Wednesday, 03.19.08
Racial Realities
EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Praise for Obama
18 March 2008
Andrew Sullivan calls it "the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime."
Making the best of it
18 March 2008
Ross Douthat says Obama "made some sweet-tasting lemonade out of some awfully sour lemons."
It did the job
18 March 2008
Matt Yglesias says the speech was good enough to keep the nomination safe from Senator Clinton.
In the midst of rejecting his minister's broader critique of American society, Obama endorsed one crucial particular of Jeremiah Wright's political theology: Race is a fact, and it matters. With this speech, Obama effectively distanced himself from the "post-racial" label that many of his supporters have applied to him. Instead of suggesting that America should move beyond racial resentments, he argued that we need to confront them, acknowledge that both black and white resentments are "grounded in legitimate concerns" and respond to them. He was careful to dismiss the possibility that America can "get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy." But the tenor of the speech, and the directness with which it took on Obama's own identity as a mixed-race man whom others code as black, left the impression that Obama believes he carries on his shoulders a great responsibility to help break the "racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years," and expiate what he often calls America's "original sin."
It's worth noting that both Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, and Pat Buchanan, the vessel for white ethnic resentment in the 1990s, found Obama's speech persuasive and even brilliant. Perhaps this is because Obama recognized the reality of white racial consciousness too, and defended working-class whites who oppose affirmative action and worry about crime from the charge of racism. But even as he acknowledged the legitimacy of these resentments, he suggested - in a move that is typical of his campaign - that they should be addressed through liberal means. You may be right to be offended by affirmative action, his rhetoric suggested, but health care is where the real action is. The speech ultimately reads as a call to address the root causes of racial resentments, white and black alike, with government entitlements. Conservatives will ultimately reject that message. Independents may not.
Elder abuseBlack politicians don't sass their elders, John McWhorter writes, so it was bold for Obama to repudiate Rev. Wright. |
High and low pointsJohn Dickerson compares Obama's speech to a State of the Union address on race, and gives a mixed review. |
Not enoughMichael Dawson fears the speech was too little, too late for Obama. |
Denouncing ObamaVictor Davis Hanson says his speech was an "elegant farce" that dealt in post-modern moral equivalence. |
A gamblePoliticians "don't give speeches like the one Barack Obama delivered," James Carney writes. |
(16)
Obama made some good points on race in America.
For the millions of us who choose a good church to worship in, please explain why a Christian wants to listen to someone talk about crazy political ideas on Sunday morning.
Race matters but religion doesn't?
I think Obama made the point that those 15 seconds of video tape are not an accurate representation of his pastor. Perhaps we should look at the rest of the 20 years of his sermons before we judge so harshly. I'm not sure I would want my life to be judged on a 15 second clip of my worst moments. Anyone who would...please stand up?
Obama did something else, Marc. He spoke to us as adults, as partners in solving our nations problems, including race.
How refreshing.
The following quote is from April 11, 2007 as reported by ABC News: "In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television. "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude." " Double standards don't work for me. It's going to either be Hillary for me or I won't vote for the Presidency.
"Double standards don't work for me. It's going to either be Hillary for me or I won't vote for the Presidency."
LOL the only standards Hillary has are double.
Rich, you're joking, right? That's so wrong it's gotta be snark.
No, I am not joking and I am not being snarky. I don't see the difference. He demanded Imus be fired, not just suspended, for his racially charged comment but asks us to overlook that he kept Rev. Wright as his personal pastor and spiritual mentor and friend for 20 years. There is a definite disconnect between these two actions. It seems to me he has one standard for white people and one for black. Until he reconciles these two different approaches ina way that makes sense, he'll never get elected.
I see a difference. Don Imus never had to worry about lynch mobs, or being arrested for sitting in the front of the bus, or being firehosed for demonstrating for voting rights.
I don't agree with Wright's rhetoric, but I sure understand his anger a lot more than Imus's casual slur against people who caused him no harm.
I agree with Cheryl that judging this pastor on the basis of the short video clips as compared to his entire preaching career is silly.
We've seen maybe 5-10 minutes of a preaching career that spans 20-30 years.
If you think about it, if he's given an hour long sermon 50 weeks a year for 20 years, that's 60000 minutes of preaching. And we are going to characterize his entire career on the standpoint of 0.01 to 0.02 % of his sermons?
