Obama’s speech.
March 18, 2008, 10:59 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
The New York Times has the prepared text. Update: essential reading. Those of you contributing to Robert Imbelli’s thread should call a time-out and read the speech immediately. It’s brilliant.
This speech will be read for years to come. It will be read by anyone who wants to think through our nation’s race issues, not passed or around them. Obama made a genuine contribution to intellectual political history in the U.S.
Also, this is a speech that clearly states, “I will not shy away from and avoid the difficult issues our country faces. I will also treat you like adults rather than sound bite driven children when we talk about these issues.” My guess is that most Americans who are able to hear him will appreciate this.
Agreed. Read it.
[I'm repeating my post from the IMbelli thread, where I believe I got to call the speech "brilliant" first, although with this caveat: not as many people will actually read or hear the speech as will read or hear ABOUT it ... thus this dilemma for Obama:]
I have read a text of Obama’s speech–it is brilliant. It is also highly, highly dangerous for him (he tries to explain what might be unexplainable, what might only be experiencable–that sense of rage and outrage that fills so many black men and which sometimes gets expressed during “the mosts egregated hour” in America, Sunday church) … but the points he makes are very subtle and thought-provoking–perhaps too subtle and thought-provoking for today’s sound bytes. I think his future depends now entirely on how the media spins his comments, on what they stress and what they leave out, whether they continue to show the ranting Rev. Wright or the calm, eloquent Senator Obama … I would not want my own future resting on such precarious terms.
I think it’s a dynamite speech!
It also raises questions for us all about a nation and our Church becominf darker, more brown and how we listen to others, their stories, their anger (“rants” if you like that term).
I think Barak has moved the question forward and his candidacuy ahead.
But maybe we need here to devote more threads to the issues of race in politics and race in religion.
This speech is articulate, honest, and does something that few people in our society do well–it holds people, and ideas, together. He refuses to take simple answers for questions about race, politics, religion…and this speech can only come from years of listening deeply to the real feelings and concerns expressed by diverse groups of people.
Also–as a seminary student, I am struck by how thoughtful the theology is here: the line about “make a way out of no way” reminded me of Delores Williams’ “Sisters in the Wilderness,” as well as an ability to weave humanist and religious values together seamlessly are remarkable.
Most of all, his refusal to scapegoat or dehumanize anyone, whether Rev. Wright or Geraldine Ferraro, as well as his refusal to put anyone on a pedestal (including himself) is refreshing. I hope that he continues to speak with this compassion, honesty and articulateness.
What Bob Nunz has proposed–I think Barak has moved the question forward and his candidacuy ahead. But maybe we need here to devote more threads to the issues of race in politics and race in religion–actually epitomizes the dangerous road ahead for Obama.
Most white Americans are NOT interested in a discussion of race. They feel that the end of overt government segregation was the end of the racial problem, and they will not like it if someone tries to tell them otherwise. Indeed, they will punish at the polls any person or party that tries to discuss race at any length (the same is true for most political issues–Americans tend not to like politics at all and thus punish anyone who forces them to deal with political issues).
Thus the dilemma for Obama–this speech may have helped him in the short-run to get over the recent troubles in his campaign, but if race itself becomes a larger issue (even racial reconciliation or discussions about race), that could hurt him.
I could not be more impressed with–and moved by–the speech, and by Obama. He continues to convince. There is much to parse and praise, or gnash teeth overbut the speech will also be parsed politically, which is not a bad thing. Obama was seen as on the canvas, if not down for the count. His campaign was seen as held aloft by hot air. Once that starts to go, there was no way back up. Obama opponents will have to be frustrated because Obama re-occupies the high ground, and makes it harder than ever to attack him in a harsh fashion (I think). This is a remarkable political feat–and that’s a compliment–in that it was said that Obama ws in a box: He either had to go negative in response to criticism, and had to cut off those who would bring him down, but if he did that–the usual political strategy–he would vititiate the entire rationale of his campaign.
But he revivified (maybe) his campaign by going deeper into his theme of hope and unity and struggle, and may have turned things around. That’s a neat political, rhetorical, and moral trifecta. Those things are not, as often assumed, mutually exclusive. Often, but not always.
Better than JFK in 1960, certainly better than Romney in 2008.
As the initiator of “the Imbelli thread” (sounds like a B-movie), I want to join in the praise of a superb, challenging speech.
I particularly appreciate Sean Mahoney’s comments above. He is a welcome (new?) voice to dot Com.
Robert, I think you make a good point. But what I had hoped to hear, and what I thought was again a political imperative for Obama, was to reach out to working- and middle-class whites who harbor similar resentments to blacks, and resent black for speaking out. Obama tackles race, but he also tackles the economic issues that afflict the very same whites and blacks who are struggling–but with against other rather than on their collective behalf. Will that register? Will it work? I hope so. It’s dangerous to try to talk about the class divide and ignore the racial divide. But perhaps he can do both.
An excerpt:
“In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.”
“Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”
David,
Truly an excellent speech–and one that should resonate with middle-class whites as well, showing that he is not ignoring or belittling their concerns … as with all Obama speeches I’ve heard, it truly was inspiring … but where he will lose me–and many others–is when he descends from the lofty rhetoric to propose real-world policies and programs.
