« A Special Person Endorses Obama
Riots In Tibet: An Eye-Witness Account »



‘Our Current Polity,’ Redux

March 20th, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

In yesterday’s discussion, I attempted to clarify one of the mischaracterizations of Obama’s speech Tuesday re: race in America. That mischaracterization was simply this, that Obama attempted to excuse Rev. Wright by suggesting that “all blacks and all black churches hate whites and [are] racist.”

That is clearly not what Obama said — and after revisiting Obama’s actual words, plus some healthy debate, at least one commenter conceded the point. She then added two more reservations to the mix, both of which I’d like to address in full, because they are similar to reservations voiced elsewhere by others.

The first of her reservations centered on what she perceived as a “missed opportunity”:

… [Obama] could have said that he can’t disown the person of Wright (nor the person of his grandmother) but he can (and must) disavow their racist views. That would have made a stronger point (sort of the ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ meme) and would have underscored what I think is his true belief: that we have to accept that some blacks and some whites still harbor resentment which shows up as racism, but we don’t have to consider those attitudes are actually acceptable any longer. We have to tell people like that that we understand their feelings but their feelings will have to be put aside in order to move on from the past.

Later, she wrote:

I see that he came close, but missed the mark - particularly by saying that he could not disown Wright or his grandmother - but then not going on in the same section of the speech to explain what he meant by that.

I’m not sure how to define “the same section of the speech,” but seconds after his remarks about Wright and his grandmother, Obama said:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not.

An estimated five minutes (out of a 45-minute speech) earlier, Obama had this to say about Wright’s YouTube comments:

… the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems …

Then again, an estimated six minutes after his Wright-Grandma comments, Obama said, referring to black anger:

That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

The second reservation expressed by the aforementioned commenter involved the years between Wright’s remarks and Obama’s renunciation of them. Why didn’t Obama speak out sooner? Why did he wait until it was a problem for his campaign? Or, as the commenter put it:

… what I see missing is Obama not taking responsibility for having waited until now to condemn the ‘controversial’ remarks. By not explaining that, he comes pretty close to excusing that, as though we all understand that we should just tolerate views like that because we understand where they come from.

I’ll admit: This point bothers me, too, and it’s more difficult to explain. Accordingly, here, I rely on personal experience.

I had an uncle, one of several. He made some remarkably vile, racially insensitive comments during the years I knew him, including voiced displeasure about sharing a birth date with Martin Luther King, Jr. But he was also one of two uncles who — on weekend leave during World War II — defended a black man who was being harassed by a white man. He was also a loving and gracious man to family and friends, immediate and extended. He was also a man who — in his dying days, hastened by lung cancer from years of heavy smoking — experienced many points of contrition and confession, and (I like to hope) redemption.

If my uncle were still alive today and we were both high-profile figures, I seriously doubt I would proactively and publicly condemn his racist remarks. Certainly, if asked about those remarks, I would make it clear that I don’t agree with them and find them reprehensible. But I think I would also, if pushed, refuse to disown my uncle, because much like Obama with Wright, I had seen the entirety of the man my uncle was, not just his occasional, careless, hurtful, inexcusable statements.

Maybe it’s a stretch to apply my experience to Obama’s. But I also think that’s precisely what Obama is encouraging us to do; to find common experiences and build on them.

None of this is to say I’m a 100% Obama fan. I’m not. I disagree with much of what he proposes and I’m (once again) leaning toward McCain for the general election. But in the context of this particular speech, and the way Obama handled this issue, I couldn’t be more impressed or more in agreement.



This entry was posted on Thursday, March 20th, 2008 at 7:17 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Barack Obama, Race. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 34 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    It really doesn't matter what he said. If you watch TV, read the internet and papers, people who don't like him only selectively remember what supports that and the people who do did the same.

    Politics as usual.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, that's a sadly pessimistic view, awinters. Sure, there are people who only hear what they want to hear, but I honestly think this is a historic opportunity to discuss race more openly and honestly than we ever have before. So ignore the people who truly have their fingers in their ears, but don't dismiss all criticism of Obama's speech as though it all falls into that category (I'm not saying you're necessarily doing that- but you imply it when you act as though there's no point even having the discussion.)
    • ^
    • v
    Sure, there are people who only hear what they want to hear, but I honestly think this is a historic opportunity to discuss race more openly and honestly than we ever have before.


    I agree that this is a good chance. So let's hold EVERYBODY's feet to the fire so they don't sidetrack the conversation with statements that are clearly false.

    Agreed?
    • ^
    • v
    Pete, thanks for the followup and for highlighting my questions/criticisms.

    The thing is that the two issues are comingled for me; yes, you can point out that there are sections of the speech where Obama said the right things. But then when you consider my second point, those sections come across like politically expedient excuses.

    The reason I specifically suggested that it would have worked better for me if he'd included something about 'disavowing' in the same section (by that I meant, the same paragraph- within that same thought being expressed) as the "cannont disown" part is that this would have shown precisely where he draws the line and why. He'd have then been more clearly showing that he means what he says in those other parts of the speech- that he sees the need to disavow the views EVEN WHEN he can't disown the person holding the views. Do you get my point?

    And here's someone who's a greater authority than me, who apparently felt the same about the missed opportunity:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinio...

    And I think you're anecdote about your uncle explains why you're inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but you're leaving out the context here. Wright is of one school of black Americans, and he promotes his views to a pretty wide audience. He's a follower of certain black theologians who promote black separatism (those theologians, incidentally, are sadly given accolades by certain academic institutions.)

    I think what some people are seeing here is that the existence of those philosophies, and the excuses being made for those who promote them, are one of the main barriers we need to cross in order to become the postracial society that we desire to be. In that sense, Obama's close association and complicity in Wright's promoting the ideas (complicity by default, since there's no indication that he ever publicly challenged the ideas that Wright promotes, and in fact Obama equivocates about how much he was aware of them) is a problem. It speaks to judgment and leadership that he didn't speak up until he was forced to.
    • ^
    • v
    Meaning what, Justin? I fully agree that the initial blog post that inspired this discussion should be critiqued, and several people have discussed the conclusion that was drawn which they found inconsistent with the speech as a whole. I've stated my opinion about that as well, and I'll ask you to note that the initial person who wrote about his conclusion stated it as "his opinion". He draws one conclusion, you draw another, and everyone is free to disagree with no need to insinuate some baser motivation at work. Fair enough?
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think that the media/internet is necessarily a reflection of most people, for good and bad.
    • ^
    • v
    It is not a very engaging story for someone to have always held the same position on an issue. But when someone changes direction from their original trajectory, the cause of that shift is compelling. Obama could have continued on the path of angry black men, but he consciously chose to be more unifying.
    The conversation Obama is inviting us all to have is how we can chose to follow our better angels towards understanding and reconciliation.
    How can each generation be more tolerant and inclusive?
    Part of the Liberal take on this issue is that people tend to be less open to new thinking when they are in various stages of poverty, scarcity, and fear. I don't fully grasp the conservative remedy to conflict other than survival of the fittest.
    • ^
    • v
    CS - I agree, but in my conversations with others it sounds to me that people have heard completely different speeches. To me it was a positive speech with honesty that might have been a little uncomfortable at times, but overwhelming positive and forward looking.
    • ^
    • v
    Paul - That was what I got from Barry's first book. He was experiencing that angry black man as a youth because of some his experiences here in the states and he examined the concepts of black nationalism and made a conscious decision to reject that and find another way. However, before that he had already formed a familial bond with someone and you don't toss that aside because they don't move ahead with you. But sound bites or not, that Rev. Wright sounds crazy.
    • ^