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.
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
Yep, I like all that furry stuff too, but I am not swayed on this. Good speech though. He is good at that I tell ya.
I knew this was coming. That the repubs would find something on him. They did that to Hillary too. And the Clintons. It seems that no matter how much they try to bring the Clintons down, it did not work.
Now Obama is only getting a piece of it. Race? No. Not in my barber shop. But, in others. The deal here was not because he is black. It has to do with what was said by Rev. Wright. Nothing to do with his race. I have attended a few church sermons that were prodominately black and never heard any pastor say what he said. Rev. Wright was not just his Pastor, he was intimately involved with Obama in his personal life and in his campaign life. He could have sqaushed this in the beginning. Somehow
he thought no one would care.
Not good judgement.
Nothing Wright said was wrong, so you need to get over this whole "judgment" thing. That is all I see from every Hillary or McCain supporter now - it shows poor judgment. It makes you all sound like robots.
It doesn't show poor judgment. The 30-second sound-bite that we saw is the MOST inflammatory from over 36 years of preaching. He has sold dozen of DVDs, and this is the most inflammatory they could find. Out of HOURS of sermons we are treated to 30 seconds or rhetoric that I actually agree with for the most part. I have said much worse myself.
Come on. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test and supposed outrage or questions about his judgment are part of the whisper campaign. We aren't falling for it this year.
We need to start seeing those other, hopefully positive, clips.
But hey, it worked on Ron Paul, right?
PS: It's not the republicans trying to bring Barack down, it is the Clintons. However, it isn't working any better for them than it did for Newt.
False Dichotomy Alert!
Republican
There is one party in power right now: The War Party.
Its not because he's black? Get real. We've been listening to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwell's of the world for years proclaim America damned because we don't burn gays at the stake and nobody bats an eye. Bush rode evangelical coat tails to office and McCain is trying to do the same thing, catering to the radical right wing churches such as that of Hagee, and nobody blinks. Yet Obama's pastor says some radical things, and everybody flips their wig.
You may not have batted an eye but I sure did. I don't and never have listened to Robertson or Falwell except to be offended by them and now I am offended by Wright. I never voted for anyone who promoted those "ministers", held membership in their churches or defended them for their statements and the same goes for Obama and Wright. Obama has not properly addressed this no matter how pretty his speech was and where is the crowd demanding an explanation from Wright? At least some of us demanded explanations from the Robertsons and Falwells. We may not have gotten them but we asked. The bible, church and/or helping selected groups of people is no defense or cover for hating women, gays, or people of any color.
Seems to me that a whole lot of people are basing their opinions on too little evidence and aren't asking the right questions. For instance, does the sample we've all seen represent what went on weekly, or on a regular basis, or does it represent maybe 30 minutes of really ugly moments in 20 years of preaching? Do we know? Do we have enough evidence to make an educated guess? I don't think so. If Obama, or someone, had addressed this we'd have a lot better idea of what to think about it.
The church sells dozens of his speeches on DVD, so we are being shown the same 30 seconds, over and over again. If they had more, we would have seen it already, instead seeing the same loop, over and over and over. It's sickening.
Exactly...
I have no place in condemning Wright's POV..I am NOT a black man..never was..never will be.. seems to me..the people most distressed are white...an
"If they had more, we would have seen it already, instead seeing the same loop, over and over and over."
So I suspect as well, but I don't think Obama should have left people to reason that out for themselves. These days there are a lot of people that don't want to have to think anything through. They just want to react. Regardless of the merits of this issue, it may hurt him, just because he didn't take time to nail this down.
A TEACHING MOMENT -- WHAT AN ODD WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.
Something's wrong here. Something's being missed by most the bloggers here at The Huffington Post.
Let me ask:
How is it that Senator Obama is the one found to be participating in a form of institutionalized race baiting and divisiveness for 20 years at The Trinity Church, and now we need a lecture from him on race?
Seriously, if we are to view this as a teaching moment, then how did the student who needed the most help somehow became the teacher? Makes no sense to me. Someone please explain.
For those who haven't seen Obama's speech, or who lost interest halfway through, or who need me to sum up the whole issue of race for them; give me two sentences and I will do that for you.
1. Racism exist in this country, we've all seen it and many have done their part overtly or covertly -- knowingly or unknowingly -- to affect it.
