Finally, some context for the Wright clips

As a Hillary supporter, I am 100% certain that Barack Obama is not a racist. From the outset, I have had a certain sympathy with the Rev. Wright, whose work on the South side of Chicago has brought him face to face on a daily basis with the plight of the urban poor. I am firmly convinced that very few white people---Hillary Clinton would be an exception---are aware of the conditions in which the poor in cities live or could endure to look at it for long.

It's a pity that people are focusing so much on the statements of the Rev. Wright---unfortunate rhetorical devices used to express what any person who has ever worked within such communities would understand as righteous wrath---and it is utterly absurd for any person to suggest that Barack Obama shares Wright's more impassioned views. I doubt that Wright himself believes everything he is saying all the time.

That said, one unfortunate aspect of this campaign is for the ugly, insulting term 'racist' to be applied to statements that were not intrinsically or on their face either insulting or inaccurate. Racism---an offense against humanity and decency---is a serious charge and should, in my opinion, only be alleged against a person whose public acts show evidence of it.

Alas, that's not the way this has been played. Obama benefited immensely, and over a sustained period, from the ridiculous, absurd, inapposite, and insulting application of the label to Hillary Clinton and to her campaign. The statements of surrogates who don't speak for her have been attributed to her on a principle of 'Cui bono?' The reasoning ran as follows: if the person who made the statement was a Hillary supporter, and if the statement could be construed as in any way reflecting on Obama's race, it was a racist statement and attributable to Hillary.

Sadly for Obama, the shoe is now on the other foot. I feel bad for him because I consider it an act of bad faith to call him a racist and a profound misunderstanding of Wright's work and feelings to fail to understand his pain and outrage.

But I also firmly believe, along with many others, that it was the Obama camp in the first instance which benefited from characterizing statements which were not intended in any way to reflect a contemptuous attitude toward African-Americans (and it's this contempt rather than noticing that some people are black and others are not that makes 'racism' such an ugly thing). So it's rather hard for him now to disclaim that the statements of Wright---who, after all, were a member of his campaign.

I repeat: only someone very ignorant of Barack Obama, or someone attempting to gain a political advantage, would pretend to believe that he is himself a racist. But of course the same was true of Hillary Clinton. He set this whole disaster in motion by not stepping in during the whole ridiculous non-controversy over her statements about MLK or to urge supporters and surrogates not to pick apart every statement of every Clinton supporter or surrogate susceptible, with some twisting, to a racist construction.

He set the disaster in motion when he sat back and allowed a fellow Democrat, and a lifelong supporter of civil rights, to be branded as a racist. He could at any time have rebuked supporters and the media who applied that label to Hillary. He didn't.

Which is why I have little sympathy for him now. Perhaps he and Hillary can get together to lay the whole issue to rest----I wish they would. But she would have to be almost inhumanly forgiving to help him out of this mess now.

Damozel,
That is a pretty sad and petty reason to sit back and let this go on this way. So Hillary's been the victim and now it's OK that the media turn Wright and Obama by extension into a raving, mad anti-Semitic, anti-American anti-white bigot?

Do yourself a favor and see what the media is hiding.

Indeed!!

Well, the media has their story and I would guess they are sticking to it. You know, the narrative that Obama and all his friends and associates are racists who hate white people and America and just can't wait to end the charade of pretending to be regular Americans so they can reshape the country into some kind of Black Panther state where "God Damn America" is the new national anthem. Context is for latte drinking tree huggers who like to make excuses for those who hate America. I don't support Wright, but it seems that anyone who expresses anger at some action or inaction taken by our government is branded a traitor. That's a fine way to solve our problems as a country.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is so sad to see the cycle, that Joe pointed out yesterday, of taking a few words and then using them to destroy a candidate. John Kerry spoke out against the war before Congress, so that made him a traitor and liar who shot himself to get a Purple Heart, then threw it away because he really hated America, deep down--wasn't that the take home message of the Swift Boaters?
Thank you Elrod. Thank you Joe G. and the other writers and commenters here for the smart and enlightening discussion on this issue. Too bad so much of our media won't or can't do what you (we) are doing.

