Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech appears to have raised Obamania to new heights with its so-called frank discussion of race relations and politics in America. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic could barely contain his excitement, calling it "searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian," as well as, "a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation."
I guess I've been waiting for something a little different then because -- while this speech certainly had some strong elements -- I thought it came up short in achieving its aim of unity.
Obama is dead on when he says "the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods... helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us." He's also right in saying that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding."
But he fails -- like most Democrats -- to extend this notion of understanding the root cause of evil to countries on the receiving end of U.S. foreign policy. In equating "a view that sees white racism as endemic" to "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam," Obama shows a major inconsistency -- if not a hypocrisy -- in his notion of unity.
It is well known-particularly by the CIA term "blowback" -- that terrorists do not start conflicts, but rather rise from them, as unintended negative consequences of our actions. Radical Islamic groups have grown in number as a result of suffocating occupations like those of Israel in Palestine and the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is not only wrong in saying that Radical Islam is the root cause of conflict in the Middle East, but he is also attempting to strengthen the deadly tie between the U.S. and Israel -- a tie that is already bound by billions of dollars in aid and military equipment every year.
Furthermore, to call Israel a "stalwart ally" at a time when Palestinian citizens in the West Bank are subjected to system of apartheid and the entire population of Gaza -- some 1.4 million -- have been denied access to electricity, fuel and essential supplies is downright shameful. Is that befitting of someone who is supposed to represent "hope" and "change"?
Obama supporters like the aforementioned Sullivan ignore these telling inconsistencies and instead fill us with fanciful lies. Even the usually atheistic social news community Reddit took note of Sullivan's blog entry, quoting him on its front page as saying, "This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian."
What could be more in keeping with the "love your enemy" teachings of Jesus than voting to approve every war appropriation since 2005, refusing to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013, and talking about increasing a defense budget that is already greater than the rest of the world combined?
If we can ever hope to achieve "a more perfect union" then we must start thinking outside the realm of national borders.
Bryan Farrell is a New York based journalist and activist, whose writings have appeared in The Nation and In These Times. He can be contacted at www.bryanfarrell.com.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HuffPost's Pick
These are legitimate points--but lets remember, Obama is not within arm's reach of the nomination because he's another Dennis Kucinich. To do any good--he still needs to win. He's admits he'd prefer single-payer health care, but proposes a Clinton-style hybrid plan because it is possible. Does anyone think that opening up a debate about the Intifada and the role of our policies in fostering extremism around the world would help him get elected?
How 'bout we get him elected and hope that having a President who is level-headed and sophisticated and highly moral can make policy decisions that don't foster as much extremism around the world?
Yes, but that is not the message that his folowers are given.
They truely believe that he will "change" everything the way they ideally invisage america to be.
He is not telling them that politics is trade-offs with the other side and settling for half of what you want.
whether he knows this or not, his fanatic followers, especially on this website. think in ideological terms only they think if they get him elected, they will get everything they want or deserve
no matter how this election tursn out, they will be disappointed.
SethBullock,
You ask, "Does anyone think that opening up a debate about the Intifada and the role of our policies in fostering extremism around the world would help him get elected?"
I think the issue here, considering what you have asked, is this question: why did he bring it up at all, then?
What was the point?
so you picked up on one or two statements that were cursory and made a case out of them. Maybe if the premise of the speech was "our broader role in the global community and our relationship with the Middle East" those kind of more in depth topics could be explored. But this was a speech about the domestic issue of racism and our countries particular histories and divisions. You'll pardon Obama for relying on some generalities that people agree with on foreign policy so that he can make a larger point on his theme. Maybe next speech he can talk about how our foreign policy is fundamentally flawed. Oh yeah that was yesterday. Give the man credit for keeping the scope narrow enough for its intended audience. Or do you need your every concrete opinion to be pandered to directly, otherwise it's "shortsighted"? Give me a break.
Obama is recognizing the reality of poverty too, in Muslim countries. He know how indoctrinating religious schools can be. Look at the problems in the Justice Dept. w/Christian School grads. And of course, the radical Muslim schools flourish when there is no other option. The three problems have the same cause, poverty, bad school, nutrition. And arms sales.