2. The solution to racism and hate is to simply not prejudge people, hate them or discriminate against them -- do not judge a book by its cover.
I know some are going to tell me I simply don't get it, but it's they who do not get it. Some are going to say there's so much more to race relations. No, there's not. The race debate is truly that simple.
Just read the second point I made above and remember what Yoda says...
"There is no try, just DO or DO NOT."
I bet you knew that before that speech.
End of discussion.
Ask McCain the same thing. His 'pastor' wants us - America - to destroy Islam. How in the HELL is that going to make us safer? Ask yourself that question.
http://www
I have a 9-year old son. I could care less what Rev. Wright says about America. Hell, I have heard worse from all kinds of people. What I DO care about is if McCain is elected then the terrorists will look at his ASSOCIATION as more fodder for their f***ed up actions. It is going to MY SON who is going to have to deal with that in another 9 years if McCain is elected. Mark my words.
This is Rev. Wright thing is a non-issue in my view. A MAJOR distraction from what the Republican's have in store for the US.
McCain's associations matter more.
End of discussion? Let's not have a discussion? Brilliant. I also love your "Yoda for president" angle. So very estute. It is a wonder why people are not flocking to your deep wisdom. Participating in institutionalized race baiting? WOW! Such depth of thought! So, now that you and Yoda have passed on the real secret of ending racism in this country, there is no longer any legitimate race issue! And, of course your brilliant cherrie on top - let's not discuss it! So I guess your comment was not part of a discussion - you simply are here to remind us that Yoda is still a viable candidate.
But, I knew that before your profound comment.
Yoda for president!
End of discussion!
I agree. BigSid is one of those people where it doesn't matter what Obama says or does. The only thing acceptable to him is for Obama to disappear.
FreedomLoverX-
My motto is "Don't Hate" do you have a better solution to racism and race relations? I thought "Keep It Simple Stupid" would be a good way for me to break it down for you. Sorry it went over your head.
Yeah, what does the half-black Kenyan, half-white American guy know about race relations? What does Barack Hussein Obama know about being judged by his cover? What could a unique entity raised outside either of his native cultures, a minority in every community, know about prejudice and discrimination? Yeah, probably nothing.
Obama knows a lot about race relations -- so do you and I is my point.
After 20 years of tolerating his nutty pastor, he was finally forced by the circumstances he found himself in to give a speech. Is this leadership that will bring about change? In 2028?
Most likely it's partisanship, but it appears that the import of Obama's speech went over your head -- this "nutty pastor" is a man whose outlook was formed by a very particular social context, and who, despite the endless loop played on the news, provided valuable leadership to his community, as we've heard from his parishoners. To heal these deep divisions in our society -- to form a more perfect union -- we have to first understand others' perspectives. Obama has done that and gone beyond.
Also, the bottom line is that Obama does not share Wright's views...wh
Obama selected Wright as his pastor. If, as President, he picks someone equally inappropriate for an office, how long will it take him to make a change?
HuffPost's Pick
Do words matter? Here is an example:
"Je vous ai compri" I understand you."
Not too long ago, another brilliant speaker was campaigning for the presidency of his country. His name was Charles De Gaulle, his country, France. He said these words in French Algiers, to a racially mixed throng of thousands, in June of 1958. The trouble was, each subset in the divisive throng thought he was referring to their group, instead of the whole. The "foreigners", (pied noir) transplants who had been sent to "civilize" the French colony of Algeria some hundred years earlier, and thought of Algeria as their home. Les Francais, civil and military servants who resided temporarily in Algeria to keep the peace, but considered the mainland their home. "Les indegenes" native Arab, Tuareg, Kabil, and Jews, who lived in Algeria as the occupied masses, second class citizens of France, under French rule. The natives had begun to resent their occupiers, noteably at the end of WWII when France renigged on their promise of granting independence. Over 500,000 native Algerians were slaughtered in one day, in the city of Setif, when French military officers misunderstood a celebration of the end of the war, for an uprising against the "pied noir" transplants they were there to protect.
