03/18/2008 (3:12 pm)
The Race Speech
I had to teach this morning, so I didn’t get to listen to Barack Obama attempt to keep the Titanic from sinking. I’ve just read the speech, and a handful of responses. I don’t need to read any more. I’m mad as hell.
1) I’m not going to countenance even a single attempt at “This is a truly inspiring speech.” That’s horse hockey for starry-eyed children. It’s what he had to say in order to have even a prayer of getting past the Wright Factor with his candidacy still viable. This is pure, unadulterated, political survival we’re talking about. Saying “I renounce Reverend Wright” was not an option; he’d been there 20 years, nobody would believe him, so he had to embrace the Reverend Wright without sounding like he agreed with him. If he managed to say anything profound, it would serve only to explain why he tolerated 20 years of vicious, racist, hate-filled demagoguery. If he were Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams incarnate, the best he could do is survive.
2) He did not succeed. From the opening paragraph, I found his speech utterly, deeply offensive. He characterizes the entire American experience as “Democracy, sure, but stained by racism.” To me, this explains better than anything else that he could say that he thinks PRECISELY like the Reverend Wright. There’s not the slightest recognition of just how violently different the American experiment in government was from what went before it, the vast ocean of human potential unleashed by the recognition of a divine ordination of self-government. To state the American experiment purely in racial terms is to echo the Reverend Wright. Once he started that way, not a single thing he could say would convince me that he didn’t sit there in Wright’s church the whole 20 years saying “Amen” in his soul, if not with his mouth. Barack Obama is a racist. Not the slightest doubt of this exists in my mind. The rest is political cover.
3) Somebody somehow forgot to mention to the candidate that slavery had been abolished in the US almost 150 years ago. He apparently doesn’t know this. Somebody also forgot to mention that the last, allowable legal vestiges of any attempt to retain even the echo of slavery were decisively abolished more than 50 years ago. He apparently doesn’t know this, either. To speak, with his Harvard Law Review credentials and his recently-acquired membership in the US Senate (running against another black man, as it happens,) as though anything preventing black men and women from obtaining wealth or power in the United States has the tiniest iota to do with slavery or racist laws is simply and completely outrageous. He’s not just a racist, he’s an intellectual joke.
4) To begin a speech with that offensive, racist, ignorant, insulting message and then proceed to attempt to position himself as attempting to QUELL racism has to be one of the most heinous instances of sheer, outrageous hypocrisy I have ever heard. I’m so disgusted, I could spit.
5) I’ve been in lots and lots and lots and LOTS of black churches. I spent the first 20 years of my Christian experience serving under black pastors. I have never, ever, in all that time, heard one of them say “God Damn America,” accuse the US government of inventing AIDS or crack, or call the nation “the US KKK of A.” When Obama says the Reverend Wright embodies the black experience in Christianity, he is LYING THROUGH HIS DAMNED TEETH, and defaming far better men than he’ll ever be. The average black minister sounds more like a moderate Jerry Falwell than like Louis Farrakhan, more like a loud Rick Warren than like Malcolm X. If I were a black minister, I’d be denouncing this LYING FRAUD from the pulpit. I hope hundreds of them do so.
Those who have already sold their souls to Barack Obama will find this speech electrifying. Yes, it’s a competently written speech, and I don’t need to watch the video to imagine that it was competently delivered. But it’s political cover, and it’s lies. Wright is a fact, and we need to ignore the political hog wallow that came out of Barack Obama’s mouth and assess the truth — Barack Obama attends that church because he believes like Reverend Wright. It’s a fact. Trust it.
« « How They Talk About Us | Main | Oops. » »
20 Comments »
Comment by Lisa Brehm
You get it! Thank you. Obama isn’t fit to be a senator, much less the president of the United States! So the guy can deliver a speech- so what! Actions speak louder than words and he chose to associate with a racist, YES, A RACIST and a racist church FOR TWENTY YEARS and he has the audacity to lecture us about race?!!! Are you kidding me?!
He is an empty suit and a radical empty suit at that. So many people have been drinking the Obama Kool-Aide and nothing, NOTHING will dissuade them. These are the same fools that excused the Clintons and their scandalous ways for years. Actually, they don’t have a problem with the Rev. Wright, because they agree with the hateful things spewing out of his mouth. Just listen to the garbage coming out of the democrat controlled congress and senate.
Comment by Ecclesiastes
I sympathize with your outrage; occasionally Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church is described as Primitive Baptist.
It is however a characteristic of Primitive Baptists that we don’t, can’t have a seminary. If a congregation will abide him, anyone can be an Elder. Phelps is a fraud, and I accept his existence as a fraud, and that his “church” is a fraud.