Some fighters are fighting for food, nothing more.
Obama went to a secular school and a Catholic School in Jakarta. His mother worked making micro loans to the poor so they could start a business. There are economic solutions that do not involve total welfare. Help with infrastructure and sanitation. The basic things people need to live.
Obama hit a single not a home run with this speech. Barack is a failure because he has lacked real leadership against the war. He didn't vote for the war because he wasn't in the Senate. How come he has voted consistently to finance the war if he is such a Peacenik?
this wasn't a speech about the war smarty
Others had already driven the bus into the ditch...
You cannot expect Obama to support giving the delicate task of withdrawl to Bush in any way. Withdrawl will require incredible diplomacy Bush does not have, nor could ever have. Diplomacy is not a strength for any within the Bush team.
In my opinion, he voted to finance the war because the troops need the goods that they need to fulfill their missions (misguided as they may be).
We all know that it lies that got America in Iraq. That said, if you don't have the political power to bring them back home immediately, you can't leave them butt-out without resources.
I want the troops home also, but the so-called world's greatest army shouldn't have more unnecessary casualties than they're already having because these kids don't have the infrastructural support.
theres a difference between supporting the war and providing funding for the troops. or do you want our troops to be ill-equipped to fight this ridiculous war?
Take it easy. They're just looking for any reason to further confirm their commitment to the least of the three evils left standing; though, it would seem he's the only one standing, in that one is stomping and the other coasting into retirement.
By the way, by retirement I meant The Presidency.
Excellent post.
I did really love the speech but took note of the "stalwart ally" and Islam statement.
Another thing I found very interesting is his pointing out corporate interests as culprits. Something that no one has tackled, or even mentioned in MSM at all.
I think if we want to have a talk on racism... and we must... it ought to be placed in the larger context of oppression as a whole. Oppression by the moneyed, corporate interests of those that keep it in the money. It is and has always been in the interest of fat cats to keep people divided along either class, national, ethnic, color and yes, gender lines. The force of power is diluted when we are all fighting amongst ourselves rather than turning our collective gaze and wrath on those that make huge profits at the expense of the poor, the middle class, the lives of real people and this planet... This war has always been about making money in my view. What are ourt biggest exports or profit makers. I am not positive but I would venture a guess and say armaments and pharmaceuticals. What do you need most of in war? Who makes them.
Who services the forces... no draft so its ourtsources. What fuels the war, oil...
I know I'm not saying anything new but wanting to point it out yet again.
this election needs to be brought into this arena.
What I loved best about the speech was the time devoted to one subject.
I would like to see an hour a week given to each candidate to deal with and present issues and their thoughts and ideas about them.
The BS we are listening to by the media driven coverage is just as divisive as the crap that comes out of BOTH campaigns... in fact I'd say it was the cause.
If they would take the time to inform us (now there is a concept) instead of looking for blood there would be no incentive for "attacks." Attacks are what gets covered, if there are no attacks the media creates controversy some other way, by distorting something, provocatively taking clips out of context etc.
If there was no coverage of "attacks," and no provocation of them by the media we wouldn't have them and we... WE... wouldn't be on each others asses nearly as much as we are with all the hatred and ugliness.
And then they (the media) have the balls to say they are reporting, or castigate anyone who points out the media's complicity and as I said the actual cause or inciters of the ugliness.
God I hate them!
LOL
They have their corporate bosses which is why no one seemed to pay any attention to what I thought was the most perceptive moment in the speech.
I have to look for the exact quote.
I want to see an hour or even a half hour on China... what do they think about that?
The middle east... Israell and Palestine
green.
We know corn ethenol is not the way to go but the corn lobby is pushing it and everyone is buying it. Why?
Transportation infrastructure... both the actual bridges, roads, tunnels etc and the promotion of a nation wide city by cith and state bu state and town by town public transportation system that actually will work for people without all the inconvenience.
The electic infrastructure... can we update it with new technology rather than just repair it with old?
These are what affect us in real life and these are the things corporate interests are fighting tooth and nail to keep a hold of.
And what a bout capitalism? Does it have to be so rampant? do CEO's need to make insane profits?
Do companies?