He can never, for instance, convince me that it is good or wise or just to use racial preferences today to benefit those who faced racial discrimination in the past (or more likely, whose parents or grandparents faced such discrimination). It is all well and good for Obama to acknowledge that whites who opposed busing or affirmative action were not being racists, and for him to recognize that their resentments were as legitimate as the resentments expressed by Rev. Wright …
But sooner or later we have to decide either to accept how things have improved in society and move on or else to propose some remedy (and you can’t please everybody in this case–someone has to get the job or the college admission and someone has to be denied his or her dream) … if Obama can cross THAT racial divide, and make each side accept the decisions made, he will truly be a miracle worker.
The emotional heart of the speech was the anecdote about his grandmother. I think the reflection on his own family will resonate, since so many families nowadays are multi-ethnic, multi-religious, etc.
Once again, his ideas have a Catholic sound – a call to solidarity and to see each other’s suffering. Whether that will help him with Catholic voters is another matter, though. No matter where the campaign goes, the speech will be a classic.
I have just finished reading and listening simultaneously. I will simply echo everyone else that found it brilliant.
And so did the market: DJA up 420 points today!
This was an exceptionally good speech. All the important bases were there with a great wrinkle about disaffected whites.
There does, however, remain the question of candor. Less than a week ago Barack was not at Wright’s “hateful” speech. Today he admitted he was. Was it alright for him to lie? Are speeches the measure of character? JFK gave an especially good inaugural speech. Yet Thomas C. Reeves wrote a bio of Kennedy in 1991 seriously, and credibly, questioning his character. The name of the book is “A Question of Character.”
What amazes me about the reaction to Obama, some on this blog included, is our need for heroes and the deceptive road therein. JFK aroused the young as did other dubious characters in history. Jesus even had Palm Sunday. Yet he knew the temporality of it. This is why we need to shoot our Buddhas on the road. They create false hope and a larger trap. Nevertheless, Michele Obama tells us we have one crack at electing greatness. Fast forward to her memoir thirty years from now. We can almost write it for her now.
Last time I looked blacks have as much greed, vengeance, hatred, etc., as many in other races. No question their history, along with the American Indians, has been terrible in this country. But it is clear that you will find many black leaders as well who deserve to be arrested for serious white collar crimes. They have joined the whites as many say. But is that something to brag about? And in fact too many of them had little regard for Puerto Ricans in the South Bronx in New York until the Hispanics rose up to claim their piece of the pie.
At the end of the day Rev. Wright’s words remain a problem for Barack. He did keep quiet about it. I understand he did not want to alienate that part of the black community. Or could it have been electability?
The Messiah has come and the name is Jesus. Why do we need to keep looking for him?
Obama did NOT say that he was in the church when Wright delivered the sermon that has received so much scrutiny. He did not lie. He did say that he was at church many times when Wright used “strong” language, lanaguage with which Obama disagreed.
So why didn’t Obama leave? I confess that I am growing very irritated with this question. My first counter question is, “Where do you think he should have gone?” If Wright is par for the course among charismatic black preachers on the south side of Chicago, what does Obama do? Hop from church to church until he finds a pastor who never says things with which Obama seriously disagrees? And his family in the meantime is supposed to do what? Remember, church is place where we make many very important relationships. Thus, Michelle Obama has her reasons for going to Trinity, and now his two daughters do as well. We should also keep in mind that Wright is a black pastor with a mind that can keep up with Obama. Wright has significant academic training in theology and scripture study, something that Obama would no doubt be attracted to and would also have a hard time finding elsewhere in a black or white church.
Again, where should Obama have gone? Perhaps to a white church, where it is far less likely that he would hear negative things about white people (for the record, when Wright preaches against white wealth and white power, he is not indicting all white people or even all white rich and powerful people, he is indicting an indifference to racial injustice shown by too many rich and powerful white people). Of course, to argue explicitly that Obama should have gone to a white church (rather than a Wright church!) would sorta take the air out of the indignation coming from those who insist Obama should have changed churches. Somehow, I don’t even see Bill O’Reilly making this argument.
Bill, your worries about hero worship are way overblown. Obama can inspire, that does not mean we lose all sense of perspective. Obama is not Buddha, so I do not have to worry about meeting him on the road. If you want to argue that Obama should not be the candidate, fine, but please give some reasons that have something to do either with Barack Obama or with Hillary Clinton.
I read, with much admiration, Obama’s speech. Then I heard the discussion of it on the Lehrer PBS show. How quickly the issue there turned, in large part, on how this speech would affect Obama’s political fortunes. Relatively little was said about whether the content of the speech was, as I think, an incisive analysis of the status of race relations the U. S. The penchant to treat every comment of a political figure as primarily an exercise of self-promotion is, I hope, perhaps against hope, a disease that is curable. If this cynicism is indeed warranted, then the denunciations of American society that those like Rev. Wright have offered, may have a larger measure of truthfulness than we’d like to think.
Again, I readily admit that no speech that any candidate makes is enough to compel us to take his or her candidacy for a particular office seriously. But, by darn, Obama gave a great and important speech that deserves our appreciation.
Once again, the Senator has shown he is very proficient in elocutio. I guess for me, who is a first generation immigrant from the Continent, not much reassuring regarding the “immigrant experience”. I guess for myself and my children we have to just grin and bear it and take one for the slave-owning team and not get distracted by the fact that we never benefited from the African slave trade and focus on the real enemy – capitalists.
