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

« Notes From a Black Pastor

Deadlock in Baghdad as Opposition Refuses to Concede to Government »

Obama, Wright and Judgment

Posted by ELROD in Politics.
Mar 14th, 2008 | Comments

Tonight proved to be riveting political theater. I watched Barack Obama interviewed on three straight cable networks. While the talking heads on each channel were predictably different, the interviews took on very similar tacks. How long have you been going to TUCC? Why didn’t you distance yourself from Wright before? What do you denounce? Etc. And out of it all I finally grasped the real issue at heart here: judgment.

For the right wing, this is about patriotism. Does Barack Obama actually share Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s radical and often anti-American political views? Since Republicans tar every Democrat with the crime of insufficient patriotism, it’s been striking to me up to now just how spurious this claim has been. Focus on flag pins, hands on heart and a comment from Michelle Obama taken out of context have only convinced me that the patriotism charge is bogus. So they’ve turned to the even more comical Muslim smear. The Wright comments don’t really add to this except for people who already believe that Democrats detest their country.

But there is a deeper and more serious issue at the heart of this controversy that has little to do with Obama’s political views and a lot more to do with his character: judgment. In fact, he’s made his judgment a key part of his campaign. He doesn’t claim to have perfect judgment but he does insist that he gets the big things right. For many Americans his Iraq stance in 2002 is an example of this.

But the Wright controversy - and especially the responses Obama offered in all three interviews - raised a different kind of judgment question. Why did he stick around the Trinity United Church of Christ even if he vehemently disagreed with Reverend Wright’s political views? There are two theoretical and plausible ways to answer this. The first is that Obama - like many church and synagogue goers - simply compartmentalizes his relationship to his place of worship. That is, he loves the Jesus, faith and community but tunes out or occasionally cringes at sermon time. We’ve all been in religious situations like this, where we cherish the minister or rabbi for their personal pastoral care but we find their comments on this or that issue objectionable. We recognize that the politics of religious officiants do not comprise the totality of the overall ministry.

But Obama has only partly gone down this route. He’s praised Wright’s personal ministry to the Obama family for years and he still holds that relationship in high esteem. But in the interviews tonight Obama made a second claim that is a bit surprising. He says he simply never heard these incendiary sermons while in the pew, and that the first he heard of the controversial nature of some of Wright’s sermons was in early 2007. It was alarming enough at the time to keep Wright off the announcement program. He also insisted that if he did hear these sermons he would have told Wright to knock it off because they’re inappropriate. And then, if Wright persisted in these paranoid rants, Obama would quit the church.

So this raises a question about judgment and even honesty here. Did Obama really not know about these sermons? I think it’s very plausible that he did not sit in the pews for them. TUCC runs several services each Sunday and it’s likely that Obama did not attend the big league “Hour of Power” service from which the DVDs are taken. Like most megachurches (TUCC has 6,000 members), Obama’s church has more family-oriented services as well as the theatrical Hour of Power. My guess is that Obama brought his children in to the family services and so never heard the incendiary remarks there. That much is highly believable. But did Obama really not know that Wright even said these things? Did not news of, say, the 9/11 sermon not percolate throughout the TUCC community such that Obama would have heard about it - even if he didn’t hear the sermon itself? And if he did hear of it, why did he not say anything of concern to Jeremiah Wright?

I trust Barack Obama. I’ve trusted him from the beginning and I trust him now. If this were a different political candidate I’d be certain that there was some sort of obfuscation going on. But I just don’t see that from Obama. Nevertheless, that means I have to believe in his judgment as well as his honesty. If it turns out that he either did attend some of these incendiary speeches, or that they were so commonplace that Obama would have found them unremarkable, then I would have to question his judgment. Why would he continue to attend a church so contrary to his own views? If he compartmentalized, did he not bother to ask what was going on at the Hour of Power?

This is a tough issue for me. I’m as big an Obama supporter as you can get. A big draw for me is his ability to turn the generational page. In fact, one very appealing comment he made tonight was that Wright is stuck in the 1960s era of radicalism and anger and Obama wants to turn to a new and more hopeful age. Wright serves to highlight that transformation in a way. But I want to make sure that Obama was honest tonight that he never heard these kinds of speeches. If it checks out, I think the whole story blows over. The timing is perfect for Obama as no election comes until late April. By then we’ll have forgotten about all this. And the public will have heard Obama’s condemnation of Wright such that when the inevitable GOP 527 group offers the attack ad, people will say, “Yeah, we’ve already heard about that. Whatever.”

I think Barack Obama handled this masterfully by taking it head on. Video is too powerful to ignore. But he made some statements that went beyond what I expected. He claimed that this stuff was news to him too. That’s possible. I certainly hope it’s true.

superdestroyer

I think America is getting a lesson of what happens in all black churches, social organizations, colleges, and work places when there are not any whites or other non-blacks around. Rev. Wright felt comfortable saying what he was saying and Senator Obama felt comfortable hearing it because it was "just us blacks."

