An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Poll: In Tight Clinton Obama Campaign Bill Clinton Hurting Hillary

Spitzer Resigns Shadow »

You are what you eat, even when it’s toxic

Posted by POLIMOM in At TMV.
Mar 13th, 2008 | Comments

ABC is running a doozy of a story (with video) about now-retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright. There’s been quite a flurry of these in the last couple of days, but the kickback from this one, I think, is going to be massive.

For instance:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

As it happens, I see his basic point here. Our criminal justice system, generally, and the drug laws specifically, have negatively impacted black Americans profoundly.

If you are psychologically what you eat (as I wrote in a prior post), then it’s fair to say that what he describes in the first part of the paragraph has been part and parcel of the African-American formative diet.

What Wright was referring to is a real problem.

But along those same metaphorical lines, Wright’s damning of America suggests he’s also been dining heavily on something toxic.

And then there’s this:

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

Wright’s statements that the US brought 9/11 on itself is hardly a unique view (though the depth of his historical connections are pretty unusual). Personally, I think it’s a radically simplified, linear, and ultimately unhelpful conclusion, but the fundamental basis for that type of thinking isn’t fiction.

So — inflammatory rhetoric from a sometimes racially-hostile preacher means what, exactly?

Normally nothing, but – he’s been the head of Barack Obama’s church for many years. To use the prior metaphor again, Wright’s world view has been part of Obama’s diet, and we (Americans) need to know how much affect this has had.

I firmly believe that Barack Obama’s feelings and views about race are precisely as he’s presented them — both on the campaign trail and in his books. However, I also think Obama’s going to have to draw very strong, clear distinctions between himself and Jeremiah Wright for the citizens of this country — much more than he’s thus far done.

And he needs to do it soon.

Cross-posted from Polimom Says

ChrisWWW

You know, I watch Bill O'Reilly almost religiously. Does that mean I agree with everything he has said or says?

ChrisWWW

Moreover, Wright is right about our foreign policy. Why do the terrorists want to kill us? It's not because of our ever dwindling freedoms. It's because we are over there killing them and controlling their countries. Sometimes it's directly, like in Iraq, and sometimes it's indirectly, like with our aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

Polimom

ChrisWWW --

I didn't say I thought Obama believes everything Wright says. However -- if you were running for president and had been listening "almost religiously" to Bill O'Reilly for nearly 20 years (not to mention having O'Reilly attached to your campaign), then I'd absolutely want to know, clearly and unequivocally, where you differ, and to what degree. (I'd likewise suggest he's a bit of a liability to you...)

ChrisWWW

Polimom, I think you make a reasonable case but one that's unfair given the evidence we have -- which you have taken at face value -- about Obama's viewpoints. I think it's incumbent on you or his detractors to make the case he's some sort of radical without simply resorting to guilt by association. Especially when the comments of Obama's "associate" were not made on his behalf.

=======

"It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances." - Richard Cohen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Polimom

ChrisWWW, I must not be understanding you clearly. You seem to think that I've said I think Obama is a radical. Where do you get that conclusion?

daveinboca

Polimom, ChrisWWW is very confused, especially with US foreign policy. Most Middle East countries are begging the US to come in and help them control the reactionary violent religious nuts ChrisWWW probably doesn't think are important. I lived in the Middle East almost a decade and speak Arabic. Most Arabs want us there, despite what the lying media tell us. The MSM have portrayed the US as a villain and what O'Reilly would define as pinheads fall for the MSM claptrap.

ChrisWWW

daveinboca,
I'm sure they are all looking at Iraq with envy. "If only they could recreate that democratic paradise here!"

pacatrue

"we (Americans) need to know how much affect this has had." I think this is the key statement in your post, polimom. So far I've seen virtually no evidence that Obama shares any of these views, and he demonstrates it all the time in both his policy statements and debates. Does anyone know different?

