Obama's Race Speech

Having reread and re-pondered Obama's speech on race and his religious mentor, I still think it
did not go far enough but that there were parts that went farther than politicians usually go.

Obviously, Obama did not state , as I think he should have, that Wright was preaching hatred and using lies to arouse hate in his congregation. It is this preaching of hatred - of whites, Jews and America - that requires Obama to repudiate not only the ideas, but the man. That Wright did this in a Christian church, in all of which "love thy enemy" is basic doctrine, should have made Obama walk out the door. That Wright has acquired such a huge following among Christians should have moved Obama to reject not only the pastor but to express concerns about the congregation. Why did so many flock to hear these lies? Do they believe them or do they just want to enjoy the anger rush these ideas must bring on? No amount of good works can erase the distribution of so much vitriol. ( BTW it is a Catholic, not a Protestant idea that good works, er, work for salvation) Do they believe the words of Christ or just that the Bible includes passages about the oppressed?

I understand that, as a community organizer, Obama would have to work with the community institutions, including this church, but would that have required his membership and financial support? For a politically ambitious Chicagoan , one who did not share the history of that community, maybe so. Still, political expediency undercuts his vaunted "Change" platform.

"Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

and my father walked out and switched parishes. It took only a sermon in which the priest put renovating the church above educating the children in Catholic schools. Note that Catholics attend parishes by geography, not choice. We do not, in general, pick a preacher or a congregation. If you live in the parish, you go to the parish church. Granted, no Catholic Church I have been to in 49 years and several parishes has had a priest who brought politics directly into the sermon and I do not know if this is common in Protestant churches, but I know I would be more than ticked enough to walk out if the homilist started preaching politics. Even politics I agree with. One's political views have no bearing on the state of one's soul.

On the other hand, I liked this paragraph, in spite of the fact that it whitewashes "the remarks", omits Wright's name, and fails to mention that the intent of the "distortion" was to arouse anger and hatred.

"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."

This was a good line too:

"The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America. "

Perhaps if he could point to efforts he made to erase the ignorance and bitterness, I would not be so sure he should have walked out.

Many have complained about this passage, and rightly so as it equates one mentor who used his position and podium to espouse racism many times with a mentor who "once", in private, confessed a fear so realistic that even Jesse Jackson admitted to it or "uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes"on a few occasions. Point taken. On the other hand, when was the last time you heard a Democrat state publicly that he would not disown someone because of racist statements? Then again, Obama was the first presidential candidate to condemn Don Imus, so we know political expediency is behind both comments. I agree with the sentiment expressed. I agree that Obama is using it to manipulate us.

"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.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

Tremendously wrong equation:

"But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."

Wright did not merely "simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. He lied and used those lies to incite prejudice.

"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."

First, it is not now or never, but now is as good a time as any to take a new step forward on race. We must begin with acknowledging that Ferraro was right and not racist when she stated Obama would not have come so far in the Democratic nomination process if he were not black. Just as she, as she has admitted, was chosen for the VP slot because of her gender, Obama has been chosen by a large percentage of Democrats because of his race. If he had been white, Hillary would have owned the female vote, the black vote, and the "time to elect an oppressed minority" vote. It is also true that Obama did not, during his initial rise, use race in the old way Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did and still do. Obama "transcended race" by not being the "black candidate", so he also made strides because of his message and his speaking skills. He spoke of "hope" and "change" rather than "black issues", prejudice, hate , and fear. There is not enough difference between his and Hillary's platforms to energize so many Democrats to vote against the expected Empress. His message of hoping to change through unity would have inspired a few, mainly those who already disliked Hillary. His early supporters were not black leaders. Once he became viable he attracted 90% of the black vote and many black leaders noticed and jumped on the bandwagon. Considering that close to that percentage of blacks usually vote for the Democrat, it is not surprising that they would choose to vote for someone of their race when they do not have to give up their political positions to do so. If I were a black Democrat, I would too.

Obama could help the discussion, and in some ways I think he did. He did not do so early enough to make him a leader. I am not sure that if he had, he would have garnered so many votes, which would have made anything he said a waste of breath. Very few would have listened to or read his speech. There would have been no coverage of a speech made by a 10 percenter.

To be continued . . .