The media was always given black politicians a pass for anything that happens in a black only environment. However, since running for President is different than running for Congress in a black majority, gerrymandered congressional district different set of rules applied.

GeorgeSorwell

Do not feed the troll.

superdestroyer

Yes, George, Ameircans not only need to ignore the racist hatred coming out of the mouth of Rev. Wright they should also ignore the crowd cheering it on like they are a football game at the church of the probable next president of the U.S.

Do you really think the Rev. Wright would have said the same thing if half the crowd was white? Do you really think the Rev. Wright is the most black ministers to gets cheered when he goes on a racist rant?

Look at how the MSM meekly accepts the closed sessions at the NAACP, how they spent years ignoring racist black politicians like Cynthia McKinney, Kwame Kilpatrick, or Marion Barry. Senator Obama is just the most current beneficiary of the blatant double standard.

If witnesses put Senator Obama is the pews during one of the hate filled tirades, would you call for Senator Obama to drop out of the campaign or would you just repeat the spin of the left.

CStanley

superdestroyer goes too far, but I do think that moderate left wingers ought to learn from this experience that radical left wing politics is often just as intertwined in religion in (mostly) black churches in America as is radical right wing politics in some white Christian churches. The left has long railed against the latter; what many of us now want to know is whether they'll speak out as forcefully against the former. Obama's attempt to do so comes across as much too little, too late, and Elrod is right to say that this goes to a strike against his good judgment.

GeorgeSorwell

Does anyone have any links supporting any assertions of anything?

Or you should all of us out here on the internet just go ahead and trust your own judgment?

Naturally, the right wing would like this to be about Obama's judgment. As if the judgment of George W Bush and John McCain were fantastically good.

What else do our desperate, hypocritical Republicans have beside this ginned-up outrage--and Obama's middle name?

Wake up!

Polimom

Like CStanley, I agree up to a point with superdestroyer.

White America really, truly, is not 'in touch' with the inner-city Black America. I think the gap here is very real, but utterly invisible to many -- of both ethnicities.

The anger very rarely makes it mainstream, and when it does, it's generally manifested by someone already labeled as radical; thus, dismissable.

I think that tidbit about the anger still held by the older generation, dropped into the middle of the MSNBC interview, goes right to the heart of this, and although it wasn't the main point (even Elrod notices it only as a sidebar), I think we're going to hear more about it.

As we should. For me, one of the most exciting "hopes" (sorry...) of Obama's campaign is that Black and White America begin learning a bit more about one another. There are places where the American experience has been so very different, community thinking has evolved to places unknown (though not unknowable) to either culture.

And along those lines -- I also think it's possible that Obama could have mentally skated right past some Wright statements that White America won't understand. Because this anger is not uncommon, it would easily be to file away -- or even ignore -- by someone integrated fully with the community. Obama truly might not have "heard" it.

Rudi

When Wright has the power and influence of a Dobson or Perkin's then Obama has a problem. I don't recall Obamama kissing the ring of Falwell at Liberty University.

mikkel

CS you are right about the Dem's "dirty secret" i.e. the role of churches in their politics. Still, I would argue that while they are extremely powerful in local politics, there is no comparison to the Republicans when it comes to the national politics.

Not that it is an excuse, as any reasonable person can plainly see that there are many cities were the corrupt Democratic machine has ruled for decades and while in most cases the churches aren't directly involved in the corruption, they do protect the politicians as one of their own. It's sad and ironic since the churches are normally the greatest force for local improvement in the areas (regardless of their political/religious views).

But again, in this area Obama has shown some promise. He's the only national politician that I know of that has gone to predominantly black churches and said that they are being unChristian in their bigotry. But yeah, I do think there is a problem although I'm not sure what kind of external pressure will work since it seems like those churches are so insular, while many of the religious right churches actively go out and engage (except for some that are so fundamentalist that they don't even do this, but they tend to not be involved in politics and IMO live consistently so I'm fine with them.)

GeorgeSorwell

Polimom--

At first you say you agree (up to a point) with Superdestroyer.

Then you talk about "the anger still held by the older generation" of black people as if you also agree (up, I gather, to a point) with Jeremiah Wright.

I appreciate your willingness to excuse Obama for things he did not say.

I wonder, though, if you understand why some people (I am one of them) consider this a ridiculous distraction from the very real problems facing our country. The same old politics of division are being played here. They work. As long serious, understanding people are willing to let them.

Do you want another eight years like the last eight years? Another four years like the last four years?

Polimom

"Then you talk about "the anger still held by the older generation" of black people as if you also agree (up, I gather, to a point) with Jeremiah Wright."

???

Acknowledging it as a reality means that I agree with Jeremiah Wright? I think you're making the same mistake others are making, and drawing lines that do not exist. I do, however, have a place within myself that understands why Wright would feel that way, and thus I don't have a visceral reaction to his statements. But agree with them...?

