The Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? (With Reaction Roundup)
So was it a home run or not? Was Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s historical racial division speech — delivered due to the continuing political firestorm over his relationship with his controversial family pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr but containing one of the most thoughtful discussions of the racial issue ever uttered by a modern politician — a success or a flop?
Much of it is in the eye of the beholder. (You can watch the whole speech here.)
The reason: although generally acknowledged to be a historical speech in terms of content and importance, in hard-nosed political terms its success will eventually be judged by whether he reached his target audience. So watch the polls…and the primaries.
His target audience would NOT be:
–Conservative talk show hosts. On the radio yesterday Bill O’Reilly told listeners Obama could NOT really be a uniter — because he had dared to boycott the Fox Presidential debates. (Ohhhkayy…..). Meanwhile, on his Fox News evening show, Sean Hannity was again raising the name of Louis Farrakhan and seemingly trying to link Obama with him — as he has done before.
–Republican activists on and off the web who area looking for vulnerabilities — any vulnerabilities — to use against him in the general election if he gets the nomination. It’s like the old Groucho Marx song lyric: “Whatever it is, I’m against it…”
His target audience WOULD BE (and these are just a few):
–Independent voters who are truly swing voters and showed great interest in Obama in the past. The Pastor’s comments have already had a bad impact on Obama, a CBS poll finds:
Sixty-one percent of independent voters say they are unaffected, but 36 percent said it made their view less favorable. Two percent of independents said it made them more favorable view.
Overall, unfavorable views of Obama are up somewhat from February. His favorable ratings remain largely unchanged at 44 percent, but there has been some movement from undecided views to unfavorable views, from 23 percent in February to 30 percent now.
–Superdelegates. Too early to tell. They’ll be watching the remaining primaries and polls to see if Obama self-destructs. They’ll also likely watch to see how he handles himself under intense fire…that is sure to come in coming weeks.
–White working class Americans. The impact here is problematical. Most working class Americans didn’t see the speech live, and it’s unlikely a larger number of them turned to C-SPAN or the web to see it in its entirety. As many analysts noted, the speech was “nuanced” and highly thoughtful. In fact, his passages about the way America politics operates in attack mode echoed what many independent voters have said for years. Most working Americans will get their take on what he said via TV sound bites — which are usually the most dramatic. In a “nuanced” speech, that could prove perilous.
The likely impact? It’s too early to tell — but it’s likely more footage of Wright will be shown and hammered via clips by Obama’s foes, particularly Republican. (Why should Hillary Clinton intervene at all when Obama is now being lambasted by GOPers and press coverage?).
But it’s clear the issue won’t go away, that Republicans were smiling yesterday, Newsday notes:
Barack Obama’s first major speech on race drew praise for its eloquence Tuesday — but Republicans think he handed them a major weapon by refusing to disown family pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is known for racially inflammatory remarks.
“This is far and away the most damaging issue of the campaign for him, and his wonderful speech did nothing to make it go away,” said Whit Ayres, a longtime Republican pollster.
In the middle of a recession an economic slowdown (we’ll use White House terminology here), the war in Iraq and various other problems, it’s clear Republicans see an issue they can hammer home. The election could be about Obama and his pastor and his refusal to totally disown him:
“I think it’s an obligation of any opponent to use this issue, to make Reverend Wright a centerpiece of the campaign,” said Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford).
“His speech was disappointing and shameful,” King added. ” … This goes to the heart of who Barack Obama is. He’s trying to say he represents the 21st-century view on race and here he’s sticking up for this guy.”
Added pollster Ayres: “The problem is the contradiction between the fundamental message of the Obama campaign about bringing America together and Wright’s hate-filled, divisive message.”
So the most likely conclusions could be this:
(1) The speech will go down in history as one of the most nuanced and thoughtful discussions by a politician about race in decades.
(2) Future polls will prove hard evidence of what the impact is on the groups Obama needs to reach.
(3) Conservative talk radio, Fox News, and many weblogs that already vehemently oppose Obama were never in the target audience but can be expected to return to this issue repeatedly (as new clips will inevitably arise).
(4) If this issue starts to hurt Obama, Clinton will use this to argue that it’s too huge a risk to give him the nomination and that for the good of the party Superdelegates should vote for someone else (her).
Obama needed to address several audiences with the speech: undecided white voters in Pennsylvania, whose Rust Belt cousins Obama struggled to win over in Ohio even before the Wright controversy; African Americans aggrieved by the opprobrium being heaped on Wright; and staunch supporters such as Farley who needed reassurance about their candidate.
And the likely impact?
The speech drew praise across the political spectrum, though some on the right questioned Obama’s assertion that his liberal agenda could unite different races. But many who heard the speech wondered whether it would be enough to calm the anger generated by the Wright videos. Gerald Shuster, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, found the speech “stylistically persuasive” but thought Obama should have moved aggressively to distance himself from Wright months ago, when reports of his harsher sermons first surfaced. “The rhetoric is convincing, but it’s just coming too late,” he said.
Martin Medhurst, an expert in rhetoric at Baylor University, was struck by the religious intonations as well as the echoes of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on his Catholicism, particularly the summons to overcome divisions to confront common threats.
Will yesterday’s speech be remembered along with Kennedy’s? “If Obama goes on to win the presidency, it will,” Medhurst said. “If he wins the presidency, this will be seen as a very important speech.”
The question is whether the bulk of voters will be able to find the entire speech or watch significant parts of it and listen to his discussion on race, its role, how it impacts perceptions, how existing politics always works and his call for a newer style. Or, whether the focus will remain on Wright as a hot-button issue — that eventually could sink him.
Here’s a prediction:
Parts of the speech may be read to students in future generations.
And parts of the speech will be read and used by Republican operatives.
Looking at it in purely political terms, is the Obama campaign ready for what is most assuredly going to come?
HERE’S A CROSS-SECTION OF VIEWPOINTS FROM MANY DIFFERENT WEBLOGS ON THIS HISTORICAL SPEECH
I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history…
I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy – not this man, his candidacy – and what he can bring us to achieve – is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man’s faults and pain as well as his promise..
