Barack spins for survival

Obama on the campaign trail isn't practicing what he preached (pun intended) in last week's widely praised speech where he sought a more open, honest dialogue about race in America. Barack Obama was in North Carolina yesterday, giving a new version of his stump speech. The senator has apparently found the Lord, and wants to share with his audiences just how pure and mainstream a religious man he is. He's on a new strategy to downplay his 20+ year association with Reverend Wright of the Trinity United Church in Chicago. The four-part spin goes something like this:

(1) Minimize it: In comments to one crowd, Obama called this whole issue of Wright an unnecessary "distraction" from the real problems people face in this country. "We can't lose sight of America's real issues -- like the War in Iraq -- every time someone says something stupid".

Now, calling Wright's sermons simply "stupid" is, in my view, a significant back-track from the major speech he gave last week on the issue of race, when he rejected Wright's views and condemned them.

Obama also stressed that Wright has given three sermons a week for 30 years and that those opposed to his candidacy had found "five or six of his most offensive statements" and "boiled" them down to play over and over. "I hope people don't get distracted by that."

Why should people get distracted by the fact that the spiritual adviser to the presumptive Democrat candidate for President of the United States should blame white America for 9/11, the Palestinian problem and all the problems of blacks in this country?

(2) Mainstream it: Yesterday, Obama spoke of the Trinity United Church as if it were the most tolerant, open congregation in the country. "Everybody is welcome to come to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street. It is a wonderful, welcoming church," he said. "If you were there on any given Sunday, folks would be doing the same things in church at Trinity as they do everywhere else. They're praising Jesus. They've got a choir singing. It's a very good choir. And the pastor is trying to teach a lesson to connect scripture to our everyday lives."

Unfortunately, Obama stopped short of citing the specific scriptures that tells us that the U.S. government created AIDS to destroy the black community, or that introduced drugs into black neighborhoods.

(3) Backtrack from it: Though in his widely reviewed speech on Race last week Obama admitted to having attended some of the Wright sermons that were universally found offensive, yesterday he backtracked, saying that Wright had said some "very objectionable things when I wasn't in church on those particular days."

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "in" is...if it means "in church" as actually sitting in the pews, or if it means "in church" as in standing in the parking lot where he couldn't really hear the sermon going on inside. Bill Clinton would be proud of such practiced dissembling.

(4) If You Can't Beat 'em, Join 'em: In Greensboro, Obama's campaign staff has found the Lord as well, now using prayer before his events, something that began since the controversy over Wright and his remarks. "Thank you for this time of excitement and enthusiasm," a local reverend prayed. "I pray a special blessing, oh God, a special blessing, on Barack Obama." The audience was then led in the Pledge of Allegiance. And if there was any question that Obama is a religious and patriotic American, he ended his speech with a "God bless America."

So, the candidate who wouldn't wear an American flag on his lapel pin is now cloaking himself in both the bible and the flag at his campaign events. Does this not strike you as a cold and calculating way of actually avoiding that real discussion of race that he says he so desperately wants in America?

This strikes me as disingenuous, and I hope most of America will not buy what Obama is selling now: a "slick Willie" style attempt to triangulate his position and his beliefs, with an obvious hope that the public will eventually be so confused by the ever-changing position that they will simply remember the last thing that the candidate says.

We've had enough dissembling in the White House. It is time for some straight talk!

Obie didn't make the sale

Obama failed to explain how a church can harmonize Wright's "God damn America" with Christ's "blessed are the peacemakers." My own limited experience worshiping in a black inner-city church has been diametrically different. Rather than Wright's hateful condemnation of white people, the message at this church contained not a tinge of racial exclusivity. [Editor: That's from Mark Hillman's latest Capitol Review column. Here's the column in full.]

Obama not so different rationalizing race, Wright

"If you really believe black people are 'fellow Americans,' then treat them as such." - John McWhorter, "Losing The Race"

If Barack Obama truly wants to transcend race, he would do well to apply the words of John McWhorter to his "explanation" of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama is supposed to be different: a messenger of hope and change, not just another beltway politician; an agent of reconciliation not grievances and reparations; a unifier who transcends partisan and racial divides.

That's why many gave him the benefit of the doubt when he explained that he didn't wear a U.S. flag lapel pin because he viewed it as a "substitute for ... true patriotism."

