Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Barack Obama's sad litany of victims
If there is one thing I viscerally dislike about the political left, it is its recruitment of victims. As one of the luckiest and most advantaged people on earth I suppose I am a churl for feeling that way, but it nevertheless rankles me that the left works day and night to persuade accomplished and self-satisfied people that they are, in fact, victims. Is that really the way to build "self-esteem," which figurative mommies, nannies, and village organizers regard as the touchstone of a life with meaning?
Anyway, it bothers me that Barack Obama tried to get us to understand the Rev. Jeremiah Wright by defining African-American resentment in the same terms as garden-variety disgruntlement:
It is also notable that Mr. Obama situated Mr. Wright within what the Senator sees as the continuing black-white conflict and the worst excesses of racial injustice like Jim Crow. He dwelled on a lack of funding for inner-city schools and a general "lack of economic opportunity." But Mr. Obama neglected the massive failures of the government programs that were supposed to address these problems, as well as the culture of dependency they ingrained. A genuine message of racial healing would also have given more credit to the real racial gains in American society over the last 40 years.
The Senator noted that the anger of his pastor "is real; it is powerful," and in fact it is mirrored in "white resentments." He then laid down a litany of American woe: "the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off," the "shuttered mill," those "without health care," the soldiers who have fought in "a war that never should have been authorized and never should've been waged," etc. Thus Mr. Obama's message is we "need unity" because all Americans are victims, racial and otherwise; he even mentioned working for change by "binding our particular grievances."
And the cause of all this human misery? Why, "a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many." Mr. Obama's villains, in other words, are the standard-issue populist straw men of Wall Street and the GOP, and his candidacy is a vessel for liberal policy orthodoxy -- raise taxes, "invest" more in social programs, restrict trade, retreat from Iraq.
If I were more sanctimonious (and disingenuous), I would complain that this cheapens African-American grievances, which surely stand apart in their legitimacy from virtually all other outrages against groups. I will not do so, though, because I accept that Barack Obama is entitled to debase the victimization of an ethnic group to which he belongs and I do not. My complaint is this: Does it really "heal" the country -- the "wound" metaphor is another favorite of the left -- to persuade every non-black with a gripe that he or she also ought to be angry? How is all that anger going to do anything positive other than garner votes for the party that is not in the White House at the moment?
MORE: Yes, this post was a bit churlish. Obama's speech was, in many ways, an inspiring appeal to discuss race in America with the purpose of changing our society for the better. My gripe about victimization should not distract us from that. I certainly recommend that you read the whole thing, along with this commentary from Richard Fernandez:
The place to understand a speech is afterward, when the words have burned away, leaving only their lasting ghosts. And in that quiet it sometimes seems that the greatness of every real speech varies inversely to the largeness of its promises. All political oratory finally leaves us alone with ourselves. The greatest of speeches are those that offer nothing. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." Those that offer redemption -- at the pull of a lever -- are too facile to bear inspection. The best orators avoid that problem by leaving their listeners with a breadcrumb to accompany them in the silence. So Obama, like a good community organizer, closes his speech with a special, specific dream which everyone can transmute into his own; to bear away like a little cross we can carry to lend the moment authenticity.
He means, of course, Ashley and her mustard and relish sandwiches.
21 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Mar 19, 10:31:00 AM:
Churlish? Hell yes. Arthur C Clarke is dead but he'd long wished some folks could indeed test the more controversial reverse of the space travel paradox and go BACK in time, and then, perhaps, you'll see the seeds of churlishness, insouciance, arrogance, utter cluelessness planted in a soil of either blind or self-interested hatred, fear, power, violence (oops...yes for two centuries before the 1960s mobs and riots were a province of white folks, imagine that?!)...among other things.
I don't talk about victimhood because it makes no sense to but heads against the white wall of denial. Why fight with cognitive dissonance?
