 |
Obama's Race Speech Shifts The Conversation |
|
| Instead of denouncing Jeremiah Wright, Obama swings for the fences | ||
 by Daniel Koffler, March 18, 2008 |
||
TAGS:
From this Series
- Obama's Race Speech Shifts The Conversation
- Obama Silences His Critics
- Was The Obama Speech Solipsism or Condescension?
- Obama Just Threw on His Du-Rag! For Black Americans, This is the Moment of Truth
- Obama Speech: Reactions From Around the Web
- The Ethnic Particularism of Barack Obama
- Can Barack Obama be a Champion for Working-Class Whites?
Today in Philadelphia, the junior Illinois senator gave a speech on race in America. Barack Obama was specifically responding to the media firestorm over the demagogic remarks of his ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and the perception that his long relationship with Wright would do significant, perhaps fatal damage to his candidacy. But rather than make a cautious statement "denouncing and rejecting" Wright, Obama chose to swing for the fences, giving a long oration on the often fractious multiracial composition of the United States, the country's tortured but steadily progressive history of race relations, and how he, as a multiracial man with roots across multiple continents, fits into the American story.
The gambit was at once ambitious and savvy --- ambitious because Obama was
Obama addresses race aiming to completely shift the optics through which racial issues in this campaign are viewed; savvy because any optics-shifting would necessarily entail a shift away from narrow squabbles over Wright or the unsought Farrakhan endorsement. A conservative play, in this case, would have been a losing play.
Although the Wright imbroglio raised many questions for Obama, the primary one was simply this: As his candidacy is premised upon the idea of healing the ugly wounds of racial and regional divisions in the past, could he continue to be such a candidate in light of his membership in Wright's church? His implicit answer, and the key statement of the speech, was this:
For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
...That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
In contextualizing Wright's statements, Obama does not excuse them. On the contrary, he denounces them as wrong both intrinsically and instrumentally. But he nevertheless locates them, properly, in a particular history in which the monstrous treatment that millions of people experienced because of the color of their skin left scars that persist to the present day. And he further places that history in parallel with a history of white resentment over the fact that their travails and struggles are scarcely acknowledged, and indeed, that many whites also perceive themselves as disadvantaged by their skin tone. Both communities have legitimate causes for grievance, which is not to justify their resentments for a moment.
To those who have suggested that Obama maintains some fanciful belief in his ability, if elected, to wave a wand over the country and relieve centuries of racial antagonism, the speech is a profound tu quoque. 'It is not I, but you,' he is saying, 'who naively cling to a belief in a sanitized country in which racial grievances are confined to isolated cases so over the top that they have no connection at all to the lives of respectable people. That is a fantasy; and only by acknowledging reality can we begin to work to improve it.' And indeed, the only ones among us who don't have crazy uncles or aunts who say repugnant things from time to time but are nevertheless part of our identities, are the crazy uncles and aunts themselves. In the Jewish community alone, there is no shortage of people whose pride in their heritage and support for the Jewish state extends into regarding Arabs and Muslims generally as less human and less equal than we are.
Obama's parallel historical reckoning of black and white racial resentments, the
Obama with the grandparents he didn't reject or denounce major theme of the speech, is mirrored in his parallel understanding of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and his relationship with his white grandmother:
I can no more disown him 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.
There is an obvious disanalogy between Wright and Obama's grandmother, namely that Obama didn't choose his grandmother. But the point Obama's critics have raised against him is not (or not primarily) that he chose to join the Trinity United Church in the first place, but that he chose not to leave. And on this score, the comparison to his grandmother is apt. After leaving her care, Obama might have turned his back on his grandmother and never spoken to her again. Given the hurt she caused him through her insensitivity, he might well have been justified in doing so. But he didn't; because he constitutionally couldn't; because her identity, including her imperfections, were a part of his own. Obama's relationship with Wright and the Trinity Church is of a similar if not identical nature. And the notion that Wright's feelings about whites seeped into Obama is about as plausible as the notion that he inherited his grandmother's feelings about blacks.
How to do the low-carb holiday in a post-Heston world
I Didn’t Know How Jewish I Was Until My Mother Died
Failing to find inner peace in India
It's Time to Rethink Policies Towards Israel and the Middle Ea...
A Q&A with Davy Rothbart
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Jeffrey Weaver
It is funny how things work. Listening to his speech I became irritated and annoyed. Knowing that no matter what he said, he would have an army of spinners doing his bidding. Obama has now embraced Wright more than before and LIES to boot. Sure, Wright belongs to another generation, but his hatred and teachings are poisoning the younger generations. We will never get better as a nation if we continue at excuse away this discourse. Obama is a scoundrel and he is comfortable enough now to be explicit in admitting it. Next he will explain Rezko as just helping a friend feel better about himself by accepting that friend's money. This is all very cultish...
naftali
On the upside, if he is elected people will certainly turn the channel to listen to him speak.