JJH

Obama has for years claimed that Wright was/is his spiritual mentor — not his associate or casual friend — HIS MENTOR! Now, of course, he claims Wright is like a crazy old uncle. That’s quite a dubious fall for the reverend who facilitated Obama’s awakening. I have little doubt that, during Wright’s indoctrination of him, the reverend was speaking the same platitudes of America’s path to hell. And I must suppose that Obama came to agree, otherwise why would he refer to him as his mentor?

Polimom

pacatrue -- No, I haven't seen evidence that Obama shares these views with Wright. But when it comes to the general election, there are going to be many many people, I think, who (whether they're less familiar with him or less inclined to support him), will require some clarification.

And along those lines, JJH, why do you assume this is the area in which Obama sees Wright as a mentor?

pacatrue

Polimom said: "But when it comes to the general election, there are going to be many many people, I think, who ... will require some clarification."

Like JJH?

Polimom

:>

Certainly JJH's comment was timely in that context. However, it may be that JJH would be disinclined to support Barack Obama anyway, aside from this issue. I dunno.

But from a pure "electability" perspective, I think the Obama campaign (and his supporters) are being myopic if they assume this won't be a problem later. Yes, it's true that it will be brought up regardless, but getting it addressed now will make it far less of a lightning-rod issue later.

JJH

I actually don't disagree with many of Wright's statements. The three-strikes law that puts drug users in prison for an obscene amount of time is, I think, a law directed at poor black communities. It is a racist law. But what I find offensive and disingenuous is Obama's flip-flopping rhetoric about his relationship with Wright. Obama refers to him in glowing terms in his book, but now refers to him as a racist, old uncle who everyone ignores at the dinner table. It simply proves to me Obama is a pandering politician, and not an agent of a grand political paradigm shift. But whoever wins the nomination, I am a loyal democrat and will vote for my party. I'm more concerned that we have a president who supports gay rights, both candidates do.

JSpencer

What's going to become important isn't the thoughtful and sincere analysis we're inclined to see here at TMV, but how this plays with the general public - who views it in the absence of context, with little interest in even discovering the context. I see a WSJ poll already shows 13% of people think Obama is muslim, so that gives you a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. Negative campaigning is going to exploit this later on in an ugly way. We've already seen what can happen to a candidate when lies gain the upper hand. But you know what they say, we get the govt. we deserve. Well, I guess some folks do...

CStanley

I certainly don't feel as strongly about it as JJH does but I have noticed that several people that I'm close to- who I don't consider racist at all, but who have pretty strong negative feelings toward race baiting in politics- have a pretty negative opinion about Obama. To me the fact that Obama was late to realize that he needed to distance himself from his pastor's controversial remarks seems to indicate that he's got a tin ear toward the way a lot of (perhaps more conservative) whites feel about racial relations. And that feeds into my general feeling that Obama isn't going to be nearly as successful at uniting the country as some people hope he will be (because the first and probably most important step in being a uniter is to understand people whose experiences and viewpoints are different than your own, even if you disagree.)

CStanley

To clarify, I don't think that Obama is a race baiter, and in fact my opinion of him in that regard is positive- I think he does want to be transformative in overcoming the old type of racial politics. I'm only pointing out that his close association with this pastor has cast doubts about that in many people's minds, and I'd feel better about Obama's chances of success at healing racial divides if he'd realized earlier that this relationship was going to be problematic with certain sectors of US voters.

domajot

CStanley said:
"....he's got a tin ear toward the way a lot of (perhaps more conservative) whites feel about racial relations...."
?????

I don't think Obama has ever claimed to represent what these more conservative whites feel about race ralations. It should be obvious from his policy positions that he is not a staunch conservative, in terms of today's major political disagreements. It would be rather sittly and self-destructive of him to pretend to be what he is not in order to gain a few votes.

