My immediate reaction to the speech is up at PJ Media. Generally, I thought it was thoughtful, well delivered, and brutally honest in places.
But I think Obama revealed more than he wanted to about exactly what kind of a candidate he truly is. Having eschewed labels like “liberal” for the entire campaign, the speech left little doubt that Barack Obama is a dyed in the wool Democratic liberal who sees blacks and whites equally as victims of “conservatives” and sees big government, statist solutions to our problems:
More than at any other time in this campaign, Obama forcefully and without qualification endorsed across the board government intervention in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. This includes the prospect of joining whites and blacks together in a “victimhood coalition†to fight the enemy.
And who might that enemy be? Generally speaking, it is conservatives who are at the bottom of every problem enunciated by Obama during his 35 minute speech. Not once did Obama blame government policies for the problems of African Americans, low and middle income whites, or any other identity group he wished to bring into his victim coalition. Government is not only blameless, but statist solutions are the only way to fix what ails us, according to Obama.
Obama spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain that the rage expressed by Wright publicly is echoed in private by most blacks, and that whites cannot therefore understand how important it is for Wright to be allowed to spew his hatred to give voice to that anger.
It should also be pointed out that Obama told an outright lie when he said several times on TV last weekend that he had no knowledge of Jeremiah Wright’s poisonous words until he began to run for President and that he was never in church when those words were spoken.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
The nuance here is breathtaking. Wright’s words were not “controversial.” They were a toxic waste of hatred of whites and hatred of America. I doubt whether too many ordinary Americans have heard their pastors or priests spew that kind of hate from the pulpit of a church.
In the end, as Ed Morrissey points out, the speech succeeded on a superficial level:
Did Obama succeed with this speech in containing the damage? It depends on the intended audience. This speech appears aimed at 795 specific individuals — Democratic superdelegates. Obama needed to show that he can address the racial issues in an inclusive manner, and walk the highwire with Wright by scolding him without alienating the black community. While the delivery was uncharacteristically lethargic, the content probably made the sale.Unfortunately, he left himself still vulnerable by stubbornly refusing to ‘disown’ Wright; if anything else more incendiary comes up, he will have to address this all over again. He didn’t inoculate himself against future revelations, which is one of the main purposes of these kinds of speeches. We’ll see if that gamble pays off.
Will any reporter have the balls to ask him what “controversial” comments he heard while sitting in church?
In spite of my doubts, I found myself almost being swept away by the speech. But a closer examination of what he was actually saying shows that Obama believes that the burden of improving race relations is primarily on whites – that we must allow blacks to give vent to their resentments and even their hatreds and “understand” where they are coming from.
If you think about it for a minute, it’s almost insulting. Obama is telling whites that we dismiss slavery and Jim Crow and 300 years of discrimination and oppression by not granting Blacks the singular honor of telling us we’re a bunch of redneck racists everytime they get offended. Doesn’t matter if they use such anger for political gain. We’re supposed to just shut up and listen and feel guilty.
If Obama were really concerned about bridging the racial divide he would have critiqued government programs that have contributed mightily to Black poverty and hopelessness. If he were really concerned about bridging the racial divide, he would have come out against political correctness which stifles true debate:
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.
Let’s just say that Obama didn’t build any bridges to me with that exaggerated and myopic statement.
To say that white Americans voted for Reagan because of welfare and affirmative action is so far beyond ridiculous as to reside in another sphere of reality. And given the opportunity, he embraced political correctness and defended it. Ironically, Obama sees PC as a way to start “legitimate discussions” of racial injustice when the entire point of political correctness is to close debate off with the liberal winning.
This speech will be chewed over for a few days. Polls will show he probably stopped the bleeding in his own party. But I will be looking closely at independents in coming surveys. I have a feeling Obama may have blown it with them by giving a speech that had some very positive elements but that ultimately may convince many people he is just too liberal to be president.
4:56 pm
Blacks have the right to shout out their anger and hatred of the people that enslaved them hundreds of years ago and whites have the right to go to the corner, shut up and take it? Almost insulting? Nothing “almost” about it, Rick. It was insulting.
Then he goes on the legitimize Wright by saying that it is nothing more than what is heard in other churches, parishes and synagogues every day and although we do not agree with the hate speech we tolerate it and continue to patron that church for 20 years? That is no more than a “I know I am but what are you” comment. And again, it is insulting.
This whole thing saddens me. It saddens me because I, and many friends of different ethnic and racial heritages, feel that this nation has made great strides in equality and that now we have a whole generation who cannot relate to the seperate water fountains, segregated schools and poll taxes. And because of that, the old hatreds would die the death they so deserved. Now, we learn that Black Liberation Theory is alive and well and festering new hatreds. How can hatred be eliminated when it is being preached from hundreds of pulpits all across the nation?