After DeGaulle addressed his audience, each one left feeling uplifted, understood, fulfilled in their desire. The natives thought- finally independence. The transplants thought- finally, self-government. The French thought- finally, backup from the mainland. DeGaulle was elected by a landslide. Unfortunately, he meant none of what his audience had thought they heard. DeGaulle was all about the "glory of la France", misreading and underestimating the hostilities brewing in Algeria, and eventually the bloodiest revolution ever known was launched against a foreign occupier. France would lose Vietnam, Tunisia, Ivory Coast and Morrocco in favor of holding onto their precious Algeria, before they would finally give up. US military forces still study "the Battle of Algiers" for tactical understanding of how to deal with guerilla warfare and terrorism.
Hopefully, our own "masses" in listening yesterday to Sen. Obama's speech, listened with ears tuned to a vision of a whole, and not divided nation. If not, well, words really do matter.
As a footnote to the above, I leave two additional quotes from DeGaulle, relevant to the campaign of Sen. Obama, and his difficulties surrounding his Reverend:
"Men an have friends, Statesmen can not."
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first. Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
HuffPost's Pick
“We also want someone who reinforces our identity and tells us who we are”
I agree with the sentiment, if not the choice of wording. That sentence implies we do not know who we are as opposed to what is meant, that we could use a leader who can encourage us and validate our inclinations toward what we should be as a nation.
Some may think they know what they want in government. They want the person most likely to deliver on the list of campaign promises which they find most satisfies their own self interest. I find this short sighted, in a quarter century of shortsightedness that has led to declining national prestige, declining economic prospects, and declining voter participation. In short, we are depressed because of the lack of judgment that we ourselves and our leaders have shown that got us into the intractable mess in which we find ourselves.
I do not care whether Obama is able to deliver on a laundry list of specific promises. And by contrast, that is all Clinton offers. Not congress that has ever existed will pass, unscathed, the legislative agenda of a president. But I do care that the myopic leadership of our government and the depression, the defeatism, of our nation has not changed for all these years and that as it is, we cannot do a thing. We have an endless internal debate, just as a clinically depressed patient has, dwelling on failures and blaming self and others, that leaves us day after day in a morass of inaction.
Show me any leader that can break the depression of the American people, and I will show you the President we should have.
No, we want to be who we are. Nobody needs to tell us who or what we are or what should matter to us.
Someone that restores equity to pay, caps utility and energy costs, delivers on policy to help address fuel concerns economically, restores infrastructure and insitutions of learning in the schools and the availabilty of affordable homes.
That's what we need.
The point Obama has made over and over and again in his "a more perfect union" speech is that until Americans are hopeful, united, informed, and active, we'll continue on our current track. Without this fundamental shift, there is no politician who can fix what is clearly broken no matter their personal force of will or expertise in DC politics.
I agree that we need all of that, but it will take decades to get it done. We need to start down that path in the proper direction under the proper leadership to ensure that the next president is able to continue moving us in that direction.
Hillary, sadly, will not. She is a corporatist. A DLC -loving democrat who could not care less about any of your issues. Oh, she has a great ten point plan, but she doesn't plan on pursuing any of it once elected, anymore than her corporatist husband did. They are faux dems, fake liberals.
Every election is a crossroads. I am fully convinced that Barack is the only candidate that can start us down the proper fork in the road this time.
Uncommon insight and courage. I remember a slogan that the Republicans used in '92 aganst Clinton, "Charactor Counts". Finally, after all these years, we see that it's true.
Charactor Counts....
It's truly wonderful that Obama is refusing to denounce his pastor, especially since the Rev Jeremiah Wright likens Obama to Jesus - I guess it's pretty hard to leave a guy who really, really thinks you're the Messiah and preaches this to your own congregation. I mean - how great is that?
Of course this same preacher thinks the world would be a better place if we just got rid of all the Rich White People, who are like the Roman oppressors of old, except worse, because the Rich White People of today are responsible for all evil in the world, and even invented AIDS to be used in germ warfare against Blacks. And Rich White People are responsible for Drugs, which they give to blacks in order to have an excuse to imprison them and Rich White People are responsible for all crimes committed by Blacks.
Of course it’s hard for Barak Obama to denounce Wright! It’s not as if Obama has trouble denouncing people – look at the way he threw his own grandmother under the bus. Now, you may think Obama was being hard on his own grandmother, but she did say a few nasty words and therefore needs to have her role in history sullied! Not so for the Reverend Wright, and there is a rumour that Obama is even planning to use the Black crimes are the fault of Rich White People as a defence if he’s indicted in the Rezko affair.