Ths may truly go down with some of the great speeches in American history. It will be right there with JfK’s speech on being a Catholic and running for president. I love the honesty of discussing racism in the country and the challange, of not feeling sorry for oneself whether you are black or white, but moving on to make a better America. Go Obama!!!
Way above normal political speeches of recent decades.
I watched substantial portions of the speech this evening and found his presentation oddly passion-less, bloodless. Perhpas he deliberately played down his own usual evangelical oratiorical style?
Joe Komonchak:
Interesting that you should say that. The same issue was raised today on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
Managing editor David Kurtz wrote that the speech was
But editor Josh Marshall disagreed:
Take a look at Jim Sleeper’s “In Philadelphia, Obama’s Historic Challenge” — http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/18/in_philadelphia_obamas_histori/#more
Here are two excerpts:
According to Howard Fineman, the tone the Obama campaign was going for was “presidential.” There are to be two more major speeches in quick succession, and presumably they will be “presidential” as well. Fineman said he was in the hall as they were making preparations, and they took great care picking the number of flags that looked best.
I am not being cynical. I thought it was an excellent speech. For better or worse, these kind of touches matter. People my age will remember that those listening to the first Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio considered Nixon the winner, while those watching it on television considered Kennedy the winner by a large margin.
While I think Fineman was correct, I would also add that Obama was speaking very personally, and I don’t think soaring rhetoric would have worked.
I certainly think more highly of him now.
If I read my conservative friends rightly, the speech’s main drawback is that it stopped short of saying overtly that things had improved enough to dismantle so-called racial preferences. (Though even if Obama HAD rejected “racial preference” policies, I doubt conservatives would have been more inclined to vote for him.)
In truth, however, not everybody means the same thing when they talk about “racial preferences,” which could include anything from Supreme Court decisions, state and federal laws, public initiatives and private policies–many of which are not aimed specifically at race, but at leveling the playing field along gender, ethnic and creedal lines.
One of the many useful ripples Obama’s speech might have is to open a more nuanced discussion of “racial preferencing” and what it actually is.
Jean,
I was not expecting Obama to declare that the era of racial preferences is over … instead, my point was that sooner or later the question becomes: OK, so what federal government REMEDIES will he support or propose? What new civil rights act or voting rights act or fair housing act or busing program or set-asides or diversity training, etc., etc., etc. does Obama think are necessary or would help? Afterall, he is running to be the nation’s chief executive, not its pastor-in-chief (for which he would probably win by a landslide, if we had a Roman Era-like Pontifex Maximus …) … so ultimately he must support or oppose specific policies and programs–and he’ll be forced to drop down from his stratospheric rhetoric to the down-and-dirty details of everyday politics …
But you are quite right in that we could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of such issues (though as I noted earlier, a great many people are NOT interested in having such a discussion at all, they’re just tired of anything racial, and will likely vote against anyone who forces them to address such issues …)
The speech’s actual drawback–as evidenced by some of the comments I’ve read or heard–is that Obama still has not really explained why he remained part of a congregration whose pastor said things that were not just angry or african-liberationist but downright kooky (about the government creating AIDS, the “chickens coming home to roost” on Sept. 11, etc., etc.) … THAT question apparently was not answered enough, and in the end will leave lingering doubts that will cost Obama some measure of support.
Sen. Obama’s speech is incredible. I think it shows his fundamental character, which was formed in the crucible of his experience, which he is honest about. If nothing else, I find his willingness to disagree with Rev. Wright on something quite fundamental without disowning him, a person who obviously means a lot to him. This is a grace not only for Obama, but an effort to raise our civil discourse, to elevate our politics. I submit that this is as important to our nation, especially right now, as any policy proposal.
I think his speech yesterday was essential to his candidacy. Sen. Obama talks a lot about specfic policies and proposals. Why do you think that Sen. Obama has to answer for what the Rev. Wright preached? Do you think a few youtube clips tell you everything about Wright, about his church, about the community? Being committed to a congregation, or- as Catholics- a parish means not walking away the first, or even the second time you disagree with something. We’d all be in constant motion, which some people are. Such a response would be indicative of immaturity. As Paul Moses asked in an earlier post, why isn’t McCain’s association with Zachary Roth being scrutinzed? I fear that question because this is a bad path to go down, holding candidates accountable for the words of their pastors.
Jean,
Here is this conservative’s perspective.
First, I don’t think many conservative expected him to call for dismanteling affirmative action. No Democrat in his right mind would do that – frankly, many Republicans wouldn’t.
Was it a good speech? Yes. Was it one of the great speeches in American history? That seems to me to be, well, way over the top. It was a nice speech, well delivered (I agree it seemed a little flat) that said a lot of things that someone situated like Obama could communicate better than most. But was he Winston Churchill? I get the feeling that many commentators were already cocked and ready to pull the trigger on the “one of the most significant speeches in American history” column before he ever gave the speech. In any event, a judgment like that is best made a year or two after the speech, not an hour after.