–Dick Polman as usual has a post that MUST be read IN FULL. Here are two paragraphs:
Was Obama effective? That will depend on how it is received, particularly by the millions of white voters who, in the midst of forming their first impressions of Obama, may have been spooked by Wright’s most incendiary remarks. Indeed, Obama’s immediate audience was probably the white working-class, culturally conservative voters who may prove pivotal in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary; a lot of those folks undoubtedly were not charmed to learn that Obama’s favorite pastor, for two decades, was a guy who intoned “God damn America” from the pulpit.
….One hardy piece of political advice is: Cut your losses, and turn things to your advantage. Obama today tried just that, to knock down a bad story and challenge the electorate in a manner consistent with his core campaign theme. I won’t hazard a guess on whether he succeeded; the risk is that too many skeptics will cherry-pick the passages that tick them off, and ignore the rest. But Obama’s future as a potentially transformative politician may hinge on the outcome.
–Taylor Owen of Oxblog (a favorite blog of TMV):
He speaks about issues, controversial issues, with a political voice that hasn’t been heard before. He transcends old ideological, ethnic, religious and historical divides. This voice is not just new to the US, but internationally. This is why so many people in Canada and Europe, for example, are watching him in a way they don’t even look at their own leaders. I can’t express the number of times I have been asked in Canada who will be “our Obama”. Same in the UK.
It is also worth mentioning that the voice evident in the speech clearly shows the unique positionally that he is able to hold. Ferraro was right – Obama could not have given this speech if he were white. Nor could he if he were a boomer – white, black, or female. Neither of the Clinton’s could have given this speech. This, however, does not in any way diminish the force of him giving it.
–National Review’s The Corner:
I stopped listening when the senator started talking about immigrant Americans and it was clear that he was going to extend the roster of victims to include everybody. There is no excuse for Wright and his ugly sermons. Obama could have said he loved the man, but he’s wrong in his hatred of America. But that is not what Obama said. There is no excuse for Wright’s brand of hatred.
–But on The Corner (the same as at TMV) not everyone thinks the same way. Charles Murray at The Corner said this:
I’ve just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I’m concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we’re used to from our pols…. But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.
Am I going to vote for him? No. But I came away from the speech with a profound respect for the man who gave it—something no Hillary Clinton speech has ever done.
How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright’s comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone — not just himself and the media — to talk openly.
Problem is… so far, this is a one way conversation. It’s … well, the tiny media scrum debating Rev. Wright… and Obama preaching to the country. There’s no give. There’s go back and forth. A one way conversation is a lecture.
CW tells us that white voters tend to become nervous when Democrats and liberals lecture to them — even when they lecture eloquently and respectfully — about race. Will they, this time? What do you think?
Put Obama’s speech up against the other make-or-break speech we’ve seen this cycle on a controversial topic: Mitt Romney’s address on his Mormon faith. In that earlier speech, Romney said little personal, little that could offend — but also little that truly connected with voters. I do not doubt that Romney spoke from his heart. But in his couched terms, he was unable to reach the hearts of then American people.
Here, Obama took a leap of faith on a speech he personally penned. He put his heart on the line. And at least to me, a coastal American who grew up and lived for most of his life in a state (Oregon) that will be holding its nominating contest this May, he did connect. He hit the home run that Todd and Murray talked about.
I fully concede that this is not necessarily the way that the speech will be received all over the country. Race is viewed very differently in different quarters and corners of the country. Even the mention of race and the intense focus on the subject will, to some, turn them off to Obama. In short, this speech very much could have (and indeed still could) backfire.
My guess is, if this thing hadn’t blown up, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would have had a prominent place in the inauguration, as he has had in the other significant events of Obama’s adult life, and that he’d be a frequent guest in the White House. Which, given that he is not in fact a crazy old uncle, some embarrassing relative you can’t do much about, but Obama’s chosen pastor, makes me wonder how far Obama really stands from any of those views, no matter how much repudiating he does. But then again, I suspect a lot of Obama supporters, white and black, even if they wouldn’t admit to it, don’t have much deep disagreement with a lot of those views about how racist terrorism-supporting America got what it deserved.
In his speech in Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama revealed that he is most definitely his own man.
Those who have found Obama’s statements of dissociation from his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s statements a tad studious must now be satisfied. This time, Obama did not rest with incendiary and divisive–words which harbor potential toleration (i.e. maybe a little divisiveness is healthy?).
He pegged Wright’s recreational alienation as wrong, as stereotyping, as a “profound mistake,” as founded upon a canard that America has made no progress on race.
It must be understood what a maverick statement this is from a 40-something black politician. In the black community one does not sass one’s elders. One is expected to show a particular deference, understandably, to the generation who fought on the barricades of the Civil Rights movement. That is, to people of Jeremiah Wright’s vintage.
–Michelle Malkin has extensive “live blogging” and concludes:
Obama’s bottom line: Everyone’s a victim. You’re part of the problem if you keep talking about Jeremiah Wright. Everyone’s churches have crazy demagogues. Schools need more money. Leave illegal aliens alone. Never mind all the black grievance-mongers who have built careers sowing seeds of divisions. Look at all the talk show hosts and conservative commentators! Elect Obama. Fixer of souls.
Obama’s speech was possibly the greatest speech on race and class in modern politics, highlighting the inextricable link between the two in America where each has shaped the other in our history….What Obama has done is respected the anger and even the bigotry of many whites, but demanded that they respect the anger of blacks suffering discrimination, and asked that everyone overcome that anger and refuse the red herrings of the race card to concentrate on those who financially benefit every election from the “political stalemate” that has blocked investments in jobs, health care for all, and the revitalization of our communities.