Nice reflections, Joe. It was a nice speech. And, in addition to being a nice teaching moment, it was Barack sticking by a friend. Loyalty doesn't get much play, these days, in Washington, except when folks like Mark McGwire demonstrate it. And, even then, that personal virtue gets denigrated by the political class because it doesn't match their more self-righteous outlook on what conventional wisdom would tell Mr. McGwire to do. But what makes me trust people like Mark McGwire and Barack Obama is that they don't do what the crowd says, especially when it might mean selling out a friend. It's kind of nice to see a potential political leader demonstrate that kind of loyalty.
I'm still voting for John McCain, at this point, until either of the Democratic candidates, and Barack, in particular, if he is sealing up this nomination, give me some assurances that they are not pulling out of Iraq until the Iraqi government and security forces are ready to handle that job on their own.
But I have to say that speech was a mark in the plus column for Barack, a column that is very long, for me, right now, despite my concerns about his Iraq policy. His foreign policy ideas are worth exploring and very likely more workable than many of our failed current policies, especially our policy with Iran. And while he is less market friendly than I am, he is an improvement over his main Democratic contender, I think.
And it's refreshing to have an honest discussion about race, for once. Including all the ugly spots. That's the only way that discussion is going to go anywhere. I appreciate him getting it started. It's not something that Bill Clinton, with all of his good qualities, could have done very easily. It's refreshing to have all that stuff out in the open, don't you think, Joe?
Nice take on this, Joe. Much appreciated.
Ben
http://ben
I agree it is leadership. Obama was taking a chance--and I think he knew he had unleashed the racist beast and perhaps understood he would be judged unmercifully by those who are extremely prejudiced. It also needs to be said that we are seeing Obama's style of governance as a President. He will never be dishonest or corrupt like Bush. It is almost a truism to say that how a candidate runs their campaign IS THEIR CHARACTER AND THEIR IDENTITY. Can we say it is character if the candidate just attacks and distracts? Is it character to simply pander? Obama talked to us as an equal. He told us the truth. He has a great sense of who he is and who we are as one people. He is the man of this time who is meant to pull this nation out of the abyss that Bush has thrown it into.
WORDS MATTER.
Hillary Clinton is the one with the experience to actually bring about change. Now that Obama has shown a lack of judgment by remaining in that church for 20 years, we need to think long and hard about supporting him as the nominee. Obama, himself, said words matter. I would have to assume, sitting and listening to the words of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, exposing his children to those words, Obama had to intend for those words to move them to action. Isn't that what Obama has been preaching to his swooning fans all these many months? "Yes, we can!" He chants those words the same way his pastor chants words: "Goddamn America." "Goddamn Whites." "Goddamn Jews."
OH, YES. WORDS MATTER.
out of what decade did this post just time-warp? it speaks of a kind of bitterness about people who have friends and acquaintances that are racist, sexist and otherwise intolerant of others. yet we all know these people, and sometimes they're acquaintances or even friends. does this mean we support their mistaken ideology? of course not! this guilt by association needs to stop. one of my closest friends since childhood sees a basketball game on tv and calls it "n****rball" - and i've always admonished him that his comments are offensive and wrong. the funny thing is, when confronted by a human being he has never seen people for their race, only for who they are. i certainly would not want my girlfriend (who is african-american) to disown me for staying friends with him. we just all accept each other as the flawed beings that we are. the reason people buy what barack is selling, naive as it may seem, is because his narrative is part and parcel of our own lives. whenever media and political attacks bring us to doubt his motives, he steps out and shows amazing strength of rhetoric. is it really so hard to see how many people think that might, just might, portend a certain strength of character as well?
Obama says he's going to change the country if he's president but, apparently, he couldn't make a difference with his pastor. Let's see. He now wants an open discussion of race but I'll bet he avoids the subject from now on because he doesn't want to be tied to Wright. I can't believe how otherwise intelligent people swallow his malarkey.
We've had quite enough to that kind of character. It never fails to astonish what lengths white people will go to to justify their ignorance and hatred. Tell your friend to watch some other sport and justify that behavior to your African-American girlfriend. I hope one day she gets past the stars in her eyes and dumps you and all your racist clown friends. I hope, even more so, that she has not been in the presence of such utterances.
