Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Obama: The Agony and the Ecstasy
I want to preface these rather critical observations about Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” address with non-faint praise. As far as I am concerned the good Senator is unequivocally the most intelligent and intellectually sophisticated politician in America today.
Why am I, as with many other members of the professorate, so enthralled by him? Well, for one he doesn’t merely wish to solicit our votes, he wants to edify us as well. Yet in many ways this relentless quest to enlighten the electorate was one of the major problems with Tuesday’s oration.
Listening to those thoughtful remarks one felt compelled to shake the cerebral Obama with the crabby fists of Realpolitik and cry: “Just win this damn nomination by any means necessary! Heed your hypothetical suggestion and ‘do the politically safe thing.’ Take your own advice and ‘join another Church.’ Put Rev. Wright far behind you and leave the edification to the professors of African-American studies!”
Of course he didn’t do any of that in his speech. Oh, but what a speech it was! On a scale of 10 the degree of rhetorical difficulty was somewhere around infinity. For can Jesus disown John the Baptist?
Obama’s debt to his pastor is immense. It may very well be the case that he is a Christian because of Rev. Wright. The latter may have declaimed “God damn America,” but he officiated at the Senator’s wedding. He may have invoked the absurd phrase, “state terrorism against the Palestinians,” but he baptized the Senator’s children.
So Obama’s mission on Tuesday was an exceedingly difficult one. He had to strenuously disassociate himself from comments that must strike the Opposition Research teams of Clinton and especially McCain as manna from heaven. He had to reassure undecided White voters that he had no truck with a person who believed that the AIDS virus was a government plot. And in so doing, he had to avoid looking like a complete sell-out by throwing the Reverend under the bus with his little Kente cloth vest and all.
So much has been written about this speech that I want to restrict myself to three hopefully less obvious comments. My first observation, I think, points to issues of Obama’s (laudable) character. For with his campaign on the verge of imploding, with the ashes of Rezko and NAFTA and Samantha Power smoldering around him, Obama responded not by lashing out against his opponents and cracking heads, but by being as intelligent as he possibly could. Which is saying much.
Read the following quote carefully and ask yourself: Do these sound like the words of a politician running for president or those of the great novelist Ralph Ellison (or maybe his colleague Albert Murray)?
"The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America."
My second point is that Obama engaged in a complex and ultimately hazardous act of turning Rev. Wright into a symbol. He drew a distinction between the man (whom he loves) and his incendiary remarks (which he deplores).
Yet when discussing his pastor the Senator posited an odd equation: “I can no more disown him than I can the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” Whether intentionally or not, Obama has drawn a correlation between the troubled Wright and the entire African-American community (and his racist grandma to boot).
The association is as peculiar as it is fascinating. Does the senator wish to say that the over-the-top Wright is somehow representative of blacks in general? (That would be news to me and many others). And if that’s the case, is Obama--who is not over-the-top--inadvertently suggesting that he has transcended the cruelty, ignorance, bitterness and bias of the rest of the community?
Finally, there was Obama’s flawed but daring appeal to ethnic and blue-collar whites. In a bold passage he remarks “most working- and middle-class Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.” The Senator wanted to assure them that he understood their pain (getting whites to understand the pain of blacks constituted the first part of the speech so now it was time for some balance). He even--I think this is remarkable--referred to their fears about affirmative action and African-American street crime--as “grounded in legitimate concerns.”
To demonstrate his empathy Obama rehearsed a litany of complaints about reverse discrimination and, astonishingly, didn’t seem at all eager to deny their validity. His eye on the polls, he closes by asserting that the real enemy of whites (and blacks and all America) was “a corporate culture” and a corrupt Washington.
But it was precisely here where Obama’s eloquence undermined him and where his penchant for complexifying issues threw him off message. For undecided white voters, whether they were leaning towards Clinton or McCain, did not want to hear a disquisition on the historical and sociological antecedents of Rev. Wright’s indiscretions. Nor did they want to hear a homily about the treachery of the corporations and the lobbyists. (Those who think about such things are already firmly in the Obama and McCain camps anyhow).
What they wanted to know was that Senator Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the radical Left opinions of his spiritual mentor. They wanted to know how he could have been exposed to such opinions for two decades without having found ‘another Church.’ They wanted to know, yes, that he would disown him, because Rev. Wright harbored views about America whose legitimacy only certain radical professors, but not presidents of the United States, are willing to acknowledge as plausible.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
March 20, 2008; 10:57 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Food, Faith and Frustration |
Next: Note to White People
Posted by: Neal | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think you're a neocon (Scoop Jackson edition) and hence, a Clinton supporter pretending to be objective. Clinton has invoked religion more than Obama, frankly. Also, I suspect the gleeful "there are more skeletons for Obama" gloating you did on Peter B Collins show is about his connections to 60s radicals.
I also think your response about "The Family" proves you're dishonest, all by itself. I'll warn everyone who brings up your writing away from it.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | March 24, 2008 7:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"For can Jesus disown John the Baptist?"
This is approaching creepy.
Sen. Obama is a man running for President--not a Messiah--and Wright a pastor criticized for hate speech.
It is not uncommon for us "mere mortals" to disown those around us who are destructive to what is believed to be right.
Posted by: TAM | March 22, 2008 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tim,
It's sad that you now appreciate Krauthammer just because he attacked a candidate you obviously dislike.
Obama did not give money to the preacher. He gave money to the Church. They are different. I am Catholic. I don't approve of some of the things the Pope says, and a I certainly don't approve of the way they have handled the molestation issue.