He offers an invitation for people to work together, in spite of their differences, without drawing blood. Some will accept the invitation, while others not. The choice is up to them, the people, and each has to take responsibility for his decision. The question for conservative whites should not be what can Obama do for us, but rather, how can we work together to make a better American society.

Even should Obama fail, that's a political assessment and says nothing about the value of what he offers. Note how many of today's masters of art were failures during their lifetimes.

Jillmz

Polimom - thanks for this post - seems to me I recall getting lambasted by a number of commenters for suggesting that we should all look at ourselves and try to answer the question: when have our ideas and actions diverged so much from people who lead or belong to the organizations, businesses and institutions we patronize or otherwise affiliate with that we need to say, "You know what, this is too far - I must leave it."

That's what my point was then and it's the point I see again here in your post and in Joe's which he posted a little bit later in the day and referenced you.

EVERYONE has to answer that question. To say that Obama may need to also is not unfair, wrong or otherwise improper.

We could say the same about Clinton and McCain - so let's do that if necessary.

But to say that it's not an issue - well, maybe to many of us it isn't - we've made that clear several times, as individuals.

But as you say and Joe says, this is not going to go away.

elrod

Here's my view, FWIW. We all have people in our lives who we love, trust, respect, cherish and support. They may be family members, friends, mentors, pastors, rabbis, priests, bosses, etc. But some of these people hold views on political and social matters that we find disgusting. We all have those people in our lives who we wish would keep their mouths shut in certain circumstances because of their embarrassing remarks. That seems to have been the essence of Archie Bunker after all - he was an ignorant bigot but he was a loving dad and husband.

My father-in-law is this way. He's an incredibly generous, caring and thoughtful man who has been a great influence on my wife's life. But he's also an unabashed racist and he has a creepy fixation with Nazi Germany (as a Sudeten German expellee, his opinions of Nazi Germany are not academic). Do I reject association with him because of this? I'm Jewish and a liberal and I find much of what he sees repulsive. But I recognize the totality of him is greater than dinner table racism.

Judging from Obama's book, his relations with Jeremiah Wright is similar. Spiritually, there is much that Wright has done to lift Obama up, especially as he searched for his own identity. But in the process Obama came in contact with some pretty nasty rhetoric from Pastor Wright. Does that mean Obama used "poor judgment" in having him as a Pastor? I think that's unfair. The totality of Jeremiah Wright is undoubtedly far greater than the outlandish snippets shown on TV.

However, optics in a campaign matter. Obama's opponents - both Hillary and McCain - will seek to tar him as unpatriotic because of his pastor's sermons. It isn't fair, but that's how politics works. As a tactical measure, then, Barack Obama needs to Sistah Soldjah Jeremiah Wright. He should probably call him privately ahead of time to let him know it's coming, but then he should publicly denounce, reject and repudiate the comments by Wright, and he should remove Wright from his religious outreach role on the campaign. He should reinforce his core patriotic belief in American unity, and that Wright's remarks directly contradict his. He should reject identity politics - as he has done throughout the campaign - and hold up Wright's sermons as the sort of thing he's moving beyond.

I think that will cap the damage from this at this point. He will have to deal with Wright in the future, but he must make sure that the public knows Wright speaks only for himself on matters of politics and society.

Jillmz

Elrod - what if he went public with exactly as it probably is - which is how you explain it? Do we not have faith that people know that this happens?

the having to be so stridently against him would be what I would object to if I were Obama - I don't want have to be so affirming in a certain way just to be convincing to a certain demographic. I think he CAN appeal to many, many people by outlining it as you have - because in real life, that's how it does happen.

domajot

I agree with Jmz that this is not going to go away.

As I said on another thread, though, I think Obama lucked out with the timing.
This has come up after Obama had the time to build a following but before the general elections.