This is the aggressive speech that I’ve wanted from Obama from early on, that clearly identifies the corporate source of the political stalemate that he talks about often, yet whose source he was often vague about. Put on the defensive by the attacks on Reverend Wright, whose own sermons were steeped in these issues of economic and social justice, Obama didn’t just play defense but aggressively redirected the discussion against those making the attack. In an imperfect country of racial division, the corporate political class will always find offensive comments and issues to stoke racial fears, Obama argued, so the issue of Rev. Wright is almost irrelevant.
–The Guardian’s Michael Tomsky:
I have to assume that many white Americans have been attracted to him in no small part because he seemed to offer a narrative that wouldn’t take us into these discomfiting, cobwebbed corners of the American psyche. He seemed, as someone’s one-liner had it, “just the right amount of black”; like he probably belonged to a genteel inter-racial Episcopal church.
Well, tough – he didn’t. And here he basically told us why. He did so with about as much honesty as we have any right to expect from a person seeking the presidency. I’m sure it helps us, as a society, to hear it all put out there with intelligence and subtlety. I’m less sure about whether it will help him.
In a way, Obama’s candidacy, and this speech in particular, will test our collective maturity level. Obama took the stage and essentially said: “It’s time to sit down and have an adult conversation about race in America.”
Are we ready for that conversation? Are we ready to even have adult conversations about politics? That would require a media that focuses on issues rather than sensationalized personal attacks and the day-to-day horse race. Considering some of the headlines immediately following the speech that narrowly focused on Obama’s line that the constitution was stained by slavery, I’m not sure we’re there yet.
Barack Obama got up and did something that we Americans have not had the privilege of seeing since the likes of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. He spoke publicly in a risky and bold, blunt and informed way to a theme that is hardly dead, and in fact regretfully and shamefully so, still permeates many of the social systems and institutions of this our great free country
Obama tried to play both ends against the middle while at the same time trying to show he was “above the fray” all while making a political campaign speech. This was classic Clinton triangulation.
Obama — with his writers — seems to have climbed some high mountain and looked out on the land and seen the broiling angers not as immediate heat, but as irrational expressions in real thwarted lives. Even in people who would hate him for who he is. The ability to see that is rare enough in a politician. I understand why hearing some politician actually up and say it is an experience to some people like finding a fountain in the desert.
It solidifies my belief this election is only partly about choosing the next president. It also is a national revival. These happen maybe once in a generation. In the 19th century, when so many were excluded from direct participation in politics, they were religious revivals or outpourings for social improvement. Now, they are political campaigns.
…I still don’t think I’m going to vote for him. I don’t think I want another Jack Kennedy experience. But I’d be wary of working too hard against him. Not because of the backlash. Because, right or wrong for the job, this candidacy refreshes the tree of liberty.
Is his pitiful attempt at excusing his pastors hate speech, Obama tries to tell the “people” they should move past judging him on his associations….After hearing the bad reverend’s sermons over and over again on the news, it made me realize that he sounds like an imam in a middle eastern mosque, or Dearborn-istan, Michigan.
All my adult life, I’ve seen politicians talking about addressing problems in our country, but never do they talk about taking on the root cause of those problems. For me, the difference between Obama and every other serious contender for the presidency during my adult life is pretty simple. Everyone else talks about fixing problems through a broken political system; Obama talks about changing the system. It makes sense really; if you’re job is to be a politician, then you’re employed by the system. This speech moved me to tears
My life began the year that of Robert Francis Kennedy was taken away. Yet I have been moved by his words. Growing up, Bobby Kennedy represented to me the promise and the possibility of America. It is that promise that brought me to its shores and it is that promise that makes me proud to be a citizen.
Four decades later a new generation, my daughter’s generation, will inherit that promise and that possibility. This morning, in a sweeping 30 minute speech, Barack Obama gave me hope that my daughter will grow up in an America that will be a more perfect union – an America full of promise and possibility.
By today’s media-driven political standards, the speech (which he wrote himself) is almost shockingly nuanced. While Obama clearly condemns offensive comments by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he tries to put them in some historical and social context– while making plain that he thinks America has moved beyond that context and recognizing that white Americans, too, often have their own fears and resentments. For those who have been following the Wright story, Obama’s speech deserves to be seen or read in its entirety; just watching a few soundbites does it an injustice.
Partisanship aside, as much as I loathe his politics, I always liked Obama the man and believed that his devotion to racial reconciliation was sincere. I don’t anymore. He exploited Trinity politically to establish his black “authenticity” and then demagogued Clinton for challenging his image as the post-racial candidate, and now the two have bumped up against each other so suddenly it’s time for a circle-squaring conversation that can really only end in electing him president. Typical politician, just a bit smarter than the rest. Shows you how naive I am that I’m surprised.
But in Obama’s faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. His faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems drastically to understate both the efficacy of such tactics and the deafening amplification they receive from our establishment press. Even Americans who authentically believe that they want a “new, better politics” may be swayed by the same old Drudgian sewerage because it is powerful and ubiquitous.
Petty, personality-based demonization works, and the belief that it won’t work any longer in the absence of a major war against it may be more a by-product of faith and desire than reality. Obama’s calm reason and rational (though inspiring) discourse are matched against very visceral images and psychologically gripping strategies.
Would it be acceptable for a white conservative male to adopt the stance that he could not disown a minister spouting anti-American, racialist rhetoric (coming, of course, from a white point of view) without disowning the “white community”? Of course not, and rightly so. Dissociating oneself from one minister, white or black, need not (and should not!) be equated with dissociating oneself from that minister’s (or one’s own) race.
Cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch
opinions powered by SendLove.to
40 Responses to “The Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? (With Reaction Roundup)”
I keep wondering what would/will happen if someone finds a video clip of Rev. Wright ranting against homosexuals or feminist. I doubt that the verbal gymnastics that virtually all of the left is willing to accept in excusing the racism of Rev. Wright will have the same effect.
Either Senator Obama is certain that it does not exist or he is just hoping that the media will move on and stop going over what is on all of the videos of Rev. Wright.
The reaction is truly depresing, though inevitable.. Everyyone is parsing it in purely political terms and running to the polls to gauge the impact.