That's why some gave Michelle Obama a mulligan when she said, "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

That's why Obama's rating as the most liberal senator in 2007 by the respected National Journal never seemed to resonate beyond conservative circles.

However, in addressing his 20-year relationship with Wright, whom he calls his spiritual mentor, Obama sounded like every other scripted politician snared by a public relations debacle. Obama's devotion to Wright peeled back the veneer in a way that voters of every stripe could not ignore.

If he was prescient enough, according to fellow travelers, to have foreseen the perils of war in Iraq, how can he imagine that Jeremiah Wright never talked "about any ethnic group in derogatory terms" in private conversations?

If he really possesses "judgment to lead," why wasn't his judgment as keen as that of Oprah Winfrey who left Trinity United Church of Christ several years ago?

If his oratorical skills are so remarkable, why didn't he explain how sermons referring to the "US of KKKA" or "a world ... where white folks' greed runs a world in need" can conceivably coincide with aims for racial harmony?

The insurmountable obstacle for people who previously extended to Obama the benefit of the doubt is that the aforementioned can no longer be easily dismissed as aberrations or gaffes. Instead, they fit more easily into a profile of someone who doesn't afford that same benefit to others.

If U.S. flag lapel pins are symbols of superficial jingoism, were we to ignore that Obama surrounded himself with at least a half-dozen full-size flags for his speech explaining his relationship with Rev. Wright? Equally conspicuous was the absence of trademark signs sloganeering for Hope, Change, Judgment and Leadership.

Absent, too, was evidence of the courage so often assigned to Obama. Few people who take their faith seriously would continue to attend - much less donate $20,000 to - a church where the pastor regularly punctuates his sermons with rants like those Obama described as "not only wrong but divisive."

The very public rift between the Catholic church and parishioners who disagree with church doctrine on abortion and gay marriage is a marked contrast to Obama's supposed silent disapproval of Wright's message.

Moreover, Obama's assertion that Wright's church contains "the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America" should be insulting to black congregations that, regardless of their political ideology, recognize that the universal message of Jesus Christ compels Christians to preach the truth in love and to embrace forgiveness.

Obama failed to explain how a church can harmonize Wright's "God damn America" with Christ's "blessed are the peacemakers." My own limited experience worshiping in a black innercity church has been diametrically different.

Rather than Wright's hateful general condemnation of white people, the message at this church whose congregants were almost certainly aligned to the political left was vibrant, both spiritually and personally challenging, and although socially candid, contained not a tinge of racial exclusivity.

Accepting Obama's contention that Wright's public pronouncements do not square with his private persona requires, to quote Hillary Clinton, "a suspension of disbelief."

Obama's white grandmother, he says, confessed a fear of black men and uttered racial stereotypes. But she did so privately. People are generally more coarse and unguarded on any subject in their private utterances than in their public pronouncements. Obama would have us believe that Wright said things from the pulpit that he would never say privately.

The candidate who would unify us by transcending race has, unfortunately, resorted to the same race-based rationalizations that perpetuate division and thwart hopes for a post-racial society.

"A person you excuse from any genuine challenge is a person you do not truly respect," McWhorter writes. Obama's desire to be elected appears to have surpassed his desire to be respected.

Post-racial claim belied by Obama speech

The current furor over Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright reminds me of another seldom discussed contradiction within the Democratic party: The self-described party of inclusion is obsessed with the divisive issue of race. As a conservative I am not surprised by this, because I have long accepted that the Left is deeply attracted to the narrative of victimization and oppression at the hands of "the man" -- whether that be white males, corporations, the "government" or others wielding power in our society. I've written numerous times about the "cult of victimization" that I see among liberals that essentially takes two forms: those who feel victimized by power and those who are part of the power class but feel guilty about it. Thus you see strange bedfellows on the Left -- poor blacks, illegal immigrants, union workers, media elite and Hollywood stars all in a messy millieu of fear, guilt, anxiety and prodigious amounts of anger. In this context, the reaction to Jeremiah Wright and the Obama speech that sought to explain it is both understandable and disturbing. Obama's ability to deliver a moving speech on the subject of race was an impressive act for a candidate who has excelled at being the "non-racial candidate". His speech was rich with his personal history and attempted to put Wright's sermons in a broader context. To his credit, he did go a long way toward repudiating Wright and the comments that have gotten endless play on YouTube:

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.

