Obama: Political Pragmatist or Social Gospel Sell-Out?
Stanley Kurtz treats Obama’s relationship with black churches in Chicago in a recent piece in the June 30 issue of The National Review, which relies heavily on an article Obama wrote in 1988 entitled, Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City. Kurtz attempts to skewer Obama on his relationship to these churches by suggesting that he “was for black liberation theology before he was against it.” In the Why Organize? article, Obama writes:
“Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and – most importantly – values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago. A fierce independence among black pastors and a preference for more traditional approaches to social involvement (supporting candidates for office, providing shelters for the homeless) have prevented the black church from bringing its full weight to bear on the political, social and economic arenas of the city.
“Over the past few years, however, more and more young and forward-thinking pastors have begun to look at community organizations such as the Developing Communities Project in the far south side and GREAT in the Grand Boulevard area as a powerful tool for living the social gospel, one which can educate and empower entire congregations and not just serve as a platform for a few prophetic leaders. Should a mere 50 prominent black churches, out of the thousands that exist in cities like Chicago, decide to collaborate with a trained organizing staff, enormous positive changes could be wrought in the education, housing, employment and spirit of inner-city black communities, changes that would send powerful ripples throughout the city.”
Of course, Kurtz attempts to foster the fear in his conservative readership that Obama’s days as an organizer are still close to his heart, meaning that he will make social gospel theology (read: communism) and minority empowerment (read: Malcolm X) important planks in his political agenda. Kurtz clearly has a caricatured understanding of what constitutes social gospel theology, but Obama missed a major opportunity to correct those who hold such an ossified view by so unceremoniously resigning from a church he would surely have included as a “slumbering giant” in the community organizing movement. He has fueled a lot of his campaign by talking up his community organizing experience, and it was his associations with pastors like Reverend Wright and congregations like Trinity that helped him build the foundation of his political career. Now, though, it appears that he is willing to closet the theological worldview that was once a “promise” of change.
As a political thinker, I understand that distancing himself from the sometimes radical language of the social gospel, especially as taken up by some black churches, was a politically necessary move. As Alexander Cockburn said in a recent piece in the June 23 issue of The Nation, “The assignment of every supposed liberal on the presidential campaign trail is to engage in the task of political redefinition, so that bankers, CEOs of the Fortune 500, Rupert Murdoch, the Sulzbergers, the Grahams, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Abe Foxman and all the others all deem that candidate ‘safe.’” Yet, Cockburn contines, “Lately Obama has shown an eerie and relentless skill in the tasks of reassurance. Though necessary to a certain extent, it’s an ominous talent.”
While “ominous” may be too strong a word for it, Obama’s deft negotiation of the political landscape does give cause for concern. As someone interested in the state of public theology, I think a great opportunity to expand the discussion beyond the Bush brand of evangelical Christianity was missed. Furthermore, I fear that, in his rush for broad appeal, those communities, who have trusted him to speak truth to power, will be left in the wake of political efficiency. Only time will tell, but I hope Obama doesn’t forget the wisdom he said could be gained from “the beauty and strength of everyday people,” and that it is through “stories and songs of dashed hopes and powers of endurance, of ugliness and strife, subtlety and laughter, that organizers can shape a sense of community not only for others, but for themselves.” If he is elected, it will be, in part, because he promised to tell these stories. In my view, he missed the opportunity to give voice to one liberative, yet often publicly silenced, theological story-one that sorely needs to be preached. I hope he doesn’t miss many more.
For a similar critique of Obama on this matter, from someone closer to the black church, see Yale Prof. Andre Willis’s blog post here: http://www.theroot.com/id/46329
Eric: I have enjoyed your posts, but on this one I have numerous and significant disagreements. I also think the Adre Willis post that you link wrong to the point of being bizzare. But first to yours. First, I think very few people, including black people, are voting for Obama because of his community organizing experience. Sure he likes to mention it, and I do think if people pay attention to this aspect of his experience it is much harder to view him as an elitist. But I just don’t think that community organizing experience makes it into the the top 20 reasons why people are voting for Obama. Thus, it is not as central to his campaign as is suggested in your post (and Willis’s).