The true value of the speech can only be assessed if you can imagive it being delivered away from a political podium. It's a courageously honest and realistic assessnebt of where we are on the race relations curve and a hopeful statement about the direction in which we should go.
The speech is a gem that may not be truly valued until long after its political context has been forgotten.
[...] of Texas The Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? (With Reaction Roundup) » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news [...]
[...] pastor in Chicago, or people would find this offensive. It’s waffer thin!thekenoshakid.blogspot.comThe Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? With Reaction Roundup So was it a home run or not? Was Democratic Senator Barack Obama??s historical racial division [...]
Domajot makes a huge point. It is one that superdestroyer and other right-wing sycophants cannot wish away even given their understanding-free inability to walk in others' shoes.
It was a brilliant political speech, as Sen. Obama managed to contradict (cough…revise) his previous admission on Wright with no one noticing:
Friday: “None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews.”
Yesterday: “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes”
The other day Obama's defenders here at TMV were crowing at Kristol, and saying you can't prove nothing. He was never there when Wright was ranting. Seems Obama was wiser…and knew (unlike his defenders) that he was there, and video would probably turn up.
Superdestroyer is right. Logic would suggest that, in 20 years, there must be video putting Obama in the pews while Wright was ranting against whites or Jews or someone.
Why else would Obama change his story?
Clearly, a brilliant political speech. It succeeded in allowing Shaun and other Obama defenders — who were damning McCain to hell for the Hagee connection just a few days ago — to happily give Obama a pass for 20 years of close association with Wright.
Had the parties been reversed, and McCain embraced the legacy of a wacko right-wing evangelical while distancing himself from his words, I rather doubt Shaun would be so forgiving.
Also note that the speech implicitly equated Ferraro with Wright. That was nasty and very political. Brilliant slam at HRC.
Note the reference to white as well as black grievance (in reference to Affirmative Action in university placings, no less). And the reference to class. Brilliant.
The Ashley segment at the end was shite. “Human interest” pablum – end on a human story folks can relate to – straight from Communications 101. Not on a level with the political brilliance of the rest of the speech.
On the whole, I thought this a brilliant – even Machiavellian – political speech.
I had not considered Sen Obama ruthless enough…or politically devious enough…to be presidential material. This speech has forced me to revise that view.
Wright will still come back to haunt him. But he was was brilliant, without doubt.
We know that Barak Obama comes from the far left. His vote tells us so. We know that Barak Obama hangs with far left as his friends tell us so. We know that the far left has endorsed his candidacy as Moveon.org has announced it so.
Now Barak Obama is simply having to defend his friends, his family and his associates. We as Americans demand nothing less. He has chosen his friends, church, associates. We did not choose them for him. He voted the way he did. We did not hold a gun to his head and make him do it.
Now America is simply asking for answers from the man. Its politics. Its reality. When my daughters went on a date we got the information we needed. Who, what, where, when and why. Thats all this nation is asking.
How he responds will define him in a crisis. So far from what I see he will put George W. Bush to shame when it comes to personal loyalty. Yet I understand his loyalty because as a nightly commenter on Cable said last night “The Democrats are stuck with this guy aren't they.” Barak Obama has won the nomination. He is speaking as someone who is the partys next nomination. He is speaking with the voice of you will hear when he is in the White House.
Now we have some insight into the man. The speech is inconsequential. His actions are what speak louder then words. His actions are what have been missing from his resume. Now we have some actions in which to base an opinion and what many of us are seeing is not a pretty sight.
This more then anything is what the Rev. Wright episode represents. Hillary has endured these for 20 years. McCain has endured them. Barak Obama has not. Now its his turn. I believe we must be prepared for a barrage of these coming at Barak Obama. He is after all a Politician. Not a saint.
Now there is the “Obama-Wright escape” clause for those embarrassing situations where you can now say .. “I can no more likely renounce him/her than Obama could renounce Rev. Wright.“
Wow. Doesn't that make the world a better place ?
Or .. I would like to invoke my “Obama-Wright escape” clause rights.
Ranks right up there with the 5th amendment.
Perhaps we should all automatically consider this response the next time we think of demanding a repudiation of someone.
Marlowecan-
Yes, Obama is a politician,. not a divine prophet. He is a flawed human being like the rest of us. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. Yet, their words live on. to inspire generation after generation.
In the rush to pick over the man and rifle through the speech for something that can be used like a political club, you are trampling the flowers and saplings while you search for weeds.
Kristol was criticized, so in good old political fashion, Obama deserves a revenge criticism? Or is it poker: I'l see your Hagee and raise you a Wright?
The beauty of the speech was that it transcended the laying of blame stage in racial and political relations and in peron-to-person relationships. It stressed the need to understand where we are , with all the complex emotional baggage we allcarry, so that we can shake free of the mess and aim to do better.
The author of the speech and his political future matter infiniely less than the message of the speech. It truly breaks my heart to see Americans are so hell bent on destroying each other that they can't pause from today's battles long enough to safeguard their future.
This truly breaks my heart.
It is obvious that one can draw a host of widely varying conclusions from the speech, but I am curious whether people perceive it to be insincere. (Clearly Marlowecan would fall in this camp; presumably not Whocares.)
Speechs do not set us free Domajot. Even though this is the message that Barak Obama has been trying to instill. He is trying to emulate the late great dr. Martin Luther King but when all is said and done Barak Obama is missing one very serious ingredient to greatness.
Action. Deeds.
Nothing changed. You do not change mans hearts with flowery speechs but with deeds that back up words.
IF as you claim that the words are transcendent then it is the words that are spoken that have intrinsic value and as such we must pay even MORE attention to the Rev. Wrights sermon because it is his words that you choose to pay more homage to then his deeds.
For I find in his actions nothing that leaped from the pages of his sermons. I find no marches of “Hate America”. Yet Domajot in your haste to defend Obama and his Reverend you and so many others are failing to grasp the difference between words and deeds.