The man who says that he transends the old and represents the new shows that when the rubber mets the road, he plays to the crowd.
6:07 pm
Rick,
you probably are going to hate me for this article from ‘The American Conservative’ which makes some good points. However, it sums up some good points and you have to admit that the speech politically speaking was brilliant. I used to live in Detroit and I certainly remember plenty of black folks jumping on Coleman Young’s Soultrain who, in effect, really hurt black people. His speech was a welcome departure and his reaching out to the white working class clever.
Anyway here is the piece:
March 24, 2008 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative
The Right Choice?
The conservative case for Barack Obama
by Andrew J. Bacevich
Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse.
Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following:
* a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
* a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
* veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;
* a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
* respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;
* a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not.
The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans “safe,†he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.
Please use only a snippet of the article and supply a link. Reproducing the article in full is against copywrite law.
ed.
6:25 pm
No part of the Reagan coalition was about welfare queens? Please. Tell that to the children. I was there. Reagan worked that mythical cadillac-driving welfare queen, and he did it to get votes, and he got votes. I’m certainly not saying it was the sole or even predominant reason for his success. But it wasn’t irrelevant, either.
6:26 pm
Political correctness is obviously alive and well in the right wing, but it has to do with patriotism rather than racial sensitivity. A person has to be very careful about how he phrases any criticism of American society or government if he doesn’t want Republicans to freak out.
I personally think America is the greatest country in the world. However, I do occasionally get fed up with certain things. Let’s suppose, very hypothetically, that we had a fiscally responsible president, and I used the words “Man, I hate this country!” instead of “Man, I hate that the government just raised my taxes so we could attack Iraq!” Would that really mean that I hate everything about America? Definitely not. But I would certainly offend the fragile sensibilities of any staunch Republicans within earshot.
The comments of Rev. Wright do not affect me in any way. They don’t make me love my country any less, and I’m not worried that his parishioners will beat me up or overthrow of the government. And as a non-telepath I’m not convinced that they are representative of Wright’s true feelings about America, or the true feelings of his congregation. The guy was a marine, and that’s more than most people do to serve the country. The only reason his words are on the national stage is because of right-wing political correctness. Perhaps I should be more thin-skinned and easily offended, but I’m not.
As a preacher’s kid, I’ve met a lot of preachers, and they’re all a little kooky. Most intelligent people take what their preacher says with a grain of salt, even if they really like their preacher. I would suggest counting to ten and practicing what the right wing preaches about left-wing political correctness. I know it’s fun to be angry, but ulcers are a real drag.
9:12 pm
When a scion of the Black Hate America crowd cleans up his act to run for president, yet will not detach himself from the hip of the Rev. Wright, he has sent us a clear message. His cleanup was purely cosmetic. It is all there, boiling just under that placid surface and smooth delivery.
When he avoids telling us which of Wright’s nastiness he rejects (he leaves it up to us to identify the exact statements)and which he actually agrees with, one must conclude that he retains much of the thrust of Wright and Co. and reserves the right to bring Wright back to the party at his pleasure at any time.
The post itself is excellent!
9:12 pm
The vitriol serves what purpose? How does preaching that racist anger make anyone better and more hopeful and more likely to act in a positive way? What is the net affect of listening to that week after week, year after year? And repeating lies (e.g.AIDS being used by America’s white rulers to weaken the black community, etc.) and anti-Semitism certainly doesn’t condition one to join the larger society, does it?
No, Pastor Wright is a racist bigot who riffs off that foundation to undercut any possibility of a sense of attachment to this country for his parishoners. It is divisive and hateful and has no place in this country.
Obama has shown incredibly poor judgment in remaining associated with this man for the past 20 years and financially supporting the church that provides him the pulpit from which to spew his hatred.
9:33 pm
My offense about his speech is that he speaks as though he is speaking for ALL blacks when he refers to the inner feelings blacks have regarding whites & racial issues. We are not ALL harboring inner angst nor do ALL of us attend churches which preach the type of evil spewed from the mouth of his pastor.If I heard those type of comments coming from a church I attended, I’d leave & not come back. Did not most of our Presidents have spiritual advisors while in the White House? Who wants someone like Barack dragging Wright in the White House seeking advice from him regarding our country whom he obviously hates?