Second, I don’t think black churches are as powerful as the quote from Obama claims, and I say this as someone who orgaznized congregations in metro Chicago for three years. Yes, they can get money for services and affordable housing. Yes, they can help to clean up some blocks and even neighborhoods. But the fact that they do not achieve broad systemic change is not caused by their lack of organization. Many factors other than this come into play, including the political isolation of black districts in state and federal political issues, the coopting effect of the very money that ministers are so good at bringing in, and the fact that real change would produce power and community changes that are not usually desired by the ministers or their community members.
Third, the contrast between radical liberation theology and Wall Street is overblown; admittedly by many proponents of black liberation theology. Racial inequality has been caused much more by political power related to issues of housing, education, criminal punnishment, etc. than it has been to economic power. I, myself, and deeply committed to “prophetic” advocacy for the poor, but I have also become convinced that capitalism is much more a friend to the poor than not. A rather startling recent discovery on this matter was finding that micro-lending Nobel Peace Prize winning Muhammad Yunus is deeply committed to the economic theories of Milton Friedman. Needless to say, then, when Obama starts making clear that he can be a friend to Wall Street, I am not immediately inclined to see anything ominous or otherwise negative.
More specifically, it was not the economic message of Wright that Obama rejected. It was the HIV comments, and, most importantly, the suggestion that Obama was not being honest about what he really thought.
Fourth, I do not think Obama unceremoniously resigned from Trinity, nor did he quickly throw Wright under the bus. He stuck with Trinity for quite some time after the Wright controversy broke, and he even stuck with Wright. After Wright’s comments at the National Press Club, Obama waited almost a week before making the decision to leave Trinity. The l’affaire Pfleger was simply the last straw.
Now, as for Willis, he seems to make the rather preposterous claim that Obama should remain forever linked to Wright because Wright introduced him to Christianity. This is wrong at so many levels. Christianity belongs to no one, and no one who has a strong Christian influence on someone is owed anything for her or his efforts. The idea that Obama was mpt born into a Christian household is somehow relevant to his relation to Wright is a complete non sequitur.
No doubt Obama would affirm the ongoing influence of Jeremiah Wright and Trinity UCC on his life, thought, and prayer. It does not follow from this that Obama should remain explicitly linked either to Wright or Trinity.
Let’s see. You quote the “The Nation’ and “National Review’on Obama’s lack of appeal.. Should get a Big audience in western Pa.!!!!!! Do the Repubs. think they can make an entire campaign scaring people about African American churches?
He loses Wall Street..you’re right.. even though the two hedge fund guys from Bear Sterns in today’s perp walk won’t be voting..
‘An ominous talent for reassurance’.???
Ask Hillary about his talent..
I just donated again to Obama [no fed funds] and I expect he’ll have 40 state win Nov. 3.
Joe, thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your inside-Chicago insights. First, I agree that the community organizing experience is not at the top of the list of reasons for one to vote for Obama, but it is an important part of his background, which makes him appealing to me at least. Second, I’m sure you know more than I about the influence of the black churches in Chicago, and the issues at hand are certainly more complex than the quote from Obama captures. Again, though, it is clear he thought these communities had an important role to play and story to tell. Third, I have to disagree that economic interests can be so easily bracketed from housing, education, crime, etc. It seems clear that Friedman’s unrestricted free market capitalism has only exacerbated inequality over the last few decades and not, as the title of his most well-known book suggests, given us more freedom. Fourth, I take your point well that Obama hung in there with Wright and Trinity for as long as was perhaps politically possible and that Pfleger made his leavng in some ways unavoidable. Yet, his resignation seemed to suggest that the community was not essential to his faith, which strikes me as strange given that faith is not simply a personal commitment, but also an investment in the way that faith is lived in communities of practice. Again, I think there was a way he could have given creedance to the communal aspects of faith without being uncritical of his own church. Lastly, I don’t want to speak for Willis. So, I will just say that you make a fair critique of his commentary. Thanks for reading, and I am very interested in continuing the conversation.
I have to agree with the lengthy critique of Joe Pettit on this one. Black Liberation Theology does not have exclusive rights to Christianity. I also agree that “capitalism is more of a friend to the poor than not.” A quote from Abraham Lincoln states, “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, and you cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.” Barak Obama is not a social gospel sell-out. He had a lot of patience with Wright, and he knows the limits of fringe viewpoints on our larger society.
What? Is that coffee I smell? I wonder when liberals will wake up and catch a whiff?