But there is still this contradiction that I hope he resolves, that if he acknowledges that government programs have made the institutional problems of race and general inequality worse, then he is going to propose solutions that create more bureaucratic solutions?
He hasn't said this specifically, rather he is doing a good job of putting the problems in context--I'm waiting for some idea of what these different solutions might be.
However, since today's speech was an attempt to diffuse the Wright issue, I think he succeeded.
Daniel Koffler
I don't love the anti-corporate rhetoric, but that's not much more than saying I wish he (and every candidate) were more forthrightly libertarian.
Null
...to remove yourself (and your family) from the church of a Pastor who has shown himself to be an angry, anti-American conspiracy-theorist, than it is to "turn your back" on the grandmother that loved and helped raise you, no matter what her flaws.
I can't help but ruminate on what I would do in a similar situation. In his speech, he said:
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
Disagreed? Maybe, but I've never heard one of my rabbis say anything remotely comparable to what Wright said, and if I did, I can assure you I'd be up and out of that service--and that temple--in a jiff. Being controversial is one thing--spewing hate and misinformation is another.
zbird
But I'm bothered by the anti-trade rhetoric.
That being said I liked the speech. And I know this sounds tired in the context of Obama, but it's all too easy to be cynical about it. Anyone who decides that he can't mean everything he says will surely find some remark in the past or future that somehow undermines some part of the speech. But all that means is that a cynic will forever be supported by the world's imperfections.
Naftali-- you're over-simplifying both Obama's speech and the history of racial policy. Just because some government programs were bad for racial harmony does not mean that government (or even bureaucracy) is always bad.
naftali
We have picked up and left. It is so easy to conceive of being Jewish, and finding a comfortable way to practice or be Jewish without going to shul.
I suspect, that is, I'm not going to say this is a fact, but I think Christians see regular church attendance as a central part of their spirituality. In an odd sort of way, assuming that Obama did sit and disagree with Wright on so many issues, perhaps he sees himself as becoming America's Pastor. That he sees this run more in spiritual terms rather than political terms--that he is truly trying to break with the diseased foundations of America's racial past and present.
I haven't heard any pastors of Black Churches truly condemn what Wright said--perhaps it's a little more mainstream in the Black community than what we would like to think. Any head of a congregation has to essentially play to his audience--and if the anger is that high, then a pastor has to play to that, and if he has to create some anger, he'll do that too--because right after those sermons he asks for money. The key to the job is getting folks to reach into their pockets. And whatever moves those hands, the heck with their hearts, whatever moves those hands is what will play week after week.
My point is that, again speculating, that Obama just didn't see himself following a conventional pastor pathway, given his incredible talent as a speaker. Because right now, he's pastoring. He is being both inspiring and astoundingly vague. And then he asks for ten bucks.
The Israel issue also becomes more complex given Wright's speeches. Is it possible that if Obama is seen as too 'pro-Israel' he would alienate quite a few Black voters? Don't know the answer there.
So much more to see as time moves forward.
naftali
Logically you're correct.
He mentioned in his speech the destructive nature of past attempts to undo Jim Crow and racism. The question is whether there is something structurally inherent in bureaucratic solution that leads to failure. I think that practically speaking, there are such flaws. And it's not that government is bad, just very clumsy. Usually, it's very clumsy.
zbird
Naftali--I agree with you that government is inherently clumsy. But I believe the solution is to make government as good as it can be, despite its flaws. The problem with libertarianism is that there are some things necessary for a free, wealthy, and equitable society that neither the market, the family, or individuals can or will do (at least by themselves). Throwing in the towel and saying "government" can't do it is not a solution--it also ignores the fact that government had had success as well as failure.
Anyway--I'm not really disagreeing with you here. Based on what you've written here I can't conclude that you're anti-government all the time. We're both talking in such general terms that it's hard to get a sense of how we'd feel about specific government programs or policies.
--Z
zbird
Helen,
The fact that you'd be "up and out of that service--and that temple--in a jiff" says more about the pathetic state of Jewish services and temples then it does about anything else.
When people are truly inspired by a religious movement, they will not abandon the movement so casually over a political disagreement, no matter how intense. My point is not that anyone religiously inspired is in a cult and can't get out--just that if a movement has real spiritual meaning, you don't abandon it casually.
The typical Jewish congregation today is little more than Israel, the holocaust, tikkun olam, endless talmudic debate, and/or ever-present gossip. Given this reality, it's no wonder you'd walk out without hesitation.
--Z
Anonymous
That, and someone here should defend the notion that family is not just about biology.
naftali
I don't even know that I can label how I see things. But I do think that historically change has occurred through scientific and technological innovations that alter not only the way that we do the same tasks humans have always done, but also change the way we think.
Innovations, however, are not only confined to the sciences. I think there have been philosophical changes, changes in literature--I've used the example here before of Steve Wozniak making countless trips to Radio Shack, all of which ended in completely reshaping the workings of all societies. I don't think, as another example, that slavery could have ended in the US without the industrial revolution--and James Watt wasn't even thinking about slavery one way or the other.