9:51 pm
rick, nice article, here and at pajamas. aaron what in the world did you just say? i mean really did any of it pertain to what rick wrote? circular talking and talking for 30 minutes without really saying anything is what obama did today. rick just pointed out what he thought were salient points and you got an ulcer. wright isn’t the problem, the problem is that the honeymoon is over for obama and his mantra of “change” is a flat out lie, he is now in the glass house and it is falling down around him. as for preacher’s kids how does that pertain to anything.
keep up the good work rick.
11:00 pm
Aaron-
Excellent point.
11:30 pm
*”I doubt whether too many ordinary Americans have heard their pastors or priests spew that kind of hate from the pulpit of a church.”*
Welcome to America, you must be new here.
1:44 am
As someone who is favorably disposed toward Senator Obama’s candidacy, I initially thought that he made a mistake in not approaching the current controversy over Jeremiah Wright / Louis Farrakan / Bill Ayers / whomever-is-next-in-the-we-can’t-attack-him-so-let’s-tie-him-to-someone-we-can-attack might be, in the same way that Republicans have over the years: change the subject. I thought that he should spin the issue toward the question of whether it is fair or appropriate to call into question anyone’s views not by examining those views, but rather the words and views of others with whom he might be associated. (The term “guilt by association” comes to mind.) I was wrong.
That was the most significant speech on race that has been given in this country since “I Have a Dream.” Whether he wins or loses, he said things that have needed to be said for years, and that we as a nation need to be talking about. Yet, I sit here and watch Fox News desperately trying to keep the focus on whether or not the speech reflects poor judgment on Obama’s part in not disassociating himself from Wright’s church, whether Wright reflects Obama’s secret views, whether the speech was merely cynical political maneuvering. And now here (on this site), I find outright mischaracterizations of what he said. For example:
“More than at any other time in this campaign, Obama forcefully and without qualification endorsed across the board government intervention in every aspect of the lives of American citizens.”
I would challenge the author to post the excerpts from the speech where Obama did any such thing.
Another example:
“Not once did Obama blame government policies for the problems of African Americans . . . .”
Not true. Quoting Obama’s speech, “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.” (emphasis added)
A further example:
“Obama spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain that the rage expressed by Wright publicly is echoed in private by most blacks, and that whites cannot therefore understand how important it is for Wright to be allowed to spew his hatred to give voice to that anger.”
Same challenge as above: post the portion of the speech where Obama said that it is important for Wright to be allowed to spew his hatred. What he said is that Wright’s anger comes from somewhere, and that a societal examination of the reasons for that anger is the first step along the path of eliminating it. But no, let’s not do that. Let’s just keep focusing on diversionary issues such as whether or not Obama should have redirected his focus away from addressing the REAL problems that confront this country and instead spend his very valuable time condemning and dissassociating himself from someone who is only giving voice to the anger and frustration that exists in too much of the black community. Again, quoting Obama’s speech,
“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 within the African-American community in our condition, it 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.
. . . .
“We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.
. . . .
We can 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.”
Now returning again to the mischaracterizations of what Obama said,
“[A] closer examination of what he was actually saying shows that Obama believes that the burden of improving race relations is primarily on whites.”
Same challenge as above: post the portion of his remarks that even remotely suggest that.
“Obama is telling whites that we dismiss slavery and Jim Crow and 300 years of discrimination and oppression by not granting Blacks the singular honor of telling us we’re a bunch of redneck racists everytime they get offended.”
He did no such thing. Again quoting Obama’s speech,
“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 handed them anything, they built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And 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 prejudice, resentment builds over time.”
I’m sorry, but somehow I missed the part where he called, or even suggested, that whites who feel this way are “redneck racists.”
In closing, let me say that I spent St. Patrick’s Day with a leader in the Illinois Republican Party. As we talked, I was struck by how much we agreed upon, although I have to confess that I probably share more conservative views than he shares views that might be characterized as liberal. Implicit in Obama’s message is that people like my Republican friend and I should should stop demonizing one another and instead begin coming together to address the concerns that we have in common. But keeping the artificial division within this country going – keeping the focus of our attention on superficial issues such as what was said by some former leader in the black community (Wright has in fact retired from his pastorship at Obama church) whose time has come and gone, rather than seizing upon the leadership of someone whose rhetoric is so very different than that of Jesse Jackson and his ilk (when was the last time you heard a black political figure – and here, I’m not referring to “the usual suspects” in the person of black conservatives who have absolutely no legitimacy within the black community – calling into question the ultimate benefit of the welfare state for black people?) seems to be the goal of commentators such as Mr. Moran. And it may work.
For me, however, Obama’s speech pushed me off the fence. As a black man who has had a similar experience to Obama’s – for him it was having white relatives; for me it was having my best friend for 30 years be white (Jewish, in fact) – I know that his calls to accountability for our own contributions to the problems of the black community, and his calls for us to understand that there is more that unites all Americans than divides us, are long overdue.