Can't there be some kind of "enforced" profit sharing with the communities companies are in?
Why must we ship jobs over seas?
We really need some creative thinkers and conversations with the candidates not "gotcha" reporting both on MSM and the blogs.
And we the supporters should stop pulling each other apart and our opposing candidates apart and get a grip. We need to realize if we can't achieve unity how the hell can the country. We are it.
I for one do not want to keep reading this ugly drivel we pour all over each other... anointing with hate is not where we need to be going.
A heckuva good post, accountability.
With all due regard for the good wishes and fervor that Mr. Obama inspires among his supporters, the facts on the ground in Palestine, in Congress, and in Mr. Obama's platform remain exactly as Farrell describes them. And if any of Obama's supporters think this is the first time he has expressed his fealty to AIPAC, they had better research their Anointed One more carefully.
It is true IMHO that Obama is light years better for our nation's future than McCain, and I grant that he is likely much better than Clinton by virtue of the good he inspires. But those of us who seek a more peaceful, sustainable world must eventually come to terms with the fact that his assessment of the root cause of conflict in the Middle East is, at its core, a colonialist viewpoint.
Hillary Clinton is often accused of a willingness to "say anything to get elected". I reflect upon the comments made here by several Obama supporters, implying that he was doing the same thing in siding with Israel, and wonder what makes him any different. I also marvel at the ignorance of those comments, given that poll after poll reveals that American Jews are more opposed to the Occupation of both Palestine and Iraq than the general US population.
I noticed Obama's reference to radical Islam and Israel, too. He's a politician, this time pandering to get back the Jewish vote he lost over Farrakhan.
my entire direct family, all jews, support obama. none of us buy into the guilt-by-association crap that everyone seems to be eating for breakfast lunch and dinner. dont lump is into gullible, easily swayed people. were not all republicans.
Mr. Farrell, while your underlying analysis of the effects of our foreign policy is basically accurate, your disappointment with Obama's choice not to address them in this speech on the state of the racial divide in this country is ridiculous!
If you're so naive as to think that an electorate that's so hypersensetive to anything that smacks of 'Anti-Americanism' that they recoil in horror and indignity at Rev. Wright and his comments---also largely true though painful to hear---is able at this point in time to digest the truths you're demanding be addressed, then your apparent youth and idealism is showing.
It's my hope that these issues CAN be raised, and CAN be dealt with----and I think it's imperative that they are. It's also my belief that it will take a leader of the stature, reasoning and calm strength of Barack Obama to begin to reveal these truths, and bring the country into line with them.
But FIRST he must be elected by this same brainwashed, frightened electorate! First things first.
true
exactly what I was thinking.
sad but true...
Speaking as an atheist progressive, I must say that I completely agree with Obama's statement. I don't agree with everything Israel has done, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to support Israel's destruction. Israel's destruction is the only thing which will satisfy the guys who are lobbing rockets into Israeli towns and blowing up themselves. Violence against Israel will continue as long as Israel exists--the mere EXISTENCE of Israel is enough of an affront to radical Islamists to justify killing civilians with rockets, mortars, and suicide bombs.
I won't ask you to just change your mind about Israel and agree with Obama and me. I just ask you to at least admit that this is an issue of reasonable debate and that it's possible for rational progressives to have differing views about Israel's culpability in Mideast violence.
Supporting a statee for the Palestinians and the ending of apartheid by Israel is not calling for its destruction.
pay attention.
Which is exactly Barack's position. Pay attention.
Do you honestly think that those are the root causes of the violence in the Middle East? What, exactly, do you think are the root causes?
There is, now, a state of Palestine. Admittedly the area it covers is less than the Palestinians wanted (the borders they wanted would have included all of Israel), but it exists. And yet Hezbollah still bombards Israel with rockets. I know what you're thinking (assuming you know anything about the region)--why would Hezbollah care about a Palestinian state? Exactly. That's the point.
Do you really think the "ending of apartheid by Israel" would satisfy Hezbollah?
Our foreign policy of the last 50s years has contributed to the hostility from mid-east terrorist groups. True. In fact, this is a gross understatement. I hate to tell people but it isn't that they are jealous of our malls. Go to library and read a book.