The biggest objection is that it mostly just changed the subject. Unlike Joe, I think many people, including me, are very concerned with the question of why he stayed there for 20 years. That was what people wanted to know. I frankly don’t care what his alternatives were. I don’t care if he had to drive 15 or 20 miles to go to church – a lot of people do – I would have. The idea that he didn’t have any alternative is specious. I will admit that he may not have had an alternative that was as beneficial to an ambitious young politician, but that’s a whole other issue. Making a speech after 20 years of doing something most people wouldn’t have done for 20 days without expaining it doesn’t impress.
There was nothing he said that he didn’t have to say. He had to condemn Wright’s statements. He couldn’t abandon Wright without looking like a fraud. The only thing he didn’t have to do, and which I found in poor taste, were his comments about his grandmother – they added almost nothing to the speech.
Next I am concerned about the lack of scrutiny and criticism (although I think it is starting) about several things. First and foremost is that we constantly hear how conservatives are “handled” and that they are controlled. I want to see him answer tough questions in a press conference or some other venue more than I want to here him deliver a script. Obama’s scripting makes Bush and Reagan look like An Evening at the Improv. Second, is that when he did answer questions initially, he clearly created the impression that he wasn’t aware of the statements, then it was he wasn’t around to hear them, and in the speech, he finally admits he heard “controversial” statements but nothing more. He had to, of course, since no one believed him, but if another politician did this, the criticism would be merciless. Finally, most people who don’t already support him will probably be annoyed by the “we all have heard our pastors say things we disagree with” line. That may be true, but I suspect there are very, very, very, few people who have heard the kinds of things Wright said from their priest, minister or rabbi. And while all he said about Wright’s background is an explanation, it is certainly not justification. Your average suburban, middle-class voter is not going to take that bait.
The speech was meant to counter suspicions that despite all that Obama has said and done, he might harbor some secret radical beliefs. You can choose to believe what he says in the speech or not. But after this speech, anyone who still thinks that Obama has some sort of secret racial agenda is really someone who isn’t going to be swayed by anything.
I’d like to add that it is interesting how people have become connoisseurs of political effects. There seems to be a strange concern about, not the meaning of Obama’s speech (in this case) but the meaning of the speech for Obama’s campaign. It’s a sort of infection by a virus formed of a hybrid between modern media coverage and modern sociology. We are impoverished in my opinion by this focus on form over substance.
Maureen Dowd puts it in perspective and brings out what I have been writing. Here is her conclusion:
“Up until now, Obama and his worshipers have set it up so that he must be so admirable and ideal and perfect and everything we’ve ever wanted that any kind of blemish — even a parking ticket — was regarded as a major failing.
………………………….
But Saint Obama played the politics of character to an absurd extent. For 14 months, his argument for leading the world has been himself — his exquisitely globalized self.
He should be congratulated on the disappearance of the pedestal. Leaders don’t need to be messiahs.
Gray is a welcome relief from black and white. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Sean,
When preachers on the right condemn America for its sins (abortion, gays and lesbians, no prayer in the schools, evolution, and so on) and say God has punished the country by allowing terrorist attacks, they are courted by Republican politicians. When Wright condemns America for the sin of racism, he is considered a traitor–a traitor, I might add, who served in the Marines and the Navy.
It seems to me a great many Catholics (liberal and conservative) are perfectly capable of listening to some things their pastor, their bishop, and even their pope tell them, and ignoring others. I think it is probably difficult for most Catholics to understand how important a part of life a black Protestant church (or many white or mixed Protestant churches) are an integral part of the church-goers lives. I think Obama made it clear that his Church was like family, and you don’t pitch family aside because you don’t agree with them 100 percent.
Ah, yes. Maureen Dowd. Sweet reason personified! She, and we, deserve for her to have more vacation time.
Unagidon,
In the end, Obama’s speech matters ONLY if he is elected president … if he’s not, so what? He gave a nice speech. So did William Jennings Bryan in his “cross of gold” address in 1896, but Bryan never became president so in the end it was nothing more than stirring rhetoric. It’s the same for Obama–THAT’s why the “horse race” matters, that’s why the speech’s effect on his campaign is so important. Obama is not a prophet–he’s a presidential candidate.
David,
I agree with all you say up until the last sentence. While most people don’t pitch family members because they have fundamental differences, there are many, many who do. They’re the people who see such relatives only at funerals.
About chickens coming home to roost –
Yes, Wright’s remark about inventing AIDS is ridiculous, but for some people it is the best explanation of a combination of outrageous facts, and so it isn’t intrinsically ridiculous to them. I fear that many, many Americans just don’t understand how astonishingly mean some white people have been to black ones. The hatred of some people is downright psychotic. I knew a “nice” white southern woman who got mad at a black person and said most venomously, “They ought to dig a hole. throw them all in and put the mud back!” I’m still shocked by that one. Then there was the “joke” I heard up north:
Customer to cafe owner: Do you serve n*****s here?
Cafe owner: Never have, but bring one in and I’ll cook something up for you.
Not to mention lynching a boy for whistling at a white woman.
As to interpreting things in context –
My old neighbor, Beau, had 11 kids and sometimes lost patience a bit. One day he shouted at his second son, “Michael, if you don’t behave I’m going to tear your arm off and beat you with the bloddy stump!!!!” Everybody within shouting distance laughted and laughed. Beau calmed down, having expressed his frustration. So far as I know, he never hit his kids. Not even Michael. I’m sure he and Rev. Wright would understand each other.
No Robert.
