A More Perfect Union
Obama on race in the campaign and racial relations in America. Perhaps the most important political speech on race in America since MLK’s “I Have a Dream.”
Click "Digg It" to let Digg.com users know they should read this post!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Mark, couldn’t agree with you more. I didn’t think he had any chance of doing this…but he may have just got my vote with this speech.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Mark - I know this will come as a shock to you, but I don’t agree.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/19/obamas_speech
Wish you were still in Cville so we could meet for breakfast and discuss!
March 18th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
John,
I can’t possibly say how much I would rather debate this over breakfast with you than on a blog! Miss you something awful, you capitalist pig you!
First off, did you listen to or read the speech, John. I hope you did, instead of running to see what your favorite conservative pundits had to say first.
I’ve tried to stay away from reading what I feared would be the all-too-predictable spin of the conservative pundits trying desparetly to recover from Obama’s hit-it-out-of-the-park speech. I went and read Sowell’s article out of respect for you, John, and so that I could respond to your comment. Unfortunately, Sowell only confirmed my fears.
Obama showed tremendous integrity in strongly disavowing the statements of Rev. Wright while at the same time refusing to dump a friend he’s had for many years. The latter would be the conventional wisdom in a campaign, but Obama was gutsy and honest in his refusal to follow the “wisdom.” Sowell’s carping about “what did he know and when did he know it” comes off as petty and mean. Did Obama disinvite Wright from his campaign launch because he knew the man had said things Obama could not support. Sure, probably the case. But it is totally unreasonable for Sowell to act like Obama should have published in the NY Times the sordid details of why he asked Wright not to come. One of the main points in Obama’s speech was about how you can strongly object to a friend’s speech or ideals but not humiliate or disavow the friend. I think our friendship, though we are political opposites is proof of that, John. I obviously disagree with you strongly on political views, and might even cringe at some of the things you would propose as the solutions to society’s ills, but I would hope that I would never speak ill of you in public because of that. Sowell’s expectation of Obama to have done that before anything came out about Wright’s diatribes is petty and mean.
And I almost stopped reading (and probably should have) when Sowell called me a “useful idiot” of Obama.
Sowell’s article proves one thing: he and his ilk (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are so desperate to try to rescue some face from their disastrous underwriting of the Bush debacle, but they have nothing in their arsenals but slander and cynicism.
Obama’s victory in December will prove that every once in a while, hope wins out over cynicism.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
It’s terribly sad that Obama can entirely disavow the incendiary stuff from Rev. Wright, lay out the most important items for a real discussion on race, and all conservatives can do is ask silly questions like “What did he know and when did he know it.” We never actually get to have a real discussion on race in this country, because it always gets wrapped up in political sensationalism and media shock stories. Racism, accused racism, and “playing the race card” is TV that sells. Nobody wants to have the real discussion, because that’s really, really hard.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
From the speech:
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black†or “not black enough.†We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But 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 – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
More from the speech addressing the way the press has sought to use this “issue”:
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.â€
March 19th, 2008 at 12:09 am
“running to see what your favorite conservative pundits had to say first.” - Ouch!
I did listen to the speech, though it was painful (sounds similar to your ordeal reading Sowell’s article). You compared the speech to MLK’s “I have a Dream” speech. Coming from you, that definitely piqued my interest, though I don’t believe this comes anywhere close. King’s speech was inspiring and spot on. Obama’s was political.
Mark, the issue for me - Obama attended Wright’s church for twenty years. He claims he never heard, or knew about his incendiary comments. I find this very hard to believe. This is politics as usual - S-P-I-N.
I must admit that I am not pleased with the Republican candidate either. McCain is a democrat masquerading in an elephant suit. You liberals have a good shot this coming November.
Look forward to having you visit soon. I will save all my favorite books by the “Ilkings” - Hannity, Coulter and Sowell - and let you borrow them if you promise not to burn them.
Always your friend, no matter how crazy your politics get -
John
March 19th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Do save those books for me, John. I have a table with a short leg that needs something to prop it up. LOL
Fun bantering with you, as always. Isn’t it interesting how the two of us can hear the same speech and one come away inspired and the other saying, “SPIN”?
As to your repeating Sowell’s charge that Obama must have heard some of this stuff over the course of twenty years at Wright’s church, see my first quotation from the speech above. Obama addresses that head on.
“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”
Over the course of the speech, he notes that there are reasons, many of them good ones, why black spokespeople sometimes sound angry, and even exaggerate. He’s not excusing exaggeration or overstatement, just noting there are long-standing causes behind such emotion.
He goes on in the next paragraph to speak about the Wright comments that the press has wet its pant over in terms stronger than anyone on the right even used. He calls them “a profoundly distorted view of this country.” But then he answers decisively the kind of cynicism that says he should have turned his back on a long time friend:
“Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.”
But he did not because he knew a full-orbed person, a preacher who stood up for the poor and oppressed, a three dimensional man who could not be characterized by sound bites.
That is character and guts. That’s what we need in a president.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
A little C’Ville reunion at SJ!
John, what would convince you that the speech wasn’t just S-P-I-N and that it instead represented Obama’s carefully considered reflections on: (a) a meaningful relationship with a flawed person and (b) an honest assessment of the issue of race in this country? My sense from the right today (both on radio and online) is that nothing would convince them of this.
