The Full story behind Rev. Wrights 9/11 sermon

March 21st, 2008 by psdunc

The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon

Posted: 10:09 AM ET

- Roland S. Martin, CNN ContributorAs this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.

I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

ALT TEXT

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“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.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

His sermon thesis:

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.

This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.

So stay tuned.

Well, I have to say that if this sermon was given in my church I would hardly even flinch….

March 21st, 2008 by psdunc

Well, I have to say that if this sermon was given in my church I would hardly even flinch….

From CNN.com

The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon Posted: 10:09 AM ETAs this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.

I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“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.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

His sermon thesis:

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.

This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.

So stay tuned.

- Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor

The Audacity of Barack Obama

March 21st, 2008 by psdunc

Barack Obama makes me think.

Not just in a passing, superficial manner, but rather in a more contemplative, searing fashion–which I’ve done quite a bit in the past two days; at least as as much as the old bean will allow.  Every once in a while “words” can have that type of transcendent effect.  And I’ve come to the conclusion that I have just been made a witness to something historical; something transformational.

I hesitate to write the previous few sentences due to their self-evident ridiculousness.  In fact, I wanted to wait a while to digest things a bit.  Generally, I tend to avoid hyperbole by throwing up my semi-detached retro-ironic shield.  Usually, it’s OK for me to like something; even to think that something portends greatness.  It gets a bit trickier if I were, heaven forbid, actually moved by something.  My snark radar begins flashing.  But then add a dollop of widespread acclaim and I’m usually out in front leading the backlash.

Not this time.  This time, Barack Obama has actually pulled off an achievement stunning both in scope and execution.

“A More Perfect Union” was billed as a speech about race.  A speech that was supposed to be his version of Kennedy’s “Catholic” speech.  A speech to put the Jeremiah Wright controversy to rest.  That’s how it was billed.

I heard something different.  Something that was shockingly unexpected.  Something incredibly risky.

Sure, the speech did address the Wright controversy.  Sen. Obama spoke eloquently about the need to find common ground and push the discussion forward.  That part of the speech was moving and personal, but I’ve heard a variation of these themes previously from Sen. Obama.

However, the crux of the speech was squarely in the first few minutes.  This is the audacious aspect of the speech.  Audacious both for what it attempts to achieve, and, audacious in what it could actually deliver.

Although there are others, the four speeches or documents in American history that I am best able to call on when needed are: [1] The Declaration of Independence; [2] The U.S. Constitution; [3] The Gettysburg Address; and, [4] the “I Have A Dream” speech.  All four work on a continuum that leads directly to Sen. Obama’s address.

[1] The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration is merely that; a statement.  It isn’t law, but rather more of a permanent ideal–a Utopian target; particularly these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

[2] The United States Constitution

If the Declaration was the fuzzy Utopian moving target, the Constitution was the bartered embodiment of the “all men are created equal” ideal.  In fact the Preamble tells us precisely that: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.”  The Preamble neither grants nor prohibits any particular government authority, other than what follows, along with the amendments.  The Constitution thus sets forth a set of laws that, in theory, should help citizens in realizing the ideal–or not get in the way of realizing the ideal.

[3] The Gettysburg Address

Probably the most audacious political act in American history.  First, Lincoln began by citing the Declaration: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”  Lincoln then immediately pivoted to the events at hand: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated</strong></em>, can long endure.”

In short time, Lincoln invoked the principles of equality proffered by the Declaration and redefined the Civil War as a struggle to both preserve the Union and bring equality to its citizens.  Needless to say, this was a politically risky move.  Willmoore Kendall, who participated in founding the National Review, once wrote: “Abraham Lincoln . . . attempted a new act of founding, involving concretely that startling new interpretation of that principle of the founders which declared that ‘all men are created equal’.”

The “new act of founding,” according to Kendall, was contained in the passages that stated: “It is for us . . . to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

Lincoln’s notion was the continual approximation of the Declaration.  Thus, a nation that is conceived in an idea, liberty; and dedicated to a particular notion–that “all men are created equal,” enjoys a new birth of freedom in attempting to effectuate the founding ideal.


[4] MLK–I Have A Dream

This speech almost perfectly encapsulates what one hundred years of Jim Crow in the South had wrought.  This speech was more of an admonishment; a demand for America to pony up on its promises.  This particular passage does exactly that: “In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note . . . this note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note.”

Thus, the “Dream” is merely to ensure that the reality of American life more closely approximated the ideal–”all men are created equal,” on which the nation was founded.