Pretty speeches do not change America. John Kennedy said lets go to the moon and the world looked at him like he was nuts. Then he was shot. It was the action that brought about the results of the flowery speech. Had this action not occurred then perhaps we would be talking about the Russians being the first to land on the moon.
Speechs yes. But as the bible preaches to us. Words without deeds are dead.
aba23 said: “…but I am curious whether people perceive it to be insincere. (Clearly Marlowecan would fall in this camp….”
I suppose I see politics as a craft. Domajot is an idealist, and I respect that view and even wish I could feel like that sometimes.
Obama's speech was overtly political, for the obvious reasons I noted above. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
If you know your Shakespeare: contrast the Henry IV & V plays – focusing on the brilliant Machiavellian Prince Hall – with the Henry VI plays, focusing on the saintly failure of Henry VI. Shakespeare knew this lesson well.
It was not worthy of Lincoln…who drafted his “First Inaugural” (“the better angels of our natures”) for a political purpose, yet somehow rose above it in an broad and very sincere appeal to preserve the republic. I cite as one example: Senator Obama's swipe at Ferraro (Lincoln notably did not lash out at any particular secessionist).
But Senator Obama's speech was undeniably successful. Better than anything Bill Clinton delivered, I would argue.
Without doubt, the speech was political; I wouldn't claim any action taken by a candidate for the presidency was not done without consideration of the political ramifications.
But what I'm curious about is how many people consider what he said to be an insincere reflection of what the man believes. Marlowecan said that Obama “changed his story” about what he heard in church (I don't happen to find a contradiction in the two comments offered, but I understand the inference). Based on that, I assume that Marlowecan finds at least some of the speech to be insincere–that is, again, saying something that he doesn't actually believe.
Of course it was calculatingly political. He had boxed himself in, through a succession of denying or lawyerly dodging. But Wright's words were simply too egregious to ignore. This wasn't a speech given because he wanted to – he had to do it to stop the Wright hemorrhaging. He would much rather it all had just gone away.
So his central message essentially was (a) it's your fault that we are here and (b) Wright's errors are being unfairly overstated and besides he's done many good works, so (c) while I strongly disagree with Wright, still he's not bad enough to break away from, (d) the real problem here is the underlying injustices of the past and the present, which (e) I am the one who can bring us together to fix.
The majority of people always believe what they want to believe. All the more so in an age of instant fix, instant gratification, personality and identity driven politics, and little objective intellectual rigor. So when the world has grown so complex that we more than ever need to see leadership that can prove its mettle, can survive a cauldron on the order of a Firing Line debate, we instead get . . . fantastic marketing.
Where the possible insincerity comes in is the disingenuous handling of his Wright problem. He had already tried various not-forthright, not-candid, manipulative ways around it. Back against the wall, he deftly minimizes Wright and consequently gives himself a pass, allowing him to avoid addressing the hard questions but instead to change the focus. He could have educated us on his 20-year transformation, providing a roadmap of turning away from the politics of hate to the politics of inclusive change. Instead he essentially said, “The guy isn't that bad, I've told you enough, trust me, move on.” The audience was given what it wanted to hear. If one buys into his Wright explanation, with no problem with how he makes that argument (the “no more than I could disown the black community or my own grandmother”), then it is judged a sincere effort to rise above and move the dialog forward. If one does not, then it is judged a calculated diversion with the questions left unanswered and enhanced suspicions over why he took this approach.
EDIT: No sooner had I posted the above, than I spotted this, which goes straight to where the division in response to the speech comes from:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opi…
and this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/…
Creole, your response addresses how he handled the “Wright problem.” It posits that he may have been evasive, may not have wanted to address it, also that he seeks to minimize it, give himself a pass, avoid “the hard questions.” You also say that he provided an “explanation” that one can choose to buy into or not.
All of that may be true. These are all plausible conclusions (as are many others). What I'm curious about–in all the hundreds of posts I've read on the speech in the last 24 hours, from both those with favorable and unfavorable reactions–is whether people think he was speaking sincerely, that is, whether he believes what he wrote and said in that speech. (Incidently, I do not think that if the answer is yes for someone, then that person could not share your opinions nevertheless.)
You raise another point I'm curious about though–what is the “hard question” he hasn't answered (and what is the “right” answer)?
(Personally, I'm afraid I disagree with your earlier post as to what his central message was, at least in terms of (a), (b), (d), and (e) to some, or considerable, extent. And if you genuinely want to find out more about his relationship with his faith, you might try his memoirs.)
?
“The problem is the contradiction between the fundamental message of the Obama campaign about bringing America together and Wright’s hate-filled, divisive message.”
Way to miss the entire point which is that as a leader of millions you have to bring everyone together even while they disagree. Its not about sorting out the people you agree with from the ones you don't. I'm off to bang my head against a brick wall.
[...] and strong. Right now Olympiacos seems like a defensive team built on some great offeslamonline.comThe Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? With Reaction Roundup So was it a home run or not? Was Democratic Senator Barack Obama??s historical racial division [...]
aba23,
Re “speaking sincerely, whether he believes . . . ” Not an easy question. I don't think there is one answer to that. One has to look at phrasing and context throughout. I think there have been a number of balanced pieces that have done that, e.g., Joan Walsh in Salon.
There are clearly observations that are true, in terms of the racist behaviors both white and black. I think he is sincere in recognizing some of the illegitimate, and legitimate, reasons for grievance. And his appeal to us to have an open national discussion, I would think to be sincere; that it helps his campaign, doesn't make it less so.
On the other hand, some of how he describes the plight of the black community, I hope that this is not what he sincerely believes, because it relies too heavily on the cause being external, the broader American society. That's a watered down version of Wright, and doesn't place sufficient responsibility on the collapse of responsibility, accountability, culture, and family in that community. I would have like to hear him talk like Cosby about this. But in fairness, one has to consider his primary audience – which were Democrats yet to vote in the primary, and the superdelegates, and he has to consider his core constituency.
