Go Ahead. Fill in the Blanks. Now What?
Here and elsewhere, much has been written about the latest chapter in the saga of the angry preacher from Chicago — perhaps too much. Regardless, I hope you’ll tolerate at least one more (seriously belated) take on this story.
First, it’s no surprise to regular readers that I’m an Obama fan. I’ve been especially passionate about defending him in the wake of the Wright debacle — so much so that I’ve grown terribly frustrated with those who suggest this debacle is relevant to the election. That frustration led me, earlier this week, to label the detractors “simple minded.” Many of them probably are. But two of my closest friends have recently voiced concerns about the Obama-Wright relationship, and while these friends are many things, they are not simple minded.
Accordingly, I’ve tried to better understand their concerns and have concluded that what may be bothering them most is not what we collectively know about Obama and Wright, but what we collectively don’t know — what we don’t (and can’t) know about the years between 1992 (when Obama joined Trinity United) and now.
Naturally, when people don’t or can’t know something, they fill in the blanks, drawing on their own experience, assumptions, and yes, biases. That’s not right or wrong. It’s biological. It’s human.
As a result, some of us fill in the blanks like I did, namely: We believe Obama was drawn to Wright and Trinity by their global consciousness and focus on social justice and good works. We further believe Wright was — initially, on balance — more uniting than divisive, slowly degenerating over time, culminating in a painful meltdown at the NPC earlier this week. During that trajectory, we can easily believe Obama was blinded by the good he saw in Wright, missing or refusing to believe the Reverend’s expanding paranoia and spite. Under this set of assumptions, it’s perfectly understandable why Obama stayed at the Church, why he hesitated to disown Wright — and why he finally, slowly, painfully did so.
In contrast, others (like my two friends) assume Wright was predominantly hateful all along. They thus find it inconceivable that Obama and his family could stay in that environment, that they wouldn’t file for divorce from Wright sooner.
OK. There we have it. We’ve each filled in the blanks. Now what? Where do we go from here?
Do we continue revisiting the same questions, the same scenarios, or do we move on, as the Senator and his spouse implored us to do in their recent Today Show appearance?
I, for one, think we move on. Regardless of which scenario our minds create and believe, none of it disqualifies Obama from being president. Even if we choose the “16-years-of-hateful-rants” scenario, we don’t have one shred of evidence that Obama agrees with those hateful rants. To the contrary: We have overwhelming evidence — from the way Obama has lived his life, from the way he has conducted himself in public and in private, from the disclosures and confessions in his books — that he took from Rev. Wright a social justice message and discarded the rest.
Those are facts. That is what we do know.
So here we are. At the crucial fork in the road. We can allow self-created scenarios, filled-in blanks, to outweigh reality. We can let assumptions trump facts. Or, instead, we can acknowledge the facts and move on to the more crucial questions of the here and now. Questions like: Who has the best plan to resolve the Iraq quagmire? Who is in the best position to begin healing our destroyed global credibility? Who has the most promising approach to universal healthcare? And so on.
Bottomline: I hope we can finally agree to accept or reject Obama (or Clinton or McCain) on their answers to those questions — not on the blanks we fill in with our self-induced fictions.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Go Ahead. Fill in the Blanks. Now What?”
Good post.
I had a friend come up to me the other day who said “Isn't that awful about the Reverend Wright?”
“Why?” I replied.
“Because he's hurting Obama.”
I in turn replied that may be so, but the entire 'arama is a window into a kind of black ministry (and by no means the predominate one) that we white Americans know nothing about and I see the whole flap as an education in and extension of the kind of understanding that Obama asked all of us to bring to the issues of race and religion.
Although my opinion is generally more in line with your two friends than with yours, Pete, I don't think you're completely wrong about the way you filled in the blanks either. But then this part:
Is a problem for me anyway, even if you are completely correct. It goes to naivete and judgment. We're supposed to believe that Obama's youth and relative inexperience isn't a negative because he's wise, but this is one of the few tests where we see his judgment in action and he failed it pretty miserably.
CStanley — A failing grade on one test. I agree with that. But two points in response:
1. I know people in their 70's who have failed such tests when it comes to friends and family and others they hold dear. And yet those same people have been tremendous leaders of businesses, etc.
2. There are many more tests, I think, that Obama has passed, and with flying colors — including (a) his firm stance from the outset against Iraq invasion, (b) his judgement that the American people were hungry for a new kind of politics, (c) his decisions to work cross-aisle on important legislation related to nuke proliferation and campaign finance, (d) his managerial excellence over his campaign, etc.
