The Meanings of Obama's Speech
I watched Barack Obama's speech yesterday morning intently. The "pre-game show" of cable commentators predicted a somewhat grim outcome. What could Obama say that could possibly overcome his association with the words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Would he throw his pastor on the train tracks? And even if he did, would he still suffer from guilt by association?
But then, for 45 minutes, I saw a man who for days had appeared somewhat at sea, buffeted by waves that relentlessly pushed him off course, seem to find his compass and chart a course directly into the eye of the storm. I saw a man with the inner confidence, and the steadiness of a captain who knew he was sailing on uncharted waters but needed to go there anyway, take the nation with him and land them safely on the shore.
The pundits were clearly stunned. They knew they had witnessed something extraordinary, a moment when time seemed to stand still and a politician in the midst of a withering electoral storm did the unspeakable: he spoke the truth. The unspoken, unspeakable truth. He told the nation that he understood what was happening in white barber shops and black barber shops, around white water coolers and black water coolers, and that we are neither free from our prejudices nor merely prejudiced in our respective grievances, and that in both our prejudices and our grievances, we have more in common than we know.
With the exception of commentators who pride themselves on their bigotry, the speech drew immediate, nearly universal acclaim, and I suspect that its lasting impact will mirror its initial impact. But as the great French sociologist Emil Durkheim described it, we live our lives in the realm of the profane, punctuated by moments of sanctity, only to return again to everyday life. And by nightfall, as I listened to reports of the speech on television, many of the talking heads had returned to the realm of the literal, the crass, and the profane: Did he distance himself enough from Reverend Wright? Did he condemn his former pastor enough to reassure white voters?
But the speech wasn't about Reverend Wright, even though the controversy surrounding pieces of his sermons was the impetus for it. Obama delivered a message that spoke to the conflicts and contradictions around race that have existed since the earliest days of this nation, and he delivered it in a personal way that spoke to his own history and his own complex response to his pastor's messages over many years. The speech brought to mind a passage written by the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson a half century ago in his psychobiography of Martin Luther, which could just as easily have been written last night. Erikson was describing that ineffable quality we call charisma, and the way an individual life history sometimes converges with the historical moment: "Now and again," Erikson wrote, "an individual is called upon (called upon by whom, only theologians claim to know, and by what only bad psychologists)," to lift his personal conflicts to the level of cultural conflicts, "and to try to solve for all what he could not solve for himself alone."
Obama clearly hadn't wanted to make this election about race. But the events of the last week led him to do what the nation has long needed to do: to have the kind of open conversation about race that Republicans have avoided because they've preferred to exploit it and Democrats have avoided because they've tended to fear it. We can't solve problems we can't talk about, and our better angels on race tend to be our conscious values. As numerous commentators described it, Obama led us to our better angels.
But from a political standpoint, at least as important as the primary message of his speech was a series of meta-messages he conveyed as much through his actions as his words. Obama's speech was in many respects a rejoinder to a number of questions raised about him over the last few weeks that contributed to defeats in Ohio and Texas.
Is he a moving orator who speaks pretty lines but lacks substance? No one can seriously ask that question today, after Obama offered the most eloquent, intellectually penetrating, and most moving description of the complexities of race in America of any politician in recent history. But he did more than talk about race. He began to build a progressive narrative that Democrats, and the progressive movement more broadly, have had difficulty developing. He offered a progressive vision of patriotism, integrating a more traditional view -- referring to his grandfather's service under General Patton, and the military service of Reverend Wright -- with the notion that love of country is not blind love, that forming a more perfect union -- the essence of progressivism -- is part of what it means to love one's country.
Does he have the courage, capacity, and cojones to lead? Yesterday, he led us as a nation, and he showed a firm, steady, and unflinching hand. Not only did he utter words most Democratic politicians don't speak in polite company but should have spoken years ago, but he refused to take the low road -- to denounce and cast aside someone who clearly matters dearly to him simply because he had become a political liability -- displaying both courage and conviction.
