« Goodbye Blue Monday Weekly Concert Lineup | Home | 4th Annual Brooklyn Indie House: Call For Entries »
Our Collective Obama Moment: Let the Dialogues Begin
By Inquisigal | March 24, 2008
Design by the talented Everyone’s In Love With You
It’s been a mind-boggling week in the news, hasn’t it?
First we got whopped with the revelations about ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer and his top-dollar dalliances with wannabe superstar call girl, Ashley Alexandra Dupré. We barely had time to keep up with all of the provocative headlines and almost-nude photos in rags like the New York Post before the somewhat less sensational, but no less explicit news came out about ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey’s “threesomes†with his soon-to-be ex-wife Dina and a male, former campaign aide and driver. This groan-inducing disclosure barely made the rounds before New York’s new Governor, David Paterson, got sworn in, and within 48 hours of his funny, eloquent, inaugural speech, he suddenly unleashed details of his own sexual maneuverings. Though this was almost too much information to process in such a short period of time, I noticed that some thought-provoking chatter started to pop up on local radio shows, in the papers, and on blogs: what is it about powerful men in politics that makes them so prone to high-stakes infidelities? Should the wives of these men continue to stand by them in their moments of public humiliation, or is it time for political wives to distance themselves from the actions of their husbands? And, should the personal lives of our elected leaders be so intensely scrutinized as a means to determine whether or not these elected officials can be counted on to make sound choices while in office? Before we New Yorkers even had a chance to let these questions sink in, the media clobbered us with the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
It was interesting to note the difference in reception between the Spitzer situation and the Obama-Wright connection. Whereas Spitzer’s illegal sexual excursions and moral and administrational hypocrisy certainly solicited a lot of jeers from his current and past enemies, your average person on the street didn’t seem particularly surprised or riled up by the situation. In the case of the snippets of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons making the rounds on Fox News, talk shows, and on the Internet, however, a screech of anger let loose so ferociously that people’s opinions about Senator Barack Obama, and certainly Jeremiah Wright, were changed and formed in an instant. In my life, that meant someone close to me – who, prior to the allegations of Wright being a “hate monger,†had championed Obama’s campaign in words and a financial contribution – was suddenly railing about Obama’s racist pastor, and saying he was going to write to the campaign to ask for his contribution back. I listened to the audio of the short clips of Wright’s sermons, and actually didn’t hear anything that made me flinch. Plenty of people – scholars and conspiracy theorists alike - believe that the United States’ foreign policies – and bureaucratic bungles at home - played a large role in making us open to the kind of attack we experienced on 9/11. If Wright – or any American – is mad enough about some of the policies and practices employed by the United States government, it is his and everyone’s right, as protected by the First Amendment, to speak out about and condemn those policies in any language he or she chooses. Yet, sadly, even respected newspapers like the New York Times kept referring to Wright’s comments as “anti-American.†The “US of KKK of A†rant was certainly over the top, but again, if our greatest asset is supposed to be our democratic society, how is it that any time someone makes a legitimate criticism of the United States government or it’s policies, he or she is labeled un-American?
I immediately wondered how Obama was going to handle what quickly became an angry mob threatening to topple the potential of his presidential campaign. As an admitted supporter of that campaign, I assumed that team Clinton would take it to the streets with this hotbed of controversy, and I dreaded that Barack might take a soft shoe approach that would surely mean the end of “the audacity of hope.â€
And then came that speech.
We all know Barack “gives a good speech,†as he himself has joked. But what struck me most about the speech he made on Tuesday was not the denouncing of Wright’s most controversial quotes, nor the ample biographical information he provided about his former pastor, himself, and certain members of his family. What floored me was: first – that he did not kick his longtime friend and spiritual mentor to the curb, even though doing so would’ve been the expected, expedient political move; and second, and more importantly – that he attempted to share and discuss a complicated, compromised, but nonetheless important relationship in his life, and he illuminated and gave context to that relationship by talking about the long-convoluted relationship between blacks and whites in the United States. I, and many other people, were incredibly impressed by Obama’s ability to face a grave and possibly career-killing situation in such and honest and nuanced fashion, because it is the opinion of myself and many others that this country is in desperate need of a leader who can actually self-reflect, take responsibility for his actions, as well as start an intelligent, holistic dialogue about issues and situations that threaten our security at home - in our neighborhoods - and abroad.