[5] A More Perfect Union, by Barack Obama

Sen. Obama begins his address in the same manner as Lincoln and King, by citing those that came before him: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

“Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.”

But where Lincoln pivoted to the Declaration, Sen. Obama turns back to the Constitution.   He notes that the founders made real with the document the abstract ideals that all men are created equal.  This is the common thread that runs throughout the speech.  The equality gap that exists between the ideals on which the nation was founded and the reality that has existed under its laws.

Sen. Obama explicitly made this point when he stated that: “The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery.”  This mirrors Lincoln’s statement that: “It is for us . . . to be dedicated here to the unfinished work . . . .”

Again, the unfinished work is to bring the reality of American life, represented by the Constitution, as close in line as possible with the founding ideal, represented by the Declaration–or, “a union that could be and should be perfected over time.”

This idea of narrowing the equality gap in our institutions is expressly stated by Sen. Obama in the next few sentences: “Words on a parchment would not be enough . . . What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part . . . to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.  This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march.”

Barack Obama’s view of the Constitution is as a living, dynamic document that was written with enough flexibility to accommodate societal changes, when necessary.  It is a direct counter to the notion of originalism, which focuses on what meaning the authors would have thought the passage had when it was ratified.

But, Sen. Obama seems to do something even a bit more risky than this.  He seems to incorporate the abstract ideals into the literal text of the Preamble.  Therefore,  when we attempt to form a more perfect union, we do so by constantly attempting to close the gap between the abstract ideal and the actual document.  And it is this attempt that provides us with a new birth of freedom.

Clinton: I was really a advocate, but now I’m against it

March 21st, 2008 by psdunc

John Nichols Thu Mar 20, 1:59 PM ET The Nation — What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination — made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) — that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement? Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary’s heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that “her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA” and that “there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;” now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton’s campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?As she campaigns now, Clinton says, “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.”But the White House records confirm that this is not true.Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar — a put-in-boldface-type “L-I-A-R” liar.Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady’s recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion–promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House–that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

Facts About Obama

March 20th, 2008 by psdunc

As enthusiastic volunteers in the Barack Obama campaign for the Presidency, we have put together a list of facts about Barack so that you will know the truth about him. Please follow the links we have included for documentation of these facts. If you value the truth as we do, please spread this information via email, blog, or any other means, to everyone you know.

  1. Did you know that Barack Obama is a devout Christian? He has been a member of the same United Church of Christ congregation for 20 years, and was married there to his wife Michelle in 1992.
  2. Did you know that Barack Obama often leads the US Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance?
  3. Did you know that Barack Obama is a strong friend of Israel and has spoken out strongly against anti-Semitism?
  4. Did you know his grandparents from Kansas were part of the “Greatest Generation?. His grandfather served with Patton’s Army during World War II, and his grandmother, a real “Rosie the Riveter”, worked in a bomber assembly plant back home.
  5. Did you know that Barack Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one, before we invaded, even while he was running for the Senate, and knowing his opposition might be politically unpopular?

    “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” –Barack Obama, 2002

  6. Did you know Obama favors transparency over secrecy in our government? Did you know that Obama worked with Republican Senator Tom Coburn to pass one of the strongest government transparency bills since the freedom of information act? He’s calling it Google for Government and you can see the results at www.usaspending.gov. Sen. Obama has also released his own tax returnsfor public review.
  7. Did you know that after graduating with honors from Harvard Law School, Barack practiced civil rights law and also taught Constitutional Law for 10 years at the University of Chicago, one of the nation’s best law schools, where he was consistently rated by his students as one of their best instructors? Did you also know that he was the first African-American elected president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review?
  8. Did you know that Barack Obama is an outspoken advocate for women’s rights and has been a principled defender of the civil rights of women?
  9. Did you know that despite the grueling schedule of running for President, Senator Obama remains a devoted family man, making time to do things like pick out a Christmas tree with his wife and two young daughters, or hurrying home to spend Valentine’s Day with them? Did you know he hasn’t missed a single parent-teacher conference while running for President?
  10. Did you know that Barack Obama has a stellar environmental record, including having the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters (96%) of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican?
  11. Did you know that Barack Obama has been an elected legislator longer than Senator Clinton?
  12. Did you know that Barack is a member of all of these Senate Committees: Foreign Relations; Veteran’s Affairs; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security and Government Affairs?
  13. Did you know that Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become law, and has introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted since he joined the Senate in 2005?
  14. Did you know that Senator Obama sponsored legislation working together with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, to keep Americans safe by keeping dangerous weapons out of terrorist hands? The two senators also visited the former Soviet Union to inspect the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Sen. Lugar said of Sen. Obama, “He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future.”
  15. Did you know that Barack Obama is the only candidate running for president who voted against using cluster bombs in Iraq and the only candidate who supports banning the use of landmines?
  16. Did you know that, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama succeeded in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of police interrogations, gaining the respect and support not only of fellow legislators but that of the police, who had initially opposed the legislation?
  17. Did you know that Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all younger when they took office than Barack Obama will be?