I suggest you stick to commenting on stuff you're only just all wet over--such as Iraq (including success therein, al Qaida and WMDs being there all along and other such nonsense) or Islam (I can tell who's a jihadi, who's just sympathetic and who just don't give a crap from the type of trousers they wear, the cut of a beard, etc.--can you?). You have no standing in this matter, as proven by your retreat behind the the usual dodge, wall, almost snide dismissal of what lay in the heart of this country even at it's birth.
Perhaps now Barack...and even Hillary and yes, John McCain (who doesn't seem to "cotton" to the attacks on Obama from TV wingnuts or bloggers) can start talking issues. I for one, am a tad bit concerned--not churlish, mind you--that folks like you are judging regular people as somehow defective for loosing their homes, or for mortgaging our economy to a REAL enemy like China (if the Tibetans were Iraqis, would you give a crap then?), or better still, finding some solace in the fact that a sixpack of Budweiser costs less than a gallon of milk and a gallon of gasoline (as we burn a gallon just to get to far-flung stripmalls from our gated communities to fetch the milk)...
...no...I'm not being churlish with you at all...
By 
, at
Wed Mar 19, 11:34:00 AM:
The greatest civilization the world has ever known and we are all "victims".
Yeah, I got that too.
Barak will not get my attention until he is able to explain why my son couldn't get a scholarship because all the money for "white people" had already been given out. I won't begin believing in his vision until he explains why I should support a system that denied me a promotion because were already enough men at that level. Affirmative action is discrimination, and hurting me so someone else can feel good about themselves is wrong.
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 01:19:00 PM:
"I don't talk about victimhood because it makes no sense to but heads against the white wall of denial."
Denial of what, praytell?
By Andrew Hofer, at
Wed Mar 19, 01:41:00 PM:
"Shut up", Mr. Chambers explained, followed with a tone-poem of garbled accusations. This had become his habit over the last few weeks. It was as if some set of neural pathways had collapsed, like a flan in the oven.
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 02:13:00 PM:
Obama is an inspired speaker, with great rhetorical skill. This speech, though, had one huge flaw that made it more and more irritating as time went by: it was a transperant attempt to change the subject, using race as a cover, and ignore the very real questions about whether or not Obama's views on American institutions are the same as Rev. Wright's opinions. Wright has clearly articulated his views, reprehensible as some might believe them to be, and Obama should tell us if he agrees with Wright or not.
For example, does he support the notion of "middle-class" assimilation? Wright explicitly does not, instead viewing assimilation as a threat to "black" society, never mind that it's the bedrock foundation of America's ability to absorb wave after wave of immigrants from countries all over the world. Does Obama support free enterprise? Wright does not. Does Obama support free trade? Wright does not. Does Obama support the right of Israel to exist and defend itself? Wright does not. Does Obama think America is the "greatest threat to peace" in the world? Wright does.
This problem you have isn't about "race" at all, Sen. Obama, it's about politics. Don't talk to me about race, tell me where you stand and what you think. And, don't change the subject.
By Andrew Hofer, at
Wed Mar 19, 02:16:00 PM:
This sums it up:
"The nagging questions remain. He's not merely "an occasionally fierce critic of US foreign policy." He's a man who believes that the US government was behind 911. He didn't merely say things that were "controversial." He accused the US government of deliberately creating AIDS and importing cocaine, in order to kill and injure black people. He didn't merely have political views with which one might "disagree." He held (and as far as we know, continues to hold) views that are vile, hateful, and by most lights, insane. I find this minimization and mischaracterization of the remarks to be utterly disingenuous.
As to the last graf, so what if he was a Marine? So was Lee Harvey Oswald. Who cares what other universities and seminaries he lectured at? They are no doubt the same ones that welcome Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky. And Ahmadinejad."
from here
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 03:28:00 PM:
The issue was Obama's judgement and Obama responded by announcing a start to a national dialog on Race.
Obama is more brazen pol than Spitzer, for example. If Spitzer was like Obama he wouldn't resign, he would start a national dialog on Marital Infedelity.
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 03:45:00 PM:
Yep ... he talked about his white mother and white grandparents who raised him, but skipped over the black father who didn't. He spoke of race and OJ, neglecting to mention that even many blacks believe what the rest of us do (that he really did murder two people), and he fanned the flames by race baiting. I think he's done.