Furthermore, while I absolutely do NOT want another 8 years like the last -- or even another 20 years -- I'm not sure I agree that having the discussion about the anger felt in the older generation of African Americans is the politics of division. I think talking about the residual, generationally-driven anger could be a worthwhile, healing exchange. These feelings didn't simply sprout up in a barren landscape.

Of course, that assumes people are actually able to discuss rather than shout or make assumptions (and I do not refer to you with that statement). I think Obama's candidacy makes such dialogue possible. Maybe.

elrod

The typical critical response here is that Obama sat and listened to this rhetoric for 20 years and tacitly approved of it. But is that really true? Did Reverend Wright really make these outlandish remarks over and over again for 20 years? Sure, he preached a black liberation social gospel. But what bothers so many Americans is the "God Damn America" and the 9/11 charges about chickens coming home to roost - EXACTLY the claim that got Malcom X in trouble with Elijah Muhammad after JFK's assassination. I believe Obama wasn't in the pews for the sermons in question. But what about other sermons?

I think we'll find this out in the next few days: are the sermons on TV lately the exceptional extremes? Or were they truly par for the course? My guess is that they were exceptional extremes because Fox News went and purchase all of the DVDs and scoured them for the worst. And if so, the claim that Obama "sat in church and listened to this for 20 years" won't hold water. Obama says he heard sermons about Jesus, faith, family and our commitment to the poor. Perhaps we should hear some other sermons that reflect this so we can put it all in context. Let's hear the full story about Jeremiah Wright and not the shocking 30-second tapes.

CStanley

I get your point, elrod, but personally I think the black liberation theology itself needs to be condemned (same with liberation theology that temporarily took root in Catholicism in Latin America before JPII forcefully dealt with it, and same with other politicized forms of theology.) I think it's quite possible that Obama never thought the theology through to its natural conclusion (which is Wright's more inflammatory statements) but I think it's important for him to now acknowledge that it was a mistake for him to not do so. Obama's now saying a lot of the right things, but politically it may be too little too late, and for the purpose of actually promoting the new generation of racial healing that he wants to promote (and admirably so), it would have been far better if he'd foreseen this problem and spoken more publicly and more specifically about his differences with Rev. Wright all during the last 20 years.

CStanley

mikkel: I think you're correct that the black/leftwing connection is not as openly practices and doesn't have the same force in national politics, but in a way that in itself is a problem because it's more 'hidden'. I think Polimom is absolutely correct in that there's a need for more open discussion and more daylight on the issue- partly to expose the dangers and partly to bridge understanding.

GeorgeSorwell

Polimom--

I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth.

I did say you only agreed up to a point. Maybe where I said you "agree", you really meant you "understand". Do I have that right?

My sentence construction was based on your own, in saying you agreed (again, up to a point) with Superdestroyer.

As for a healing discussion about the anger of older black Americans, I am completely in favor of that. But that isn't what is happening. What's happening is the politics of division, as practiced by the usual suspects. If you'd like some evidence, turn on your am radio and tune it to the so-called news channel.

I hate to be tedious and pointlessly argumentative. But you said I was "drawing lines that do not exist". I believe those lines do, in fact, exist. I am not the one who drew them. I am willing to acknowledge them as a reality. To that extent, I understand what Superdestroyer is saying. I understand a lot of people have the same fears. Playing on those fears is the politics of division.

Where do we go from here?

nonoyd

if i were rev wright and obama was a fond listener, why shouldn't i tell him 'eagerly' of my views? all mentors insist or impart their views on their listeners. i am certain obama heard him clearly, there's no use for obama fans to 'hope' or assume he didnt hear. obama was and is not as 'negative' as his pastor. but the CHANGE obama is now espousing is clearly an influence of rev wright.

so, obama did lie. in politics nobody escapes that.

fishbowltown

Let me start by saying that I am a reformed Republican turned Independent. I'm less than thrilled with any of the candidates running for President and I've been mortified with the job President Bush has done during his tenure in office - so I have no dogs in this fight as they say in the backwoods. I am a white middle-aged female.

That being said, since this Pastor Wright matter has come to light, I have to admit I'm a little shocked at the acquiescence from the black community, the media, and the democratic party over what I perceive to be a rather "big deal."

In my 42 years, I have never sat through one sermon in any sanctuary (and I was raised and live in the South) where any one race, nationality, political party or country, was criticized, damned, scripturally berated (which would be taken completely out of context by any schooled theologian's reasoning). Jesus' enemy was and is sin, not white people and the United State of America. The doctrine of this man borders on lunacy - and a quite transparent hatred that I have a very hard time believing went unseen by Mr. Obama and his wife for two decades.

I only saw the video clips of Pastor Wright for the first time last night but I was in total disbelief that a potential President of our country sat under the SPIRITUAL guidance of such a "man of God." I saw the members of the congregation laugh and applaud and slap one another on the back as he damned our country and blamed the rich whites for AIDS and every other disappointment ever to befall the black race.