But to suggest that Obama should tell Americans this truth?!?!? Dude, Washington politicians all know this--even Bush--certainly McCain, HRC--even Rummy and Cheney. But my God why don't you just ask Obama to set himself on fire like a Buddhist monk. Americans can't even deal with the crap we did in Vietnam, which was obvious and out in the open. They sure as hell don't want disturbed the fantasy of a benign America spreading democracy like rose petals. It is like a dysfunctional family secret. Even the victims of the secret will close ranks and protect it.
You said it
Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is dishonest or as most of you say "a liar!" if she doesn't tell the truth 100%, if she "plays politics" but Obama should do just that?
Wow.
what can one say?
Then one must ask: why did Obama bring it up at all in this speech?
Bryan's points are well taken, but the context of the speech was not the Middle East. On that subject, none of the remaining candidates is hitting the nail on the head, but Senator Obama strikes me as the one who may afford the best chance to learn, to evolve, and to discover a better path than the self defeating and ill-informed path we have been on for generations in the Middle East. Getting back to the speech, and its inconsistencies or imperfections, it remains the most adult and intelligent discourse on any difficult subject we have seen in perhaps a hundred and forty three years (Lincoln's second inaugral comes to mind here). That the subject was race, that the speech consisted of complete sentences and coherent thoughts thus demonstrationg more respect for the listener or reader than any politician has shown in decades, that it may be the best and most accurate summary of where we are on the issue of race, and that it challenges us to understand and transcend our collective inconsistencies or imperfections convinces me that we now can identify the preferable candidate in this election. The only question is will we be able to discern and act as intelligently as Senator Obama believes we can?
I don't think that every speech has to be all things to all people. Although, one of the biggest impediments we have to realistic foreign policy discussions in the US is a published true account of US involvement in overthrowing duly elected governments in the region and de-stabilizing it to favor our multinational companies.
I will give credit where credit is due. I am voting for Obama but I am agreeing with you on this one. I was not raised in the US. Having grown up with unfiltered European and Caribbean news, I have a different take on this Israel/Palestine/US issue.
I wonder if the majority of US citizens know that Israel is more liberal than the US or do they think it is such a religious, highly conservative, Hasidic Jews at the Wailing Wall kind of thing.
We are fighting to get adequate healthcare for 46 million people and Israel has more Physicians per capita than the US.
We are sending billions of dollars per year.
Israel is the "third rail" of American politics. No one can say boo to them without incurring the wrath of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee), the real power behind the throne in American foreign policy.
The one sentence of the speech that Farrell is objecting to was a bit jarring in the speech. Although that is largely a problem that follows from Obama's decision not to quote the lines from Wright's sermons that he is talking about. This particular line is given as a response to one of the objectionable claims by Wright. But I have not heard what the specific claim is. (Obviously I am not about to take seriously right wing paraphrases of what Wright said. So far I have only seen video of the God Damn America part which did not seem so over the top given the context).
It is not hard to imagine quotes that could make the Obama comment appropriate. And it is not hard to imagine quotes that would make the Farrell critique correct. Certainly any attempt to try to explain the problem between the Palestinians and the Israelis as rooted in Islamic radicalism is nonsense. The palestinians have generally been fairly secular and the first problem for Hamas has been turning palestinian anger in a religious direction.
On the other hand, if the Wright comment blamed Israel for 9/11 or for the problems of al qaeda or in Iraq in general, then Obama's comment seems fine. People trying to vilify Israel are not doing anything to bring about peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. Nor are the Palestinians equal to an ideology of radical Islam. It is quite possible to support the Palestinians while condemning an ideology of radical Islam. And Obama's position on Israel has seemed the best of any of the major contenders. That is something that has led to his having to defend himself from the ludicrous charge of being anti-Israel. So criticism of him along the lines above seem a bit off base.
So you have problems with his speech because he didn't go more into detail about the Middle East? He can only have so long of a speech, it was 45 minutes already. What do you expect? He was giving a speech on race in America.
Further, your assertion that since he didn't talk about what you wanted he must be lying is absurd. That greatly diminishes the validity of your point.
Loading comments…
Posted March 19, 2008 | 11:27 PM (EST)