He has time, then, to consider and plan the strategy for his response.
The response is what will determins, to a large extent, how this will play out.
Obama will need to be weplicit and forceful. Generalites won't do this time, IMO,

elrod

Jillmz,
It's about optics. Many people would see it as I do. But many would not. If he throws down on Wright he can show he doesn't endorse Wright's paranoia. There are voters who will have doubts. He needs to assuage those doubts.

domajot,
I agree on the timing. A month and a half before the next primary is the best time for this to pop up. And he should respond to Wright's comments with his own oft-stated views on patriotism and unity.

mikkel

Whatever you think about the situation, I doubt that Obama can win if he doesn't respond to this correctly.

On the other hand, I think that if he highlights the reasoning behind what Elrod says, while combining it with his overall message, then it could be a historical political moment.

Like it or not, many many people in America feel the way that Wright does. And I'm not just talking about blacks feeling oppressed or taken advantage of, but people of all races that feel like the system is tearing them up. And almost all foreigners think that the terrorism connection is completely obvious even though they of course think that it is repugnant that any one could think terrorism is ever justified.

To be honest, it feels like our country is sick..being the most powerful country is in many ways its own disease and history has repeatedly shown this. At this point in time, our country acts a lot like the Greek gods if you get my drift. So yeah, I think that Obama can explain why Wright is a spiritual mentor even though Obama doesn't agree with his worldview, but I hope that Obama can help us usher in a renewed pride and fighting spirit to live up to try to live up to the American ideal.

So I don't think that Obama should reject Wright...to me rejection sounds like casting someone aside and is inherently disrespectful. He should do what he did with McClurkin but more forcefully: state that he respects the person and the views, but that the person is wrong because of a lack of understanding -- or at the very least, that we can all agree on a number of principles to work together towards even if we cannot agree on much else, and see how things fall in place. Similar to how he has worked with Sen. Brownback on several issues and Rick Warren in combating AIDS in Africa.

domajot

Reading Elrod's and Mikkel's comments remindied me of the show Charlie Rose had to commerate William Buckley's death. The panelists, all of whom knew and admired Buckley, spent a few moments listing the areas where they thought Buckley had been worng, such as his overlong support of McCarthy.

That;s the way it should be. We should be able to debate ideas and voice our disagreements without dehumanizing those who have misguided opinions. As it is, we do, in fact, dehumanize and treat those in disagreement as if they were not human beings breathing and bleeding like the rest of us. They are treated like
malignant tumors, that thave to be cut out and destroyed. By destroying people instead of trying to negate their ideas, we destroy a lot of good along with the bad.

The question is, could Obama carry it off on such terms? I feel real fear when I consider our attention deficit disorder epidemic. Deep and complex ideas are hard to get across in our soundbite age..

Maybe this is serious enough to warrant a major speech, one of the same caliber as his speech at the Convention. .Such a speech could priovide a really sweet moment. and a reinvigoration of his campaign.

Dare I hope?

Jillmz

I understand what you are saying, Elrod - I'm just one of those people who, knowing that he's doing it for that reason could end up feeling like it's not so sincere - you know what I mean? Because he knows he has to do it that way? Why can't we just be more evolved? lol

CStanley

doma, I thought it was obvious (but apparently not) that I wasn't saying that Obama should pretend to share the same views as a white conservative.

That's not what the phrase "having a tin ear" means, at all.

Instead, it means that I see in Obama taking too long to distance himself more clearly and forcefully from this racially based political theology, that he doesn't quite get how this kind of rhetoric sounds to conservative white voters. It's not that I think Obama agrees with Wright on all or even most of this- but it's that I know other people aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt and stirring up those concerns that some whites have about radical anti-white racism is not going to create a good environment for racial healing.

As Mikkel says, like it or not, a lot of blacks feel the way that Wright does. Obama seems to understand that part of it, even though he doesn't agree with Wright. What he shows a lack of understanding about though, is that a lot of whites feel a strong negative reaction to the fact that a lot of blacks feel the way that Wright does. Obama (if he now gets this) needs to reassure that group, just as his acceptance of Wright and his followers shows reassurance to them. If you're going to be the guy who mediates between the two sides in a dispute, the very first step is to demonstrate that you understand the views of each side.