In the last few years, he is less and less frequently identified with me and mine. He is his own creation, and I expect that even the Baptist designation will fall away, eventually.
So, let’s do this for Rev. Wright and Obama as well.
Wright isn’t a Reverend in a black church. He’s the Reverend of a Black Liberation church. Obama isn’t a parishioner of just Rev. Wright. He’s a parishioner of an 8,000 member Black Liberation Church who hired Rev. Wright.
He’s not AME, of which there are 5 within 5 miles in Chicago. He’s not Mormon which has two congregations within 5 blocks of Trinity United Church of Christ.
Obama shouldn’t be allowed the excuse that he won’t renounce a friend or fellow church member. Obama should be made to answer on the particulars of his faith, like Romney and Huckabee, to determine his commitment to his campaign positions.
I offer you the comfort of precise definition, by which Wright and Obama separate themselves and their faith from you and yours.
That’s the best I can do for you.
Comment by labrialumn
Hey, they want a secular messiah.
She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is too scary (understandable).
I just hope the stuff on McCain comes out before the GOP convention, so that the delegates can vote for someone decent.
Comment by reality bite
Just because Obama has seen democracy tainted with racism doesn’t mean he is calling the entire American experience a stain on the face of humanity or that he discredits the progress and comparative good has been done in the cause of democracy and freedom. There’s a logical fallacy for you.
Apparrently your outrage at that opening statement, or “misinterpretation” of it, has really affected your ability to interpret the logic and nuance in his speech.
If that’s one of the “most heinous instances of sheer, outrageous hypocrisy I have ever heard.”, then you’ve lived a remarkably sheltered, comfortable life.
You certainly, as a comfortably white male cannot even pretend to know what people of color see every day. To acknowledge this, and call it a part of THEIR american experience doesn’t discredit their patriotism or their love of this country or their hope for it’s future.
Why are you so angry about it? I suggest you go talk to one of the Black pastors you spent 20 years with and see if they share your analysis.
Comment by RM
Reality Bite,
You’re right, Phil can’t pretend to understand, nor can I. But there is another side to it. Someone who subscribes to all or part of that worldview cannot pretend to know what I (and I suspect millions of others) think when I hear someone scream curses at America and lash out with a message of racial hatred, and when someone – self identified as a uniter – who aspires to be the President of our country refuses to unequivocally disavow them.
I would guess you may say that in his speech he disavowed the message but not the person. And that he should get a pass. Ask yourself honestly. If John McCain were in a similar situation and was associated for a 20 year period with a community figure who spewed a seething message of racial hatred, and had that person as a mentor and part of his campaign team, and when confronted with the facts condemned the words but extolled the other reasons that this was a good person, would you be able to get past it?
Comment by reality bite
Good point RM, but I disagree with your premise. Obama does NOT subscribe to that world view!!! He’s made that abundantly clear. That would be like condemning George Bush senior as a Nazi because he refused to denounce his father for his role as a director in companies that traded with the enemy in WWII.
Yes. I would be able to get past it because I know that Obama is not that person, just as I know McCain is not George Bush or John Hagee. Obama made a political move, to support a congregation of 8000 Christians in his district, and he’s not stupid enough to stand behind someone who’s as bigoted as that one emotional outburst makes him sound.
Sure it sounds bad, but I’m more outraged at Dick Cheney’s answer to the fact that most Americans oppose this war: “So?”. To spit on the concerns of a majority of Americans who think our blood and treasure has been recklessly spent is hubris of the most heinous nature.
I believe his speech was about reconciliation, and about the truth of racism in America. If you deny that truth, in your blind hatred of the man, then you serve to perpetuate the injustice. It exists.
Our constitution is about seeking a more perfect UNION, and to deny the blemishes is to denigrate the pursuit of our founders, and make that union less attainable.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil,
I am pretty deeply offended at the tactic that ends with: “Barack Obama attends that church because he believes like Reverend Wright. It’s a fact. Trust it.” He may very well, but why are you so willing to ridiculously simplify in order to demonize this man?
My original pastor, who led me to the Christian faith, remains my close friend, separated from me only by geography. However, I am very significantly different from him in beliefs and practice.
You are VERY RIGHT to raise the warning flags about Barack’s associations, and deadly wrong to practice absolute knowedge of guilt by association.
Comment by SurfaceDog
That was an outstanding take on Obama’s escalating fraud. This whole idea that ‘racism is okay as long as it’s practiced only by minorities’ needs to dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.
Keep up the good work.
Comment by Phil
darkhorse:
A) It’s not a tactic, it’s the conclusion of an analysis.
B) The analysis is a great deal deeper than mere “guilt by association.”