If every politician's bid for elective office was predicated based on 0.01% of stuff one of his/her supporters said, then no one could be elected.
Rich J., I don't think it's an apt comparison between Imus and Rev. Wright. You saved yourself a bit when you wrote "racially charged," as a lot of statements could be racially charged. Imus called these women "nappy-headed hoes," which I don't think was justified insofar as he didn't have a clue to support theories of their sexual wantonness. Sure their hair may have been out of sorts (as is likely to happen when playing any sport intensely). There were clear racial connotations in this instance.
Regarding the Reverend, I am STILL waiting for a line-by-line analysis of his words. You know, the ones that are so offensive. Since when was the statement "run by rich white men" racially inflammatory? Anyone can take the time to do a search of America's wealthiest companies and find that perhaps >75% of them are white males (I have no clue actually, so feel free to debunk my theory). They're all rich; that is undeniable. So what's to dispute? We could go on about the other comments as well. The AIDS thing is quite another matter and perhaps you could be upset about that insofar as it's only a conspiracy theory. Look on the bright side; it implies that at least white scientists are intelligent enough to craft such a wonderful weapon as this novel retrovirus.
Let's hear the whole speech. Better yet, 20 years of speeches, and go from there. An objective analysis, without parroting soundbites and snippets from YouTube.
To EW you didn't hear the so called Rev. Wright take the Lord's name in vain and damn America?
annie, you have it backwards. First, only God can bless or damn anything - not Wright or anyone other human being. Wright was pointing out that it was blasphemous to demand that God bless America FOR America killing and destroying other countries.
Let me refresh your memory. Right after 9/11, we had no shortage of white fundamentalist leaders claiming 9/11 was God's punishment for the 'non-religious' in the U.S. They were also declaring 'end times' were upon us and we were supposed to destroy the Middle East. Make it into glass (sand + nuclear bombs). And at the same time, they were demanding that 'God bless America'. Now do you see who was being blasphemous?
As for Imus, there was no basis in fact for his comments - only his desire to be a 'shock jock' and raise his ratings. He was libeling specific girls on a specific basketball team. The team was successful and younger girls were looking up to them as role models. And he trashed them. Totally. He didn't bat an eye, give it a second thought - and he has daughters himself. Go figure.
Rich, if Rev. Wright were a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host, and he said some racially insensitive things in his radio broadcast, then a comparison if this sort would be justified.
We'd all call for him to be fired, and we'd be somewhat justified in doing so, because he'd be on the airwaves, etc.
As it happens his constituency resides in his church, as opposed to the larger body of Americans who can tune into CBS at any time and complain that they'll boycott advertisers if they hear something that hurts their ears.
But your issue is that Obama did not call for Wright to step down. What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that Wright HAS stepped down-- he is no longer a pastor at that church. Can you state with any certainty that Obama did not say anything to Wright, or to others within the church leadership, that precipitated that retirement?
You might have noticed that Obama devoted a significantly greater amount of energy to publicly repudiating, and clarifying his differences with, Wright's egregious comments than he did those of Imus.
So it's sort of unclear what you think Obama should have done in this instance.
Where exactly is the "disconnect"?
"perhaps >75% of them are white males"
Among the Fortune 500, 4 have black CEOs and 10 have women CEOs. So, yeah, 97% is more than 75%. Seems that Wright might have some reason to take issue on equality there, no?
Why had he been lying, up to the time he gave the speech, that he had not heard "racially divisive" and "incendiary" (i.e., that which we call "racism" when white people say it) language from his pastor? Why did he lie that he had never considered his church as "particularly controversial?" (Isn't that part of the problem here? I don't need Obama looking inside my soul; I want to know what he's found in his own.
Funny how he only wants to have this "honest discussion on race" after these videos of his disgusting preacher hit the TVs. Before that, he was perfectly happy to sit in the pews of that Def Jesus Jam he calls a church.
Face it, Obama's "spiritual mentor" is little more than a christian Louis Farrakhan. Obama deserves to, and will, lose the general election and there is nothing his pitiful, bleeding-heart, black-racism indulging white liberals can do about it. Hillary must be apoplectic behind the scenes. LOL.
Excellent speech. Honest speech. Obama laid it all on the line yesterday for better or worse. I respect him even more for giving a speech of this nature with his back to the wall.
Posted by BLeigh | March 19, 2008 10:52 AM