‘Our Current Polity’

Wow.

That’s the single, befuddled reaction I’m able to muster after reading some of the negative critiques of Obama’s speech yesterday: Wow.

Wow … what happened to careful, accurate analysis? Wow … when did the ability to hear and understand and appreciate nuance die? Wow … is “benefit of the doubt” a permanently lost luxury?

Andrew Sullivan had his own “moment of revelation” after reading such critiques. He later concluded that Obama’s speech “was the right speech, with the right nuance and brave. If America cannot embrace such complexity, then that says more about our current polity than it does about Obama.”

I disagree with Sullivan to an extent; namely, I do not think the majority of the negative critiques are motivated by racism — and that’s a point on which Sullivan seems to now feel chastened after others challenged him. Where I do agree with Sullivan is on this point: Many of the negative critiques suffer from a failure to appreciate the complexity and totality of Obama’s speech.

Case in point:

One commentator — to whom I won’t link in this particular case, for a variety of reasons — wrote the following, yesterday …

I like how [Obama] didn’t disavow Wright because, he says, that would mean that he would disavow the [African-American] community as a whole. That means that all blacks and all black churches hate whites and [are] racist. But that’s not the case. Pastors, black pastors, even came on tv in recent days, to explain that Wright isn’t mainstream.

… I think it’s a good speech because I know how some people react to it; the target audience will be ‘inspired’ by his speech. So, it’s a good speech. But for me: it’s mostly empty rhetoric disguised as deep thoughts and [Obama is], as I see it, saying everyone should just accept that blacks – seemingly all blacks according to Obama – hate America, hate Jews and hate whites.

But that’s not at all what Obama said. Speaking about his Church and Wright, Obama said:

The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

Net: What Obama said is precisely the opposite of what the above-referenced commentator accused him of saying.

Rather than painting all blacks with the same brush, Obama recognized that some blacks (like some whites) have hateful views, much as some members of Obama’s church do (much as some members of my church do). Rev. Wright holds both views — but the predominant views Obama heard from the man were based on love, not hate. Hence, Obama can no more disown the entirety of Wright because a minority of the Reverend’s expressions are hateful, any more than Obama can disown the entirety of his church because a presumed minority of its members are hateful, any more than he can reject all of black or white culture because a minority of their respective members are hateful.

What he can do is acknowledge and reject the hateful elements in Wright, in his church, in his culture, in his country — study and understand the reasons for that hate — and then build bridges to the things we hold in common, the values we share. And that’s precisely what Obama did Tuesday and what he encouraged the rest of us to do: Acknowledge and reject hate; understand its origins/causes; build bridges based on that understanding.

A short moment later in his speech, Obama — as if anticipating the type of distortion the aformentioned commentator would make — said:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

Let me repeat those words: “simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.”

Now, in the event my words are distorted, let me be painfully clear: I’m not saying all commentary critical of Obama’s speech distorts reality. To the contrary: What I am saying is that commentary which fails to accurately report what Obama said distorts reality. I would further agree with Obama that such distorted commentary is just as bad, just as destructive, as anything Rev. Wright said.

And here’s the real kicker: The sloppy analysis referenced above came from someone whom I believe is generally careful, intelligent, well-read and fair-minded. What concerns me is this: If generally careful, intelligent, well-read, fair-minded people can so grossly misinterpret Obama’s speech, what happens to that speech in the hands of the less-careful, less-intelligent, less-read, less-fair-minded?

I’ve long been a believer in the wisdom of crowds, though I’ve never believed said wisdom is universally applicable or reliable. This could very well be one of the crowd’s poorer moments, if the sort of half-witted analysis I’ve seen of late becomes the predominant translation of Obama’s intent.