I’m not sure what else to tell you. I’ve made my analysis of the situation clear over the past few weeks, including analyses of Obama’s upbringing and prior associations. I do not have any doubt at this point about where the man stands. I’m sorry if firmly stating my opinion offends you, but it’s my opinion, it’s based on evidence, and to characterize it as “guilt by association” is to mischaracterize it badly.
Comment by darkhorse
No, Phil. Don’t play bait and switch by making it seem I am saying more than I am. Stop ignoring the personal example I gave and listen to what I am saying
You stated something as fact:
“Barack Obama…believes like Reverend Wright.”
If you were able to actually prove this as fact, you would have posted it a long time ago.
As I said, you are VERY RIGHT to point out the possible problems with Obama’s associations; however, you cannot draw more than inferences. They are reasonable warnings, but are NOT facts. That’s some messy reasoning.
Comment by RM
A few observations on reality bite’s post.
I hear what you are saying but I see a difference in that we, like Bush, can’t choose our relatives, but we can choose which other associations we make. This is one he chose, stuck with, and nurtured.
I’m not sure he subscribes to that world view, but at this point, I’m not sure he doesn’t subscribe to at least part of it. As someone said, there are now warning flags all over the place.
Agree it is (was?) a political move at least in part, but in my view an unacceptable and cynical one. A conservative, or even Sen. Clinton would be rightly crucified if they made a parallel type move, and rightly so. It looks like he made a cynical calculation that the gain was worth the potential fallout, figuring that if the stuff hit the fan, it wouldn’t stick to him.
Didn’t hear Cheynet’s “So?”, but if he said that and that is the true context, can’t argue with your assessment too much.
I don’t hate Barack. I started off liking him. I took my son to one of his rallies and afterwards told him that Barack seemed like a good guy interested in doing what was right for the country in his view. He’s too liberal for me but I had thought that if elected he might help us move past some of the acrimony of the Bush/Clinto years. Now I’m wondering. I may not be as far down the road as Phil is, but too many warning flags have been planted.
Yes, there is still racism, but it’s there on both sides. I understand that Rev, Wright’s comments are considered not atypical of that theology and are sympatico with the views of a significant portion of the black community. That is dismaying. It is not a one way street, and I felt Barack’s speech, as smooth as the words were, implied that it is still a one way street.
Comment by darkhorse
Okay, I just watched the speech. I am not a big Obama fan. But in response to 1-5 above:
1. Phil, watch the speech. The greatest speech of this political season so far had been Romney’s religion speech, even though I know things about the Mormon faith that curl most people’s hair. Obama’s speech, in delivery and in the treatment of his pastor, was five times that of Romney. This is a very leaderly-sounding statesman. I will listen to you very clearly on your warnings about him (when they are fair-minded and reasonable), but Obama sounds far more presidential than even Fred Thompson, of whom I was also a fan.
2. The topic du jour was racism, because of his pastor’s statements. Of course that’s what he’s addressing…and are you of a mind to deny that our democracy HAS been stained with it (in either direction)? He would say WITH you that this is the greatest nation in history on many counts…but the “more perfect union” clause hangs before us always.
3. Slavery remains as one of the top 3 ugly stains on this country’s history. Slavery, and the persistent attitudes that allowed it, did a fair amount of the work that created the tragic culture of black inner-city America. You have correctly pointed out that no-strings welfare also cemented self-destructive behaviors.
However, it is patently offensive to read you taking pot-shots at his intellectual prowess: “slavery had been abolished…150 years ago. He apparently doesn’t know this”, “He’s not just a racist, he’s an intellectual joke.” Really? He apparently believes that blacks face many barriers in this country that they weren’t alone in creating. Are you really resorting to calling him an idiot in order to disagree? This is shameful.
4. You are still labeling him a racist mostly on the grounds of guilt-by-association. Your rhetoric sounds more like he’s got you desparate. Are you sensing the inevitability of his ascendancy to the presidency, or what?
NOTE: This is where the tables are turned on the principle you were practicing on Reality Bites. Obama consistently comes across as reasonable, bridge-building, etc., and the venom starts flowing.
5. I’ve already addressed the most offensive statement in this paragraph. I hope people of all colors strongly denounce Pastor Wright’s statements, just as Obama did. But Reverend (?) Wright does not have to be a good American to be Obama’s brother in Christ. And you know very well, then, what the demands are on Obama at that point.
Comment by Phil
darkhorse,
I think the difference between us on this topic is that you think I’m reacting to a speech, when in fact I’m reacting to a larger set of data. I think I understand the Rev Wright differently than you do, as well.