Aside from the presidential race, I couldn’t help but start thinking about the many, many things that we all should start examining and discussing about our social culture so that we might be able to get over our knee-jerk reactions, fears, biases, and exclusivity. Why did so many people react so ferociously over the notion of a black preacher blaming white people and the United States government for the historic and not-so distant-past persecution of black people? And, conversely, why might black people expect to engage the understanding and support of whites and other Americans to further the goals of the civil rights era if certain members of the black community treat whites, Latinos, Asians, and homosexuals with suspicion and disdain? To broaden the scope even further, why are people so incredulous about Barack Obama’s claim that it’s possible to have gotten a lot of positive, uplifting things from his relationship with Wright, even if Wright has said or taught things that he – Barack – doesn’t personally agree with? Shall we take a poll of every single person who attends a church, synagogue, or mosque service on a regular basis and see if each person agrees with and supports wholeheartedly every single idea and word that exits the lips of his or her religious leader? Are we all so brainwashed that we blindly follow leaders without doing some serious thinking for ourselves? Are people of younger generations guilty if they attempt to form new and better ideas out of well meaning, but flawed past ones?
I am excited by the fact that Obama’s speech seems to have made it ok for people of all races in this country to start having a dialogue. Certain people outside of the black community needed to be educated about or reminded of issues and obstacles faced by the black community, and certain members of the black community needed to hear that white people, Hispanics, and other immigrants have some beefs of their own. This was a good start. I am eager to see where this might go. In New York City, and especially in Bedford Stuyvesant, dare I dream that in addition to discussing issues in terms of “blacks†and “whites,†might we start to look past mere skin color and open ourselves up to seeing who people really are – where they came from, how they grew up, what they do for a living? Might we talk more about economics, and stop making broad generalizations about people merely on the basis of skin color? Can we please start discussing the class similarities between various racial groups, instead of assuming black means “poor†and white means “rich?†When discussing the housing market, can newspapers, blogs, and people alike stop using the terms “pioneer†and “gentrifier?†Can we start thinking about what words like these really mean, what they say about both those who are using them, and those who we are being labeling as such?
With all these issues suddenly being thrust upon us in the past couple of weeks, we all, for certain, have a lot to talk about.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:08 am
it WAS an interesting week politically! honestly, as far as the sex scandals go i’m with alot of the people you mentioned… i’m less bothered by what happens behind closed doors in politicians’ personal lives unless a) i, as a taxpayer, am paying for it and b) it reeks of hypocrisy. the spitzer case is the one i have the most problems with, for obvious reasons.
as far as obama’s speech goes i was absolutely floored, amazed, and inspired by it. he spoke to the american public in a way that most politicians typically don’t. he spoke as if he was speaking to grown adults: honestly, candidly, and bluntly. i think he called on us collectively to address the racial divide and asked everybody to take responsibility, start acting, and really try to get past the us vs. them mentality that our nation’s past has helped foster. for a man who has built his campaign on the idea of change he has already started to deliver, if only by a call to action. additionally, i also think he handled the wright situation perfectly and humanly.
you mentioned that you were surprised that the clinton camp didn’t jump all over the wright controvery when it seemed as though a golden opportunity had resented itself. well, there are some that think that clinton might actually be more vulnerable than obama when it comes to “unattractive” religious affiliations. here’s an article in the nation about her bible study: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich
anyway, great read… looking forward to more of your blogs, inquisigal.
ps. if anybody wants to read his speech in text form: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031808A.shtml
March 24th, 2008 at 10:09 am
oh GEESH!
can the admins PLEASE remove my first comment? wordpress is apparently fucacted today. no need for redundancy!