What Barack does is simple enough, Like any Black man in this country, he can see through the games that white people play. As individuals, we may all react differently, but it is something that psychic survival depends on. It is just fortunate enough that he has attained a place that he can address the matter directly, even if the populace is far from ready for the insight that he offers.
But America is no more ready for that then they are the n*****rbockers and even you have to know that America is glad that Tiger doesn't call himself Black, but they would not even recognize that aspect of his genius.
You need to make better friends.
The greatest lesson that has come through in this whole saga is Obama has maintained his core decency and integrity no matter who he associates with. He is his own man. I am therefore not worried about him interacting with any American who by the way include racists, neocons, liberals, conservatives, progressives, fundamentalists, and even criminals. That is America and only the person who can deal with all their human level is true to the only doctrine that matters in the land, the constitution. And by the way God does not necessarily act on Rev Jeremiahs words. The Rev is an ex-Marine and has put his life on line for this country. We don't get our policies from the pulpits.
I am more afraid of leaders who will take us to needless wars where lives are lost based on lies.
So you think that Obama will give us meaning, who we are as you put it, when he becomes president? What sort of meaning would you like? Do you want us to have a new perception that America is no longer racist because we elect a black man? What does the writer mean?
I am sorry but I thought we were electing the best candidate or maybe we are electing a man that can get rid of the racism in this country.
Obama has been given so many meanings it is incredible.
Why are so many journalist gushing over Obama?
Maybe we have a new and improved media this year, which forgives racist behavior and Obama's so called "bone-head" decisions.
HuffPost's Pick
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.
Eloquent, thorough, fair. Bravo!
Obama has made us think...an
I guess I didn't really get it about black peoples' anger until I was out for a beer with a couple of friends. One of them is black. I was up at the bar getting a round when I heard someone give these directions to the men's room: "Go past the dartboards and turn left at the table with the n****r". Guess whose table that was?
This wasn't a bad choice of words or an inappropriate joke or something that slipped out in anger. It was coldly-considered, pig-ugly racism. I have never in my life been so tempted to grab another human being by the throat and start punching. I can't even imagine the level of rage that must build up in somebody who has to put up with a steady diet of this filth.
Black people have been forced by their minority status to come to terms with the fact of racism and accept that not everybody who uses inappropriate language is an enemy. It's about time white people learned that some level of anger is a fundamental part of being black in America, but that most black people don't let it poison their lives or their relationships.
By itself, Obama's speech might not bring about the necessary changes. Fortunately, I think it's going to receive enough attention so that even the less attentive white folks in middle America will finally get the point.
Really? You are going to cut and paste this crap on every Obama story? Give me a break. Most "white voters" couldn't give two shits less what Wright says. hell, "most" of us agree with him, if we are true progressives. The ONLY people this will do anything for are the ones who would NEVER vote for the black guy in a million years. Give me a break.
JasonEverettMiller, you are right. All of my progressive friends see nothing that is offensive in Reverend Wright's words (except for a bit of misinformation about AIDS), and most of us are in our fifties and sixties. If this country is to have a better future, we need to take stock of the consequences of our actions.
A few thoughts..
A factor one might consider is that Barack came to the church when he was a young community organizer working predominantly with church groups, whose members often noted to him that because of his secular background he remained an outsider of sorts. He was struggling with how to show the community that he worked within that he understood where there were coming from and thus establishing credibility. That he entered through the doors of Trinity, which resides within the community he serves, has a well-respected record of service to the community itself, and honors the Motherland, the land of his own father and paternal relatives that remain there should lend insight to his loyalty to Trinity, his community and yes, his Pastor. He explained in his moving speech on faith at the Call to Renewal forum that the critical remarks of the community whom he hoped to uplift led him to examine his faith. Watch or read his speech to gain a better understanding of how he came to commit himself to God's calling of him.
Barack Obama – A Call to Renewal
http://www
http://www
Barack credits Rev. Wright for bringing him to Jesus and often cites Wright's sermon, "The Audacity to Hope" as his inspiration for his book, The Audacity of Hope. I think it would be prudent of the media to air that sermon if they truly wish to know where Obama's loyalty to his pastor began.
text: http://and
audio part one: http://you
audio part two: http://you
In his rejection of the specific words, but his loyalty to the man Barack exhibits Jesus's message of love and forgiveness.