In the end, I know we'll never see completely eye to eye on this subject, but in addition to my two friends, you are one of those doubters who I know is NOT simple minded. Thank you for that.
Is it fair to ask how much of this comes from white anxiety over blackness? Or is that question just too offensive?
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree, because it comes down to how different people weigh the various factors. For me, this particular test is important because as a relative newcomer to the national scene, we don't really know how he'd be able to fulfill his rhetoric about unity and I'm skeptical about it. I'm even more so when I see that he's not taking a firm stance about extremists who espouse very divisive techniques- he was willing to give Wright a pass on that because he thought he saw a greater good coming out of it, but for Obama's unity to come about I think it's vitally important to marginalize the extremists first. You can't pay lip service to moderate politics if you're friends with the fringe.
And of course, I won't pretend that I'd support Obama in any case because even his stated policies are much more to the left than my preferences. I'm not trying to be a concern troll, just hoping to make people who are center left and supportive of Obama better understand where the opposition comes from.
George — in a free society, it's a fair question to ask. I just don't know if any of us have the answer.
LOL – Thirty years in a bad South side neighborhood is judged by a couple of liberal soundbites taken out of context. Maybe some of these “simple minds” need to go to a Chicago paper for a better local context. Here is two good examples:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/relig…
I don't think William A. Von Hoene Jr. feels the caricature of Wright is correct of the real man.
“Is it fair to ask how much of this comes from white anxiety over blackness? Or is that question just too offensive?”
It's not too offensive. It's simply no good as any kind of straw-man argument. (It's to Obama's credit that he doesn't claim “victimhood” status because of his race.)
It isn't “about race” (as a large-scale, much less dominant, explanation for concern about and opposition to Obama). It's about politics and the politically related aspects of black American subculture that include Wright's extremism.
Wright goes beyond the expected black-church exhortations to the faithful to be loyally Democratic in the next election. He is a liability to Obama and his campaign, even though we realize Obama is no Wright clone and that they differ substantially.
Please tell me if Wright is guilty of misconduct along the lines of:
1) Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White
http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/…
2) Earl Paulk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Paulk#Controv…
3) Jim and Tammy Baker
4) The pedophiles in the Catholic church
Wrights only crime is some liberal comments and ministering to the poor in South Side Chicago. Does he have a fortune like the Whites or Copeland? Why no mention of Trinity scholarships and drug treatment programs?
I also appreciate Obama's unwillingness to claim victimhood for himself. But I'm not asking some kind of straw-man question. Surely, there's an irony–and I'm not trying to give offense, just ask an uncomfortable question–in denying that this is “about race” because it's only about a certain kind of “black American subculture”.
One huge question never answered: who did those clips and put them on Youtube.
Obama has been so throughly covered by the Chicago press. They familiar with Wright and the church.
So, it is interesting to see that none of the bubble heads in national news have bothered to talk with the press in Chicago.
David Mendell wrote a recent book about Obama and he covered the man for years for the Tribune.
I think this is what bothers me. The press assumes without talking to those who may know the facts.
If the press contends it doesn't know about Obama then why not talk to mendell or other political reporters at the Tribune. Why not ask them about Wright or the church.
The church is well respected with 8,000 members who are black and white. Wright did not cause controversy before now so, it seems this is his revenge for being asked not to give the invocation at the announcement. He was acting out to embarrass and get back at Obama.
What he probably did not understand was that the press would take it and totally destroy Obama over this.
And there is a sense of some racism in it as evidenced by the press not even lifting a finger when it comes to radical rightwing preachers.
George, I actually think your question is fair and a very good and important one. I think a lot of the racial divide today is over white anxiety over the various forms of black power. I'll be blunt- I think that a lot of white conservatives are anxious not over blacks being considered equal, but in the claims of some black leaders that they should have a higher than equal status in order to make up for past wrongs. That's what the whole conservative/liberal divide is about in regard to AA, and it fuels the debates within the black community about whether or not 'middleclassness' is to be aspired to or not, and whether or not blacks are selling out when they achieve status in 'white' society- and then that in turn fuels concerns among white conservatives that we're expected to not accept blacks as equal but on different terms. Like Obama's typically white grandma, we're expected to NOT express fear over a guy who migh harass us if he happens to be black, because that would mean we're racist (even if the fear was actually over the way the guy was behaving rather than a predjudiced reaction to his skin color.)