March 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Sex will always be a titillating and easy “news” maker. It seems there will always be an apetite for it in the news, and humans will always trip up over the stirrings of their loins.
As far as Barak-nice guy, intelligent man, great speach writer(s). I AM surprised that this issue and video clip did not surface sooner. If nothing else, at theast this Hillary/Obama contest will fluch out whatever garbage the Republicans have in store for thier October surprises for either candidate.
I still aint drinking the kool aid though. Obama should have waited another 4 years for the presidency so he could know more about how Washington works so he can be more effective at actually making change, not just talking about it.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Laduchessa,
I love your first comment. Please leave it up! and I love the nation articles on the election. Inquisigal, I love your post! It’s so true that there is racial/economic diversity in the neighborhood.
Butchie, I used to agree re: BO, that he should have waited, but now I kind of think he’s the best option of the three. I heard that he wrote the speech himself. Can anyone confirm?
March 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
lina, my first comment was removed… but that’s ok because it was exactly the same as the one that’s up!
i, too, love the political dialogue here… kudos to inquisigal.
i heard obama wrote the speech himself as well. it wouldn’t surprise me… the sincerity and ease he spoke with comes with familiarity of the subject and speech beforehand. it’s usually easy to tell when somebody is reading a speech that they didn’t write themselves. exhibit a: our current president.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Butchie: I agree that it is good to get these things out in the open now before the GOP starts to go nuts.
I think I am being too cynical but would this been addressed had the allegations not been brought to light? If not, then was Obama only doing damage control and not really eager to address the issue over the long term?
I have to say that I am a little annoyed that the race issue seems to boil down to black and white. Is this really addressing the race issue in this country if we only talk about these two groups? Although the issues between blacks and whites does need to be addressed, I think it oversimplifies the various issues that all Americans face when it comes to race.
I guess we can only address one issue at a time and this is one that has been un-addressed for the longest time and seems to create the most tension.
Somehow I think this will only get resolved one person at a time and not as some national/collective discussion.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination a year ago.
Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.
Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?
No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them.
The cable news journalists who are playing the tapes of those sermons were not there. The tapes were on sale in the church itself. Obama knew that because he had bought one or more of those tapes.
But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.
There was no way that he didn’t know about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.
Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.
Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.
Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.
Best-selling author Shelby Steele’s recent book on Barack Obama (”A Bound Man”) has valuable insights into both the man and the circumstances facing many other blacks — especially those who were never part of the black ghetto culture but who feel a need to identify with it for either personal, political or financial reasons.
Like religious converts who become more Catholic than the Pope, such people often become blacker-than-thou. For whatever reason, Barack Obama chose a black extremist church decades ago — even though there was no shortage of very different churches, both black and white — in Chicago.
Some say that he was trying to earn credibility on the ghetto streets, to facilitate his work as a community activist or for his political career. We may never know why.
But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.
Yet the past continues to follow him, despite his attempts to bury it and the mainstream media’s attempts to ignore it or apologize for it.
Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people’s psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time — and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it. It makes a good story, but it won’t stand up under scrutiny.
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright’s words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.
Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
its refreshing to hear Bill is adding some rational thought to what had previously been a rah,rah, go obama forum, far from a dialog. i know bill will soon be branded a rascist or a mouthpiece for the RNC. But come on, lets apply a little thought to this situation..and if wright’s words don’t make you flinch than i think you should just keep drinking the kool aid that numbs you to this type of invective hate speech. GO OBAMA!! yeah right.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
it’s not a dialogue unless opposing views interact. that said, please continue to express different opinions and ideas.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Thanks for the compliment derwood. I welcome any opposing points of view which may help me understand the views of others.
Whatever one may think about Barack Obama as a candidate or as a potential President, his candidacy has brought something new to the American political scene.
Unlike Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton before him, Obama has not been running as a black candidate for symbolic purposes but as a serious contender who happens to be black.