Is he really a Muslim, not just foreign but an "Islamo-fascist" in sheep's clothing? No one listening to his speech could come away with anything but the message that he is not only a Christian but a person who takes his faith seriously. He spoke of how Reverend Wright had "helped introduce me to my Christian faith" and baptized his children, and how he had preached about the importance of "doing God's work here on earth." Yet he condemned his former pastor for seeing "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."
And time will tell if he answered one last question: Can he win the respect, and ultimately the votes, of white males, and particularly working class males, in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania? I suspect his speech may have reopened a dialog with, if not the minds of, the kinds of voters he had won over in states like Wisconsin but began to lose for a number of reasons: Hillary Clinton's obvious command of economic issues in a time of increasing economic desperation, the fact that voters associate the Clinton name with eight years of economic growth between two disastrous Bushes, and Obama's resistance to swinging back when his opponent was throwing punches, which voters (particularly male voters) tend to take as a sign of weakness. But the meaning of Obama's loyalty to his pastor in the face of enormous pressure to cast him aside is not likely to be lost on white males who value strength, courage, honor, and loyalty. Nor is an aspect of his life story many Americans may not have known, about the role played by his two white working-class grandparents in his upbringing; or his criticism of the failures of fatherhood in the inner cities; or his willingness to speak openly about the seething resentments of the millions of white men who punch a time card every day, feel increasingly unable to provide for their families as the price of gas skyrockets and heath care moves beyond their reach, and who don't view themselves as all that privileged.
Drew Westen professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies. He is the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
Loading comments…
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
This is over barring some sort of REAL scandal involving Obama or armed robbery in Denver. Despite that I have a question for all of us progressives who can handle talking bottom line common sense facts.
Who Do We Prefer? Who do we need to effectively enable the extinction of the radical conservative agenda? Who can continue to force the evolution of a Republican party that thanks to Bush has had to nominate the Anti-Republican Republican Mccain just to try and survive?
I argue that our choice clearly cannot be Hillary Clinton. She has become through mostly her own doing and own words nothing more than "Liberal Revenge" for Bush. She has constantly railed against the republicans and has claimed herself to be the one to fight them? We've sadly witnessed as a nation what taking the fight to enemy can become if unwarranted. Would she be able to do anything other than unite a weak Republican base and stop the momentum Bushe's failures have granted us? Just as we united islamic radicals of all kinds with Al Qaeda into the forces we now face in Iraq? Again wasting the momentum and support we gained from the world after 9/11?
She has become exactly what we despise in sport, a sore loser, and worse yet one who attempts to fix the game. Through her own "kitchen sink" stratedgy she has already begun uniting republicans against her party's mathematical nominee. She no longer can hope to lead and inspire the masses of Americans ready to join the progressive movement, certainly not long term. To be fair she can win and be the President, but she only offers progressives short term success(4-8 years) and her Presidency risks being viewed by republicans as revenge enabling the radical conservatives to regain their footing.
On the other hand we have a canidate who has for the most part played fairly and by all the rules with relative honesty and dignity and became the biggest $$$ man in the party to boot. A canidate who wishes not to vilify or unjustly attack those of differing opinions but instead wishes to listen and try and fully understand them, enabling him to be respected by even his biggest opponents and rivals. A respect that may enable him to force the continued destruction of radical conservatism. The more success and acceptance the republicans see from progressives the harder it will be for the Radical Far Right to regain and retain it's strong grasp on our republican neighbors across the isle by mobilizing God or Hate against us.
If we choose to win now with Obama he gives us his 4-8 years and probably his VP's 4-8 years plus 2 generations of new voters to add to the powerbase of the progressive movement. How weakened would the Radical right be after a possible 16 years of unifying progressive leadership be?
Hillary Clinton offers us the immediate future and Liberal Revenge
Barack Obama offers us an awakening and the future
It's a matter of stratedgy, not personal feelings and biases.
I think everyone here is missing the point of this whole fiasco.
We are now condeming people because of what they might have or have not heard in church?