I'm not sure if I'm getting the point across, but there's a lot there, I think. Again, my own experience is that a lot of white people are not racist but they oppose a certain idea of some kind of black exceptionality (particularly when it's used to excuse unexcusable behavior.) And then when we express that view, we're told that's not acceptable either because it means we don't accept black people on their own terms. Personally I love the fact that churches like TUCC embrace afrocentric music, attire, and style of worship. Just leave the politics out of it, please and thank you. Yet any criticism I might offer of that will I'm sure be seen as some as an example of a white person who just doesn't like people who look and sound different than I do.
I think the entire idea of guilt by association is reprehensible, but especially when were talking about people's spiritual advisers. 90% of America is religious, so I suppose I will lose a lot of points by saying that I would prefer political leaders who base political decisions on a strictly rational basis.
I don't like it that George Bush claims to have “talked to his higher father” about Iraq, and frankly think that anyone who expects the “big Man upstairs” to keep our troops safe, or deliver victory, fails a big test. OK, I won't get that in America, but of all of the politicians who do have religious connections, they all can be said to have failed the same guilt by association test. The Clintons Pastor during his presidency has praised Jeremiah Wright, and the Clintons invited him to the White House. The Clintons spiritual adviser during the Lewinsky scandal was Jesse Jackson.
Then there's McCain, who sought, received and has not repudiated a pastor who thinks Katrina was God's punishment for New Orleans having a “gay pride” march.
So everyone fails that test, if the test of judgment is having chosen not to associate with pastors who have said outrageous things. Am I wrong?
I watched an excellent Charle Rose program on the Wright controversy. It's excellent, and I recommend it to anyone. It aired April 29, 2008 and is available HERE.
Thank you, again, Pete.
You have a great talent for evoking the right type of questions and comments.
This is exactly what Obama's speech about race was about.
To my mind, this is very definitely about race. and/or inequality of power.
CStanley expresses very well the 'concerns' of many whites. I wouldn't call that racism, but I do see it as unilateralism:. There is no accompanying interest in the concerns of blacks, White concerns are explainedd and justified, but black concerns are seen as a threat,, and that's the end of it.
There has been zero interest iin the 'why' of Wright, or even the 'all' of Wright. ( See Rudi's comment for more about Wright that's being ignored)
For us to progress, there needs to be a willingness to listen as well as to express.
Wright, in the Press Club speech was in the same mode of expressing without (inwardly) listening. While that was badly unwise. I can understand his urge to even the score on attention, to have his say, after he'd been pounded for days and weeks on end. with the expressed concerns of his critics.
Sometimes it seems as if you have to shout to be heard.
Wright and Obama are persons, not abstractons, with both flaws and assets. What their works and accomplishments are matter. What their message is matters. Ironically, Wright's message has been largely about reconciliation, but you don't see clips of those statements in the media. His church includes the 'black and white together' verse to We Shall Overcome, but you don't hear that mentioned.
It;s more than not listening, I think the deafness is deliberate.
Compare that to the level of outrage over pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
There has been criticism, certainly, but I didn't hear many calls for ostracizing all Catholics becaue of it. I haven't heard questions about the patriotism of Catholics (except from Dobbs, maybe) when it acts to circumvent immigration laws.
Both the Catholic Church and Wright act , in the main , on behald of the oppressed, but there is a double standard on how their excesses are judged
The double standard has to be torn down, through dialogue, not through deaf-in-both- ears monologues.
I agree with GreenDreams about guilt by association. .
While questions about associates and associations are, indeed, legitimate. drawing knee-jerk conclusions from them is not.
What is never legitimate is to apply the 'guilty until proven innocent' rule.
There's really not a matter of guilt or innocence concerning Wright as far as I'm concerned- it's just whether or not his ideas are politically useful ones or ones that should be marginalized if we're to make progress away from racial divisiveness. And the only 'guilt' on Obama's part is whether or not he was insufficiently prepared to make the right judgment in that regard.
CS, the point is, every candidate, past, present or future, will have had contact with some persons, whether family, friend, pastor, donor, etc. who has said divisive things. As I pointed out, Clinton and McCain have their own problems in this regard. Reagan and both Bushes too.