My misgivings about Obama have primarily concerned his ability to win. Now, I no longer give a damn whether he can win or not. We have to try and elect someone who can bring us together, rather than continuing to divide us as Mr. Moran and similar conservative commentators would rather do.
His speech convinced me that, at long last, a different kind of leader has arrived: not a black leader, but a leader (of all people) who is black. This man is showing the potential of being a great man; along the lines of King, DuBois and Mandela; along the lines of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. Regardless of whether this great man can actually be elected, we have to try.
1:49 am
Uhhhh, didn’t Obama address this very reaction in his speech? You’re displaying the “white resentment,” and also resentment at being lumped together with the racist elements of American society which admittedly still exist.
The statement in full:
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.
(So far, so good.)
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. (I was just a kid, so I woudn’t know. It does seem like hyperbole though.) Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. (True. I do remember Willie Horton.) 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. (The first half I don’t know what he’s referring to, but I definitely know examples for the second.)
Ok, so you’ve done nothing racist in your life but I agree the white resentment IS there from being sneered at for being lower than dirt, just by being part of “The Man” when you’re nowhere close to “The Man” and if you were, you woulnd’t be where you are now! You’d be in the Hamptons drinking Scotch and bourbon while watching polo matches.
Look, it’s hard, really hard, to get the nuance (well, it was for me). Blacks complaining about racism in a shotgun style approach, lashing out anyone for “acting white” as if they’re selling out… I mean, Feminists do the same thing which drives me wild as well. But you have to take a step back and realize it’s not about YOU specifically, and being defensive doesn’t help that perception. This is why race is never brought up, certainly not in a political context. So kudos for Obama for trying to tackle it, something everyone really doesn’t want to talk about. So before you start harrumphing and snorting about Obama lecturing America about race, while you shouldn’t feel guilty about what your ancestors did, you shouldn’t feel exactly proud either. You could almost do the same thing with religion, or feminism, the genocide of the Native Americans, the Japanese concentration camps, etc. You can smugly point out the worst elements of each and accuse them of reverse racism against WASPy men, but really that’s not helping anyone. It just makes you feel better about yourself and makes certain that nothing will change, as Obama said. And any statement that we’re “beyond racism” is so facile that it’s not even worth addressing.
I’m sorry, this isn’t really very clear. But the main thing is it isn’t about YOU. YOU don’t necessarily have to change your behavior or feel guilty or insulted. Getting defensive reinforces the perception that you have something to feel defensive about. So, you don’t have turn the issue around, trot out your black friends, claim Willie Horton never existed and lash out against AA and welfare and all the bad/unhelpful things in the African American community. Obama said specifically against them:
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.
Just as much as he called out the white community, he called out his own black community too. Now, we can debate how much he did so, and whether he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too, but the fact he even said one damning thing about the black community shows how ballsy he is. I have never heard Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say anything similar.
Sorry this comment is kind of muddled. But I’m not trying to be an ass, I’m just thinking you might’ve fallen into a trap I’ve done before with my feminist girlfriends and black friends. =P
2:15 am
I cannot resist adding an addendum to my earlier post regarding Moran’s mischaracterization of Obama’s remarks, here as concerns the charge that Obama is “telling us we’re a bunch of redneck racists everytime they get offended. Again, quoting what he actually said:
“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.”
As I said before, somehow I have missed the part where Obama characterized anyone as “redneck racists.” To the contrary, he would actually seem to be saying not only that whites need to try to understand where black anger is coming from, but also that we blacks need to try to understand where white people have legitimate concerns with our concerns.
7:34 am
Senator Obama and Reverend Wright differ in only one respect. Wright openly admits his black master race and anti-American attitudes while Obama conceals them.
Michelle Obama, in spite of all the advantages she has enjoyed, only recently discovered pride in America.
Barack Obama has enjoyed similar advantages yet he could not bring himself to render the customary respect during the playing of our National Anthem.
Barack Hussein Obama is the Manchurian Candidate.
12:38 pm
“aaron what in the world did you just say? i mean really did any of it pertain to what rick wrote?”
Fair questions. I was commenting on the topic in general. I posted here because I like Rick’s blog.
8:09 pm
[...] Obama’s Speech a Call for a Victimhood Coalition [...]
1:23 pm
Watch Reverend Wright’s speech on YouTube. I think the clips we see on the news programs do not show the larger context of the sermons. After watching this I don’t see how any Christian (or other person of faith) could disagree with the larger point he is making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