You’re correct about Obama’s speech-making ability; he’s remarkably good, no question. That doesn’t make him “presidential,” whatever the heck that means. A speech is a tool for PR. He’s got a great grip on that particular tool. So what? Have you noticed that Obama never, ever does press conferences? Know why not? Because he’s bloody awful with that tool; he makes verbal gaffes that make him sound uninformed. Which one gives us a better read on the real Barack Obama, do you suppose?
That’s beside my main point, though. My concern about Obama, as you’ve noted by reading the blog, focuses on his developmental influences; he’s the product of Marxists, so I wonder how much of a Marxist he is, himself. My concern about the Rev Wright and his church is that it’s a racialist expression of Marxism: pure Marxism sees history as wealthy capitalists stealing the life from the worker, racialist Marxism sees the wealthy capitalists as white slave-owners and the workers as poor blacks. Marxism in all its forms is an angry, overbearing system that turns a culture against its most productive citizens and thus destroys its own ability to function, while justifying horrible oppressions in the name of “justice.”
The problem with racialist Marxism is not that there’s never been such a thing as racism, nor that racism wasn’t a bad thing. The problem is that it makes that particular fact the central issue. Like any heresy, there’s more danger in elevating a lesser truth to a central role than there is in telling outright falsehoods; it’s a lot easier to dispute a falsehood.
The question at hand is, does Obama’s Marxist upbringing jibe with Wright’s racialist Marxism in a way that suggests they’re expressing harmonious views?
The beginning of the speech makes the very specific error of racialist Marxism, that of elevating racism to a central focus in the American experiment in self-government. No, I don’t agree that this is a mere, passing reference to introduce the topic of racism. You said it yourself — there’s nothing sloppy or haphazard about his speech preparation. He said it that way because he sees it that way. And that’s the central error of Wright’s point of view. So, while the rest of the speech sounds soothing in a way that it absolutely had to sound soothing (for which reason the content MUST be ignored, he literally could not have said anything else) I’ve found the key that tells me that off-line, while preparing for the speech and thinking about the issues, Barack Obama thinks about racial issues the way Wright does, right at the heart of the heresy. It’s not that he acknowledges that racism exists (it certainly does); it’s that he interprets American history in racialist terms.
And yes, I think the error made in seeing America through the lens of racialist Marxism includes pretending that slavery and Jim Crow racism is still THE driving force in American culture, when in fact those things are long in the past. So I’m not just taking cheap shots when I say “Have you noticed that what you’re complaining about vanished 150 years ago?” I’m addressing the central error of that point of view. And yes, I think that particular error deserves a great deal deeper ridicule than I’m giving it, because it’s just so incredibly WRONG.
Sorry, Jim, I think I understand your angst, here, but I’m not changing a single word. I think I’ve read the man correctly, and I think I’m addressing his errors directly.
I believe I will clip this comment and make a post out of it. You alert me to the fact that my point of view needs explaining.
Comment by darkhorse
Wow. All that eloquent writing, and you didn’t directly address any of my objections directly.
Your reply DID re-state your main points in much less objectionable terms (i.e. you DID change more than a single word). You’ve removed references to his stupidity and absolute knowledge of his beliefs. If that’s the only effect my posting has here, I will be satisfied.
I reiterate my appreciation of your desire to warn of significant influences on Obama. You and I can disagree whether the EFFECTS of slavery/institutional racism are still abundant (though I wonder if you have a leg to stand on); I appreciate handling it in a more fair-minded manner.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Racialist Marxism, and Fleeing From the Wright
[...] My reaction to Barack Obama’s “fleeing from the Wright” speech provoked a fairly strong rebuke from a decent, Christian friend of mine, who did not understand why I would use a tiny, introductory remark as a key to associating Obama’s point of view with that of his long-time pastor. I explained in a comment on that post, but I want to reproduce the explanation here, because I think it’s important. [...]
Comment by reality bite
What an incredible load of hogwash.
You replace insults with labels this time around. What a contrived load of crap.
Racialist Marxism indeed.
Comment by reality bite
Sorry about that. I don’t want to start hurling insults, when we’re complaining about your insults towards Obama.
You make a ridiculous assumption, then go off railing about the evils of your assumption to vilify both men.
Comment by numbertwopencil
On the upside, we all learned a new term today. And, hey, “Racialist Marxism” is pretty amusing.
Comment by reality bite
Hey, It’s #2 pencil from Flashpoint! I’ve always liked your comments on that blog. You seem to keep a cooler head than I do. I know you’ve been interested in the Siegelman case, so check out the discussion we’ve been having on the “an unbalanced point of view” post: http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=234
It’s starting to get a bit desperate and “unbalanced”.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Nice To Have Company
[...] took a lot of heat here for my candid assessment (and following explanation) of Barack Obama’s attempt to quell the public discomfort with the [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