Our nation faces huge problems in the next decade, mostly caused by our short-sighted choices of the past decade. Our standing in the world has suffered greatly, and I don't mean the world's opinion of us. We are weakened militarily, socially, economically and morally. We desperately need for this political season to focus on who has the ability and skills to lead us in grappling with these multiple crises. In this context, it is simply preposterous that we are engaged instead in criticizing our candidates for what their ministers said.
By the way, my own former minister was a good man, and I don't need to throw him under the bus, but he sure had some wacky beliefs, none of which define who I am or what I believe today.
CStanley–
I don't mean to accuse you, personally, of anything. But isn't it possible to look at what you've described–white unhappiness over black claims to exceptionalism–from another angle: white resentment over black claims to equality?
“..whether or not his ideas are politically useful ones or ones that should be marginalized if we're to make progress away from racial divisiveness. And the only 'guilt' on Obama's part is whether or not he was insufficiently prepared to make the right judgment in that regard.”
___________________________________________________________
If that's the question, then it's misphrased and misplaced.. IMO
I think the reaction to Wright is as extreme, objectionable and divisive as anything Wright said.
It would follow then, that those failing to recognize it as such and failing to denounce it are showing very poor judgment, and that goes for prominent politicians. as well.
This is a case of one side writing the rules of the game, defining the terms, making the calls and meting out the punishment, That's the best way to ensure continued divisiveness and extremism.
It's ironic , btw, that those who have suffered most by unjust rules of the game are now held responsible for single-handedly overcoming the results.
On a pragmatic level. I'll take whatever works.
The irony and the injustice of it, should not go unremarked.
Those comparisons are not apt because a) you're not running for office, so your relationship is purely a personal choice with no public effects whatsoever and b) Obama's relationship with the pastor was partly political- he joined TUCC to begin with as an attempt to have more credibiiity in working with churches on community organization, and he repeatedly described his relationship with Wright and this church as formative to him personally as well as politically.
It's a lot like people on the left feel about conservatives and the religious right. I think most people really don't care if a candidate has some beliefs that they'd strongly disagree with, but the question is whether or not their associations give political clout to certain religious factions.
Well, I didn't infer any accusation anyway, but I don't think your incorrect in stating it this way, I just feel that we've reached a point where it's more the former (resentment over the black exceptionalism) rather than the latter (resentment over claims for equality.) Case in point- white conservatives have a far more favorable view of black conservatives like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, J C Watts, or Colin Powell than they do of black liberals, esp those like Rangel or Jesse Jackson who agitate for black exceptionalism. But liberals will see that same distinction and some will say it's because the black conservatives aren't truly black, that whites are comfortable with them because they 'act white'. Well, no, it's because they don't insist that blackness is what people like Jesse Jackson define it as.
I think that's true to an extent, though I don't agree that it's asking blacks to singlehandedly be responsible for the changes. Obviously whites too have to be willing to truly treat black people as equals, and white racists do need to be taken to account. But the problem as I see it is that this can never happen if some whites who are not racist are still being accused of it with no way to prove their innocence.
As far as the oppressed being the ones who have to provide the most momentum though, I think there's some truth there and it's a hard truth but it's rooted in human nature. Look at history- MLK's movement, Ghandi's, the black anti-apartheid movement in S. Africa, etc. Things finally improved when the oppressed class took the highest moral ground. That's a tough assignment, but unfortunately I think it's a necessary one.
Look at it this way; if there were a problem in a society with a particular crime being committed and not prosecuted for a number of years, and then the momentum finally built for this problem to be addressed, would it be more productive to have law enforcement address the problem according to our usual criminal code which requires evidence before arrest and indictment and presumption of innocence prior to conviction? Or to just round up groups of people who look like the criminals and convict them all, assigning collective guilt to them regardless of their individual actions? In the latter case, wouldn't the attitude of those who are falsely accused naturally be “the hell with you then, I really will commit this crime if I'm going to be punished for it anyway?”
Which approach would actually work better to address the real problem?
CStanley–
When you say–
–aren't you just saying that conservatives prefer conservatives and liberal prefer liberals?
PS–Not so sure that most conservatives consider Colin Powell a conservative.
George: that's exactly my point- that white conservatives as a group aren't nearly as bigoted as they're accused of being by liberals- and in many cases their legitimate preferences based on ideology are being unfairly framed as racism.
Colin Powell certainly isn't easily definable, but it still stands that most white conservatives would support him. So, another piece of evidence that argues against racism.