During election season many emails are circulated about the candidates. Some are true, some aren’t. It’s often difficult to determine the truth. We encourage you to visit the following non-partisan sites that do a good job of fact checking the candidates.

http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/

Transcript and video link to Obama’s “Toward a More Perfect Union”

March 18th, 2008 by psdunc

art.obama.speech.afp.gi.jpg

Watch it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

Read it here:

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy.

Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution — a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.

What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part — through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk — to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign — to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together — unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction — towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.

I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.

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.

Don’t Miss

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, Rev. 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 Rev. 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, Rev. 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 Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?

And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, 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 20 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.

In my first book, “Dreams From My Father,” I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note — hope! — I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones.

“Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.

“Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish — and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety — the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger.

Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear.

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.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Rev. 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.

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

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.

We can dismiss Rev. Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

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

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.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.

But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination — where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments — meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.

That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.

What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it — those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.

That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations — those young men and, increasingly, young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways.

For the men and women of Rev. Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.

That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.

Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor.

They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.

So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation.

Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy — particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.

But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American — and yes, conservative — notion of self-help found frequent expression in Rev. Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Rev. Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

But what we know — what we have seen — is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope — the audacity to hope — for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed.

Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

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 O.J. 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 Rev. 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.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children.

This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st Century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for president if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation — the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today — a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, 23-year-old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was 9 years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents, too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time.

And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

advertisement

 

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Corporate Media Uses Rev. Wright as Excuse for Racist Remarks About Black Pastors

March 18th, 2008 by psdunc

Corporate Media Uses Rev. Wright as Excuse for Racist Remarks About Black Pastors By Scarecrow , Firedoglake
Posted on March 17, 2008, Printed on March 18, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.firedoglake.com//79952/If you wondered how the nation’s mainstream media would ensure that racism and religious militarism influence the next election, just watch MSNBC and ABC stage endless faintings about “Obama’s pastor problem.” America’s DC pundits are bullying a black candidate while making racist attacks on black pastors and churches, thinly disguising them as a defense of American civility and patriotism.

MSNBC spent Friday evening’s political commentary probing the adequacy of Obama’s renunciation of statements made by his Pastor Jeremy Wright, including those following 9/11. Obama has categorically rejected those sentiments, but that will not stop the Republicans and Fox News from replaying Wright’s comments to maliciously brand Obama as secretly anti-white and anti-American. But MSNBC was hardly better, running the headline banner, “Obama’s Pastor Problem” throughout the discussion.

Let us be clear. Barack Obama does not have a “pastor problem.” There is a problem, but it’s being framed as “Obama’s Pastor Problem” only because he lives in a country whose irresponsible media pretends that America does not have a “racism problem” and a “religiously driven militarism problem” neither of which can be honestly discussed in a Presidential campaign because we have a “corrupt media problem.”

As expected, Fox News obsessed over Reverend Wright , but ABC and ABC’s This Week, were not to be outdone. And who better to pontificate on what constitutes acceptable political speech by black pastors than the self-righteous team of Ruth Marcus, George Will and Mark Halperin, arrayed against the ever polite Donna Brazile. You can guess the rest.

Will asserted that Obama was probably lying because Will knows that anyone who sits in a black church will hear unpatriotic, un-American views. Halperin announced the litmus test for Presidential eligibility that if it can be proved that Obama personally heard views that might offend George Will, then Obama is [black] toast. When Donna Brazile tried to explain to her white panelists that it’s not unusual for black ministers to preach against the evils of racism and militarism in America, George Stephanopoulus ignored her and ask whether Obama should condemn Wright even further. Ms. Marcus happily added that he should.

