Along with the Fox story about Rev. Jeremiah Wright (the now-retired pastor of Barack Obama’s church), ABC News is also running a doozy. Like Fox’s, this one includes a video — but the kickback here is going to be massive.
For instance:
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
As it happens, I see his basic point here. Our criminal justice system, generally, and the drug laws specifically, have negatively impacted black Americans profoundly.
If you are psychologically what you eat (as I wrote in the prior post), then it’s fair to say that what he describes in the first part of the paragraph has been part and parcel of the African-American formative diet.
What Wright was referring to is a real problem.
But along those same metaphorical lines, Wright’s damning of America suggests he’s been dining heavily on something toxic.
And then there’s this:
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.
Wright’s statements that the US brought 9/11 on itself is hardly a unique view (though his historical connections are pretty unusual). Personally, I think it’s a radically simplified, linear, and ultimately unhelpful conclusion, but the fundamental basis for that type of thinking isn’t fiction.
So — inflammatory rhetoric from a sometimes racially-hostile preacher means what, exactly?
Normally nothing, but — he’s been the head of Barack Obama’s church, and his spiritual advisor, for many years. To use the prior metaphor again, Wright’s world view has been part of Obama’s diet, and we (Americans) need to know how much affect this has had.
I firmly believe that Barack Obama’s feelings and views about race are precisely as he’s presented them — both on the campaign trail and in his books. However, I also think Obama’s going to have to draw very strong, clear distinctions between himself and Jeremiah Wright for the citizens of this country — much more than he’s thus far done.
And he needs to do it soon.
(Cross-posted to TMV)
Polimom,
You said:
“I firmly believe that Barack Obama’s feelings and views about race are precisely as he’s presented them.”
What forms the basis for this belief? How well do you know Mr Obama? Barack has been associated with this church and it’s arguably black nationalist tenets for over 20 years. Any possibility that he has successfully flown a false flag for his entire public life?
Sorry, but I believe that Pastor Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, along with Michelle’s “conflicted” views on race may be BHO’s political achille’s heel. He can publically reject and renounce the racialist and bigoted rhetoric of his mentors and supporters all he wants; how does he really feel? I don’t know… Do you?
belloscm — My initial reasons for liking Obama preceded his candidacy. Rather, they stemmed from his first book, “Dreams from my Father”. Have you read it? It is extremely illuminating, I think, into how Obama thinks about race relations.
That said — obviously, my judgment is based merely on reading and observation of his words and actions. I can’t possibly know how he “really” feels, anymore than I can know that about anyone, regardless of my level of knowledge or intimacy.
Polimom,
I have not read either of his books, although I’ve been tempted to buy them. My problem at the moment is that for all of the rhetoric that purports to transcend the paradigm of race, he still has Pastor Wright ( on sabbatical from TUCC until May )and he still has his wife.
It’s not what you say (or write), it’s what you do. See under Spitzer, Elliot.
So… I think you’re saying that staying married and still being part of the church are the judgeable actions? That they outweigh anything he’s written or said (or even less-importantly done/not-done in public service)?
And that Obama must be a hypocrite like Spitzer? (What were the signposts people were supposed to have read on Spitzer, btw, prior to this week’s revelations?)
“(What were the signposts people were supposed to have read on Spitzer, btw, prior to this week’s revelations?)”
Wrt his proclivity for prostitutes, none, of which I am aware. His questionable ethics and hypocritical tendencies, more than a few. BTW, I wasn’t making charges of hypocracy against BOH, I’m just saying that you never can tell about a person, can you?
OTOH, I think that Pastor Wright and Michelle O. may qualify as BHO talkin’ the talk and not walkin’ the walk “signposts.”
Oddly enough, I think that Michelle Obama is the one (of that couple) who shares Rev. Wright’s world view — at least to some degree. It’s obvious that her view of things is pretty centered up on Black America (though I don’t know that she’s onboard with the 9/11 or “damn America” shtick).
But you’re circling around what I see as a core piece of all this (and it’s directly related to the other post I wrote today about psycho-diets).
Barack Obama’s world view — by nature of his personal history — is not the same. I think there are some shared perspectives, but his ability to internalize the black and white experience (and they are, in fact, quite different in some respects) is real.
Which is why I think it’s so important that he clarify re: Rev. Wright.
I’ve only heard brief snippets of Rev Wright’s diatribe. I just heard someone on MessNBC say that Obama now says that he had no idea Rev Wright was such a nut. I don’t know if that’s an actual quote, but if it is, I applaud Obama’s directness.
I gotta say, though, that the little I heard doesn’t cause me to condemn Rev Wright. A big part of the job of preachers is to get you to look at yourself in the mirror, especially the parts you aren’t proud of. A preacher who doesn’t say provocative things is pretty useless.
As i have said, i really don’t have a basis for judging fully whether Rev Wright is a nut. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t suitable to be elected to responsible public office. So what? Let’s say Rev Wright IS a nut–does someone really want to try to make the case that Obama shares his views? Nonsense.
Enrico,
The issue isn’t whether Reverend Wright is a nut. The issue is why Barack Obama would–over a 20 year period–embrace the man. Wright’s rhetorical excesses do not all come from one sermon, given on a ‘bad’ day. He has years worth of this weirdness to his credit. Furthermore, these sermons are available on the church’s website. Hardly something that Rev. Wright felt the need to downplay, hide, or apologize for.
Obama found this man decades ago and embraced him as his spiritual guide. Wright married Obama. He baptized both of his daughters. Obama took his daughters to this man’s church each week to listen to the man’s sermons and views on life in the USA for black people. If Obama found Wright’s preaching “wrong”, why did he not–before he decided to run for president–show that by his actions? Instead, his actions say that he was comfortable with the Rev. Wright and his views. When a politician’s actions and words don’t align, in general, one should believe the message of his actions, not the words.
One of the main memes of Obama’s campaign is that ‘experience’–defined as years spent in Washington–don’t matter; ‘judgment’ does. He uses his 2002 opposition to invading Iraq as his proof of ‘superior judgment’. Because his judgment is so outstanding, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and let him run the USA for four years–because he will make ‘good judgments’.
For this reason, things like his long association with the Rev. Wright, or his 17 year association (and real estate dealings) with Tony Rezko, or his choice of Samantha Power as a key foreign policy adviser, all call in question that judgment he is asking us to trust. He himself has set the bar high; he needs to be able to clear it.
With a high level track record behind him, such hitches might be dismissed under the banner “we all make mistakes”. But if his (superior) judgment is what he is offering instead of experience, then the cumulative weight of the 20 years worth of Rev. Wright judgments, and various other ‘hitches’ is a fair consideration for the voters. Not a disqualifier, necessarily, but something to think about.
Ah. I see. Thanks for the information.