How can you call what Obama did as being a leader, when he followed and inspired by that Reverend for nearly 20 years. Not a few weeks or a few months but for 20 years. It is like after living together with a crime lord for 20 years, seeing his crimes, doing nothing at the same time, but when it gets out to the public what the crime lord did, you simply exclude yourself from those crimes. And, this is leadership quality? Bravo!
Obama failed when he hadn't left that racist person and his church. What he is telling right now only means that he is admitting to his "guilt". And, a leader should not find himself in such a position, in the first place. Making incorrect decisions based on incorrect information (like Hillary's Iraq War vote for instance) is one thing, making incorrect decisions based on accurate knowledge (Obama staying with the Rev. Wright) is another thing. Though, I feel that, a great number of people will not be able to understand the difference. Just like they are considering Ferraro the same as Wright.
Broadening Our Identities
As we choose our next president, Americans not only want someone to ably handle a crisis after a hypothetical 3 a.m. phone call. We also want someone who reinforces our identity and tells us who we are. As I argue in The Powers to Lead, we judge leaders not only on the effectiveness of their actions, but also on the meaning that they create and teach. Barack Obama's supporters have argued that his African background and his boyhood running around in rice paddies in Indonesia give him a rare experience for American presidents.
Most leaders feed upon the existing identity and solidarity of their groups. In that sense they are insular, and define their responsibilities to their group in a traditional manner. But some leaders see moral obligations beyond their immediate group and educate their followers. For example, Nelson Mandela could easily have chosen to define his group as Black South Africans and sought revenge for the injustice of decades of apartheid and his own imprisonment. Instead, he worked tirelessly to expand the identity of his followers both by words and deeds. In one important symbolic gesture, he appeared at a rugby game wearing the jersey of the South African Springboks, a team that had previously signified White South African nationalism. He seized the teaching moment at the end of apartheid.
After World War II, when Germany had invaded France for the third time in 70 years, the French leader Jean Monnet decided that revenge upon a defeated Germany would produce yet another tragedy, and instead invented a plan for the gradual development of a European Coal and Steel Community that eventually evolved into today's Europe Union. European integration has now helped to make war between France and Germany virtually unthinkable.
Faced with a campaign crisis over incendiary remarks by his former pastor Jerimiah Wright, Barack Obama did not simply distance himself from Wright, but made use of the teaching moment to deliver a speech that should serve to broaden the understanding and identities of both white and black Americans. That is leadership.
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
Why should he leave? I attended Catholic services for years and didn't agree with everything I heard. I attended Baptist services and rarely agreed with much of what I heard. We practice cafeteria style religion here - picking and choosing what you choose to follow.
Tell me, what actions on Obama's part prove that he internalized and acted upon the few venomous sermons by his pastor? I'll accept references to legislation or written text or spoken word that prove that Obama is a racist. Please, I'm really interested in what proof you have to back up your faux hysteria.
While you're at it, check out the words of Hagee, Robertson, Dobson and Falwell - they're equally horrendous, some are mcsame supporters - why not the same spite? Ah, I know....
Big up to Big Sid.
Folks don't even stop for a millisecond to ask why it is that black people and other folks of color are the ones always talking about race and always called on to talk about race.
The basic trope of most so called white thinking as that the world is perfect until these ******s start "stirring things up.
Newsflash, black people did not invent race. Newsflash-I repeat black people did not invent race.
If you did a little reading you'd understand that powers that be in this country have duped us all.
Our broken down economy, barren rustbelt, and empty auto assembly lines are done and dusted with no plan B because the folks hoarding all the money and power have convinced the so called white massed that the brown hordes have taken their jobs and are getting "advantages."
Do a little reading folks, it ain't us.
We don't blame you, we just want you to wake the f*** up for the good of the universe. The longer you support the madness the longer it will continue:
White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era
by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940
by Grace Elizabeth Hale
Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race
by Matthew Frye Jacobson
Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-first Century Challenge to White America
by Joseph Barndt
The greatest thing to come out of this whole saga is that once again Obama has flimflammed and bamboozled you all and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. You've all been played like the fine tuned instruments that you are and for the fools that you are. But it is getting harder for you to believe in the man from bamboozle, ain't it?