It matters whether it is true or not, not whether it gets him elected or not. You yourself have spoken several times about what you think is a reluctance of some people to even talk about race relations and that this reluctance means that Obama’s speech is misplaced in the context of the election. Let me translate this. Obama’s speech is misplaced in your view because he won’t tell some people what they want to hear (or in the case, not tell them what they don’t want to hear).
Your approach is that of a cynical advertiser, who simply wants to know what to say to get the job done. I would expect you to respond that by telling me that this is the way that it is. I would respond to you by saying that this is the way that it has become, not the way that it has to be. The cynical appeal to form and nitty gritty reality as though a presidential election is nothing more than a game that needs to be played is a moral problem. It’s a moral rot, in fact. One of the things that it yields is the kind of partisanship we have been seeing these years. Another thing that it yields is this preoccupation with what a candidate “really believes” because nothing that any candidate says can really be relied on, since the election is simply a “horse race”. Obama “may” be trying to rise above this. So he gets labeled an idealist and is contrasted to Hillary and McCain, the hard nosed realists who know how the game is played (nod nod wink wink).
Ann,
I may have told this before, but my mother, who died about 10 years ago, was a very conservative Republican. My siblings and I just assumed my father, who was very reserved, agreed with my mother. Before my father died, my sister somehow discovered he was a lifelong Democrat. He had simply opted out of all political discussions (and driven the family car with the Goldwater bumper sticker, like the rest of us) for the sake of peace in the family. When my sister told me, after my father died, I was almost as amazed as if I had found out he was working undercover for the CIA.
I think many families have topics (race, religion, politics) they just don’t discuss in order to keep the peace. Or if the issue comes up, they say, “Oh, Dad!” and change the subject as fast as they can.
David ==
Yes, I agree that many famillies are like that. My father’s was mostly, but my mother’s was the opposite.
Have you heard the story about the tiny town in Mississippi which always voted totally Democratic with the exception of one lone Republican vote? It was assumed that the lone vote was cast by the lone Jew in the community. The Jew died. Next election, one person voted Republican. (hee hee)
(Yes, young ones, there was a time when the South was solidly Democratic. The poorer the sollider.)
Unagidon,
You mistake my understanding of the way the world works for my (assumed, by you) approval for the way it works. Or perhaps you misinterpret my views as not being sufficiently critical of the way the system works when in fact I am simply trying to explain it. That said, I do satnd by the fact that Obama’s speech is only important because he is a presidential candidate and that if he is not elected his speech will not have any impact on society as a whole. Whether it should have is a different matter–it simply will not have any greater impact. And thusa it will simply have been a speech–nice words that live on briefly as an echo and then fade away. Because in the end, he offered no specific program or policy to back up his nice words and even if he had he is hardly in a positiopn–UNLESS he gets elected–to enact such programs and policies.
“Because in the end, he offered no specific program or policy to back up his nice words and even if he had he is hardly in a positiopn–UNLESS he gets elected–to enact such programs and policies.”
“Nice words” sounds like “nice attitude”. I think the striking thing about the speech is that Obama gave us a clear picture of what he thinks the situation is. He also tied it into a wider context that includes white middle class people. He did not propose policies as such, but I think that it isn’t too hard to figure out where he will be coming from when he is elected.
While it is true that the fact that he is a presidential candidate gives his words a greater impact than, say, yours, you are setting up some strange criteria to state that he fails because the doesn’t outline any specific programs and then go on to say that even if he did, he still fails because he hasn’t been elected. In fact, your criteria lead right back to the position I accused you of holding; that it’s really just about the power.
This may be why “attitude” is so decisively important to people who call themselves “conservatives”. They assume that a politician is going to have to lie, cheat and steal to get elected. They may not approve of this but they understand that this is the way the system works. When one holds so little regard for actions or words one really is left with only the secret internal person. Hence all of this silly searching for litmus tests.
“He did not propose policies as such, but I think that it isn’t too hard to figure out where he will be coming from when he is elected.”
I can only speak for myself, but I actually cannot “figure out” what policies he would propose from that speech. He appeared to advocate for appointing SCOTUS justices who would overturn the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke finding on Numerus Clausus. It also seems from that he would support H.R. 40, but I am not sure what else.
Ironically, Unagidon, it is you who keeps expressing “attitude” here by using this thread to denounce conservatives (and we all know that Democrats have never been known to lie or cheat or steal to win elections–not even in Chicago, New York, Boston, etc., etc., etc.).
This particular exchange began because you questioned why people were more interested in what the speech meant to Obama’s campaign than what it meant in and of itself. I simply tried to point out that ultimately the speech did not really matter at all unless Obama actually gets elected as president. You could accuse me of diminshing the role of Senators (by assuming that only the president really leaves a lasting impact) but that’s a debate I’ll leave to the political scientists.
Moreover, the only way that the speech “fails” at this point is in the fact that many might (and clearly do, based on recent reports) feel that Obama did not really put enough distance between himself and his ex-pastor, but again: other than whatever moral failing (or virtue, for loyalty?) that might represent, its greatest significance is in whether or not it hurts him in either the primary or general election.
Dear MAT,
The are quotes from his speech. Do you think that you can discern where he would be coming from policy wise. Or would he have needed to convert it into drafts of House resolutions.
“Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.”
“Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.”