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.

Those "statements", you'll recall, relate a whole host of incendiary comments about how America deserved the attacks on 9/11, how whites created the AIDS virus as a weapon against the black community -- and on and on and on.

Obama is careful, however, to not repudiate Wright "the man", even if separating the man and the preacher is exceedingly hard to do:

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.

Thus, for Obama, Wright's comments and their acceptance in the black community are rooted in fear -- the same kind of fear of black men his white grandmother had expressed to him in the past. This gives Wright's hateful, angry speech a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve -- as if they are on par with the words of his beloved grandmother. It's disturbing double speak: Obama repudiates the views of Wright without actually repudiating the base sentiment, or the man who delivered them. He then goes on to cite a litany of tired arguments about Jim Crow laws and historical race discrimination -- all of which he uses to explain why the black community is so angry and distrustful for white America.

Obviously, much of what Obama says is true: there has been a history of slavery and black oppression in America. That is undeniable. The important question is: Does it really still exist to the level that blacks apparently believe it does? Not only is Jim Crow long dead, but so is "Separate but Equal" and other legal and structural barriers to equality. Those barriers were put permanently to rest by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark legislation that incidentally was sponsored by white Democrats and Republicans in the Congress, and was signed by a white southern president. Through Affirmative Action and other preferences, blacks have actually by law been given real systemic advantages over whites for over 40 years. In my view, there is a deep contradiction in the words of Jeremiah Wright and his brand of black separation theology and the plain facts that are clear to anyone willing to look honestly at this issue.

My own honest view of race, the black community and the Democratic party includes the following:

-- There is a gulf between the races in America -- but it is as much a creation of the black community and "leaders" such as Jeremiah Wright who are underwritten by the Democratic party, as it is a product of real white-based racism.

-- The vitriol of Jeremiah Wright and other separatists in the black community is rooted in the 1960s -- the anger of Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and other revolutionaries who lived in an age when real discrimination and racism was both accepted and sponsored by the state. But that was then. Today, the notion that blacks are systematically "kept down" by a "white America" is not consistent with the world we live in -- where a Barack Obama can go to Harvard and be within a hair of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States!

-- The core theology of Wright and other pastors in the black community is consistent with the race-based victimization mantra of the Jesse Jackson's of the world. In this way it is a self-fulfilling dogma that not only fails to empower, but also destroys the desire and ability of blacks in America to take individual responsibility for their lives -- and to join the mainstream community where education, jobs and prosperity are available to them. Why is it so hard to accept that if one black man or woman can rise to become an executive or a lawyer in America today, then that avenue is open to all blacks in America?

-- The broader Democratic party -- and white liberals in particular -- act to reinforce the notion of an ingrained, systemic racism in this country. The net effect of this is to give blacks and the black community a "pass" on both what they say and what they do. Nicholas Kristof, the liberal white columnist for the New York Times, wrote a piece after Obama's speech that illustrates this perfectly. For example, on the issue of Wright's remarks, Kristof basically acts to translate Wright's angry words that are clearly hostile to white America:

Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance.

So, for Kristof, the way to black self-reliance is through race-bashing white America. He goes on:

Many white Americans seem concerned that Mr. Obama, who seems so reasonable, should enjoy the company of Mr. Wright, who seems so militant, angry and threatening. To whites, for example, it has been shocking to hear Mr. Wright suggest that the AIDS virus was released as a deliberate government plot to kill black people.That may be an absurd view in white circles, but a 1990 survey found that 30 percent of African-Americans believed this was at least plausible. (Just as) many African-Americans even believe that the crack cocaine epidemic was a deliberate conspiracy by the United States government to destroy black neighborhoods.

Thus, Wright's words aren't the problem, nor is the misguided belief among blacks that there is actually truth to what he says. The problem is racism. It is white racism that causes blacks to do crack, to drop out of the free education they are provided, to destroy their neighborhoods and to foster repeat generations of black children in single parent households.

Liberals like Kristof won't dare mention the notion of personal responsibility, nor point out the obvious absurdity that giving Wright a pass on his rhetoric because others in the black community hold the same beliefs is pandering to the lowest common denominator. Such honesty would conflict with their own deep-seated sense of "white guilt" over the predicament that blacks are in. Apologize and justify -- that's the liberal solution to the race issue in America today.