The media darling has the intelligencia(?) falling all over themselves. My wife who is mesmerized by Obama and is the political handicapper in the family is despondent. Already polls show BO losing big to McCain in Penn, Ohio, Mass, and Calif while HRC beats McCain handily in these same states. So while you media people are transfixed by all of these events of the last few days, my better half opines, that it has put and end to BO's hopes. The electorate at large does not want to hear G-- D---- America. And as BO has written in his book Rev. Wright was his mentor for 20 years. I heard what Wright said and except for the explitive (I've heard worse) I would not argue about very much except the aids thing. But I have a different take and it is consistent with Jazzy Lady's view on all of this. If you have been around , like me , for more 3/4 of a century you would like to think that you have seen a lot and have some sense as to whether you would place your confidence in this rather than that person who would be the right person for the job. In other words put aside the glib talk and consider if there is anything in this man's background that would commend him for the job as President. I'm afraid that my conclusion is that BO is not the real deal. But our electorate really wants to hear an inspirational story. Much better than hearing that we will have to fight hard to accomplish something. It's much more comforting to hear about the "Shining City on the Hill", "Thousand Points of Light" and " bringing us all together " with dancing in the streets. "Don't worry America, Barrack will kiss it better and we'll all be so so happy." HL Menken's comment keeps coming up in my mind and I just can't supress it , because it sounds so elitist and I hate it. But it doesn't go away. " No one goes broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I reject that notion. But there are some people it seems in the BO camp who keep trying to see if it will work.
Yes, we're all bamboozled. Like all ivy-league educated Rhodes scholars, Joseph Nye is such an ignorant boob. Just because Nye has spent decades writing books on leadership, he thinks he can tell you what makes a good leader. But you know better than that, don't you.
With all do respect. You sound like some of the same people that have us paying nearly 4$ a gallon for gas. Why do you do this ? Nothing you said in your post is informative, helpful,or insightful. It is rather hateful and biased and in 2008 i hope not biggoted. Why do you do this to your fellow citizens. It would seem to me that you are the bamboozled one.
No, I found him to be inspiring, as someone of mixed race he speaks the same language as I do. Too bad that you consider inspiration flim flam.
And you obviously don't know when you have had opportunities placed right on your doorstep, either . Leaders who can inspire others to action do not come along every year, and if the Dems pass up this opportunity that we have right now with Senator Obama -- even though as he says, he's "not the perfect vessel" -- America may not get another chance for another generation or more...
Of the people, by the people, for the people. I guess that needs to become a mantra in the academic world today. Obama is not supposed to tell us who we are, thanks. Whoever is elected president (maybe not him) is supposed to lead -- however, not in the sense of telling us what's what, but in the sense of representing the will of the people. That's why we have elections.
So, question: is the next president going to be the next Reagan? Or the next Carter? (And I'm not asking a question about Republicans vs Democrats.)
As a republican perhaps you should be more interested in what goes on with John McCain's gaffes or "senior moments" or possibly onset dimentia. Don't tell me his mother is an example of why he's so healthy - his father is no longer living, right? As to your question, Obama would be a Reagan, not a Carter...but Obama will be president!
As an American, I think I'll concern myself with who ends up being president next. I'd suggest you do likewise.
yes he will!
"Faced with a campaign crisis over incendiary remarks by his former pastor Jerimiah Wright, Barack Obama did not simply distance himself from Wright, but made use of the teaching moment to deliver a speech that should serve to broaden the understanding and identities of both white and black
Americans. That is leadership."
No ... that's just another CYA speech by a politician who is Black and who can't separate himself from a racist, hate full demagogue.
It's not working except amongst the fawing Liberal elite.
Read what the Budweiser drinking people in Philly think ... and note the falling approval ratings of Obama vs Hillary and McCain.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9132.html
The Chickens are coming home to roost ... Pastor Wright's chickens.
Princeton Junction
Sen. Obama's numbers will rise once again, once Bill and Hillary stop tearing the Dems apart and have finally left the scene in June...
It would be interesting to know how many of the bloggers here who are terrified of Reverend Wright served their country in the armed services as did Reverend Wright. If they feel the need to defend America, they should be in the Middle East "fighting the good fight".
Aren't the Budweiser drinking people in Philly the same ones responsible for two terms of Bush the Dancing Fool?
And I'd wager the parents and grandparents of some of the "Budweiser drinking" types would've been first in line to abandon working-class city neighborhoods during the "white flight" decades.
Rev. Wright, however inflammatory his remarks, comes from a prophetic preaching tradition. Even some white and Latino preachers -- not necessarily people with whom I personally agree -- use the same techniques. Take a look a some of the more extreme televangelists or Francis Schaeffer (author of "A Christian Manifesto").
To properly grasp what Wright is getting at, one has to put his remarks in context -- the context of each sermon as well as the larger context of urban racism and social injustice. He appears to be a pastor who sees his mission as challenging complacency, and sometimes that is done by shocking people out of complacency.