“This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy.”
“This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together”
“This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. ”
“This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.”
None of these really refer to race and all of them state a viewpoint that is against the war in Iraq; against Big Business and lobbyist domination of government; against the export of industrial jobs to the third world; against deregulation; against our rotten national school standards and sub-standard state funding of schools; etc. etc. It doesn’t seem too hard to see to me.
Dear Robert,
I am not using this thread to “denounce conservatives”. I am addressing things that you yourself have said. And again, by saying that Democrats are corrupt too, you have simply demonstrated my point; that you think that politics is purely the practical pursuit of power. Your point about Obama “not putting enough distance between himself and his ex-pastor” demonstrates again your concern aboutr the secret inner man, since Obama has clearly distanced himself from those statements from his ex-pastor.
I know that you consider yourself some sort of “conservative” and that when challenged you like to claim that conservatism itself is being attacked, but I am afraid that I don’t see anything at all conservitive about your opinions. When I challenge you, it is your own ideas that I am taking to task. You should be more willing to accept responsibility for them.
Unagidon,
What on earth are you talking about? I’m simply trying to express my views on the effectiveness or lack thereof of Obama’s political strategy (which is what the speech was–political strategy. If you don’t realzie that, you really shouldn’t be commenting on it at all). I truly don’t understand what point you’re trying to make? “Secret inner man”? Considering myself “some sort of ‘conservative’”? I think beyond question my postings clearly put me on the more conservative side of the political spectrum in these discussions–a point I doubt many here would deny (except for the ultra-ultra conservatives who disagree with my support for John McCain … for the record, I consider myself a Republican first and a conservative only second).
But what are you talking about when you can write a section like this:
This may be why “attitude” is so decisively important to people who call themselves “conservatives”. They assume that a politician is going to have to lie, cheat and steal to get elected. They may not approve of this but they understand that this is the way the system works. When one holds so little regard for actions or words one really is left with only the secret internal person. Hence all of this silly searching for litmus tests.
And then try to say you were only questioning MY statements, MY ideas–the last time I checked, the use of “They assume…”, “They may not approve …”, etc., clearly suggests you are talking about a group–in this case, conservatives–and not just an individual. Moreover you talk about holding “little regard for actions or words” when the whole and utter point of my postings on this thread have been that Obama used ONLY words and that his ACTIONS are as yet unknown–indeed, it is the actions he might ultimately take that would, in the end, potentially undermine the words.
I found last night’s CNN coverage quite interesting on all of this
-middle of the road David Gergen thought Obama gave a terrific speech and raised the level of the discussion on how race played into things,
-I truly agred with Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who said the spech had moved the coversation from about Obama to about us.
How d owe deal with it? It’s already been pointed out here that a lot of folks don’t want to really deal with it. The spinmeisters are hard at work already both in this thread and in Eduardo’s above. As Obama noted they can kep playing the Wright clips over and over.The moderator (Soledad O’Brien, I beleive) seemed impateint with the us part and wanted to keep on the Wright matter (what sells?)This is also true, as Bernard noted above, of a lot of media coverage.
What of the Wright clips? The head of the Southern Baptist Leadership Condference strongly defended him.
More interestuingly, a representative of the Black Church – I can’t remember who – sad that many of the black Chrisitan churches needed this “liberation theology” to make Christiaity credible to its congregations.
That raises several questions ; first and foremost, how knowledgeable are pundits about the Black Church?
It was clear that one could not speak univocally about Churches in the black community but clearly also there is a signioficant strain that preaches “black (liberation) theoikogy.” How well do folks and particularly critics understand this?
(I want to digress here briefly that we need to have a thread on racism and the Catholic Church. Many of you are back in New York and a friend sent me the article by Gary Stern in Journal North on the pitiful number of diocesan seminarians there. It was noted that the Latino men are seldom attracted to the priesthood due to celibacy.I’ve heard the Church in Central harlem’s black communit yis essentially a one parish operation now t. How well is the Church dealing with the issue of racism and service, especially in large metropolitan areas?)
Just as folk have problems seperating how much their politics influence their religius points of view, and vice versa so too how their view of race shapes their politics and vice cersa.
That’s been evident here and in Eduardo’s thread above.
If it’s about us, and I submit it is, couldn’t we step back and try to examine ourselkves, no tto say how prejudiced we migh tbe, but rather, whether you support him or oppose him) Barack suggests, that we can move things forward and try to create a better unity that the inane partisan divide that haunts us today?
Bob Nunz:
Read Obama’s speech more carefully–especially at the end. He wants us to not be divided by race so that we can all focus on the Democrat’s policy agenda (universal health care, ending the Iraq war, keeping jobs at home, etc.). He really did NOT address how to address race–other than making some very eloquent comments on how everybody has understandable grievances. But that alone did NOT switch the discussion about race to “us” (YOU are doing that more by your suggestions here than Obama did–though perhaps you could credit him as the catalyst). But Obama steered clear of the thornier issues of how he thinks we should deal with racial problems; he certainly offered no concrete plans of his own.
The church like Obama, talks a good game about race and does little. Period.
“But Obama steered clear of the thornier issues of how he thinks we should deal with racial problems; he certainly offered no concrete plans of his own.”