Are you kidding me, no really are you? Every day I'm convinced that this country is becoming more like
china. No really people can't listen to a pastor because he might say offensive things about a group of
people. However it is hypocrytical for him to slam Imus, and knowingly goto a church that share negative views about other people. However in my book this is really a non issue, because if we take this argument to it's logical extreme, nobody will be able to voice any opinion in front of one another
because it offends someone.
Plus really do you guys belive that the Mr. Wright spewed that vulgar rant every sunday? No I'm sure there was alot more good in his his rants than that. Nobody would attend that church if it was what we have now had drilled into our heads by the media.
Get real people, get real.
quote " We are now condeming people because of what they might have or have not heard in church?" unquote
Gee, this had been going on for years, namely Democrats doing this to Republicans.
No, we don't condemn Republicans because of what they hear at church. We condemn them because they are gullible enough to believe it.
Do you have any evidence, anywhere, that would suggest that Obama believes a single word of Reverend Wright's controversial statements?
Not all of Mr. Wright's few minutes of soundbite played repeatedly on MSM were vulgar. Some of it was right on point. This country is quite often arrogant and callous in our dealings with the rest of the world. One may feel we are entitled to this (I don't), but I can assure you, it will not bring us benefits down the line. If we want to be stronger and more successful, we need to take our place within the world community, not pretend we can call all the shots. As for African Americans, they have suffered greatly at the hands of the white power elite here, and if anyone believes this is no longer the case, watch the post-Katrina footage and tell me the African American community no longer has anything for which to be angry. And don't weasel out of it by saying it is a "class" issue. Why are so many African Americans poor? Because they were born inferior? I THINK NOT.
Did you guys see Chris Wallace's ridiculous new "Obama Watch?" Ridiculoid: http://www
Is it just me or is EVERY huffpost pick a pro-obama piece trying to rationalize how black against white racism is OK.
I also notice that my posts pointing out obama's votes in support for war money & attacks on our rights & the FACT that he is a member of the CFR & that the CFR members take an UNCONSTITUTIONAL OATH to become a member & that the CFR is part of the NWO Fascist One World Government agenda & the FACT that obama doesn't want to shut down the wars, he wants to step them up (Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) aren't getting posted.
In other words the things that obama supporters are the MOST TERRORIFIED that people will learn of.
You do know it's NOT freedom of speech if FACTS about his voting & unconstitutional activities are supressed.
Y'all must be terrorified that bomb bomb mcinsain will win if the truth comes out yet the truth is that ALL of the big three cannidates are UNACCEPTABLE.
You can allow me to post the FACTS now, or wait untill the rethug-lie-scam swiftboating starts and have it all be a shock to the obamanuts/
OK, YOU have MY apology.
Thank you huffpost.
It's just you.
I’m sorry but I respectfully disagree with you and others on this matter, the reason he had to give the speech in the first place is the issue, or he never would have broached the subject. Well, we are talking about race, and we know why white talking heads hate to touch this subject, one slip up or misstatement and you’re gone for good, whatever, for the most part that whites have become use to seeing this.
The troubling parts of these rants are that they are so viscous in the way he was celebrating 9/11 the Sunday after, I don’t think many will be able to forget that and rightfully so. The white man stuff doesn’t bother me, I hear it all the time, but for a sitting US Senator to have a man on his staff/frie
If you want to focus on the way the speech was given, the words he used, and how he looked giving it fine, I just feel that is a little shallow. I know a lot of people want hope in their lives; I’m not down on that, although I don’t quite understand it. I think it is very naive for others to think that this won’t matter to people who aren’t wrapped up in Obama-mania when it comes time to vote.
He never stated that the victims deserved this, he was speaking to the culpability of the nation, it was a statement regarding populations, not individuals. And it is inescapable that our foreign policy played a role in the event (necessary, but not sufficient). And this is a very valid argument, as if you believe that we should continue to pursue our current foreign policy, than we will have to accept an increased risk of terrorist attacks as a result, we may feel that this is an acceptable risk, but then you have to accept the consequences. And I can guarantee you that our policy makers had made this risk/benefit analysis before 9/11.