Thank you, Elrod, for context, a very unpopular part of communications these days.

Hopelessly, I sent off e-mails to all the news channelds urging them tocover this context, but I know that context takes time. In the time it takes to report context and background information, you can play the excerpt many times over, whip, whip up the emotions of the vewership and increase ratings.

Damozel is right about Hillary. Obama supporters like I rushed in to try provide some context to depictions of Rev. Wright. Hillary has always been and remains a caricature, not a human being made of flesh and blood.. Not much context there.

Obama opened the door to the possibiliy of stopping the madness, the crazy cycle of attacks and counter attacks, Few are willing to walk through the door.
Instead, We still define ourselves by who and what we hate, not by what we love.

And patriotism is still a lapel pin.

FWIW, Roland Martin on CNN just ran the story about the larger context of Wright's remarks. He made it clear that Wright is no hate-monger or anti-American bigot. I suspect that other networks will follow suit soon.

Elrod: correct me if my impression is inaccurate, to your knowledge, but what I see and hear from Wright is often an application of Biblical mercy to be shown to America's enemies, but nothing but condemnation for American policymakers. Where's the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' as it applies to the nation of America? He seems to condemn without believing that there's also redemption. And particularly when it comes to some of the views I've seen expressed by Wright and his spiritual mentors, Cone and Hopkins, there's not that vein of mercy, forgiveness, or message of hope for redemption in terms of "white America". I think that's why many of us still see him as a 'hate speaker'- and Obama even alluded to that when he said that Wright's ideas are fixed in the past, they're divisive, and they see the divisions as static instead of allowing room for positive change.

Politically and theologically, that's why I find him troubling. It's not theologically sound to say that oppressed should hate their oppressors. Wright asked his congregation to look into their hearts to forgive after 9/11- yet I haven't seen him say the same about forgiving for Tuskegee, slavery, or any other (very valid) grievance that blacks have against whites in America.

I think that's why many of us still see [Wright] as a 'hate speaker'- and Obama even alluded to that when he said that Wright's ideas are fixed in the past, they're divisive, and they see the divisions as static instead of allowing room for positive change.

CStanley--

If, as even you are willing to concede, Obama thinks these ideas of Wright's are wrong, why are you still concerned about them so exclusively?

Since this post is about providing context, here's a link to John McCain supporter Pastor John Hagee calling the Catholic Church the Great Whore.

I hope that HTML works!!

I think that's why many of us still see him as a 'hate speaker'- and Obama even alluded to that when he said that Wright's ideas are fixed in the past, they're divisive, and they see the divisions as static instead of allowing room for positive change.

If you watch the longer "God damn America" clip, you'd see that Wright spends a great deal of time talking about how governments can and do change. How we had institutionalized slavery, segregation, etc, but that now that's history. But Wright did mention that he thinks there has been a downturn since 2000.

George: why are you concerned so exclusively about Hagee that you turn every discussion on Wright around? But I'll humor you and answer why I think this is a greater concern: because I truly believe that racial healing is necessary in our country and that both white racists and black racists have to be completely marginalized before that can happen. I don't see a similar public concern for whether or not evangelicals hate on Catholics (despite the fact that this is an issue that affects me personally- I don't see any public policy that's going to be affected by theological differences, no matter how serious or wrongheaded I think those differences are.)

Chriswww: thanks for seriously considering my question. I watched it earlier but I'll check it out again.

As I stated yesterday, I don't think associating with Hagee or Wright should disqualify either McCain or Obama. However, the Hagee episode is a great illustration of hypocrisy by both rightwingers and the media.

And vice versa, chris, or neither. IOW, sometimes people defend certain things but condemn others because they really do feel the one is more of a problem or a danger than the other. In other cases, people are hypocritical and only applying a double standard because it suits their purpose. It isn't always easy to know which one it is.

By the way, it's good arguing with you again :-)

CS I listened to the 9/11 video.