Now, for people who aren't particularly religious or for those whose exposure to worship is all pomp and tired ritual and maybe a J.S. Bach postlude on the pipe organ (possibly the only moment of drama in the service), a prophetic approach like Wright's is a shock.
http://www.tucc.org/home.htm
Here is the website for Obama's church. The only way to find out what was in the sermons in totality is to listen to the tapes. There are whites that belong... so if it was offensive...I don't think they would be there.
The few who disliked Obama's speech say he just gave it to save his campaign, that it was a politically calculated strategy he was forced to take in order to change the subject from Rev. Wright's incendiary comments to a general discussion about race in America.
Maybe.
But I think it was bigger than saving a campaign. I think Obama saw his entire career-- his entire life-- being distorted by pundits and the voters who buy into those distortions. He heard blacks criticize him for turning his back on Wright and the black church. He heard whites say that if he sat in that church for all those years he too must believe all the things Wright says. As a patriotic American who has shown moderation, decency and an open mind throughout his entire career, Obama had to save his reputation.
It was another day of being black in America-- of working twice as hard to prove he is "acceptable" to the white majority when white religious figures whose endorsements John McCain actively sought have said things just as offensive. Another day of extra vetting for the black candidate we don't know enough about, though George Bush had less experience in public office in 2000 and few knew he was arrested three times, once for drinking and driving.
Yet no black American ever went through what Obama has been through. On the verge of his party's nomination, except the party's ultimate insider is doing anything to bring him down, will make political capital of any mistake (real or otherwise).
What's more-- Obama is biracial. This ought to open up a good discussion about what it means to be biracial in America, but-- again-- no one with such a background has ever climbed so high in American politics.
So Obama-- who has always had to deal with issues of race from both sides, to prove himself acceptable to a power structure (Harvard, Illinois, D.C.) dominated by whites while not losing touch with the community he identifies himself with-- made himself an ambassador on 3/18 to two groups, the black community and the white majority, on behalf of Obama the individual.
Because Obama was about to be labeled as a fraud who followed a crazy preacher then disowned him in a last ditch and desperate attempt to bail out a campaign. One could almost see the pain in his eyes and lifetime of experience in his tone as he sought to set the record straight, once again, about himself, his unique background, funny name and improbable rise to the most powerful job in the world.
I've been reading Reagan's autobiography lately, and it took me a while to figure it out, but now I see -- gosh, it's plain as day -- the difference between Obama and Reagan. Reagan, even in writing his autobiography, writes about others, about events, about ideas. But Obama's narrative is Obama. He had this unique background of being bi-racial, Muslim father, white mother, living in Hawaii, whatever -- his being so different. In contrast, Reagan's "mythology" isn't about himself.
True, Reagan was keenly astute when it came to opportunities, and he saw opportunities everywhere others, and he talks about the particular twists and turns in his life that led ultimately to the White House. But when Reagan describes that part of his life that involved politics, his commentary turns away from his personal life and describes the ideas that he heard ordinary Americans expressing as he traveled the country. Reagan's political ideas were shaped quite authentically by "the people." But Obama's idea of his own life centers around himself.
I was liking Obama for a while. But I'm changing my mind. Still believe he's probably the decent guy he appears to be. But I don't see him having a grasp of what this country's facing right now.
In an irony of ironies, Reagan describes -- back in 1990 -- one might even say he foresees -- the trouble brewing between Islam and the West.
"In a schism reaching back centuries, based on differing interpretations of the prophet Muhammad's writings, the Muslim world split into two major factions, the Sunni and the Shia. Then these two groups split, with the Shia splintering into many rival groups, including several radical fundamentalist sects who demand the abolition of secular governments and their replacement by priestly theocracies; to achieve their goals, they have institutionalized murder and terrorism in the name of God, promising followers instant entry into paradise if they die for their faith or kill an enemy who challenges it.... I don't think you can overstate the importance that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism will have to the rest of the world in the century ahead -- especially if, as seems possible, its most fanatical elements get their hands on nuclear and chemical weapons .... [pp408-09, An American Life]
You really made me feel it and I was starting to get a little choked up. Too bad so many others cling to such negativity and spew such hate.
Sorry Mr. Nye, but leadership to me is not listening this crap to begin with and having the courage to go and say something to your pastor like you don't agree with it and you will leave the church if its tone and message don't change. He didn't because of political reasons and now he is paying for it.
Its a shame that it has taken the MSM over a year to find this easily findable material. That's what's sad.