We could talk about specific problems facing the country, and I think both of us could come up with ten possible solutions to each issue before the idea of a government solution would even emerge, and only then after a pall of pessimism fell on both of us.
Jeffrey Weaver
I have been in a service where the Rabbi decided that politics and liberalism were more important that the Torah portion of the week. I did not hesitate to inform him of the problem I had with skipping the service for a political talk...
The second time it happened, I and others left the congregation and found a new one. This in the deep south... How easy would it be for Obama to find another Christian church in Chicago??? His staying there is more than problematic.
Eagle in NYC
Sen. Obama pulled a classic bait and switch.
Everyone tuned in to hear a repudiation of his hateful, racist minister of twenty years, and instead he lectured America on its sinful ways and why he, Barack Hussein Obama, is the next Messiacccccccchhhhhh*. Oh, and why “context” ipso facto rationalizes Wright’s Black Nationalist Socialism hatred for Whitey and for America.
We anticipated a speech on Christian ethics, and instead received a lecture from the “living Bible” on how “original sin” was not Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Evil, but was actually America’s secular adoption of antediluvian, African slavery.
He also threw the woman who raised him under the bus, without context, without direct quotes, and without his white grandmother’s ability to question or refute or deny or “contextualize” her putative comments that were not quoted. (And his accusation that she expressed anxiety when she sees a black man on the street, is exactly what Jesse Jackson admitted himself years ago.)
We have Wright’s statements directly from his own church’s dvds. But we do not have Obama’s grandmother’s statements, only Obama’s characterization of them as “cringe”-inducing. Has any reporter asked for her comment on his allegations?
And if we are expected to trust Obama’s memory and his characterization on the subject, then why did he first say that he never heard Pastor Wright utter his paranoid slanders during his Friday evening round of damage control tv interviews, only to admit during his Philadelphia speech on Tuesday that he DID hear them?
The National Journal rated Obama as the most liberal senator of 100. And as the liberal religion follows a catechism of Ends Justify the Means, and Don’t Judge Me, and Ethical Relativism, and If It Feels Good Do it, then we should not be surprised that the Senator’s soaring rhetoric serves to obscure the Truth That Must Not Be Spoken.
Demand the firing of an MSNBC host you don’t know (Imus) for one comment, but refuse to denounce your pastor of twenty years for forty years of anti-American and anti-white slander.
* Curtis Sliwa’s nickname for the itinerant radio host, Brian Whitman.
Anonymous
You still haven't given a plausible explanation as to why is it somehow
acceptable for Obama to include Wright on his African American Religious
Leadership Committee within the campaign. Was his grandmother a part of his
campaign? No, she wasn't. But Obama made the conscious decision to include
Wright on his campaign. Why?
Wright is part of Obama's peer group to a certain degree, although technically
he could not directly be part of Obama's peer group as it's commonly defined
due to differences in age, etc. But he is Obama’s spiritual mentor as well as
an inspiration to those surrounding Obama to such an entent that he was invited
to be on Obama’s Leadership Comitttee. So, Obama’s actual peer group consists
of those who seek spiritual guidance from Wright and are apparently undeterred
by his promotion of insane delusionary conspiracy theories in order to
perpetuate feelings of victimization in the black community. Belonging to a church such as one that would espouse Wright's belief system, one is inherently adopting a peer group which finds these types of comments wholly appropriate.
Peer groups have a more dramatic effect on one's social development than a
grandmother. I have absolutely nothing in common with my either of my
grandmothers. But regarding my peer group, I tend to magnate towards like
minded individuals......especially concerning political beliefs because we all
know how explosive political debate can be in closed settings. In fact, I don't
even take the political beliefs of my grandparents very seriously; of course, I
didn't have the opportunity to choose my grandparents. And I certainly would
not put either of them on my hypothetical campaign due in large part to their
political beliefs. Why does Wright have this exalted status? In fact, it's very
plausible that he has a much greater influence on Obama than that of his
grandmother due to his unique position in influencing Obama’s entire peer group.
I think what bothers many Americans is the double standard. If any of these
other candidates had a figure this close to him or her and who unabashedly
voiced hatred for African Americans, their respective candidacy would evaporate
overnight. It's even more telling that Obama did not see this preacher as a
potential issue. It says much about either his incredible lack of judgment,
which alone would preclude him from the White House, or the fact that he did
not, in earnest, find these types of statements to be controversial. If he had,
he wouldn't have put Wright on his presidential campaign in the first place.....
In case you may have forgotten -- we are only talking about America's
job interview for MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN THE WORLD. So, if he did find these
comments to be controversial then he isn't fit to be President because of his
egregious mistake in including this figure in a political position in his
campaign. Conversely, if he did not find any of these statements to be
off-putting, well.....do we really think having a figure like Wright on one’s
campaign is appropriate for someone who is running on the platform of
transcending race?