But if there is nothing that could convince them that it wasn’t just a set of words crafted for political gain, then (a) there’s nothing left to talk about and (b) the assessment of the speech is just the product of a pre-fabricated political ideology. As such, it is questionable what connection it has to reality. If someone can’t say under what conditions they would change his views–i.e., what evidence would lead him to change his mind–then the view isn’t one that is based on careful attention to the evidence in the first place.
Of course, this kind of thing isn’t unique to the right–the left does plenty of it too. But I think that reactions to Obama’s speech are a particularly clear instance of the phenomenon.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Was it my recent Mars Hill Audio CD or something else that highlighted a quickly disappearing (and absolutely absent in politics) virtue of loyalty? I listened to a good part of Obama’s speech tonight and was blown away by his willingness to put his political career on the line by staying loyal to his friend and pastor whilst denouncing a particular statement this pastor made. Maybe the loyalty is misguided, I’m not going to comment on that here - but the fact that a politician of all people will stand by and correct a friend rather than throw him under the bus speaks volumes to me regarding his character.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Something that struck me from the speech and reflection:
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
This is what bothers me. There is right here in his own statements a double standard. “Not once”? REALLY?! It’s not hard to go to the internet and find Wright flying off the handle on the pulpit - but off the pulpit and in person … not once?
I can understand not wanting to break ties with Wright. I can understand disagreeing with Wright. But this is flat-out defending him while at the same time offering up his grandmother on the altar of politics and race.
I can believe the story about his grandmother. I can forgive his grandmother because my instincts tell me that there is no malicious intent - but unwarranted and prejudicial fear and discomfort to be sure.
But Wright … there is no excuse to make. Obama is lying on his behalf in this specific instance. Perhaps not intentionally. Perhaps not consciously. Perhaps in an attempt to frame a larger issue. But the simple fact is that a pulpit is not a vacuum wherein you espouse ideology.
All in all, it’s a great speech. But this is politics, and it does seem to be a bit opportunistic. I know it was pretty much a damned if you do, damned if you don’t moment. I admire that he decided he’d try to take the bull by the horns. I can agree with a lot of what he says. But there’s a lot we don’t know about Obama, and it’s the subtle things like Wright vs. Grandma that disturbs me.
I have two fellows on my shoulders. One says to take him at his word and forgive his flubs. The other says to not trust him because what is there that we know to trust. I’m leaning towards the not trusting right now. Hanging grandma out to dry like that was pretty cruel in comparison to what he did for Wright.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Nothing like politics to bring all my old friends out of retirement!
Wow, Spencer. Out of all the people with whom I’ve interacted about this speech, you’re the only one who saw Obama as “hanging Grandma out to dry.” Funny how we can all look at the same text and see very different things. Whatever you think about postmodern critiques, they have a point about how we encounter texts.
In the context of the whole speech, I don’t think your characterization of Obama as giving Wright a free pass while punching dear ol’ Granny in the gut is accurate. Elsewhere in the speech Obama states that Wright, like many blacks who grew up under the conditions he did, was from time to time given to expressing his anger and frustration, and sometimes with rhetorical flourishes that were over the top. In the quotation you cite, Obama is not referring to those public utterances but rather to his personal conversations with Wright.
What is being made an issue, as John brings up above, is whether or not Obama ever heard any inflammatory pulpit rhetoric. It is almost certain that he had in over twenty years at the church. So the conservative attackers’ next move is to say that he should have publicly disowned Wright at the beginning of his campaign, if not before. Obama’s speech was, in part, a defense of why he has chosen not to sever his relationship with his long-time pastor, even if he has to denounce certain of that pastor’s public remarks in the strongest terms. It is about loyalty and friendship between friends who strongly disagree about certain issues. Kind of like you and me, eh Spencer?
As for poor Granny, Obama was making an analogy, and analogies should never be pushed to their logical extremes, demanding one-to-one correspondence between the two objects of the analogy (ask my friend Pete Enns about that one!). Listen to the whole speech. He in no way is saying, “Rev. Wright’s totally innocent, but that grandmother of mine, whew, she sure was a racist!” He’s making an analogy between two imperfect people, both of whom he loves and accepts with their imperfections. Rev. Wright has deep flaws, and his grandmother was not perfect either. But he still loves them both and will not turn away from them. He wasn’t equating Wright’s racist statements with Gandma’s fear of black men on dark streets, just making an analogy of loyalty.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I understand that, and is why I’m generally very positive towards the speech. It’s something that has needed to be said for a long time, and it’s something only a black man could say with any kind of general public credit.
It’s not the analogizing that concerns me. It’s the specific examples he used to show the discrepancy. It smacks of a lie.
His comments were (paraphrasing): “Wright was never a racist in my presence away from the pulpit - but my grandmother was.” I don’t doubt grandma was. I doubt what he says of Wright and his relationship with Wright in this regard is true.
That’s what bothers me - the defense of Wright. If you want to explain Wright, that’s fine. If you want to be friends with Wright, that’s your choice - it really doesn’t bother me. If you want to defend Wright at the expense of others … now I have a problem.