I'll say this, Obama is right about the black and white issue.
The Fox folks are so focused on the "Rich white people in power" phrase, that they overlook the facts. The Reverend pointed out why we were attacked, not that he's happy we were attacked. He pointed out many of the injustices and abuses our government has perpetrated in our name against other countries and to its own. The man is not subtle and seems to go overboard. He definitely lost me with the AIDS hypothesis, (his tin foil hat was on too tight that day.)
We have discovered however that white people are just as touchy when the word white is used in connection with negative issues as blacks are. This is what came out of this story in my humble opinion. The white media demanded an apology and reasons for Senator Obama's long standing relationship with this man.
They did not bat an eyelash at Mr. Hagee or other ministers and pasters who routinely bash the U.S. because their rhetoric is cloaked in soft white religious anger and condemnation cloaked in indignation over gays, lesbians, abortions and to a lesser extent, adultery. They don't ask for or even look for inflammatory speeches by these men of God because it does not sell as well. Most church goers have heard the speeches that make them cringe from time to time, (I have).
The fact is when Sean Hannity had Reverend Wright on his show, he had an opportunity to explore the issues of race, the culture of the Black American Church and why the "Black church has had to be the spiritual, physical, psychological and cultural sanctuary of a large block of American society.
He did not. He was not interested. He was looking for racism. He asked about the reasons for the word "black" appearing in so many areas of the church's website. For example black values, black culture, black identity. He noted that if he was to change that word to "white", wouldn't that make the churches pronouncements seem racist?
What Sean Hannity failed notice is that if he changed the word black to Irish, or Jewish, or European, or even Polish, it would no longer hold its caustic racist power. The problem is this country had stripped Africans of their identity for hundreds of years. They have no ethnic origin to fall back on the way Mr. Hannity has. The African American culture is their identity. Black is their ethnic group. It's not just a race to them.
Immigrants who happen to be black find that out pretty quickly. We don't fit easily into the Black American culture. We have our own. In many cases we tend to do better here because of the cultural connections we've established and the intense drive we needed just to get to this country in the first place. We're usually middle class folks who already have the skills to succeed. We're just looking to make it here. We've come with hope and purpose.
The issue is not so much that Reverend Wright was damning the U.S., he said that "God" was damning the U.S.. He even addressed the white people in his audience when he mentioned race to let them know that he spoke not of white people in general but to the specific group of "rich white people" who indeed run this country.
Unfortunately the divide in this country is wide and deep. Mr. Obama won't reach those who have set their assumptions and views solidly in place. Please remember that less than 140 years ago, slavery was legal in the United States.
Please don't forget that 40 years ago many states of the Union outlawed the marriage of interracial couples, Mr. Obama's parents would have been in very big trouble in many parts of his own country. So let's put down the pitch forks and roll up our sleeves. Let's get to work on our own country and prepare for a brighter future together.
If George W. Bush can get a pass for his many failures and questionable associations prior to taking the presidency, we can give these candidates the benefit of the doubt. Let's make this black and white issue a reason to move forward not backward.
e pluribus unum.
As long as we continue to pretend our foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11, we will not be able to move forward in a productive manner. No one is saying the deaths of 3,000 are justified, anymore than we can say the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 4,000 Americans are justified to bring Iraq to its presentday state. But we cannot continue to have an imperialist presence all over the world without bearing some consequences. Whether or not one believes we have a right to such a presence, it simply will not bear edible fruit.
another Obama clip surfaces and no its not about Wright i wish he was taking about wright
http://www
Drew,
Great perspective, thanks. My heart cries for those posters in this thread who are unable to understand and enjoy this great moment that Obama has given us. They are poorer for it....