Even after much of the media had gotten on him for this, Bill Clinton returned to that theme after Hillary lost the South Carolina primary big time, by saying that Jesse Jackson had won South Carolina before.
It is not that the Clintons are racists. It is just that they will use whatever they want, in order to get whatever they want — and the effect on the country does not bother them.
That was the hallmark of the first Clinton administration. There is no reason to doubt that this will be the hallmark of the next Clinton administration, if there is one.
If Hillary wins the White House, that will mean 16 consecutive years — and perhaps 20 — in which Presidents of the United States have come from just two families. Surely the country is not that lacking in political leadership.
Incidentally, those who have been shocked that John McCain’s age has been brought up as a political issue should brace themselves for the inevitable and repeated raising of that issue in the general election if Hillary Clinton is the opposing candidate.
Hillary herself will probably not raise the age issue but she has all sorts of surrogates who will, including the surrogate in chief, Bill Clinton.
At the same time, we need not let the radical feminists get away with depicting Hillary Clinton as representing some potential breakthrough for the independent woman.
When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of Britain, she did not do it by riding on her husband’s coattails. Neither did Indira Gandhi in India, Golda Meier in Israel or other women who rose to be leaders of their countries in other parts of the world.
The whole bean-counting mentality — the first woman, the first black, the first this, the first that — is an unbelievably irresponsible self-indulgence at a time when Americans may soon be facing nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
At a time like this, we need the best qualified people at the top, whether they are Asian-American women, left-handed Hispanics or whatever.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I don’t know, I think he gave a strong “love the sinner, hate the sin” message. And I can’t imagine anything more productive to say than that.
I mean, I am so white I am practically translucent, and I see a really good reason for a black person to at least entertain the idea that white people are oppressing him or her at least once a week.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to believe Wright’s hate talk, or that it’s anything less than victimology, but you’d have to have a stone for a heart not to at least empathize. I commend Obama for preserving that paradox, even though it wasn’t politically expedient for him to do so.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Preserving the paradox? i think he was trying to hide this hate monger as long as he possibly could..as to his own childhood in a privileged prep school in Hawaii, and his comments about his white grandmother, i dont know i am dizzy from all of this roundabout nonsense but if you like it keep drinking it up, drink it up!!! just remember if this was coming on the other side of the aisle, they would have mccain’s head on a platter. we would be discussing how proud we are that he has come to terms with his vile hatred.ha
March 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I disagree, Derwood, about McCain specifically. Talk about hatemonger-lovin’–he made a point of making nice with Jerry Fallwell and myriad other rightwing religious organizations that accused gay people of causing 911, among other things! Nobody has put his head on a platter for this, even though they should! He is actively doing what you are accusing Obama of doing. Does the difference between the two men’s actions translate for you?
Life is complex, and in America we make race stupidly, evilly complicated, and this helps no-one. I feel like you’re asking Obama to truncate reality. Reality is that there is a gulf between white people and black people. And that part of the gulf is talk like Wright’s. I don’t see how admitting that this reality exists = “hiding a hate-monger.”
The hate you speak of is everywhere. Wright is not the only black person in America suggesting that there is systematic political oppression of poor black people by whites, and there are just as many white people who openly tell their white friends that they became afraid because “they were the only white face on the train.” As my girl Madge says, you’re soaking in it.
My question is why you are blaming Obama for pointing the big picture out as the problem. I’m not drinking anything. He spoke to the problems I see every day as a white person who lives and works with lots of different black people, and who actively wants things to get less fraught.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:25 am
he wasnt “pointing out the problem” until it smacked him in the face..he compared his spiritual mentor to a doddering old uncle. im not a fool i see rascism on BOTH sides of the aisle i teach in the city..i have seen and heard everything, i have been called an f**in Jew bastard, by black white yellow and hispanic students..i am calling Obama on his own hypocrisy, i am not denying racial injustice and all of the other stuff.he should make up his mind is wright a doddering old fool or his spiritual mentor that is what i’m having a hard time understanding, i think that is a fair question.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
after hearing his statements, who else wishes Rev Wright would run for President? i know, i know …
March 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
and if you still want to believe what O has to say, listen to his wife, that should give some additional comfort..