“According to the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”
While Barack says that he vehemently disagrees with the particular remarks by Rev. Wright that have been aired incessantly, he maintains his integrity by hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Is this not what Jesus asks of His followers? To "disown" the man for political expediency would be disingenuous as well as betray his faith. Furthermore, to abandon his church because of isolated sermons from a renowned theologian, would be to abandon his community. I would argue that many if not most people attend their churches (or Synagogues, Temples, Mosques...
I find it reprehensible that some find it justifiable to intrude into this man's most private realm, his Faith, and use it to swift-boat him. Decent man that he is, he has not attacked other candidates for their spiritual mentors, but I find it extremely hypocritical, and yes perhaps racist, that the media has launched a character assassination of Obama after giving past Presidents, our current President and the other presidential candidates a pass on their affiliation to their own controversial mentors' incendiary comments (Parsley, Hagee, Billy Graham, Schaeffer, Falwell... the victims of Katrina deserved what they got because God was punishing them for supporting homosexuals, Catholicism is a religion of whores, America was created to destroy Islam...).
Furthermore, who of us can say that we do not have family, friends (who we also choose), bosses, coworkers, etc. who made racist, sexist or unpatriotic comments - are we to all leave our jobs, disown our friends, and abandon our churches? Some amongst us have had the courage to speak up to our friends, coworkers, employers and spiritual leaders when we hear racist, unpatriotic, or otherwise offensive language, but I would bet that most quietly cringe and carry on. I would certainly hope that most continue to love our neighbor because we believe that their sum is greater than their parts. I thought it very telling that Barack said that if he had heard the specific comments made by Rev. Wright that have triggered such outrage, he would have spoken with his pastor directly and shared his disagreement with him. No doubt, if he is the man that has been described by his friends, teachers and colleagues, he likely would have launched into a heated debate with Rev. Wright with the explicit goal of lifting his pastor's deep-seeded, and justifiable anger to a higher place, a place of hope.
Lastly on Obama's ability to reach the "working class" voter, particularly the "blue collar" men working in key areas such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan..
Furthermore, Barack is always quick to call on his audience to take responsibility for their own complicity and to lift themselves and their communities up through self-reliance, education and strong work ethics, and this is very appealing to these men and women who work hard to provide for their families and pride themselves for being able to do so through blood, sweat and tears. My father has been a member of a sheet metal Union my entire life. He exemplifies this voting group. My father instilled in me a ferocious work ethic and insisted that I learn to take care of myself. Much of Obama's appeal to me personally is his demonstration of these values.
From the beginning as a young man he worked especially hard to earn his blessings by gaining scholarships to attend the prep-school of his youth, the well-respected school of his undergraduate studies in International Relations and his entrance into Harvard. That he sought to become a lawyer so that he could serve his community through civil rights representation, and then went on to seek public office in order to bring change to his community as a legislator is undeniably respectable and honorable. That he came to realize that his community in IL that he had worked to empower was just a smaller part of his whole community (little bits of America all in him) bespeaks of his message of unity. That he recognized that the only way that change can come about is if this country unites around our common goals explains his willingness to listen to all sides and his offer of coming together to forge compromises that can allow all of us to win. His roots in community organizing led him to embrace the progressive grass roots approach and his skill in this area has allowed him to inspire millions of past apathetic voters (the young, the disenfranchised) and the activists alike to believe that through involvement they can take part in and responsibility for the governing of this nation. The current crises of our day spoke loudly to Barack Obama of the "fierce urgency of now" and his astute understanding that divided we will not succeed drove him to seek the Presidency of the United States. He calls upon America to rise above our differences and embrace our commonalities to join forces and begin to make the changes that are so necessary today. We should match his courage with our own.
A true leader makes speeches such as the one yesterday when it is more than a bid to cover up for getting caught with your pants down. And in the midst of this epiphany, he throws his white grandmother under the bus, sticks by Wright and gets caught lying about whether or not he was present when Wright has spewed some of his most vile stuff. Obama's speech a few years back was inspiring, but I haven't seen much substance since. Sorry to disagree.
Sorry indeed.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