Obama and the media misguided voters and are promoting a trend of reducing the general intelligence of this nation's election to a large scale sensational show led by Opra, for their selfish gains. The country is facing unprecedented crisis, from wall street, to any street, with middle class getting increasing squeezed and poor getting hit harder by inflation that they deny having, by recession that's looming. Only Hillary with unequivocal devotion to the country best interest rather than her own personal interest (which she could have better off doing her own law career long ago), along with her skill and experience, can give the country the best chance. Voting any others for the sake of trivial likes or dislikes by journalists like you was what harmed the country 8 years ago. Remember the media saying Al is not likable and too robotic? Look at what the country got into now with Bush. Obama will lead the country into more racial divide rather than healing it.
Obama lied and his campaign died.
Few thoughts on the matter of Wrights church. Are children allowed to go there, or is it considered rated R? This sermons were disturbing to me to watch at 29. I can't imagine what impact it would have on me if i we 9 or 10 years old._Secon
Lets be happy this is happening in March. Obama has handled it well and some of the "shock and outrage" over these Rev Wright Videos will die down. People, are going to tire of this after a few months and the issue will be eclipsed by something else.
One of the things from yesterdays speech that should be be developed as a theme is that the better interests of the Reagan Democrats don't lie in the Republican party. It's not just affirmative action that's holding back the white working class but the Republican backed coroprations. I hope to hear more of that.
Oh no this is whities biggest fear, a black guy with a grudge in the white house. Wright is Obama's racist boogieman. Come on reverse it and think about it. Stop messing around you get it dont you??
P.S. Where is WRIGHT????? Nobody finds hi absence odd???Let the man speak for himself maybe he will have the audacity to answer the questions the public have for him.
Drew,
I agree 100% with you. That being said, unfortunately we may all expect during the next six months that hideous 20 second sound bite showing Minister Wright, to be run over-and-over like a Warhol Sleep Loop by every right-wing news source out there.
True also this speech was directed toward an educated level of society (not talking white-elitist media types either) Meaning to say educated beyond the level of racisms, anti-semitism etc.
I remain hopeful when the dust settles, this outstanding patriotic American, Barack Obama will prevail and win the office of President of United States of America.
-SW
Barack Obama and the Chatty "Oh!" Reverend Wright: Chicago’s Charlatans.
No one wants to hear it: the gregarious newcomer Mr. Obama scamming and fabricating his lineage according to what his audience wants to hear. At the same time, his well-versed preacher disguises scripture as racism. These two new so-called political-preaching magnets cultivate followers for their own political interest and socialist fame.
While they may promise to take care of their followers, the voters soon discover that their lifetime principals have ended up in the wrong hands of the never-endi
Hysterical! And I applaud your ability to conflate every right-wing smear against liberals that have been peddled over the past 25 years in a single post. You are truly twisted.
I feel that Bill Cosby has a lot more guts than Obama does. And that is because he addresses something that Obama left out of his speech - and that so many people are reluctant to talk about.
That is the fact many whites see African Americans as combative, confrontational, hostile, threatening and antagonistic. Hip-hop music and rap music has not helped. It is like a worship of violence. The excuse is "we sing about what we know." If you song about it once, twice, maybe three times - okay. But if you sing about guns, and thugs, and capping somone off endlessly - it becomes a worship of violence. It becomes cool, it becomes fun.
You have black kids who do not even want to carry books to school because they don't want their friends thinking they are "acting white."
They also see an unlevel playing ground. The way that Al Sharpton and activists went after those Duke players, even before knowing the facts - that is reflective of a certain mindset. Or the reaction at Howard University when a jury of black women let OJ walk free, all of these issues people are afraid to bring up and to this day are not addressed.
Then when problem this is brought up to the black community - the answer is always "you are racist, you are racist." Look at all the flack Bill Cosby gets. When he says he can't understand what half the young black people are saying, everyone comes out at him. But at least he has the guts to say it.
YOu cannot argue that black people have not suffered terribly in this country. No one else will say the African American community needs to take responsibilty for many of the choices of today - even Obama. And the way people view the black community will affect how many people vote for Obama.