I know some devout Christian pacifists and if you take out the racial context it sounds exactly like what they would say. I asked them a few times why their focus was so much on the US and they said it was because the US should be the best country because of all our wealth and power...and it is their country. They weren't antiAmerican as much as pained that it was far from God so to speak, when there are few reasons to be. And they are Christians first and Americans second, so it was their duty. As a commenter on the Huckabee thread said, there is very historical grounding against railing against your own when you see idolatry.

Jesus basically gave a pass to the Romans while he had wrath towards his fellow Jews. I agree with you that the tradition is more about self reflection and not rallying against the oppressors, but about your own relationship with God.

The huge difference between my friends and Wright is that it seems like Wright thinks that blacks are wholly separate than whites even if they have the same belief systems. I disagree with that, and they would too, but if I was an adult before the 60s, who knows what I would think. It's kind of easier for me to accept that he has false identity boundaries because nearly every one does and I'm outside of them all. So I don't view his racial identity politics much differently than I view the religious/non-religious or a myriad of other traits. (I was going to say that as a Catholic you have probably seen some of it, then I noticed you already brought it up).

That's why I agree with someone I read that Obama should have a follow up speech to his prior one that says it's not just about static identity and hatred in regards to race, it is about Identity Politics in general that needs to be confronted.

C Stanley--

I think ChrisWWW said it as well as I could:

the Hagee episode is a great illustration of hypocrisy by both rightwingers and the media.

CS,
I think you just nailed what separates Obama from Wright. Obama openly acknowledges the need for blacks to take responsibility for their actions, to stop blaming whitey for their problems, to stop wallowing in cynicism and criminality. He urges blacks to take responsibility for their own lives and for their own destiny. He urges blacks to be hopeful that America can and does change because he sees redemption for white America as much as for black America. This is the key difference, I think, between the angry and restricted view of Wright and the hopeful and redemptive politics of Obama.

But the key is that Obama's exposure to Wright is not a poisonous one, even if Wright is stuck in the pessimism of the past. Wright is not a hatemonger or a bigot so much as an angry and depressed man of an earlier era. But Wright seemed to have shown the way out of his own anger with his Audacity to Hope sermon - a riff that formed the basis for Obama's career.

Cstanley said:
"....yet I haven't seen him say the same about forgiving for Tuskegee, slavery, or any other (very valid) grievance that blacks have against whites in America...."

This is veering off into ever widening circles getting further and further away from Obama, the candidate. Now we are criticizing Wright not only for what he said but for what he didn't say.

Context includes considering the point in history that someone represents. Wright is speaking from the perspective and experiences of his particular lifeitme, probably the most tumultuous in black history in America, They were particularly tumultuous because tthey encompassed both fresh hope and tremendous disappointment. He can't be expected to also speak for the future. He can only place hope in the future, as he did with his repeated 'governments change' phrase.

But Wright is not a candidate; Obama is.
Obama is of a new generation, His own history necessitates reconciling both his white and his black ancestry. In all this frenzy about Wright's place in Obama's life, it's amazing how little curiosity there is about his racist (some would say) grandmother.

I shudder when I hear the phrase 'thologically sound' without indication as to whose theology we are talking about. All religious groupings are theologically sound within the confines of their own primary assumptions. There are great dvergences regarding which assumptions should be primary, however, when considering a particular issue.

mikkel: yes, those are all good points.

elrod: agreed, but then I end up feeling as Ed Morrissey did- that it sure would have been nice to have some evidence that Obama had made some of the changes to that mindset in his own church, or at least attempted to. I say that in part as a criticism of Obama, but realizing I'm holding him to a very high standard for something that is very difficult, and something that I certainly don't think he can alone accomplish. It just would be nice to know that he'd at least started the task.

And really, more so than a criticism of Obama, I feel like it doesn't bode well for success that he seems to have felt the need to keep quiet about asking the older generation to step aside- until now, of course. That just speaks volumes to me about whether or not that older generation is really ready to do so, and that concerns me. Nonetheless, no matter what comes of this, I'm very glad that the dialogue has begun.

chris www: my pleasure for the arguing ;-)

Apparently doma doesn't share your sentiment though.

