Another View on "A More Perfect Union"
I am going to say a few word's on Obama's most recent speech, "A More Perfect Union," the full presentation you can watch here or read the transcript here. I would love to hear your reactions. I find this speech and Obama's reaction to his former preacher's language a watershed moment in American history. I will present my understanding of the issue and open myself up for whatever criticism you think it entails.
My understanding is that Obama made this speech in order to quell (or at least address) the criticism he received for not distancing himself from his former preacher of 20 years (now recently retired). This preacher was a man who married him to his wife, baptized his children, and provided spiritual leadership for those two decades. This same man has also told his congregation that America deserved the terrorist attacks of 2001 (as the terrorist were merely "chickens coming home to roost"); he has called this country "the United States of K.K.K.A.," he has accused the "rich white" American government of creating HIV to kill black people; and he called upon God to "damn America" again and again.
To his credit, Obama states that he categorically and unequivocally condemns such language. He also understands that if this is all that people knew about his former preacher, he sees why they condemn him. However, he adds:
"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."
Obama then attempted to categorize the remarks and the man who made them by placing them in the context they were made, a context the media has been gracious enough to explain to us as the tradition of "Black Liberation Theology." Obama has explained that while the remarks themselves were wrong, they came from a man and a place where race and racial discrimination continues to be very much alive, and often manifest themselves in the anger preached from the pulpit of black churches.
Obama then called upon all Americans to bridge the racial divide, to recognize the continuing racial problems people of all colors face, to work together for a better America, and to focus on the real issues of the presidential race.
I found Obama's speech to be moving. I found the language to be eloquent. I found his call to overcome racial issues in America to be poignant and timely. But I found his refusal to completely disavow his relationship with his former preacher to be terribly irresponsible. I also found it to be telling of who Obama really is.
I see two ways of dealing with Obama's former preacher's rhetoric. The first is Obama's explanation: while his preacher's language was reprehensible, it is understandable and at least not wholly inexcusable given the racial legacy he faced and the continuing racial problems in America today.
The other side of the argument is that ultimately, there is no context, no explanation, no circumstances that justify, explain or condone such vitriolic anti-american hatred and lies spewed forth by this preacher on multiple occasions before hundreds (and now hundreds of millions) of people. And for Obama to attempt to separate his former preacher's comments from the rest of his ministry for whatever reason (particularly when there is no effort by his former preacher to disavow such comments) demonstrates the former's complete inability to comprehend this fundamental point. For him to dismiss the comments without dismissing the man demonstrates his inability to lead this pluralistic, multi-racial, multi-cultural nation.
Never mind the moral equivalence that Obama makes between the private fears of an old lady and the public hatred of a preacher. Never mind the moral equivalence he makes between this lie-spewing preacher and the ENTIRE black community. Never mind that this preacher is not a relic of the past but a man who continues to preach to congregations today (I just read an article about him being invited to give three sermons at another church in Chicago).
What kind of nation are we in that a top presidential front-runner -- and a man that tens of millions of my countrymen and women support -- refuses to disavow his connection with a man with whom he has the most intimate of friendships but who has cursed and damned America? And what kind of nation will we be if we vote into office a man who ultimately excuses such behavior as the unfortunate result of past and present racial injustices?
Obama continues:
"The profound mistake of Reverend 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."
Obama is wrong. The profound mistake of his former preacher's sermons is not that he failed to recognize the progress America has made in race relations. The profound mistake of his former preacher's sermons is that he knowlingly LIED to his congregation to stir up racial animus amongst his parishioners. And through his lies, he revealed such hatred and disdain for his own country and for people of another skin color, that no amount of rationalizing or explaining can change the intended portent of his words. No past history of racial discrimination justifies, excuses or explains intentional lies designed to stir up hatred and racial division. And no amount of rationalizing makes it OK to stand beside a man who has acted and spoken this way.
Why is no one talking about this?
For Obama to continue to stand beside this man and to refuse to "disown" him as the anti-american bigot that he is, he has made his actions communicate far beyond his eloquent speech. Ultimately, it leaves him only two real messages to the discerning listener. Obama has either elevated himself to god-like status by claiming to hate the sin but absolving the sinner on behalf of us all, or he has denigrated himself to embracing Wright's devilish rhetoric, despite his qualified condemnation. Personally, I'm not comfortable with a President of the United States of America who claims to do either.