March 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
“Wright is not the only black person in America suggesting that there is systematic political oppression of poor black people by whites”
I’m a 32 year old white guy born in Brooklyn, now living in clinton hill. Ive got an MBA, work a 9-5 job as well as run a small business in my free time.
Who the hell have I oppressed ?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am
i’ll tell you bill, if you arent going to vote for an inexperienced 1st term senator with an unknown past and highly questionable associations (i consider faraken highly questionable) than you are an oppressor, got it?
March 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I’m not calling anyone here an oppressor, and frankly I think it proves my point that saying
“Wright is not the only black person in America suggesting that there is systematic political oppression of poor black people by whites”
makes you two jump to the defensive position.
Just to be clear: I have been called a “cracker bitch” by more 10-year olds in the NYC schools than I can count. I am not saying that black people are good and white people are bad.
What I am saying is that Obama’s speech eloquently expressed the mutuality and the intractability of the problem of racism. You two are implicated. I am implicated. Wright and Obama are implicated. We all live surrounded by this extra gravity. I think he captured *that*.
You two are definitely proving that this is easily misunderstood and turned into a blame game, and that there are a lot of people who would rather see themselves as completely innocent and other people as completely guilty. I think that instead we are all responsible and all blameless at the same time.
I didn’t oppress anyone. In fact, I have been the victim of racism directed toward me as a white person in a black environment on many occasions. I also don’t know any black people who have actually been enslaved by anyone.
But I exist in a culture with a gulf between two kinds of people. And so I must care about why this gulf exists and I must personally work to minimize it.
And this takes as much self-control and strength of character as it must take your “average black person” (whatever that means) to ignore injustices (perceived and real) and resolutely resist blaming Whitey, as you two are (rightly) demanding.
I am merely saying that *everyone* has to tap into the strongest self they can be and rise above this–not just black people.
That’s what I thought the Obama speech was about.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
why do people always jump to that “well I certainly haven’t oppressed anyone!” thing? when did this flip take place? things used to be so far to the opposite it forced the NOI guys to say things like “when you say the white man is like a devil, i say ‘no, i am saying the white man IS the devil’” just to get our attention!
bill if you want to feel better about yourself, understand that it’s not personal. you might be the best white guy in the world, it doesn’t make any difference. the repercussions of racism reverberate throughout everything we do.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Jimmy, That may very well be the truth
But this “devil” isnt giving his vote to Obama. A few states on the far east and west may be blue, but Obama will realize quickly that the majority of the country is Red and the majority of the people in those states are the “devil”.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Deborah: when re-reading your post, I was struck by the word “responsible.”
What, exactly am I responsible for?
What I believe I am responsible for is is making the effort to see past what was, make a conscience effort to not fall into the traps of the past and move on. This is not denial of what happened but a recognition that it happened, it was not right, the past cannot be changed and the future can be what I want it to be - a more tolerant and understanding society.
That said, and the more I think about it, I don’t think Obama’s speech was driven by a attempt to deal with racism but an attempt to do some damage control. The consequences to all may be more beneficial, but I think his primary concern was political.
Bill: Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Nehru, a PM of India, so her assent to the top of Indian politics was due to her family associations. In fact, the leadership of the Congress Party in India is driven by blood relationship more than anything else. That doesn’t take away from her abilities as a leader, but it should be noted that she was not exactly self-made.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Newbie2: Yeah. That’s what I think I am responsible for, too. I agree with you.
And I agree with you that the speech was motivated by damage control. But I think it’s great that he used a bad situation as an opportunity to do something larger. I think that’s an excellent leadership skill. If Obama was going to begin and end at damage control, then he wouldn’t have made that speech, because the speech, obviously, was not very safe.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Good point, Deborah.