I am always shocked when I hear African-Americans refer to the "rich whites" as I work 50+ hours a week, make less than $25K a year and am college educated. I know no rich whites. I have worked so hard to have a small home with a 30 year mortgage and a 13 year old car. It is a slap in the face to be so degraded when I have never hurt anyone and pay for the sins of someone else's family's great, great grandfather - because my family didn't own slaves - they were poor farmers.

I apologize for such a lengthy post. All this has just brought out so much disgust. I don't believe Mr. Obama for one second. He is a smooth talker and I hope this one trips him up because he is lying. If Pastor Wright is someone he honestly respects, then Mr. Obama definitely does not need to be in the Oval Office.

IndependentVoter

It is hard to believe that Obama did not know what was being preached in his own church, and that he was not so offended that he would be moved to change his church membership. Obama continued his member ship with Trinity Church and Jeremiah Wright Jr. for 20 years, in spite of what Wright Jr. was preaching. It is not credible to believe that during that time Obama was never privy to these type of sermons.

“That birds of a feather, flock together”. I doubt the nation is ready to entrust the leadership of the most powerful country in the world to an associate for 20 years of a pastor who could shout “God damn America” from the pulpit.

The same can be said for Rev. Moss III, the new pastor of Trinity Church after Rev. Wright retired. That was him jumping up to slap Rev. Wright on the back during his Clinton bashing sermon while he mimicked Bill Clinton doing Monica Lewinsky “dirty”.

What about the whole congregation cheering during these sermons? It is a like minded group of people, not exclusive to Rev. Wright. A group that Obama has been an integral part of.

Obama elected to continue his membership there, to have his marriage there, to have his children baptized there. And, most of all, why he chose to have Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. as his personal mentor. How much of what Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. believed really soaked into Obama’s psyche, in spite of what he says or denies? At the very least, Barack Obama should have terminated his membership in Trinity Church and moved to a church that was not racist and was not anti-American and anti-white.

Personally, I think Obama is not presidential, but let the electorate decide.

It will make no difference to the star-gazing liberals who worship at the shrine of Obama, but it very well may have decided some conservative democrats and independent/unaffiliated voters minds.

Polimom

I have no wish to offend anyone by asking this, but... for those folks who say they'd simply change churches if the pastor held radical views, tell me: Would it surprise you to know that for millions of women, the idea that a woman's role in a relationship should be to supportive to a man's, as preached in many many churches all over this country, is profoundly offensive?

But we go to these churches anyway. Is there no possible scenario in which you can visualize a reason why we would still attend such churches? Or is it assumed that by attending churches that preach this, we all have bought into this thinking? That we reserve no place in our hearts, minds, or foundational psyches, that rejects it?

CStanley

Polimom, first off, I think there are huge variants on how that particular gender role issue is discussed in churches, and I happen to believe that there's a form of it which is perfectly acceptable (though I don't want to get off on a tangent, particularly because it's quite complex and difficult to explain without a huge amount of theological context.)

But even putting aside whether or not people ought to be offended by what some perceive as sexism, there's still one other big difference- I've NEVER heard any of the teachings about gender roles being described in a political way. It's something that people either voluntarily accept, or not- and yes, some do choose to remain in as a member of a congregation even if they disagree with that part of the teaching.

I think the only way to make your analogy work would be if the opposing viewpoint were being preached in a political context: in other words, if a radical feminist political agenda were being preached from the pulpit, which stirred up a huge amount of animosity among women against their male oppressors. If that were the case, then I do think it would be unthinkable that people would remain in the congregation if they weren't sympathetic to that viewpoint- they'd clearly see it as something harmful rather than a benign point of disagreement.

I also made the point at your blog, that I think there's another issue at stake for a politician who doesn't realize that his spiritual leanings are going to be critically examined, and that these statements would make him highly suspect among a certain portion of the population. Either Obama didn't even realize that, or he felt it didn't matter- and neither of those possibilities is very positive in light of the hopes that he'd be a healer of racial tensions.

Polimom

I don't actually see social issues as separate from political. Thus, hierarchical relationship teaching automatically crosses a very serious line with me. (and i agree fully that this is neither the time nor place to go off into the theological weeds...)

That said, I concede your point about the difference between preaching (or promoting) a gender role vs. preaching a radical feminist agenda. It's a matter of degree, though, and the offsetting rewards to be found in a church are myriad.

CStanley

I guess I see a double standard though, and I don't mean to be accusatory toward you personally, Polimom (though I can't deny that I'm applying this criticism to the way you're reacting to the story, and I'm just sincerely asking you to consider it.)

Although you find it perfectly acceptable for individuals to remain in a church where they disagree on certain points, do you not see how it reflects differently on a person with political aspirations to remain in that congregation and describe the controversial pastor as a spiritual mentor? Again, not that I can't see that Obama might remain there for personal reasons, but I find his judgment lacking if he seriously thought people would easily accept his general statement of having some points of disagreements as sufficient.