But it is my Church and it will transcend these things. I cannot distance myself from it.
What you advocate is that a man walk away from his friends and his church. I'm sure there are many things you disagree with that our country has done...have you left the US? Probably not.
I remember those bumber stickers during Vietnam. My country wrong or right. Americans are so conflicted on one hand they demand citizens support the country no matter what, on the other they demand a citizen turn his back on those he holds dear but disagrees with.
Very few in America today have faced ills because of slavery, but note also, that Obama is called black because he has black blood. He is not called white. That is a holdover from the days of slavery and shows our bigotry even today. If you don't think that sets him apart then you are not paying attention.
The issue of Rev. Wright is a non-issue that those who disapprove of Obama have seized upon. Those of us more open minded than the Krauthammer types embrace his fidelity and honesty, his strenghts. Those who suffer from Krauthammer's hatred of all things liberal want Obama to sell out his friends. That is the conservative thing to do.
Posted by: Adrasteia | March 21, 2008 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If today's CNN story is accurate, Rev. Wright didn't introduce the idea "state terrorism against the Palestinians" OR the "chickens coming home to roost" comment ..... he was QUOTING a former Ambassador to Iraq who said those things in a Fox News interview.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
Posted by: Elizabeth | March 21, 2008 5:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Israel practices Jim Crow against the Palestinians.
It only took them 60 years to become Nazis.
Funny how Repukes just LOVE Israel and their Apartheit against the Palestinians.
Posted by: Tom3 | March 21, 2008 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Almost 2000 years ago, an itinerant rabble-rousing preacher was executed by the Roman Empire for crimes against the state.
He didn't get there by being a conservative businessman or a big politician.
He was a hippie commie who wore sandals, long hair and a robe. He turned water into wine and gave out free fish to people. He hung out with 12 dudes, his mom, and a hooker.
Jesus was NOT a Republican and NO Republican can be a true Christian.
Republicans support war and torture. They are not the party of Jesus, no matter what they claim.
Jesus got executed for bucking the system.
Posted by: Tom3 | March 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In today's Op-Ed: I am so glad that someone in the media finally had the balls to parse Obama's sophistry correctly, unlike the knee-jerk editorials that simply glanced over the issues. I have never been a fan of Charles Krauthammer- a tad too right-wing for me, but now I am.
A point to be noted: Obama himself faced NO ills from America's slavery, yet wants to champion that cause. He wants so much to belong to the black community, to be considered black, and have it replace the father who abandoned him. But these unresolved internal demons, although understandable, make him highly unfit to lead any grand public office.
Krauthammer is right: Obama has NOT transcended the bitterness of America's slavery, and will NEVER be able to for he will always pander to the community that he doesn't really belong with. Anway, anyone who goes around saying, "To know me is to love me", does indeed flatter himself.
At the end, please allow me to repeat Krauthammer's unavoidable and important question: "Senator, why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?"
Posted by: Tim | March 21, 2008 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The real problem here is that so few in the United States, and especially in the American mainstream press, recognize the historical truths that the Rev Wright was expressing. His right anger against the empire is simply calling out the truth. Any criticism of this country immediately brings the media running into the streets screaming, "conspiracy theorist." If journalists spent time actually investigating and educating themselves, this country would be "edified" perhaps to an extent where we would actually have an informed, rational, thoughtful citizenry which could effect real democracy.
Posted by: G.D. Wymer | March 21, 2008 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama grandma's remarks were made several decades ago. He is neither forgiving nor forgetting races relations of the past. Will this bitterness prevent him for being fair ? His speech raises doubts.
Posted by: thishowiseeit | March 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau:
The 4th Geneva Convention defines dispossession and settlement of occupied territory as war crimes. Israel has engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians since 1948. That meets the definition of state terrorism about as perfectly as anything can.
Posted by: DZ | March 21, 2008 1:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I've been ambivalent about Obama regarding his positions on certain issues, but his "Rev Wright speech" truly revealed his charactor. I agree with Berlinerblau that Obama has shown uncommon courage to speak to Americans as if they were intelligent adults rather than adolescent partisans. The negative responses to his speech truly reveal the callow and small charactor of his critics.
Posted by: CT | March 21, 2008 1:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RE: "He may have invoked the absurd phrase, “state terrorism against the Palestinians,.."
Excuse me? That statement is the absurdity.
How would you define 40 years of military occupation, second-class citizenship, bulldozed villages, pass laws, frequent assassinations by the Mossad, and a list of daily indignities too long to list?
Posted by: Enemy Of The State | March 21, 2008 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama, who grew up as a secular person, became a lawyer, and became a Christian as an adult talked to Americans like an adult. He asked us to engage in critical thinking, and made his point through rational discourse. It was daring and it was refreshing. Unfortunately for him, people didn't want that. They wanted the Fox News "quick sound bite" version that would fit into their short attention span. Gods forbid, he asked us to THINK about things, and look at race in America from a different perspective!
He may have lost the nomination with that speech, but he did so without selling his soul to do it.
Posted by: Athena | March 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The prophecy of Rev. Wright is rooted in anger. The prophecy of Obama is rooted in hope. I like Obama's vision better.......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/20/rev-wrights-self-fulfilling-prophecy/
Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | March 21, 2008 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Win or lose, Obama is setting an example of on-point clarity that Democrats desperately need to master.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Professor, except for the brief misstep down the "state terrorism" rabbit trail, this has been your best piece to date. Nice use of simple questions and relevant quotes to focus the discussion!