CStanley

Another tangential point is that MLK Jr. understood the concerns of whites very well- that's why he was able to make more progress than Malcolm X, IMO. MLK stirred the pot, as he absolutely needed to do at that time- but he always also recognized how whites would react fearfully and sought to prevent backlash as much as possible by emphasizing peaceful, non-violent civil protests.

Thankfully things aren't quite as volatile today as they were then, but the same underlying dynamics sit below the surface any time race is an issue.

mikkel

CS that was precisely my point on why he shouldn't reject Wright. On the flip side, I don't think that there is a duality. I hope he doesn't accept him.

I think what gets lost is Obama's own personal account of his identity. He grew up in privileged and mostly white culture, (not to mention he has no African American ancestors) and he's said part of the reason why he goes to that church is to understand how blacks in this country view things.

I'm not sure that he does show a lack of understanding about white reaction. Why do you think that? It seems to me that what he shows a lack of understanding is that try as he might, he has to address things that have absolutely no clear relevance to how he will govern. Obama is not MLK or Malcom X. He is not a racial leader, he is a political leader that is trying to ignore demographic differences. Now that it's clear he cannot, it'll be curious to see what he does.

I've always thought that the greatest weakness of Obama is that his entire premise relies on assumptions that I'm not sure America has reached yet. My greatest fear isn't that Obama the man loses (because I'm not even sure how great of a President he would be) but that if he does, it will kill the ground up reconciliation message that he is trying to spread.

ChrisAndersen

I've been pulling hair out for the last 24 hours reading the response of the left blogosphere to this story. It amazes me how many people have just waved it off as inconsequential since no reasonable person would conclude that Wright's views are Obama's views.

Did we learn nothing from the last two elections?

Politics is about emotions, not reason. Making a reasoned argument against this story will fail and it will fail spectacularly. Obama needs to make an emotional argument that distinguishes himself from Wright. There will be a significant number of voters in the middle who will be swayed by stories that say "Obama's minister says 'God Damn America'". Simply waiving it off as "crazy uncle talk" won't cut it.

ChrisAndersen

I feel better having read the comments on this post. A lot of people here at least "get it" that this is not a silly story that will just go away. Also, a lot of people realize that "crazy uncle talk" is not a sufficient response to this story.

I'm not sure yet whether Obama should outright "reject and denounce" Wright. Pulling a Sister Souljah on him would (1) seem like a sing of weakness (run away! run away!) and (2) be divisive (since a lot of people DO agree with what Wright said).

I think Obama needs to use his "crazy uncle talk" as the kernel of a speech that hits on (1) the fact that we all have people in our lives that we love and cherish but who also do things that we disagree with and are sometimes disgusted by, (2) that many people agree with Wright and that national unity means we simply can't reject those people because they have ideas because we find disquieting, and (3) that the greatest thing about America is its ability to absorb the positive things to be learned from even people who have ideas that we reject.

This speech would hit on the importance of family, community and the nation and how all three survive and thrive because of the diversity of opinions within them, not despite them.

That's the kind of emotional appeal I would like to see coming from Obama (or any other leader for that matter).

CStanley

Mikkel: in response to your question of why I think that Obama hasn't shown enough understanding about white response, first I want to emphasize that I truly mean show enough understanding (IOW, not that he doesn't actually understand it himself, but that he doesn't understand the extent to which he needs to demonstrate his understanding.)

Case in point, as you mentioned, he made a conscious decision to attend this particular type of church in order to gain a better understanding of this segment of African American culture. But in doing so, there is a backlash from conservative whites who definitely won't embrace a person of that mindset. I just don't think he's sufficiently showed that he understood that (if he did, he would have distanced himself much sooner, and more clearly.)

blog comments powered by Disqus