And the double standard is that I have a hard time believing that people would accept that a GOP candidate could perhaps be a spiritual follower of Falwell or Dobson and not question whether or not that candidate espoused the political views of those pastors that most of us find abhorrent. Wouldn't you question whether it was good judgment for a white Republican to be so closely allied with one of those types, even if he said as Obama has that he's always had some points of disagreement? And if the statements became more clear and explicit about the points of disagreement only after the issue became a public debate which was showing signs of harming the candidate, don't you think many would question either the sincerity or the judgment in waiting so long instead of getting ahead of the story?

fishbowltown

Polimom,

I agree with CStanley with regard to never having heard that particular scripture taught in a political context.

However, if any pastor were to teach that women were to be subservient to men as a rule, I WOULD leave that church as I personally don't believe that is scripturally sound. I can't imagine gaining spiritual understanding from someone who is that ignorant from a doctrinal perspective - actually making that a perfect case in point on the Mr. Obama / Pastor Wright situation.

CStanley

In that last paragraph, the central point I meant to make was, "would you really assume that a GOP candidate was part of a congregation like that for reasons of community, or for some other positive reason, and simply found that those good things outweighed the bad?"

elrod

But what exactly is the issue here. That Obama really believes Wright's political radicalism? If so, don't you think some "character reference" might pop up saying that they heard Obama make similarly radical comments in the IL legislature, at U of C Law School, at Harvard or elsewhere? Since no evidence has come up, I think it's clear that Obama does not share Wright's views.

So, the second question is: why would he continue to attend the church of a man whose political views he disagrees with? Again, the answer has to do with why we go to church in the first place. If we go for political lectures or social lectures then we'd be right to ask what it was about Wright's politics that drew Obama there. But if we go for faith, Jesus and family, then the rabble-rousing sermons are besides the point. Obama didn't go to TUCC and have his kids baptized there because he "damns America" or whatever. He had his kids baptized there because Jeremiah Wright was the one who first introduced him to Jesus Christ. A spiritual connection does not translate into endorsement of someone's political views and rhetoric.

Yes, this would be true of Republican attending a right-wing church too. I personally find the theology of Hagee and Parsley much more troubling than I find Wright's. But I still recognize that one can go to church and not share all the political sentiment of the pastor.

CStanley,
You are accusing Obama of not acting like a typical politician and kicking his pastor to the curb because of controversial remarks. I actually think Obama's continued embrace of Wright the pastor and rejection of Wright's rhetorical and political extremism is a sign of character. I sure as hell wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton to stand up for somebody who embarrassed her politically.

mikkel

CS, personally I don't care what my politicians might think or the reasons why they go to the churches they do. They could think I'm going to hell or that all gays are a scourge on humanity or that muslims are going to destroy America or whatever, but as long as they treat all their constituents equally, follow the Constitution and aren't needlessly divisive, who cares? I think a major problem is that politics is not like other jobs. Maybe it's the power or whatever, but personalities and belief systems aren't that important for filling all the other jobs in our society, so I'm not sure why they matter for this one.

Now the second that a politician acts on those beliefs by trying to get laws passed, or in the case of Bush there is ample insider information that he is stubborn because he thinks that God is on his side and therefore our policies are righteous and will work out...well then that's the time to vigorously oppose it. Of course, even in those instances it's not the decision making process that is most important, but the check and balances throughout the government. I've never actually gotten upset with an individual politician over their support or command (not even Bush) but with the whole system when there is an obvious failure.

Polimom

CStanley, since I do, in fact, support Obama, your question is absolutely a fair one, and I want to answer it in the most honest possible way.

I work hard at considering all possible points of view to have at least some valid basis, whether I share the conclusions or not. So I have to say that I think I would judge a GOP candidate in the same way.

Having said that -- what goes into that judgment is not mere "faith" (so to speak) in that candidate's disavowal. There's no automatic acceptance on my part. In your scenario, I'd look at what that candidate has said in the past that might support the views s/he espouses on a campaign trail.

I have not heard support for Wright's radical views from Obama anywhere... anymore than I've heard John McCain demonizing gay people and suggesting New Orleans should perhaps stop holding Gay Pride parades (or something related that might indicate support for a Pat Robertson-type radicalism).

We have to judge people on their merits, words, and deeds, and not automatically make assumptions. But I'll admit that sometimes, it's very hard to do that -- particularly when one is disinclined to like a particular candidate in the first place.

domajot

I disagree wtih CStanely and the drift of this disussion.
No matter what Obama says or does, he can not ever be all things to all people.
If some reject him for not renouncing the angry black constituency, others will reject him for his health plan, his opposition to the war in Iraq and so forth.

If he starts being overly 'sensitive' to every public grouping in America, then whom will he represent? He can not represent everyone's interests and sensibilties, because, unless he makes choices, he will represent no one.

It isn't, on an ideological plane, about pandeting to every constituency.. It is about acknoledging irreconcilable differences and, in spite of that, to cooperate, to find common goals where that is possible and doing so in a mannerly way.

He can not be both pro-war and anti-war. But he can co-operate on providing care for the vets, and he can do so honestly without undue deference to the party line either party line.