The irony, of course, is this: white guilt that apologizes for black racism and that serves to further legitimize the victimization and self-segregation of blacks only serves to destroy their best hope for eliminating racial inequality: real assimilation. That is the message that Democrats and Barack Obama should be giving the black community. His speech on race and his handling of the Wright issue fell far short of that, and proves again that he is not the post-racial candidate he claims himself to be.

Walk in their shoes

(Townhall.com, Mar. 22) Imagine being told as a child: "You carry bad blood." Then imagine this stigma was placed on you by one side of your family, in reference to your heritage from the other side of the family. I honestly can't begin to imagine how that would have felt or what it would have done to me. But I think it would have marked me unforgettably. It would have stayed with me for a long time, even if I ultimately overcame it and went on to have a successful life and feel good about myself. Then try to imagine looking in the mirror as you're growing up, and having the whole society where you live send much the same message about your bloodlines and those of your relatives and everyone else who looks like you. I can't imagine that either. Even the effort to walk in those shoes gives me a stab of pain, the sense of a soul-deadening burden. These two scenarios describe, I believe without unfair exaggeration, the personal experience of Sen. Barack Obama and the collective experience of most black Americans for almost 400 years now. They've been on my mind since reading (not hearing) Obama's speech on race in American life, given March 18 in Philadelphia amid controversy over the Afrocentric, anti-American sermons of his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama didn't say his mother's mother told him in so many words that he carried bad blood. But that's the implication I take from his comments about the white grandmother's unthinking racial slurs and her expressed fear of black men. "That's me," the young boy might think. "That's my dad." Would it hurt? Would it stay with you? How could it not?

So I am not particularly offended, as many of my fellow conservatives have been, by Obama's mention of this experience in his speech. Rather I'm troubled by it. It stirs me. It takes me way out of my comfort zone, which is probably not a bad thing.

His implied equation of grandma's momentary private prejudices or bigotry with Rev. Wright's years of public rage and race-baiting does have a note of intellectual dishonesty that reflects poorly on the senator's fitness for the presidency. Yet that doesn't negate the object lesson we all have an opportunity to learn from this uncomfortable episode of the past week.

What we've seen and heard on the Trinity Church video clips -- the enthusiasm of the congregation, even more than the ranting of the pastor -- along with the constructive candor from Obama himself about seldom-discussed issues of resentment and stereotyping between blacks and whites, challenges us to walk in the shoes of African-Americans more empathetically than most of us (me for sure) may ever have done before.

And that again is probably not a bad thing, whatever you think of Barack's aspiration to the White House (I'm having none of it). What would be a bad thing is if we conservatives let this teachable moment slip away in a storm of self-righteous scolding toward the admittedly awful Jeremiah Wright and the admittedly confused folks who think he's on target.

People who are hurting tend to say hurtful things; anyone who's ever been in a bitter family or marital quarrel knows that. And you don't move toward reconciliation and healing in a toxic situation like that, merely by telling the other person (wrong as he may be) to grow up, get over it, stop being childish. You start by trying to understand, by walking in their shoes, and then slowly work back toward civil conversation with the emotional level dialed down. I can't see that it's any different in our multiracial American family of 300 million than in the blood families you and I belong to. Or is it? Tell me what I'm missing.

Let me repeat, just to be clear: Barack Obama is the wrong man to be President of the United States. Though brilliant and gifted, he is too far left, too inexperienced, and yes, too slippery and manipulative. All of those qualities, positive and negative, were evident this week in his speech on race. Michelle Obama is the wrong woman to be First Lady, and Jeremiah Wright is the wrong man to be visiting the Oval Office as spiritual advisor. Neither of them understands America well enough or, it would seem, loves her as she deserves -- warts and all.

But with that said, if these three fellow Americans of ours have provided the rest of us a chance to walk in the shoes of a long-suffering racial group that Lincoln warned would take centuries to knit back fully into our national family, it's too good a chance to miss. No matter what else comes out of the 2008 campaign, that could be one of this year's true blessings. Do as you choose, but I'll be damned if I'm passing it up.

Cross-posted on PoliticsWest.com