I think that he pointed out that much of what we perceive as racial problems are actually things that affect all of us. You can believe that there is a separate race problem that is not addressed by the Democratic policy agenda, but in fact most of the real problems that African-Americans face are addressed by those policies. Unlike, say, McCain, who offers no concrete plans of his own.
David,
Again with the spurious comparisons.
First, there is not a single valid comparison that I have heard. There is a world of difference between being endorsed or supported by someone and being a member of a church for decades. I hold the importance of the endorsements that McCain and others received in the same vein as Obama’s endorsement by Louis Farrakhan. So what.
Second, it is one thing to sit silently while a priest condemns contraception (as if that ever happens anyway), a position about personal sin, and to fail to say or do anything for year after year after year while a preacher spews racial venom and crackpoty political conspiracy theories attacking other people. Again, this is where Obama’s speech will fail. Ordinary people with common sense people see the difference and don’t buy the comparison. Apparently you need a PhD to confuse things.
Belonging to something by choice means something, and I still don’t know what it meant to Obama based on what he said. He avoided the question. If it is simply, the good outweighed the bad, then frankly you have to question his judgment. I strongly suspect his continued membership had as much or more to do with solidifying his political base than anything else. He overlooked and tacitly accepted this because to do otherwise would have hurt him politically, pure and simple.
Sean: Do I detect some not so oblique critique?
Sean,
You are responding to a point I didn’t make. I was comparing the acceptability of what preachers on the religious right (Hagee, Robertson, Parsley, etc.) say to what Wright said. I was not comparing McCain and Obama. I myself have argued here on dotCommonweal that McCain accepting endorsements from Hagee or Parsley is in no way comparable to the close relationship between Obama and Wright. My point is that we are so familiar with the religious right that it seems almost mainstream.
Regarding Catholics who disregard certain teachings, I was not thinking about contraception and “cafeteria Catholics.” I was thinking about how conservative Catholics explain away the positions of the Church on war, capital punishment, torture, social programs for women to give them alternatives to abortion, and the like, but still look to the Church as the ultimate authority regarding stem-cell research, abortion, same-sex marriage, and other “conservative” issues.
That explains the following exchange:
Or at least it would explain it if the two-thirds Raddatz spoke of all had PhDs.
Here’s an excerpt from Nicholas Kristof’s column in Thursday’s N.Y. Times:
David,
As for the comparison, when right wing preachers blamed terrorist attacks on the sinfulness of Americans I recall not a single prominent politician who condoned the statements at the time. Where was Obama when Wright was damning America? There’s the difference.
As a conservative Catholic, I fully accept the Church’s teachings on all things. I may, at times disagree with the “positions” of some bishops , including the Bishop of Rome, regarding particular political issues and events but only after considering those positions and ONLY in circumstances when the Church itself says I may differ in my views consistent with the teachings and doctrines of the Church. Interestingly, your first list of positions (with the possible exception of the death penalty) lists things in which the Church teaches funadamental moral principles but no specific position that a person must take in any particular case while the second list (with the possible exception of same sex marriage – at least in a civil sense) are things on which the Church teaches we must hold a particular position. Or so the Church teaches.
Regardless, the comparison, like I said, is spurious anyway.
The crack about PhD’s is simply my observation that I have found that it is often the most intelligent people in the world that can convince themselves of the silliest ideas. As a lawyer, I often pitty my clients when they go through the looking glass into my world. As one once asked me, “Why do they take something that’s so simple and make it so confusing?”
Unagidon:
“I think that he pointed out that much of what we perceive as racial problems are actually things that affect all of us. You can believe that there is a separate race problem that is not addressed by the Democratic policy agenda, but in fact most of the real problems that African-Americans face are addressed by those policies.”
A point well taken. I don’t agree, but I do see what you mean.
Sean,
What if Jeremiah Wright had said, “May God punish America for her sins!” I think that is probably what he meant, and I am wondering if many people are reacting strongly because they (like me) were raised not to say “God damn.”
Do you think it’s possible that in the context of the 20 years Obama had been going to the church, or in the context of 30 years of preaching, people might have understood Wright’s most extreme statements much differently than those of us watching them out of context in short clips?
Do you have any problems with the concept of the just wage, as defined in the Catechism?
As I understand it, two people could be doing exactly the same job and be exactly as productive as one another, but the one with greater needs should be more highly paid than the one with lesser needs.
David,
Yes, I can see where saying the CIA created AIDS to destroy the black community might be misunderstood. What context? The context of racism? If we are to give people a pass on saying things like this because they have been victims, who will ever be accountable?
I am sorry, but I don’t understand how you conclude what you do from the just wage statement in the Catechism. Taking account of the needs and contributions of a person does not ipso facto mean the one with more needs should be more highly paid. Remember, it is needs and contributions, and it requires taking into account the productivty of each party and the state of business and the common good. A pretty complex formula to come up with a simple – greater needs equals greater pay solution. Moreover, even as to needs, how will you determine that? Does the single man or woman have lesser needs than the married person with children? When I get old and sick I have my family to rely on, but the single man doesn’t. Perhaps his investment in savings fulfills a need that my investment in the welfare of my children fills for me. I believe the point of this statement is to make clear that bare agreement, without considering the needs and status of each party is not morally sufficient. One still has an obligation to consider the economic and social well being of the other. With that I agree completely.