Nice touch too talking about cringing when his white grandmother admitted she was scared of certain black men, or called them a "racial ephitet".
Obama neglected to talk about how much his people haven't done in 40 years of social programs, about violence in his own hoods, or anything that really matters. And he didn't explain how his spiritual leader of 20 years could be such a scumbag, and still be his spiritual leader. Just what does he believe that comes out of Wrights mouth?
Show me one black man who hasn't called another a n*gger, and I'll buy him a Colt 45 and Old English 800 to top it off.
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 04:12:00 PM:
Is that you Professor Chambers?
By honestpartisan, at
Wed Mar 19, 04:17:00 PM:
So all of these years when Republicans benefitted by white resentment, which they stoked, you were fulminating as well?
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 04:33:00 PM:
How does Hillary react to Rev. Wright's opinions? Does she agree with him, or is she willing to go down the list and condemn them one by one out loud and for the record, just as we are asking Obama to do? I have no doubt Senator McCain would be happy to do so.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Mar 19, 05:25:00 PM:
I heard Obama's speech as inspiring us to talk about race from only a limited number of perspectives.
Honestpartisan, I am not sure which stoking of white resentments you are referring to. Most accusations of such I have seen have been either A) utterances of fringe characters or B) surmised from being on the "wrong" side of legislative questions which have both risks and benefits. Be not quick with such generalizations.
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 09:37:00 PM:
If I squeeze O Mr. Chambers just soooo, the creamy R white insides come oozing out E of the prefabricated holes O of his black exterior...
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 10:37:00 PM:
I know it weas a long speech, but I think some of you must have fallen asleep. Does the following sound like an attempt to recruit victims?
"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."
Is the following an appeal to anger?
"...anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change."
As far as the complaint that Obama fails to give credit for American progress on race:
"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. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."
And re the suggestion that Obama dissed his grandma - I took the comment as a moving expressin of unconditional love. But then I'm just a bleeding heart. ;)
Huckabee said something today that's worth noting:
"I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."
- mattt
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 10:38:00 PM:
"Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely," he said.
NOT.
What he actually did in response to the reverend's vile remarks was to name the good pastor as his spiritual mentor and donate an extra $20K. What he did not do was tell anyone that he disagreed with the reverend's views... until it became politically necessary to do so.
The leftists who will nominate a democrat for president will be satisfied with yesterday's demagoguery. But the extraordinary popular delusion that propelled Obama's candidacy is now at an end.
By , at
Wed Mar 19, 10:46:00 PM:
He defended Status Quo Racial Politics.
Was this a speech that actually proposed real change, maybe audacious change? No.
Instead he essentially defended the status quo. And if you object to that characterization, then please take a look at how he ended his speech. Specifically the story he told about Ashley Baia, and the "Perhaps somebody..." sentence.
"There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there." "Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mothers problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice."
Would anyone care to argue that suggesting imaginary "facts" - "facts" that will anger certain racial groups - is not part of status quo racial politics?
Would anyone care to argue that the inclusion of an imaginary Hispanic slight was not an attempt to establish an "us versus them" sentiment (i.e., status quo racial politics)?
Lastly, could that story have been told without the imaginary racial slights? Yes. So why didn't he tell it that way - and why did he end his speech with this story?
By , at
Thu Mar 20, 01:08:00 AM:
How many blacks sold other blacks into slavery? and what about some of the middle east nations where they still practice slavery and the whips them as well
By , at
Thu Mar 20, 09:42:00 AM:
Mattt, do you really believe this is true:
Huckabee said something today that's worth noting:
"I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant."
Those comments describe a scociety that doesn't exist any more, and hasn't in a full generation. Moreover, these comments you evidently support are nothing more than racism with a modern sheen, a polished piece of something really ugly. "Cut some slack to people...", says Huckabee, and what he really means is "they're lesser people, and you shouldn't hold Rev. Wright to the same standards you would hold Rev. Huckabee". He would deny that interpretation, and he'd be loud about it, but how am I wrong really?