He has got to be who he is, or he becomes a paper cut-out for everyone to hang their dreams on and then be disppointed when their particular dream doesn't come true.

It's also about reforming the political process, how Washington does poltiics, not about supprting every concievable policy position uner the sun.

My hope is that he will talk about this .in explicit detail, so that we understand better both Obama and his church. I hope he never apoligizes. but confronts and explains, instead.

Creole

I am new to this forum. It is refreshing to see respectful discussion, rather than the predominate vicious name-calling elsewhere. And also, as a moderate Independent, not to be trashed as some coward or traitor for not toeing a left or right line.

My wife and I voted for Obama in my state's primary precisely because he positions himself as the voice of a "new politics" that "transcends" divisions such as race, because he is a "uniter."

We are now both embarrassed. Because of the honesty and judgment concern raised by ELROD and because of what are his inescapable ties to Rev. Wright.

Wright's diatribes are much more disturbing than, e.g., the Jerry Falwell strain (which I find very objectionable). The videos are not uncharacteristic of Wright; these are the foundations upon which the espoused "black value system" is built, which is strongly rooted in early 70's far-left black nationalism. The close association to Farrakhan should surprise no one. While the church definitely does social good, at the same time it preaches a virulent level of hate (against both whites as well as middle-class black Uncle Tom's), anti-Americanism, conspiracy, paranoia, and the politics of victimization and grievance.

This does not fall into the category of still going to a church that you disagree with about this or that. It is much too extreme for that comparison. And it's important to note that we are not talking about Joe Citizen here in the pews, we are talking about an individual promoting himself as the next President of the *entire* U.S. It is one thing to give a speech at a particular church or university, or entertain visits from certain clergy - it is quite another to be an active participant, financial supporter, close associate, one who seeks a Rev Wright's guidance "before making any major political decision." For twenty years.

Additionally, it is a mistake to make a separation of the spiritual and political, as is commonplace in white, often secularly oriented, churches. Black LIberation Theology is a fusion of the religious with the political. They are inter-twined, inseparable. The former informs the latter. It is every bit as much integrated as, say, Robertson, but more radical.

Which leads to the second problem: He has not been forthright and honest with voters about this. One only need to re-trace the steps. He knew that Wright would be an issue, early on. Yet on each occasion a question was raised, he deftly dodged. "Not particularly controversial." "Any of you would feel comfortable in my church." People are "cherry picking" from a "40 yr career" of a "retiring pastor." Disingenuous, and knowingly so. Even the HuffPo post was parsed: He never heard any of these specific opinions voiced while he was in the pews; no doubt true, but he doesn't say he didn't know. Anyone knowing a Rev Wright knows this can't be true; these positions are to a large extent who he is. Wright even is quoted as telling Obama he would get blow-back for his radical positions. And Obama makes reference to such sermons in his book.

Do I think that Obama shares Wright's vicious views? No. But clearly these views do not disturb him enough to avoid sustaining a long close relationship; why? Do I think that Wright's Black Liberation Theology influences Obama's political thinking? Definitely. For example, I think a close look at his constitutional philosophy reflects his social activist views, i.e., that what he perceives to be the greater social good justifies bypassing the legislative process in favor of change by judicial fiat. Do I think that Obama practices a "new politics" of openness, inclusiveness, and honesty? Not any more. Regrettably, his actions belie his message. And campaigning by the Alexrod playbook only makes me feel that we are being sold a different product that is being advertised.

Polimom

Hi Creole, and welcome to TMV. (It's not always this civilized, but everybody does try...)

I have a question: From your current, disillusioned perspective, what is it that you now think Obama would do differently as POTUS, and how is that different from how you thought prior to the Jeremiah Wright exposure?

mikkel

"For example, I think a close look at his constitutional philosophy reflects his social activist views, i.e., that what he perceives to be the greater social good justifies bypassing the legislative process in favor of change by judicial fiat."

I strongly disagree with this and think his record clearly shows the opposite. He has voted against bills that he helped craft once he asked his law colleagues and investigated the Illinois constitution and decided that his bills were unconstitutional. Furthermore, as this points out he did work closely with the most conservative major law school in the country and is well respected across the spectrum. He might be strongly into social justice, but it is highly pragmatic and academically oriented as opposed to say an Edwards.

I think Obama is now getting backlash that is as unfocused as his initial support (it's expected and why I was always concerned with the fact that few supporters seemed to realize what he stood for). Originally the criticisms came from the left, and now it seems that they are coming from the right.

First he wasn't black enough because he refused to treat minority audiences different and didn't have a "black" background. Now he's some secret black radical nationalist.

He was strongly criticized for not advocating social justice enough...wanting to work with Republicans to craft compromise bills and being business oriented in contrast to Clinton and especially Edwards. Now he is the "most liberal" Senator.

His wife was strong and very smart and successful, now she is getting Teresa Kerry'd.

I don't think Obama has changed at all during the campaign.

Creole

Thank you, Polimom for the welcome. I'll also try to address mikkel's question here. I have to fire this off fast, the dinner bell is ringing . . .