I just thought of something else- I know I've written this before but I'm not sure if it was at TMV or elsewhere...

Part of the reason that I wish that Obama had more action to back up his current rhetoric about the direction that he would lead the country to move past racial divides, is that I know several people who are white, fairly conservative (one very conservative, the other more centrist but older) who really aren't willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. They see the relationship between Obama and a church/pastor like this as a complete deal breaker.

I find myself wishing that wasn't so- wishing that he'd had a history that could be shown to those doubters, to prove that Obama really believes in a new, unifying approach to bridge race, and that he'd put his money where his mouth was in the past so that there was no doubt (also, as I alluded to above- so that we'd know that he could be effective in that manner, that the blacks who are of a different mindset were willing to give his approach a try.) I guess their doubts still concern whether Obama himself believes in the postracial approach, while my doubts are on whether or not the black leaders who are of the old school will be willing to step aside and whether or not Obama will sufficiently confront them if they don't.

I say this as something completely apart from how I view Obama's politics in general- he's certainly much more liberal than I am, to the degree that I wouldn't vote for him. Yet I want his opening salvo on race to usher in a new approach.

chriswww: I just wanted to note that I'm still mulling over that tape- I see what you mean about govt changing but it still isn't setting well with me and I'll have to think over exactly how my initial complaint still applies in a sense. I'll come back and post when I've thought it through, if you're interested. I think it revolves around a broader point about why it's so bad to mix religion and politics so closely- something about condemning governments as though they're individuals who have conscience and soul, which ends up causing him to pin the condemnation on specific men in govt and at the same time, he doesn't apply the merciful part of God's redemptive grace to those individuals, only the condemnation part.

CStanley-

First you were 'troubled' by what Wright didn't say, and now you're troubled by what Obama didn't do.

The disconnect here is, IMO, that none of this pertains to what actually can be accomplished by any one person in a specific situation. Ideals are necessary to set a direction, but pragmatism is necessary to make progress. Had Obama singlehandedly made war aginst the prevailing winds in Wright's generation , his career in Chicago would have been finished and there would be ino ntelligent voice addressing the sores in our society in a forward looking way.
To assess Obama as a leader, It would be more helpful to examine how Obama is different from Wright rather than get stuck on scouring the past for more deficiecies in either.

"Diplomacy is the art of seduction" is a line that sticks in my mind from the John Adams series on HBO. We've had too many confrontations and poltical wars, about race.(and about religion, too). It's time to stop looking for people to tar and feather and start listening and talking to them, instead.

A doctor has to understand what hurts the patient in order to prescribe the right cure. The same is true for a sick society.












Just like the Iraq war, the question before us now is: should we spend our time re-fighting yesterday's political and social battles or should we have a more honest , and open discussion about how to move forward? Getting stuck on finding who and what to blame in the past tends to preclude any forward thinking at all. Lincoln understood pragmatism. in his time. Why not learn from that expence , or whould we re-debate his decisions?



What Obama proposed in his speech was that we should spend more time listeneing and less time blaming individuals.

Apologies.
Please pretend that the last two paragrapsh of my comment aren't there.

I keep forgetting what's there after an insertion.

CStanley said:
"chris www: my pleasure for the arguing ;-)
Apparently doma doesn't share your sentiment though."

I find neither pleasure nor dispeaseure in arguing with you. Rather, I feel increasing disenchantment with the practice of comment exchanges.
Years go by, and I see no sigh that anyone's thinking progresses. It's just ships passing in the night.
I find more pleasure in exchanging ideas with a group via e-mail. Having a limited, and thus more intimate, forum seems to produce a higher degree of listening and learning ability. I've actually altered my thinking in many waysdue to this group of divergent opinions.

So, why do I keep commenting? The only reason I can find is that exchanges on blogs sometimes provide material that I can bring to my groupwhere I am mor liable to actually learn something.