Exactly. Obama suddenly discovers that race is an 'issue that cannot be ignored' after campaigning for over a year. Now, he gives us permission to have the conversation. How magnanimous of him. Bill Clinton got blasted for saying Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88 but now it's OK to discuss race cause Obama gave a speech. His campaign labeled everything racist that even slightly criticized him. He's just a softer more covert version of Wright for public consumption but he still carries forth the same problem of 'blacks can say whatever they want but whites have to be careful'.
I just heard that Obama wanted Imus fired for his remarks but didn't say boo to his pastor for his ugly remarks. What a hypocrite. We cannot have him as president. That's what the superdelegates are for, to prevent that.
The last refuge of pride is resentment. To expect the black community to forego that semblance of control in a life filled with disappointment and deprivation is to ask them to surrender the last ragged bits of self respect they have. You do not know what you are asking commonsense2.
I ask you, if your country had been overrun by a foreign power, your people subjugated and marginalized, how resentful of that dominance would you be?
I ask you, if your country had been overrun by a foreign power, your people subjugated and marginalized, how resentful of that dominance would you be?
?????
WHEN did we overrun Africa?
Blacks sell blacks into slavery & it turns into if your country had been overrun by a foreign power????
WTF?
"That is the fact many whites see African Americans as combative, confrontational, hostile, threatening and antagonist
Good for them. They believe stereotypes. Hooray!
"And the way people view the black community will affect how many people vote for Obama."
You must have been asleep during his speech or you are just hearing what you want to hear. I didn't hear any blaming that wasn't spread around evenly. So Obama is responsible for how people view his race? In other words, you are saying that white people think black people are angry and dangerous, and therefore we shouldn't vote for Obama because of that? Did I get that about right?
Well if that's the case, I propose not voting for any white people because white people have been responsible for every war in the history of the nation that we started (though Colin Powell did help with the last one). Clearly, they are angry, warlike, and dangerous. Just like at the dangerous man the Republicans are planning to nominate.
"That is the fact many whites see African Americans as combative, confrontational, hostile, threatening and antagonist
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERENCED.
TRY THIS:
A black man walks through a white neighborhood in a big city......
A white man walks through a black neighborhood in a big city.....
Now BE HONEST, Which one is MOST LIKELY to end up in a morgue?
You are obviously buying what the MSM shows you about black people.
commonsense2 - I could take you on point by point, but I'll just hit you with this. Most rap music is bought by suburban white kids!!
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:
"I can no more disown him (Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Brilliant, honest, touching, hard-hitting stuff. But is it really helpful to his political prospects? I love the parallel. The entire blogging unit of The Huffington Post loves the parallel. His base of young white liberals and African-Americans loves it more than anyone.
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 grandmothe
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.
great comment. but perhaps (and i do get the sense from sections of his speech) that this is the direction in which he is headed, and ultimately the crux of his message, as this speech served to address the immediate issue of the Wright flap and racism and serve as a spring board to the discussion of the divisiveness born of the class structure (and the way the wealthy and politicans on the right exploit race towards this end) in this nation. Great post, though, too bad it had to be juxtaposed with the reactionary racist drivel posted above it.
thanks--I hope you're right, that the sprinkling of economic discussion in the speech is just the start of a more populist economic approach on Barack's part.
Funny, very significant talking points with similar reasoning and conclusions to todaysiles comment here appears in the post page following this one by a commenter PNG. It does appear that the last in first out format here encourages repetition after all.
Totally agree with todayslies. Obama fired up his base. He did nothing to win those who, I'm afraid, will read about all the hoopla and see another feel-good lecture from someone who's been given way more than they and knows nothing of their lives (i.e. blue collar whites). Murtha's endorsement of Hillary Clinton clearly underscores this. Indeed, it's interesting how as the glow from this very well-presented speech dims, comments about Obama's failings (i.e. arrogance, etc) increase. Perhaps we Democrats will now get to choose between real (i.e. human/flawed) candidates, not walk-on-water creations.
The election isn't over. He will bring all those things out in the open before the primary in PA. Anyone else watching CNN lately? Barack is opening his candidacy up to the public. We are going to see what he's really like.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