My disillusionment first stems from his campaign's race-baiting tactics (and yes, HRC's is to blame, too) and his lack of candor about his church and his relationship with Rev Wright. I am all too familiar with individuals like Wright; they are prevalent where I lived most of my life. And easy way to look at this would be, how would I feel if the candidate had a long-term, close, religious and political, relationship with Pat Robertson. That would break me out in hives. But Wright is even worse. And I've seen first hand the extent to which the religious/political fusion drives the world view and the politics. Yea, it is not divisive - as long as you subscribe to far-left activist ideology. When I looked more closely, I saw that Obama's stated strategy is not to facilitate centrist compromise, but rather to re-draw the electoral map and gain a mandate, and along with it a solid Democratic majority in Congress, in order to drive what the DailyKos folks would call a progressive, activist agenda. There is a reason he is so popular over there, just look at the posts. This is not being inclusive, this is a strategy to gain leverage.

And when I looked more closely at his political history, his associations with the Daley machine, his campaign mgmt ala Axelrod - what I see is a very gifted, inspirational politician - in bed with the Kennedy's. No thank you. I liked JFK, he was charismatic, too. But I wasn't too happy later when I learned who he really was and how he narrowly won that election. I don't want to be fooled again.

On a more academic level re his constitutional philosophy. (But first an aside, how is Harvard Law the most conservative law school in the country???) My read is that Obama's view is very, very Liberal. His record on judges indicates that he views the judiciary as a vehicle for social change; he has energetically opposed judges that defer to the legislature. My view is that the country has been severely polarized because we have enacted major social change by fiat through the judiciary, rather than Congress. I also believe that judicial activism has undermined our system of checks-and-balances. Where I lived, e.g., there was holy havoc when activist judges drew up a school busing system, as well as a racial-quota school enrollment program. Both were ultimately found unconstitutional, but only after years, lawsuits, civil unrest, and discrimination against in particular Asian children. The legislature should drive change, not the judiciary. I note that Obama strenuously opposed the confirmation a judge that was highly recommended by the ABA (itself Liberal) and by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee; he was even chastised by moderate Sen Fienstein on this. He also attacked SCOTUS on its constitutional upholding of the bi-partisan Partial Abortion Ban. It is understandable that he is considered, at the minimum, one of the most Liberal Senators. In my view, that is a formula for more divisiveness and confrontation.

All for now. I lose my head if I don't get to the dinner table . . .

domajot

To put Obama's church and Rev. Wright into proper perspective , pwehaps the blogosphere and media commentators need quick lesson in black history.

After slavery, we had the uncle Tom generation, who survived by laying low and not cauing trouble. They didn;t see much progressl though. Their children got angry agaisnt their parents wishes , angry enough to say 'no more' and demand
civil ritghts. That;s where Rev. Wright fits in.

For Obama to leave his church would be the equivalent of denying what his forebears and theri anger achieved. That anger is what gave himhis chance to reach for the stars.

We are listening to yeaterday's anger with today's ears Obams, I'm guessing, can understand the past without , in the least wanting to relive it.

He is of a new genration, yet again, and he is facing today's world as such.
He should not have to aoplogize for what others, of other genrations, have said.
He need only explain what ideas and principles he, himelf, embraces now, today, in today's world.

It strikes me as odd that the political bloc who speak most about the need to renounce is the very same bloc who oppose the notion of apologizing for slavery.

Mikkel is right. Obama is attacked from all sides. He is also being blamed for the past as well as the present.
.

mikkel

Creole: not Harvard Law, Chicago Law School is where he was a professor and to which I was referring. Several of his economic advisers are also from Chicago U, which is one of the most conservative economics departments in the country.

Which judge do you refer to in the above post?

Anyway, I agree with you with most of the post and indeed that is why Andrew Sullivan said that Obama is conservative's worst nightmare. He is potentially their Reagan, where he will capture a large part of a disillusioned generation and change their political views drastically.

It's true, Obama isn't a centrist. He's a pragmatic, rational Liberal. (Following up on my last post, he is criticized a lot from the left for his "compromising" with the Republicans, but they don't realize that he isn't about to change his world view.) To me that means that he believes that the government is a force for good and is ultimately the best device for ensuring basic services and equality. However, he is a far from an ideologue. When you get the chance, read the second link in my last post.

He has explicitly said he thinks affirmative action should be based on class, not race. He has said he thinks that free market capitalism is the best way to have economic progress as long as there are regulations. He is a strong proponent of "free and fair" trade even though it means continued outsourcing. He is for increased R&D research, and decreased subsidies for corporations. He is for letting the housing bubble deflate instead of trying to prop it up through things that won't work like freezes on foreclosures or similar intervention.