NBC’s Meet the Press then repeated this sorry spectacle, with David Broder wondering why Obama didn’t do a better job of selecting a black church. Couldn’t Obama have found an “acceptable” black church whose paster refrained from uttering statements that David Broder would find offensive? Heavens, isn’t it obvious that all potential Presidential candidates should clear their religious affiliations with the Dean of Washington morality? What was Obama thinking?

And just as Brazile was unable to be heard by her all white panelists at ABC, so NPR’s Michele Norris (yep, similar pattern: 3 white men; one non-white woman) could not make the same point about black churces to the hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil team of Tim Russert, David Gregory and Broder.

Washington’s self-appointed elite punditry is suffering from a severe case of historical obtuseness and amnesia. They’ve forgotten that we fought a civil war because black people were kidnapped, kept and sold as slaves, and that the hatred about that conflict and it’s aftermath still manifests itself nearly 150 years later. Our arbiters of civil discourse cannot recall that white Americans lynched black Americans for decades, and nooses still show up every week; that Jim Crow was the law in much of the nation; that whites murdered Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, and dozens of others. It just slipped their minds that even today blacks have been systematically denied equal protection and opportunity, including the right to vote, and that the Republican Party still uses every ruse to disenfranchise blacks, while Bush appoints to the Federal Election Commission a man who specialized in such crimes while holding a key position in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

It does not seem to have occurred to the white DC pundit class that blacks have every right to be angry at America — and that condemning them for this anger is racist. Black and white pastors have every right to preach against these evils, even as they preach the Christian gospel of forgiveness and redemption. They carry an obligation to make sure this history is understood, contrasted against one’s moral/religious beliefs and against official denials and proclamations of piety, and not forgotten.

And they are justified in preaching against the militarism that has seen far too many blacks, whites and others killed and to rail against the jingoism and false patriotism that condone aggressive wars, torture, killing civilians as “collateral damage,” and worse. Pastors should denounce the religious fanaticism, bigotry and hatred preached by John Hagee and his fellow right-wing extremists, men whose screeds openly call for religious wars/crusades against Islamic nations and Islam itself, or who advocate for holy wars because they are deluded into thinking killing other people leads to personal salvation. If our religious leaders are not damning America for enabling these moral failings, why not? We all should

Politics and the Pulpitby

March 17th, 2008 by psdunc

Obama, Politics and the Pulpitby CHRISTOPHER HAYES

[posted online on March 17, 2008]

Imagine for a moment that you are pro-life. You believe that each abortion represents the murder of an innocent child. And as it stands despite protests and lawsuits and bills passed in the state legislatures, and organizing and marching and lobbying and petitioning, abortion in America remains legal and each year over 1 million innocent children are murdered. Yet America continues to stand idly by and allow this mass slaughter. If you were religious, you might think that God judged America harshly for this crime, for the nation’s continuing indifference, and you might even think that God damns America for its tolerance of a holocaust. It’s hard to imagine, though, that if a Republican presidential candidate were running for president and had a preacher with the views spelled out above, that it would cause much of a stir, or even register a blip in the brain-dead oscillations of the twenty-four-hour, scandal-cycle EKG. And yet here we are, five or six news cycles into an ongoing firestorm over a few seconds of two different sermons delivered by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Barack Obama’s (and Oprah Winfrey’s) Chicago church, and a man who Obama says “brought me to Jesus.” Just five minutes watching cable news coverage of the “scandal” and it’s hard not to conclude the episode represents just about everything repellent and degraded about the nation’s public discourse on religion, politics and race.

The first problem is that we’ve come to a point in American political life where a de facto religious test exists for the highest office in the land. Whereas a half-century ago, John F. Kennedy was forced by circumstances to deliver a speech reaffirming his inviolable commitment to the separation of church and state, and primacy of the secular political sphere over his private theological beliefs, this past year Mitt Romney, a Mormon, gave what amounted to the same speech in reverse. Telling the assembled that it wasn’t so much what he believed rather than that he believed. In other words, we’re on the same side in the holy war.

The problem for Romney, and the whole reason he had to give the speech in the first place, is that he’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a faith with a variety of beliefs that are viewed as eccentric, creepy or downright blasphemous by millions of the nation’s Christians. He was desperately trying to slam shut the Pandora’s box opened by our demand that candidates discuss the role faith plays in their lives. It’s all well and good to hear comforting platitudes about their prayerfulness, but once we step inside the church doors, we’re liable not to like what we hear. A cursory examination of any believer’s views is bound to yield legions of problematic beliefs. Evangelical Christians believe that anyone who has not accepted Jesus as his personal lord and saviour will be sadistically tortured for the rest of eternity, which means that each of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust now spends each instant from here to end of time suffering torture far worse than what they faced in Dachau or Treblinka. The Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain avidly sought and received, thinks that the Catholic Church is “the great whore” and that murder of Yitzhak Rabin was justified because it brought Israel closer to the fate God has chosen for it. There is more than a little wisdom to the old rule of etiquette that one ought not discuss religion at a dinner party.