And you KNOW that Obama did not say something to Rev. Wright when he disagreed with him, how do you know this??? Please do share with everyone how you are so "in the know" about Obama's conversations with his pastor...
:
I wonder if any critic has heard an Entire Wright Sermon yet?
I, for one, have been in countless White Evangelical (Moral Majority) congregations over the past twenty years. . .in many states. Bigger churches than Chicago's Trinity.
I have heard the Same Fire & Brimstone. I have heard the US Supreme Court damned and Justices called "instruments of the Devil." The Lord was invoked in Hatred.
I have heard Congress called "Satan's Lair" and a "Godless Criminal" bunch of cowards.
I have heard America cursed for Her Sins. Her fall predicted.
Why is it OK for white pastors to Preach such Fire, but not Rev. Wright?
~~~~ 61 year Old White Guy
:
I'd also venture a guess and say that the loudest protestors have never stepped foot in a black church to attend services. I'd also be willing to bet that they're from Iowa or somewhere else in the midwest where the white populations are 80 - 90+%. They know not of which they speak.
Good question. Check out these samples:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/20/124426/842/246/480797
There"s a concept in linguistic philosophy known as the "performative utterance." It refers to words that literally, instantly constitute action. An oft-cited example is the "I do" sworn at a marriage ceremony. Such words alter reality because they immediately alter our identity or status. Selecting a president is a collective performative utterance. The process reconfigures our national identity. But this hasn"t happened in a particularly coherent manner since Ronald Reagan"s "Morning in America." Obama first succeeded in capturing the liberal imagination because he was the first progressive (with a real shot at winning the White House) since the 1960s to embody a performative utterance that would, on Day One, recast our fractured, defensive, and blurred national identity.
But somewhere along this bruising campaign trail the narrative grew in complexity. With Obama"s brilliant speech suggesting the possibility of racial conciliation, we find ourselves adding notions such as "nuance" to our proposed new identity. A willingness to speak uncomfortable truths. A demand that our media rise above covering only the politics of perception. An empathizing with opposing perspectives, even at the risk of ridicule by culture warriors of all stripes.
Choosing a president is such an anguishing task because, more than anything, it is the process of redefining ourselves. In a way, this is even more true for the casual voter than for the avid political blogger. We"re pretty sure we don"t want to be a cowboy-hatted "bring-it-on" kind of country anymore. But we"ve yet to settle on our new character. Ultimately, presidents aren"t usually selected on the basis of issues and policies. The real debate is about ourselves: what kind of persons do we want to see when we look in the mirror every morning?
Excellent post.
Since the Wright issue came up, I've been wondering if there is more anger of the type Wright expressed in his sermons in predominantly black communities or cities and in areas where black are more integrated. I would think that if blacks were mostly around other blacks in a large community that there would be less confrontation and racial problems and hence less anger towards whites and the establishment since they ARE the establishment in that community.
Among certain blacks there still is anger.Why would that anger be quelled just because blacks are segregated into only black communites? Racial problems aren't solved by keeping people separate from each other...it's coming together that makes for understanding. This is the old southern strategy...separate but equal...but all it does is make people less tolerant and divisive. Look at the cities that are still segregated by race and ethnic makeup. There is more fear and distrust because stereotypes, and rumors are all the people have to base their feelings on. In order to heal people must cross that divide.
Blacks are not the "establishment," even in the black community. The "establishment" is the power structure, the political, economic, and religious leaders who have sway over the distribution of resources in our country. Black leadership has very little control over the distribution of assets for two reasons: one, there are so few assets in the black community to distribute and two, black community leaders have no control over assets outside their community. If there is less anger in majority black communities, it would be because they are less exposed to the discrimination they face in more integrated communities.
You need to update your information Neoconstant. There's plenty of "assets" to distribute in the Black community. I'll give you an example: Prince Georges County, Md. You're living in the past.
Lots of Black people would be happy to live in entirely Black communities but even then white people would not leave us alone. Even then, whites would find a reason to try to be in our business. Remember Tulsa Ok, and a particular "race" riot in 1921?
I think Pastor Wright needs to go on 60 minutes or do some kind of major interview so that we can see the other side of this man -- I am sure there is more to him than the latest clips show. If we are left with just these images and nothing more, many people will never be able to get past this. (I'm talking in terms of the general election here).
It wouldn't matter. The closet racists and Hillary supporters already have their minds made up. Wright shouldn't need to explain himself when his words should be totally uncontroversial and ring true to anyone with at least half a brain.
The only ones taking issue with Wright and Obama's association with him are the bigots and small-minded Hillary loving freaks.
Posted March 19, 2008 | 10:15 PM (EST)