To me he is a progressive that is rational and has a very clear view of what the world means to him, but he is humble enough to realize that the actual implementation of that world is constantly changing. As such, he greatly respects experts who are keeping track with the latest science and research, as well as people with varying view points to make sure he doesn't get caught in an echo chamber. It's like someone that has faith in God but realizes that we need science and the sum of our experiences to better understand that faith. From what I've read, he reminds me a lot of the Dalai Lama in his outlook. He has said that he could be persuaded to become a conservative if the data supported their positions, he just doesn't think it'll ever happen, so he is Liberal while making sure to take them serious. The Dalai Lama said that Buddhism is a reflection of Truth and therefore can't go against it. So if science ever definitely disproved reincarnation or other fundamental Buddhist beliefs it would have to change to reflect our new knowledge.

Abortion is a very tough issue because it isn't something that has empirical answers. Your view is entirely dependent on the assumptions that you make about the issue. Here is a speech he gave replying to some one that had concerns about his position.

Ultimately, if you disagree with his fundamental ideas about what government ought or can be, then there is no way that you could (or should) support him except perhaps as a better than the other candidates alternative. Personally, I think he has the best idea of what our government should be based on all the conflicting viewpoints and our current idea about what government is. (For instance, I agree with Ron Paul's idea of perfect government quite a bit, if our society was radically different and was built to support that change. To me it would take at least 50 years to change our societal institutions to the point where his government would be effective.)

Creole

mikkel,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Just wanted to acknowledge, earliest I can reply is tomorrow, gotta go for now (or else!) . . .

mikkel

The excerpt I linked to before is from this speech which I think is pertinent to why he went to the church he did and how he views religion.

At the end of the day, I think it's nearly impossible he didn't know what his preacher was saying and Obama is doing a disservice by trying to wiggle out of it. Still, politics is politics and he very well could feel that his hands are tied. Several times, Obama has used political pandering -- not changing his message or triangulating, but being Politically Correct in the true sense of the term through use of temporary obfuscation. But I think that speeches like I linked and his mountains of other words either accurately show his worldview or else Obama must be the greatest charlatan I've ever heard of.

CStanley

polimom: thanks for the honest reply to my question about possible double standards. I do believe you try to apply the standard fairly- and I hear a lot of myself in your thought process, though I come at it mainly from the conservative side and tend to have to work harder to not be overly critical of Democrats or overly dismissive of GOP faults. I think your last sentence reflects my strong belief, that as much as we all TRY to do that, in the end we have to admit that sometimes we fall short of objectivity because it's just really hard to see the faults of those that you mainly agree with vs. the ease of seeing faults of those that you disagree with on the whole.

And that's my bottom line on this topic; Obama has a close relationship with a church with a highly political theology that is offensive to a particular group of Americans, and his supporters are more likely to presume good intentions of Obama- just as some Republicans are more likely to presume that of candidates they support when those politicians have associations with evangelical leaders who espouse political positions which are also divisive even when we disagree strongly with those positions. And the converse is true too: the detractors of each candidate correspondingly tend to be reluctant to give that benefit of the doubt.

mikkel: I believe you when you say that you don't care about the religious beliefs or practices as long as the politician isn't trying to legislate those beliefs, but you have to admit that you're the exception rather than the rule on that. And a lot of the problem politically is that we're not only concerned with what the person's personal belief system is, but there's also concern about the pandering in the sense that voters assume that there's a certain amount of debt to be paid to groups that support and help elect the politician. We assume that he'll 'dance with the one(s) who brung him" so to speak. I think the concern about that is magnified with a candidate who's only been around on the national scene for a short time; there's a feeling that we don't know if he'll act on his own convictions or be pressured to conform more to a group that might expect to be paid back for their support. Or at the very least, in Obama's case, for example, I think theres some reason to wonder at how uniting he can be if certain groups are expecting different, conflicting things of him.

mikkel

No CS you are right. Although I don't care what people's backgrounds are I do expect them to pay off those debts so to speak. I think it is only realistic. So if someone believes something I don't agree with, I'm more likely to view them with a more critical eye, but I always try to wait to pass judgment until they actually do something I think is wrong. And even then I think it is more important to see how someone reacts to doing the "wrong" thing rather than the fact they did it in the first place. I am universally forgiving if I think a person has changed or at least will never do it again. (As an aside, that's why it's important for me personally to be confronted with a wide range of views from people I respect. I try to hold every one to the same standard and expect I will miss things in people I agree with, so I try to read the other sides.)

Perhaps part of the problem is that I have too much faith in the checks and balances meant in the system (both on a structural level, and the populace interaction with it) so I don't think it's the end of the world if we take a chance on a leader and they turn out to be not good. That's why in ascending order I'm most angry and frustrated with Bush -> Congress/Courts (depending on the day one rises above the other) -> News -> The People right now. I'm most dismayed about the corrosive culture in general that has led to massive failures over the last 7 years and that is why I am so enthralled with Obama's vision of local and grass roots power structures. It'd be ironic if he helped crafted those and then did something wrong and they led to his downfall, but much more healthy than if the culture had never changed in the first place. I think just the fact that people are seriously debating what it means to come together and talking about groups that are never talked about but are quite large is a positive step.

blog comments powered by Disqus