Conservatives don’t need to be “scared” by columnists. We already get it. This guy will sell out his own mother (or grandmother) for votes. He has already sold out a life-long friend and his most cherished political cause – political reform.
Expect the following – Obama will come out for some kind of “compromise” that permits more oil and gas drilling if gas prices don’t drop, and his firm withdrawal time table will become something less definite. Expect the second after his junket to Iraq.
If I were his supporter, I’d wonder which casuse I champion he’s going to shred next.
David Brooks, I believe, is more sound bite than accurate in his cute characterization of Barack the politician. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?ref=opinion
Yes, Obama is as good a politician as there is. But Brooks succumbs to asassination for the sake of rhetoric. One should not be that addicted to the phrase.
Obama is also in the news for eschewing public financing. Sure, public financing, is not in his best interest. But the 527s make his decision necessary.
Barack is a politician, with promise. Certainly he is the best alternative. But we should refrain from idolizing and demand accountability.
Any sensible political democratic practice is pragmatic. First, you gain power by winning votes. Then you govern, not by being wedded to a set of non-negotiable principles from which you deduce policies and programs, but by looking for ways to make sustainable improvements in the lives of the citizenry. All sensible policies respond to the particular circumstances with which the political society has to cope. Accordingly, since circumstances are always in flux, no policy has an indefinite shelf life.
Whoever gets elected, and I’m voting for Obama, I do hope has the sense to be pragmatic.
Bill,
How exactly do 527′s make Obama’s hipocrisy necessary? 527′s like Moveon, the service employeeis union, and other left leaning groups are far outspending conservative ones this year and are expected to do so through the election. If anything, the advantage for liberals makes his decision to drive a stake through ther heart of public financing even less justifiable. What kind of credibility will he ever have on this issue again? Oh yeah, I forgot, this won’t be a problem since the watchdog press will give him another pass.
Bernard,
Yup – some animals are more equal than others. Very pragmatic.
Sean, do your words to me have a point? Or are they just a release of gas?
Drive a stake through the heart? That’s amusing. McCain is in no position to throw stones, considering he’s been in violation of campaign finance rules for months, and is already walking back into the public-financing fold. Shocking, given the sad state of GOP fundraising this cycle.
This has been a great discussion! Obama’s decision on public financing is quite interesting, And I honestly don’t know what to make of it. I’m inclined to say he’s really openning the floodgates to unrestriced private interest money in elections. Even if they were leaky to begin with, in the long run, I think he’s doing more harm than good.
Denise, I did not mean to suggest that Black Liberation Theology has exclusive rights to Christianity, but that it was one theological story among many that is often underrepresented in our public theological discussion. Certainly no one theology has exclusive rights to Christianity, but so far, evangelical Protestant Christianity has dominated the spotlight. If we are truely a plural society, then we should encourage the expression of all religious viewpoints in their most edifying incarnations. This means that, as Christians, we should hold these views accountable to Scripture and critique tendancies toward sectarianism, but we should not silence them altogether.
As for the economic issues, I did not intend to suggest that the rich should be destroyed, but I do think regulations should be put in place to protect workers. This does not amount to bringing down the wage earners, but merely holding them accountable for the wages they pay. Currently, our minimum wage is far lower then what constitutes a living wage, and employers are slashing benefits across the board with no federal programs to make up for the loss. Furthermore, funding for education is classically unequal from district to district perpetuating the cycle of poverty for those unable to get out of poorer public school areas. The money to make up for these inequalities has to come from somewhere. Why should we not expect those who have benefited most from democratic capitalism to give back to those who have never had a chance to play the game? Social gospel is certainly not communism, as Kurtz would have us believe, but it does call for fair and just markets that create opportunities for all to have the basic health, education, etc. to try to make a life for themselves.
Bernard,
I’m sure you recognize the reference. The point being that without some non-negotiable principles, it is only about power. Those in power will always say they are “improving the lives of the citizenry,” so ultimately the only non-negotiable principal is the acqusition and maintenance of political power. You apparently find this “pragmatism” admirable, and I find it exactly the opposite. In the case of Obama, I see this as something that goes to the very heart of what he says he represents. The only changed circumstance is that when he made the pledge, there was no advatage to be gained in his acquisition of power. It has nothing to do with improving anybody’s life.
Grant,
You make my point. I am not a McCain partisan, at least as to this issue. It is instructive that that two of the great campaing reformers are revealing just what a bogus issue this really is.