"Racism---an offense against humanity and decency---is a serious charge and should, in my opinion, only be alleged against a person whose public acts show evidence of it."

I think that this view is part of the problem when it comes to an honest discussion of race in this country. At one point, during the civil rights movement, when the face of racism was dogs and hoses and tear gas being used against kids and old people, this obviously evil face acted as a wake up call to America. It's actually comforting, because if one chooses to view race that way, the problem has been largely solved already. But, as you say, all you have to do is look at certain places to see that the issues are unsolved. I agree completely with Obama that the issue is more to do with economics than race (a kid of any color born below the poverty line has little chance to make it in this country), I also believe that an honest dialogue has to happen. Part of that is the acknowledgment that there is a difference the bigotry of individuals and institutional racism (e.g. Rockefeller drug laws). Also, and this is why I believe Obama brought up his grandmother, that good people (I'll add "of all races" in case anyone gets confused) can have racist thoughts.

This is long-winded (and unedited), but I'm basically arguing that people should just accept the lyrics to "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" as fact and move on from there.

Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.

Well, doma, all I can say is that if you truly felt that you were just here to get a read on other people and get material to discuss with your e-mail group, then there wouldn't be need to comment, would there? I'm not trying to say you shouldn't comment, but I don't think that explains your motives. I also shouldn't go too far in attributing motive to you- we all have our reasons, and we're all entitled to them, and some are closer to the surface, more conscious, while others are less known even to ourselves. I think anyone who chooses to express himself or herself in forums like these though, is seeking to persuade people to see a particular point of view. And generally I have no problem with you or anyone else commenting in response to my point of view with a counterpoint. What I find a bit frustrating with your particular responses to mine is that you often don't address why you disagree with what I say, but rather you try to back up the conversation and convince others that they ought not to be focusing on what I'm saying. The effect that has on me is to feel as though someone is trying to silence me. Sorry, that's just how I feel- valid or not, it's my response to most of your comments that address my comments. I get the sense that you don't believe your trying to do this, that you sincerely have your own ideas about the direction that the conversation should take and that often want to focus on forests and feel that I'm focusing on the trees, but the fact is that the trees are part of the forest and we need some people to look at the distance view and others to look close up at certain details.

Doma: In regard to your comment about Wright/Obama and my take on the situation,I think that your explanation of Obama deciding not to challenge the church for pragmatic reasons is certainly plausible- it's just a more charitable interpretation than I'm willing to grant though because he hasn't said that this was a conscious plan on his part. Instead, he's wavered on whether or not he even thought the views at the church were controversial.

In mulling over the liberation theology point I was trying to make yesterday, the best short explanation I can come up with is that I've always found it problematic to apply theology to the operations of groups or governments. I don't feel it makes sense to treat a group entity as an individual because the group doesn't have a singular soul that could be damned or saved. I think that type of thinking then leads people to attribute the wrong actions of a group onto one particular individual or small group of individuals, and in doing so the person who represents the group takes the fall for the group- he's considered evil, or damned, or condemned, yet he isn't treated with the same kind of compassion and forgiveness that we're called upon as Christians to show toward a sinner. It's as though those in positions of powers bear all of the responsibility, but don't have the possibility of path to salvation that Christ offers.

This doesn't mean that I don't think leaders should be held accountable- I just think it's problematic for them to be judged as to whether or not God would be on their side. I don't think the leaders themselves should use that sort of thinking either, so I'll concede that Wright's use of "God Bless America/God Damn America" works on some level to underscore that point- that there's no reason to think that America is so righteous to claim special status as God's chosen nation, when we have plenty to atone for as well. But I think this should lead us to drop the whole idea altogether, not turn it around- and I also think that although historically Americans have embraced that claim of God being on our side, most people today think of "God bless America" as a prayer asking Him for assistance to be worthy of his blessings rather than a claim that we deserve it.

Domajot--

I hope you won't stop commenting here. You add a lot to the conversation.