But the right wants to talk about it, discretion be damned. So now, after years of Democrats being hectored for being insufficiently pious we have a candidate who speaks openly and genuinely about his Christian faith, and what happens? The man whom the candidate says brought him to Jesus is transformed into a political liability. The entire episode has a familiar Lucy-and-the-football quality to it. Four years ago Democrats, having been told they had to prove their patriotism and military bona fides, nominated a war hero, and what happened? He was promptly attacked precisely for his record of military service. It’s a rigged game.

When I asked a conservative friend how his pastor’s spiritual beliefs would stand up to scrutiny, he countered that the problem with Wright was that his sermons weren’t religious, they were political. (Politics from the pulpit! Heavens, no!). This is, if tendentious, also clearly much of what motivates the outrages. Alongside some mildly nutty conspiratorial innuendo, Wright was offering, in heated even, hyperbolic terms, a set of fairly standard left critiques: He said America is run by “rich, white people” which it is, that it has a gruesome history of oppression and racism, which it does, and he used the occasion of 9/11 to ask his congregation to consider for a moment the violence, death and destruction brought to innocents under our own flag, with our own righteous justifications.

After three decades of the mainstreaming of dangerous and reactionary viewpoints, though, even the mildest bit of left-wing radicalism is deemed toxic and taboo. So while Ann Coulter can call John Edwards a faggot, Grover Norquist can say he wants to drown the government in the bathtub, and a host of imperialists can foment an illegal and pre-emptive war based on lies, Barack Obama’s pastor isn’t allowed to mention that America has been throughout its history the site and cause of much evil in this world.

Ultimately, though, this controversy, like so many in American life, is about race. It’s telling that the issue of Wright’s views have percolated among the right-wing fringes for months, but it was only with the discovery of a video, and the images and sounds of an angry black man decrying racial oppression in the cadences of the black church that the media staged a collective freakout. The problem politically for Obama is that his campaign is built on the promise of racial transcendence and healing old wounds, and here’s his pastor picking at the scabs. Or, as a friend of mine put it, it turns out America’s black friend has a black friend.

But it is only through the most debased and perverse logic of racial guilt by association, whereby every black politician has to denounce Louis Farrakhan, that the the political views of a candidate’s spiritual mentor should have any truck whatsoever. If Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency is derailed by a few intemperate remarks that his retiring pastor gave to a church which did not even contain the senator in its pews, it leads one to think that Wright’s skepticism about America’s treatment of black Americans and a black presidential candidate is wholly justified. And if, of all things, it is his pastor’s heated denunciation of American injustice that undoes the candidacy of an African American with a legitimate chance at the White House, any conscientious observer could be forgiven for thinking: God damn America indeed.

Obama discussing Unifying America

March 16th, 2008 by psdunc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0srV-ZxSYg

Is America’s Self Image so Fragile that We Fear Free Speech

March 15th, 2008 by psdunc

I am fearful that it is not just media picking up and turning every inflammatory word and publicizing it, but an actual fear of free speech in this country at this moment in history. During the Vietnam War people were quickly labeled and targeted for their interpretations of our foreign policy. The Bush Administration has exacerbated that attitude related to the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the United Nations, the Kyoto Protocol etc., even to the degree of striving to legislate the removal safeguards on civil rights and privacy rights in this country.
Now it seems that Americans cannot speak what they see as the truth even to their own constituent audiences. Reverend Jeremy Wright is not advocating violence in the streets, he is not proselytizing succession from the union, he is not painting a two-tone picture of America. In fact he is attempting to lead his spiritual congregation to recognize what he sees as the structures of this world, and develop in themselves the structures that he understands as part of the spiritual world of Christian faith. It is no surprise to this blogger that he would say some things to a group of his congregants that might not be appropriate if said by a candidate for the presidency or even by him to a different audience. Is Jeremy Wright running for President? Would we assume that Senator Obama would absorb and mouth all the words said my Jeremy Wright because he attends his church and appreciates his spiritual leadership? Don’t people of religious faith learn a variety of things from their pastors, including the skills of weighing for themselves the inherent values of our dominant cultures and their own interpretations of faith? Do we not see Senator Obama representing his own world view all across this country, in front of all manner of audiences?