Extending a helping hand to others has always been one of the biggest challenges of the gospel, and it will always continue to be. Our large pluralistic society increases that challenge for each of us as well as for those who serve us in government. Thanks for your response, Eric.
Obama’s refusal to take public funds sounds great until one realizes how uneven the playing field will be for McCain!
By bogus issue, I mean that the campaign finance movement has been largely driven by a desire to create a system which would neutralize the opponent’s advantage. The first set of “reforms” were promoted by the Dems and many Republicans because they advantaged the incumbent. In recent years spending limits were supported by Dems because the GOP was routinely out-raising them. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, this liberal’s attitude about this formerly critically needed reform is, not so much.
I am all for pragmatism when it is based on responding to changed facts that undermine the policy basis for a former position. The long overdue discussion on off shore drilling is a great example. It is silly to not consider this when it is based on technical and enconomic circumstances and assumptions that were current when everyone used rotary phones and 8 track tapes were the latest thing.
Obama’s acts are not a pragmatist’s, but an opportunist’s. He knows this is a two or three day story, and the press having made him a messiah are not going to dwell on his feet of clay. Given that advantage gained, that’s not much of a down side for him and he knows it.
All of the above simply demonstrates to me that Obama is a standard-issue Leftist politician. He is sort of like an African-American Jimmy Carter, but with an outstanding talent for communication. As for Iraq, I believe that he is already repositioning himself to not initiate an immediate troop withdrawal and negotiate a security agreement with Iraq’s overnment, should he be elected.
He will certainly not want to see Iraq descend into chaos and open civil warfare on his watch.
Sean: Please provide at least ONE argument for why Obama’s decision on public financing is problematic, especially given that his network of donors has avoided exactly what campaign finance reform sought to prevent, namely, the disproportionate influence of large donors on elections, and has achieved precisely what public financing sought to achieve, namely, the funding of elections by ordinary citizens.
I read McCain supporters on this blog saying tax payer funded campaigns are the ‘American’ way. I read, that for Barack to change his mind, after getting 1.5 million small donations is the breaking of a ‘non -negotiable principle’ and ‘pledge’ [read sacred vow] .. How did Repubs get from harranging us liberals about Welfare Queens to making McCain campaign virtuous by using tax dollars?
Ronald Reagan, in my view, was necessary to replace a Hamlet Jimmy Carter, who was unprepared for Washington. W’s father had his faults but his son dishonors an honorable father. Chaney/Bush have truly shown contempt for the American people, And the people have responded by overwhelmingly opposing them…
This is the issue.
Sean et al:
Sensible politics always involves a struggle to gain or maintain power, the power to lead a political society or some part of it. It is not a “no holds barred” struggle. Fraud and deliberate lying to one’s fellow citizens is always out of place. And the use of force, of police power, must always observe the constraints established by law.
The point of all politics, including the seeking of power, is the well-being of the political society. Who gains or holds the power is never wholly irrelevant to the society’s well-being.
Political leaders propose, enact, and administer policies and programs that, or so they claim, appropriately cope with the problems and opportunities that the political society proposes. If they are being sensible, they do not make the kind of promises that oblige them to keep them no matter what. Nor should we want them to make such commitments. We should want them to incorporate fresh evidence and advice into their leadership. The “you said x last month, but now you say not-x but y now” (pace Tim Russert) challenges run the risk of promoting a mindless “consistency” that amounts to saying “the new facts be damned.”
Today’s Washington Post carries an article describing the budgetary constraints that will confront whoever is the next president. I want a president who, regardless of his or her previous pronouncements, pays careful attention to the always changing economic conditions that the society has to cope with. Ditto foreign policy pronouncements. That is, I want a pragmatic president. And by the way, if someone can draw a bright line between pragmatism and opportunism in politics, I’d like to see it.
My grandfather used to tell me, “if something isn’t broke, than why fix it?” If referring to the short term financial assistance that payday lenders offer, things surely aren’t broken. In fact, customers highly appreciate payday lenders largely because, when used properly, they’re one of the fastest and safest ways out of a negative financial situation. Unfortunately, some people in high places don’t see it this way and are trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Several bipartisan efforts have outlawed the entire industry in certain states, to take aim at the whole industry. On November 4, don’t vote by party; vote for the one that respects our right to financial freedom.