Some was clearly calculated to deal with his Wright problem (this is the area of the hard questions I was referring to). He did this by minimizing Wright through comparisons to his grandmother and Ferraro, pointing out his military service and good social works. I don't think he sincerely believes that this explains his association; he is simply trapped in that and no amount of changing the conversation changes that fact. I think there is an explanation, but it would not be politically acceptable. So he has to put the best face on it he can, and shift the conversation.
He also diverted into the anti-trade and anti-corporate populism he and HRC have used in Ohio and now Pennsylvania. As we saw in the Nafta flap in Ohio, he says one thing but believes another. That was for his core audience.
So, it's a mix of sincerity, exhortation, campaign, and disingenuous damage control.
The catalyst for this speech was the Wright problem. It's nice that he turned this into an inspirational call to come together, but very disturbing that he not only didn't address the issue completely, but how he tried to work around it. It leaves us wondering what and how he really thinks, because for sure 20 yrs ago he embraced Wright's views and now he rejects at least some of the most egregious. But there is no way that he doesn't carry some of that forward; why else would he continue to work with Wright as he has until now? Something is missing from this picture.
On my a-e: I'll give you (a); I worded that poorly and what I had in mind doesn't matter enough. (b) is I think supported by Obama's choice of words, comparisons, and implications. (d) I'm surprised you would disagree with; this was a major thrust of his speech, his problem definition, the reason we need to do something. (e) that's implicit, why else would he be speaking if its not about demonstrating his leadership towards addressing the race issues he framed?
Slamfu,
Great name! Is that Joe Bob language?
Anyway . . . you make a fair point, but so is the other one. A whole lot of people have observed this. Let's keep in mind that this speech was not in the game plan until the Wright flap. Obviously, he saw that he couldn't any longer dismiss Wright, he had to do something. This was not like an inaugural speech laying out a vision, this was a defensive move he had to make. And remember that he started his campaign with an inclusive message that transcends race; when radical racism gets associated with him over a long duration, it's not unreasonable that people ask for that to be reconciled.
“Obviously, he saw that he couldn't any longer dismiss Wright, he had to do something.”
Exactly, he had to do something. But unlike every other candidate telling me how much different things are going to be, he did something different. Instead of throwing him under a bus and spouting talking points we've heard a million times before he stuck up for both his and his pastor's points of view, made me think about where they come from and also reminded us that we all have folks in our lives we may not agree with. Many of them a lot closer to us than our spiritual advisors.
Someone else was commenting here saying they were sick of candidates apologizing for what other people say. I think we all are, and I am also sick of them doing it with canned phrases and platitudes. The man just gets it. He's got brains, balls, and a spine connecting them which is way more than I can say for pretty much any other politician.
[...] fuel for life renewable fuel vegetable oil 100 mpg vehicle is here it just isn??t coiggyz.comThe Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? With Reaction Roundup So was it a home run or not? Was Democratic Senator Barack Obama??s historical racial division [...]
“an age of instant fix, instant gratification, personality and identity driven politics, and little objective intellectual rigor”
You know, I've disputed Superdestroyer's contention that the USA will become a one-party Democratic nation someday but the facts you list above are fuel for his contention.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It goes some way to providing your perspective on the question I wondered about.
To clean up on the message points: to me, (b) rankled because I don't think Obama would consider the reaction to Wright's extreme comments as being “unfairly overstated”–quite the contrary, he condemned these statements as “unacceptable,” which is a pretty high level for a speech act, if you think about it. (d) I will give you only if it's placed in context, and even then not wholly. First, by placing in context I mean the context of a discussion of the race issue. I think that misrepresents his viewpoint because it emphasizes race as the focal point, and that's how his brand of political action differs, it appears, from Wrights–Obama's focus, as stated in the speech (and as demonstrated in his career), is on ensuring that ALL Americans have ample opportunity to succeed. Further, in this speech (and repeatedly on the campaign trail), he DID point to both legacy and irresponsibility, as you also suggest, as contributing to problems in the black community.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as to (e), he never claimed that HE will be able to bring us all together to fix whatever. His constant message is that this is his approach, but it is not top-down; it is not something he can do for us. Rather, it is up to us to do for us.
Lib-Dems (the party's left wing) prefer Obama.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-20…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9125….
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/l…
http://www.ourfuture.org/
[...] Crap Ever Made. The hilarious new episode, ???Bad Movies: Leprechaun Flicksmusic.ccpblogs.comThe Obama Racial Division Speech: Success Or Failure? With Reaction Roundup So was it a home run or not? Was Democratic Senator Barack Obama??s historical racial division [...]
“The Ashley segment at the end was shite. 'Human interest' pablum “
The first response would be, what would you expect? for after all, this is a Dem speaking to Dems and likely Dem-voting leaners.
But what you can really say is that it's hardly imaginative — it is aping Bush.
“he stuck up for both his and his pastor's points of view” But that is the crux of the problem, isn't it?
Unless I misread you, seems you take the same 'not that big a deal' approach. “Made me think about where they come from and also reminded us that we all have folks in our lives we may not agree with.” Meaning exactly what? They had tough breaks, a really tough time? Made some mistakes in judgment? Had some indiscretions? We're all imperfect?
Let me share something. I was an anti-war activist in SF/Oakland in '69. I saw Black Power born, along with – in Cone's words, it's “theological arm” – Black Liberation Theology, the “basis” for Wright's teachings and the TUCC. I've sat in the pews. I've not only heard the message, but seen its effects first hand. This cannot be scaled down to the “we're all imperfect, we all make mistakes level.” Contrary to Obama's statement that these clips were “cherry-picked” snippets not representative of Wright, and the insinuation that we are not properly factoring in his yrs of good works, etc. – these are snapshots of a continuum of hate that has continued for 40 yrs right up to the present.