Wright is free to hold any political opinion he wants, and if he truly believes the US government deliberately seeded AIDS into the population as an effort to murder black Americans, he can say so.
But I'm not "cutting him any slack"; he's a nut pure and simple.
I'm sick of this whole discussion, and I've decided to believe, in spite of that deeply dishonest speech, that Sen. Obama does not subscribe in any way to this sort of kookiness. But the way he's dealt with the political fallout on this issue shows me he doesn't have a clue how to deal with really tough issues, and it makes me wonder exactly how committed Sen. Obama is to American ideals and institutions.
By , at
Thu Mar 20, 12:01:00 PM:
9:42 ... exactly. The average black man lives to be 30-ish in the big cities, where drugs and criminal behavior ends their life. That the 60s social programs for that, it made them sperm donors for welfare checks.
Sure that's not indicative of the lifespan of black men nationwide, but there are plenty who did not experience segregation or the type of discrimination faced until the GOP forced the Civil Rights Act to passage. Since then, America has continued to lead the planet to desegregation and equality. We've bent over backwards to let blacks who score lower enter the finest institutions in America, to advance faster than more qualified non-blacks in the military and corporations, and we've done it under the guise of 'equal opportunity'. Blacks have more to blame to their own predisposition to think of themselves as victims than non-blacks trying to hold the brother down.
I want to see Barack speak as a leader to young blacks, to discourage the life of crime, gangs, neck tattoos, drugs, single parenthood, victimization, etc. And I want to see him speak to the white part of himself, and hear him be thankful for what this great nation has done for him that his african grandmother's has not done for her.
He's done Hillary as solid though ... her stock is rising. Will blacks turn out and vote if she gets the nod? who knows. If they don't, the dems stand to lose big time. But unless Obama gets his story straight, he's putting McCain in the oval office.
By , at
Thu Mar 20, 04:47:00 PM:
@ 09:42...
John McCain, on the campaign trail in 2000, admitted to the press on the Straight Talk Express: "I hated the gooks. I'll hate them as long as I live." People offended by the term were asked (reasonably, i think) to cut him some slack due to his personal history. Do you think that was appropriate?
Wright says some crazy stuf, the AIDS bit most notably, and Obama was right to reject those comments unequivocally.
But, growing up Catholic I recall our parish priest going off the rails a couple of times from the pulpit on the subject of abortion, turning red in the face and telling us how God's judgment would fall upon a nation that allowed this kind of slaughter. On the teevee I see other preachers issuing similar loud warnings to a nation that tolerates homosexuality. Thomas Jefferson once said: "I tremble for my nation when I reflect that God is just."
None of them said the "D" word, but their meaning is pretty close to Wright's in that infamous clip....a clip which, I might add, was produced by sifting the most incendiary 30 seconds from 17 years worth of video and audio tape. Regular attendees at Trinity UCC, as well as the parent UCC, a mainstream, white-dominated denomination, have vigorously defended Wright and backed up Obama's statements that these brief excerpts don't reflect the tone of his typical preaching.
While I was shocked by and reject those comments, I'm inclined like Obama and Huckabee to cut Wright some slack for getting carried away at the pulpit and letting bitterness and anger get the better of himn, a couple of times over the course of a career, and weighing his overall conduct and contribution before dismissing him as a dangerous kook.
As for Huckabee's motivations, I don't know what's in his heart but I applaud the comments. I don't see anything necessarily racist in cutting somebody some slack because their present attitudes are influenced by past trauma.
By , at
Fri Mar 21, 12:28:00 PM:
It was a pretty speech. No, that's not fair; it must have cost him something to be so honest and I think I can see that now, after a few days of letting THE SPEECH roll around in my head.
Still, what kind of person would seek out the council of a Rev. Wright? I can understand working with such a large and influential ministry that does good work, but, ugh. All that craziness in the sermons. I would not have been able to sit through even one sermon such as that.
Sen. Obama, you confuse me. You seem like a nice guy - such a nice guy that you excuse even nutters for their nuttery. Blech.