This is the same problem I see with the swift-boating of Geraldine Ferraro’s comments - made in a context of a paid speech in a particular context in which she was attempting to point out a process of history that included the idea that if she had not been a woman she would not have made the cut for Vice Presidential candidate herself. That attributes of gender and race play a role in our political world, no one would deny. Do we want our press and pundits and streetcorner critics to crucify her, label her remarks, cut her role out of the national political world because she said that Barack Obama’s racial characteristics are a factor in his current success? Can I separate my own support of Senator Obama from my deep joy and hope that finally this country can place a person of African heritage in the quintessential leadership role of our national body politic? I am a white middle-aged feminist — who by all the press accounts ought to be supporting Hillary Clinton– and have managed to think for myself and forge my own political ideas.

I see Samantha Powers caught on this same spear of repressive self-righteousness masquerading as political correctness and media hype. It is terribly sad to me that what we all know in our personal lives — how things we say among close colleagues, or in a moment of intense fatigue or frustration, or in what we believe to be a private moment –could be terribly embarrassing if broadcast in or out of context in public. Clearly Dr. Powers is a brilliant thinker, a strong advocate of America’s involvement in the world, a dedicated scholar and advisor to the person who just might be our next President. Is there a reason that her off-the-record-yet-published remarks ought to have cost this nation her expertise? Aren’t we cutting off our nose to spite our face here? Surely we know that Hillary Clinton is not a monster, nor would we take Dr. Powers’ words as truth. They were an expression of frustration with the opposition team’s tactics. The campaign has made all effort to remain polite, and respectful, even when intense pressures are at play on all players. Do we publicize locker room talk when we cheer the teams on the field? Isn’t that different than what a person says in front of the microphone after the game?

Of course when people display inappropriately prejudiced and harmful attitudes, we have rules and laws about expressing those views in public or directed towards others. But how do we sort out complicated ideas and fundamental attitudes without openly exploring their realities, possibilities and implications? In m opinion, none of these three examples fall into this category. We would not have made the progress we have made in this country without confronting some pretty unpleasant aspects of our own characters and politics.

When do the American people take a look in the mirror and see themselves? Only when they are looking their best all dressed up and ready to go to church? Only when they are doing self-effacing duty tending the sick and defending those who are obviously downtrodden? Can we not see ourselves as the complicated, multi-faceted group that we actually seem to be? Do we have to label ourselves and each other and then pretend that we are what our label seems to say about us? Just observing the process of the primaries and caucuses across this nation has brought many of our similarities and differences into the public view. If we weren’t so busy looking for ways to quantify ourselves in categories, we would be finding out even more about what American democracy must address in this new century.

This misunderstanding of ourselves seems at the core of our inability to accept real freedom of speech - or real democracy for that matter. It is usually fairly easy to arrive at a consensus if everyone already agrees. It is a premise of consensus, however, that if the parties do not agree there is a process by which they listen to each other, consider each other’s perspectives, attempt to see the point from various sides and arrive at a conclusion that can be supported by all parties. Can “white” America not see how the world might actually be experienced by “nonwhite” America? Can English-only Americans not see what a different world multi-lingual people live in? I truly believe that the vast majority of Americans do understand much about these differences and in fact cherish many of the attributes that make America such a wonderful diverse, vital and creative country.

To me it is not relevant to a presidential campaign whether Senator Obama’s local Chicago minister makes remarks about white oppression in our culture, or whether Ms. Ferraro comments about the role of gender and race in politics, or whether an exhausted campaign staff member says something off the record that gets on the record to sell media. This has been the fuel for inflammatory media coverage since the beginning of time, but to me what it offers is an opportunity to face our ambiguous responses to honest free speech. I am not advocating that people can speak without taking responsibility for what they say, but it is ridiculous to hold someone else responsible unless the speech was initiated and endorsed by that someone else. Senators Obama and Clinton really have had nothing to do with these issues. I see no need for them to renounce their friends and the people who have important roles to play in the way our country moves forward.

The monster is the willingness in this country to vilify others at the drop of a word out of context, or without admitting that there was a context. We might try modeling in our politics the respect for honesty and compassion for human behavior that we would like shown towards ourselves in our daily lives. Perhaps then we could actually support freedom of speech and a more realistic view of who the people are that will be building the American Democracy of this time in history.