Consider that children in that congregation have been taught from early age to view everything about America – in Wright's words, its “entire reality” – through the prism of a conspiracy of white supremacy. Accusations of America that put it on a par with the Nazis. Does this church teach pride of self and one's heritage? Yes. Do good social works? Yes. Exhort personal responsibility? Yes. Promote devotion to family? Yes. But is it also a virulent form of anti-Americanism, does it promote separatism, is it anti-Semitic, does it judge whites as hopelessly unable to see their pervasive racism, does it drive a divisive wedge between its member and their neighbors? Yes to all.
If this isn't enough to unequivocally condemn and disassociate from, then what is? Is this what we really want to hear Obama “stick up for”?
And if another candidate had spent the past 20 years in close association with such a church, consulting with someone like Wright before making any “bold political moves”, bringing an individual like Wright into his campaign, what would Obama say? We know the answer to that. There would be no excuses allowed.
?
aba23,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, in turn.
To (d), I think we are getting at the same thing, just different words. Your explanation is more expansive. I was simply referring to his urging a national discussion of the underlying causes.
Also, in the speech while he did point to lack of sufficient responsibility in the black community, I felt, like some others do, that it was not proportionate, didn't scale to other points he was making. This is not a big thing, though.
Where you and I will disagree is on (b), which is the heart of the matter; it was, after all, the catalyst for the speech. The problem is that while he definitely condemned what the public has seen from Wright, as you point out, at the same time he minimized it. (Note Slamfu's pro-Obama post below, precisely because Obama “stuck up for his pastor.”) As he has before, Obama suggested that the videos were cherry-picked “snippets”, were uncharacteristic of the total man and an unfair representation of 40 yrs of good works, asks that we “understand his roots.” And then, and has been noted by quite a few analysts, he disingenuously compares Wright to Ferraro (which isn't remotely true), and compares disowning Wright as tantamount to rejecting the entire black community and his occasionally errant grandmother – even some who've written about this speech in glowing terms saw this to be ugly and misleading. And why make such a stretch? Because he hasn't an adequate answer.
For reasons I describe in my reply below, I find his failure to reject Wright totally, his decision to have had a continued close association with such an individual, to have included him in his campaign, to be entirely inexcusable and unacceptable. Were it another candidate, this would not be tolerated – including by Obama.
I fully understand that having Wright be at all associated with his campaign makes a persuasive point against Obama's judgment. (I think his failure to loosen ties from Mr. Rezko at the first hint of Rezko's improrieties is even more damning.)
His long-time personal association with his pastor is something I don't feel qualified to comment on. I know too little about it; it could cut either way for me if I knew more about the church, the pastor, the nature of their relationship and numerous other factors.
Now, I have little use for religion, but there's a lot of good in Christianity, and in my opinion to cite his failure to “reject Wright totally” as “inexcusable and unacceptable” is not only to ask him to betray a basic tenet of his faith, but also to act completely contrary to what he seems to believe about effectuating constructive change.
You also wrote: “So when the world has grown so complex that we more than ever need to see leadership that can prove its mettle, can survive a cauldron on the order of a Firing Line debate, we instead get . . . fantastic marketing.”
Again, I don't disagree that there's a lot of spin inherent to the workings of any successful politician, including this one, but I support Obama's candidacy exactly because I believe his primary motive–more than any other politician in my lifetime–is to try to attack the democracy-killing cancer endemic to our “age of instant fix, instant gratification, personality and identity driven politics, and little objective intellectual rigor.” (I also think he will ask more of the American people than any of his opponents, and that is crucial to the long-term economic health and both the short- and long-term influence of the nation.)
I'm sorry you find it more attributable to fantastic marketing, but it's too bad (from my perspective) that we'll likely never know.
aba23,
It was nice you took time to make another reply. And I thank you especially for your constructive and respectful tone. I hope that my responses have met that standard.
After I wrote the following, which I'll leave here fwiw, I came across a piece written by a black fellow with the New York Civil Rights Coalition and formerly the NAACP. I'm guessing that you too will find this highly interesting and insightful . . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinio…
I must comment on your thought re Obama's faith and not rejecting Wright. Like yourself, I have little use for religion, at least the organized variety (I do like the Dalai Lama). If you scan down the page you will see a post I made in ref to what is taught in Obama's church and by Rev Wright, and its origins. I think if you take a closer look, you will find that the organizing principle is hatred of America as being “white supremacist” in its “entire reality.” This is why in the church's bookstore, prominently displayed are the works of Farrakahn, Malcolm X, and former Black Panthers. The church is based on a belief system its founder (a mentor of Wright) describes as the “theological arm of Black Power.” The videos which caused the uproar, leading to Obama speech Tues, are not “snippets” taken out of context as Obama implies, they are representative of the message delivered in this church for 40 yrs.
I voted for Obama in the primary. But when I learned that he had attended a Black Power church like this for 20 yrs, that Wright was a mentor and still advisor to his campaign . . . well, I was just dumbfounded and so depressed. I cannot reconcile Obama making these choices. I cannot understand his minimizing something so egregious. I cannot understand why he is not telling us how he stood up to Wright, grappled with Wright, worked to change the poison – and failing that, why he did not leave. There are after all plenty of other choices.
Perhaps I have this viewpoint because I have seen first hand the results of this poison. When people are taught from early childhood that everything around them, that all they encounter, is part of a vicious plot to destroy them – no wonder it results in a complex of victim hood and grievance. Obama had a wonderful opportunity Tuesday to take this head on. But I guess he could not because the more he would have exposed Wright for all that he is, the more difficult the questions would have become about his sustained involvement. I guess we'll never hear the full truth about the why.
As far as my marketing comment, I'm showing my disillusionment again. The other thing I learned after voting for Obama was that his campaign is virtually a mirror image of what David Axelrod – whose consulting firm specializes in political advertising – put together for Deval Patrick's campaign in Massachusetts. He's used these themes and messages in other campaigns as well. The inspirational “yes, we can” and “you are the change” etc. was all pre-packaged. I guess that doesn't mean Obama doesn't believe it all the same, but it was discouraging to learn that it wasn't original, wasn't really his.