Is a worker morally obligated to take a pay cut if his company is in dire straits – considering the state of the business and the common good?
“Yes, I can see where saying the CIA created AIDS to destroy the black community might be misunderstood. What context? The context of racism? If we are to give people a pass on saying things like this because they have been victims, who will ever be accountable?”
Perhaps I have missed it, but you seem to keep beating around the bush about what your concerns are. Are you suggesting that Obama secretly believes that the CIA created AIDS? Or what are you suggesting exactly?
If you think that Obama actually (and secretly at this point) holds some of the positions that Wright holds and that there is some sort of conspiracy here, then wouldn’t it follow that it would be in Obama’s interest to throw Wright under the bus if it got him the presidency? When you say that he won’t disavow Wright (whatever that means) because he does not want to alienate his base (whoever they are), that in short Obama is acting out of some sort of pure political expediency, it seems to me that you have then precisely reduced this issue to the same level as the ministers that McCain has “disavowed”.
Can you state your concerns in a more concrete way? As in “I am afraid that Obama thinks X and if so I am afraid that a President Obama will do Y.”
Sean,
I was actually trying to get at whether it was the profane language (“God damn”) that was causing so much anger rather than the meaning, which I would say was something like, “May God punish America harshly for the sin of racism” or “Because of racism, America deserves God’s punishment rather than his blessing.” “God damn America” shocks even me, but I don’t know that it means very much, unless God actually sends countries to hell. However, if I understand your position (which Unagidon is trying to pin you down on), it is not that you think Obama agrees with Wright. It is rather you feel Obama had a responsibility to set Wright straight or completely dissociate himself from him. I don’t feel that way myself, but I don’t believe I could convince someone who feels that way to feel otherwise.
I think you explain the just wage theory out of existence by making it a nice principle that is impossible to follow, other than having good intentions. I think it clearly does demand paying more to someone who has a greater need but who is in all other respects equal to his co-workers, and as an American (and a very liberal one) I find that hard to accept, especially as someone who works for a large corporation. I expect a “fair wage” but not a “just wage” or a “living wage,” and even as a liberal I believe someone who needs more than he is making should be able to get it somewhere, but generally not from his employer.
I always enjoy hearing what you have to say.
When Jeremiah Wright resorts to language like “God damn America” or refers to the “USA KKK” I’m not that surprised. His views were formed at a time when taking the family on a long trip and trying to find a place to let the kids piddle could turn into a Major Racial Incident. Things have changed, but Wright is clearly still mad. I’m not sure I wouldn’t be, either.
Moreover, while Wright is angry, certainly, and acknowledges it in the most unvarnished and abrasive way, he has never, to my knowledge, advocated any violence whatever, nor has he encouraged people to act in a way counter to Christ’s teachings. He has never paraded hatred around under cover of a pointy-headed hood. Nor has he burned crosses in the yards of white people, blown up their kids, or shot them dead while they were minding their own business.
Yeah, it would be nice if Obama had a minister like, say, Desmond Tutu.
But to imply that listening to Wright for 20 years has somehow warped Obama to the point where he is not a fit candidate is going a bit far.
And, for the record, I do NOT have a Ph.D.
About “God damn America” –
Semantics, semantics. What did Rev. Wright mean by “America” in the context of that sermon? Did he mean the whole of the United States of American including every man, woman and child? He obviously didn’t include himself, and one assumes he didn’t include his congregation. So what *did* he mean? I say I can’t tell unless I know all of the words of the sermon and also Rev. Wright’s gestures and facial expressions when he delivered the words.
All of use words in an apparently broad manner when the context obviously cuts down its meaning. If I’m giving a sermon on greed and say “The pharmaceuticals are paradigms of greed* do I mean that everyone employed by a pharmo is a paradigm of greed? Unless I know all of them I *can’t* rationally mean that, and most people would not assume that I am giving it such an absolute meaning. And the same is true of “God damn America” as spoken by Rev. Writgt.
The fact is, as the studies of Lakoff and others have shown we regularly use words in a very ambiguous way, and the words are often associated with a lot of images, some of which are even contradictory. That’s why it shouldn’t be surprising that a black kid when asked what he thinks of when he hears “white person” thinks of contradictory images, and the same is true of white kids when asked about “African-American”. That is why context is so terribly important — it determines (or need to determine) which of the possible meanings is actually intended.
What’s a context? It’s a set of circumstances (including the relationships among the words themselves in a sentence ) which determine which of many possible meanings of a word is actually meant in a given circumstance.
Human language is incredibly complex. That’s one reason human language can communicate so many different meanings. But that’s also why it’s so hard to communicate accurately.
So we need to get over the naive notion that there are lots of “plain meanings” and all would be well if we’d just use them. I say there are hardly any plain meanings outside of contexts. Maybe “one” and “plus” are usually plain, but even they can be ambiguous.
By the way, there’s a new brouhaha about Obama and race. He just said on Larry King’s program that his grandmother was “a typical American” and that she was bound by certain stereotypes including being afraid of an African-American man approaching her on a street. Obama then said *explicitly*, “She is not a racist”, but now Anderson Cooper reports that the blogs and conservative TV stations are alive with the sounds of “Obama says the typical American is a racist”. Well, he did NOT say that, he denied it. The issue should be: “what does Obama mean by “racist”?
Semantics, semantics.