My understanding is that Obama made this speech in order to quell (or at least address) the criticism he received for not distancing himself from his former preacher of 20 years (now recently retired). This preacher was a man who married him to his wife, baptized his children, and provided spiritual leadership for those two decades. This same man has also told his congregation that America deserved the terrorist attacks of 2001 (as the terrorist were merely "chickens coming home to roost"); he has called this country "the United States of K.K.K.A.," he has accused the "rich white" American government of creating HIV to kill black people; and he called upon God to "damn America" again and again.
To his credit, Obama states that he categorically and unequivocally condemns such language. He also understands that if this is all that people knew about his former preacher, he sees why they condemn him. However, he adds:
"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."
Obama then attempted to categorize the remarks and the man who made them by placing them in the context they were made, a context the media has been gracious enough to explain to us as the tradition of "Black Liberation Theology." Obama has explained that while the remarks themselves were wrong, they came from a man and a place where race and racial discrimination continues to be very much alive, and often manifest themselves in the anger preached from the pulpit of black churches.
Obama then called upon all Americans to bridge the racial divide, to recognize the continuing racial problems people of all colors face, to work together for a better America, and to focus on the real issues of the presidential race.
I found Obama's speech to be moving. I found the language to be eloquent. I found his call to overcome racial issues in America to be poignant and timely. But I found his refusal to completely disavow his relationship with his former preacher to be terribly irresponsible. I also found it to be telling of who Obama really is.
I see two ways of dealing with Obama's former preacher's rhetoric. The first is Obama's explanation: while his preacher's language was reprehensible, it is understandable and at least not wholly inexcusable given the racial legacy he faced and the continuing racial problems in America today.
The other side of the argument is that ultimately, there is no context, no explanation, no circumstances that justify, explain or condone such vitriolic anti-american hatred and lies spewed forth by this preacher on multiple occasions before hundreds (and now hundreds of millions) of people. And for Obama to attempt to separate his former preacher's comments from the rest of his ministry for whatever reason (particularly when there is no effort by his former preacher to disavow such comments) demonstrates the former's complete inability to comprehend this fundamental point. For him to dismiss the comments without dismissing the man demonstrates his inability to lead this pluralistic, multi-racial, multi-cultural nation.
Never mind the moral equivalence that Obama makes between the private fears of an old lady and the public hatred of a preacher. Never mind the moral equivalence he makes between this lie-spewing preacher and the ENTIRE black community. Never mind that this preacher is not a relic of the past but a man who continues to preach to congregations today (I just read an article about him being invited to give three sermons at another church in Chicago).
What kind of nation are we in that a top presidential front-runner -- and a man that tens of millions of my countrymen and women support -- refuses to disavow his connection with a man with whom he has the most intimate of friendships but who has cursed and damned America? And what kind of nation will we be if we vote into office a man who ultimately excuses such behavior as the unfortunate result of past and present racial injustices?
Obama continues:
"The profound mistake of Reverend 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."
Obama is wrong. The profound mistake of his former preacher's sermons is not that he failed to recognize the progress America has made in race relations. The profound mistake of his former preacher's sermons is that he knowlingly LIED to his congregation to stir up racial animus amongst his parishioners. And through his lies, he revealed such hatred and disdain for his own country and for people of another skin color, that no amount of rationalizing or explaining can change the intended portent of his words. No past history of racial discrimination justifies, excuses or explains intentional lies designed to stir up hatred and racial division. And no amount of rationalizing makes it OK to stand beside a man who has acted and spoken this way.
Why is no one talking about this?
For Obama to continue to stand beside this man and to refuse to "disown" him as the anti-american bigot that he is, he has made his actions communicate far beyond his eloquent speech. Ultimately, it leaves him only two real messages to the discerning listener. Obama has either elevated himself to god-like status by claiming to hate the sin but absolving the sinner on behalf of us all, or he has denigrated himself to embracing Wright's devilish rhetoric, despite his qualified condemnation. Personally, I'm not comfortable with a President of the United States of America who claims to do either.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home