Take care. And thanks again for the dialog.
?
I promise I'll let it go after this, and I do thank you again for sharing your thoughts and the discussion generally. I read the Myers op-ed you linked to, but I confess I find his position to be extremely unrealistic. The idea that we mustn't look at the past to see where we are (and who we are) and how we might go forward is one I, Obama, and William Faulkner all object to. Yes, we all know that race is largely a construct, but that doesn't make it or the effects of its perceived importance to some any less “real.”
Again, I don't know enough about Obama's church. Maybe you know that this church was one that regularly and continuously poisoned minds as you describe. Here's what I find interesting: As you say, even these clips came from videos that were widely available. If they are all so inflammatory, why have we only seen 1 min. and 45 sec. of them? More generally, why do I not know more of the unspeakable things they're up to?–there's nothing secret about it; the congregation numbers in the thousands from what I understand (and Wright has spoken at hundreds of other churches and schools). If there's smoke, there's fire, but what if there isn't all that much smoke? Then, do we really need to make up our minds so quickly?
Finally, Black Power is not Black Supremacy.
?
Hey,
My last reply as well. But this info may be of interest, in answer to your questions.
(Btw re Myers, I just thought, given his background, that it was interesting. Different. Something to think about. That's all.)
There are simple answers to your questions. The clips are outtakes of entire sermons, and admittedly pieces that are most controversial, but do not distort the message. The sermons have been avail from the TUCC bookstore. Interestingly, there are only a limited number of sermons sold in this media, but these are among them. Also prominently displayed in the book store, along with Obama's book, are books by Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and leaders of the former Black Panthers. I don't know if Cone and Hopkins books are sold there – Cone is the father of BLT and Wright's mentor. I've seen a TV clip where Wright essentially says that if you haven't read Cone or Hopkins you don't know Wright and the TUCC, and he's right. The diff basis for my perspective vis-a-vis yourself and most others, is my familiarity with Cone. I was there when this was born. At that time I was very active politically in Berkeley and also taking Comparative Theology at college. Most activists were not surprised by BLT's political bent, as it was derived from the Marxist Liberation Theology developed by radical Catholic priests in S. America (judged heretical by the Vatican), which we were very familiar with. But with BLT, God, Jesus, all Christian theology was placed in an exclusive black framework; the New Testament is a large black allegory thru which to inform the entire American experience. What was shocking was how, like its cousin the Panthers, it was so vehemently and uncompromisingly anti-white and anti-American. It isn't black supremacist per se, but that is implied, because whites are characterized as so hopelessly racist that they cannot be changed. (A reprint of a Wright sermon in 2006 in TUCC's Trumpet makes this case.) I sat in a pew one day with other activists that had supported the black cause since MLK, listening to epithets hurled at us and being blamed along with all of white America for everything wrong. It was the antithesis of MLK; it was a religious version of Malcolm X. It was a lighter version of Farrakhan, but “Christian”.
Obama knows all of this well. He talks about it in Dreams of My Father. His under-grad associations were primarily black activists, Marxist profs, Farrakhan followers (with whom he writes that he shared their sentiments, but not their methods). Of course Obama has had to deny not hearing the incendiary rhetoric in those specific sermons, but anyone who knows BLT and Wright knows you can't be a close associate (esp for 20 yrs) and not know this stuff. This is what defines who Wright is.
Why isn't more known about BLT? Because it was legitimized by Liberal theological academia in the 70's. A lot of theological studies have been radicalized for a long time. You may have read how Wright is a prominent theologian, widely respected. And he is. And among black churches, a non-trivial number (albeit certainly a minority) subscribe to BLT. There are many churches like the TUCC. You may find them in the United Church of Christ, like TUCC, because the UCC is the most Liberal major denomination. But many are non-denominational. Whites simply don't know this (or more to the point, don't care). Secular media certainly is ignorant about it. It's important to note, too – you'll hear this repeatedly in defenses of TUCC – that through the Liberal perspective, it is the good social works that are what's important. The longer-term effects of political grievance and anti-white separatism are downplayed. For that matter, many higher-educated Liberals essentially agree with BLT's anti-American views; you hear this often as well in TUCC's defense. While most black churches disagree with BLT, teaching the traditional color-blind theology, the good works that TUCC does plus black solidarity keeps many mum. But again, no one is paying attention; there are also plenty of black pastors (esp in the South) to preach intensely against Wright and BLT.
As a final note: Do I think that Obama shares Wright's extreme views? No, I don't. In a way, that only adds to the question of why he did not speak out while he was there. Obama needs to be candid with the voters about this major part of his past and be clear about what about it he considered sufficiently unobjectionable that it justified his continued participation. I saw a piece in the L.A. Times by an activist young woman who knows him from the TUCC, and she was frustrated that he has not been more candid with the “progressive” views he espoused there – policies which are distinctly aligned to the socialist dimension of BLT. This may be what kept Obama in the TUCC, i.e., it's ideological bent. We need to know.
Thanks again for all of your time and thoughts.
The Wall Street Journal has some interesting answers to his speech and why he stayed with Pastor Wright and the Trinity United Church for 20 years!
OPINION
DOW JONES REPRINTS
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:
http://www.djreprints.com.
• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.
The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008; Page A23
Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be “in his position” as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality — in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.
AP
Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, June 4, 2007.
But whatever her motives, she was right: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.
The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed — an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.
How to turn one's blackness to advantage?
The answer is that one “bargains.” Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain — and feel affection for the bargainer — because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.
This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.
His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by “change” or “hope” or “the future.” And he has failed to say how he would actually be a “unifier.” By the evidence of his slight political record (130 “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.
Race helps Mr. Obama in another way — it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?
Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.
And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were “challengers,” not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.
But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . .” And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a “blank screen.”
Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday — for 20 years — in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage (“God damn America”).
How does one “transcend” race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?
What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?
But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.
No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.
Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of “A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win” (Free Press, 2007).
it was definately a success
all in all, it was a succes.