio show on your drive home for amusement precisely because much of what Michael Savage says is absurd vs. sitting in a congregation looking up to the pastor giving you spiritual guidance. You talk about separating politics from your religious services, but black liberation theology is inherently political. In that context, they cannot be separated.
Your example of your mother and stepfather is good on the surface, but there is a matter of degree here, son. I am sure if your mother's pastor got to a certain point in saying things that to your mother would seem so outrageous, she would leave the church and find another one. But on the whole, she agrees more than she disagrees, so she stays. Would your mother and stephfather stick around if their pastor said 3/11 was deserved? Maybe so. But there is a matter of degree with how much one would be willing to shrug off some disagreeable statements from your religious mentor and a breaking point.
I'm sorry, it still really disturbs me that Obama did not reach that breaking point with Rev. Wright after some things that were preached. I am not saying that Wright will be a black liberation president, but if somewhere deep down these things resonate with him, I am concerned with how that would effect his decisionmaking and leadership.
I meant Obama not being the black liberation prez, not Wright.
Dez,
I still think you are overreacting. You've seen excerpts from a handful of sermons. You act like you are an expert on Trinity United Church of Christ and black liberation theology. I doubt that you know much at all about either. I certainly don't.
One amusing note. My parents' church is also United Church of Christ. Obviously, there are big differences between their church and Trinity. For one thing, I've seen very few black people there, but it is interesting that it's the same denomination.
Anyway, I doubt that Trinity United Church of Christ is all about black liberation theology, whatever that is, though obviously the Reverend gave some sermons based on those ideas and beliefs. I would be willing to bet, however, that many of the sermons didn't mention politics or black liberation at all. I bet some of the sermons even talked about Jesus, the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc. Trinity is not the United Church of Black Liberation Theology.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I really don't know, but I don't want to judge a church or its members based on a handful of excerpts. That would be like thinking all black people are criminals because you met several black people who were.
Also, I know you believe people have a right to be critical of the US without being anti-American. Has the US government done things in the past that have given certain people reasons to hate the US. Absolutely. Isn't that just a more politically correct way to say the US brought 9/11 on itself. It doesn't mean the US deserved 9/11 and Rev. Wright didn't say we did. It just means the US has done things that has created enemies and maybe not everything we've done was justified. For recent examples, just look to the Iraqi invasion, our latest policies on torture, etc. We support the Geneva convention except when it applies to us.
We have to be willing to look at ourselves objectively and question some of our policies and practices. Otherwise, we'll just make more enemies and we'll forever be playing this new game of attacking them before they can attack us. That's a foreign policy that is never going to make us safe.
Dre, please refer to my profile for this blog. I am a jack-of-all-topics, expert in none. Well, except music.
I know that black liberation theology is closely related in many respects to Latin American liberation theology. I took a course in college that focused on Latin American liberation theology; its vert essence being the politicization (word?) of religion. What was strange is that although Marxism in its purest form is atheist, liberation theologies bring Marxist principles into a Christian framework and create a radical social gospel. I have been reading several books on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple lately, and they also espoused a radical liberation theology, so within those books I have also gotten a good taste of what they are about. As for the black version, it really exploded (not surprisingly) in the 1960's, focusing on a militant-political theology and connected to Pan-Africanism, etc.
From what I have read lately, Wright frequently preached on black liberation themes, and was a devout follower (especially in recent years) of those principles. It is interesting to note that these soundbites we've seen on the news of Wright were taken from a compilation of his sermons put together by his church to honor him on his retirement. So these sermons are viewed by his own church as his "Greatest Hits". People can complain about Fox News or CNN cherry picking the most inflamatory snippets, but they were picked from an already cherry picked collection put together by his own church.
Of course the U.S. has done things to upset certain elements worldwide. I guess in a very general way, yes, 9/11 was the result of our actions abroad. The fact that we are so friendly with Israel has consequences, for instance. But what is the point there? Do nothing abroad that upsets anybody? That would greatly restrict our ability to do...well, anything.
I think you are giving Wright a benefit of the doubt about as large as the state of Texas. Even in the excerpt where he was talking about 9/11, it came across to me as him saying we got our just desserts with that one. He then went on to say that 9/11 was nothing compared to what we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki; which is not comparable at all. Sure, if you want to just compare number of civilian deaths only without looking at (here comes the magic word, again) CONTEXT, I guess Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "worse". But that is where the similarities for comparison purposes end.
The Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants. The prisoners we allegedly "torture" are not combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention itself. Therefore, no, it does not in fact apply here.
Dez, that's an interesting point about the sermons already having been cherrypicked by the church elders. Very interesting. I hadn't known that.
I've heard that Wright is scholarly and, in some ways, very conservative -- preaching that the African-American community has to pick itself up and move forward from a culture of blame. How this squares with his more radical statements about white conspiracies, I'm not sure. He seems like a pretty contradictory guy.
I've got to get to work on my long post about this -- in current-event terms, I'm about six years behind already...!
Dez,
I recognize that anything we do has the potential of creating enemies on one side or the other. I'm not advocating a policy that is solely or primarily focused on not making enemies. In fact, I was not advocating a specific policy with that statement. My point was that people have the right to criticize our US foreign policy. And it should also be ok to point out that some of our policies have fueled the fierce hatred that inspires people like Osama bin Laden. If you disagree with some or all of the policies that fuel that anger (not because bin Laden doesn't like it, but for a number of other valid reasons), it is perfectly relevant to point out that 9/11 might not have happened if we'd made some different decisions. Again, that in no way suggests that the actions of 9/11 were justified. However, it might be helpful to understand where this anger comes from so we at least can better understand the potential consequences of our actions.
Clearly, Rev. Wright has made some very controversial statements and he doesn't really care who he offends. Obama is right to denounce those statements, but I think he is also right in trying to educate people on where that anger comes from.
Many Republicans, on the other hand, would rather add to the divisiveness and fuel the fear that they believe helps them get elected. In their mind, the end justifies the means. I prefer Obama's message of hope and unity to the right wing message of fear and divisiveness.
Granted, Rev. Wright's message hasn't been all that unifying, but Obama is not Rev. Wright.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is another matter. For many Americans, those are not proud moments in our history. It's easy for us to put that in a very different perspective. We were trying to end a war that had already killed incredible numbers of people and seemingly had no end in sight. Still, it's hard to justify that type of mass destruction of human life.
And the US should not be using torture - period. If the Geneva Convention does not apply to Iraq, then I go back to my earlier statement. We support the Geneva Convention except when it doesn't apply to us. We started a war with Iraq. How are the prisoners we captured in this war not combatants? Because we don't want to give up our "right" to torture them? That makes me sad and embarrassed for our country, and I think most Americans agree with me on that. That is not America, but apparently it is the policy of our current administration.
If I ever heard a pastor, priest, rabbi, preacher, etc. say the things Wright said, I would be an x-member of that congregation.
SE
Post a Comment