Friday, May 02, 2008
So What's the Difference?
So today we confront the question, is there or is there not a meaningful difference on substantive political philosophy, perception of white people and black people, perception of American government and perception of Judaism and Zionism between the two, and if there isn't, what does that mean for Candidate Obama?
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri May 02, 02:11:00 PM:
I'm not aware of any incidents in which Jeremiah Wright has pursued specific false criminal allegations, such as the Tawana Brawley incident.
I also find that Louis Farakhan has a particular sleeze factor that makes him a painfully obvious con-man.
Other than that, no, can't see much difference.
There's nothing good about Obama to read into any of this. Perhaps he is incredibly naive and an exceptionally poor judge of character. Or he is utterly cynical and lying through his teeth. In either case, he seems to delay making decisions and taking action until he is completely backed into a corner. Other than that, yeah, totally Presidential.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri May 02, 02:12:00 PM:
I noticed this quote from a reader at Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday:
"If you go to The Corner right now:
"- The number of times the words "health care" is mentioned: 7
"- The number of times the word "Iraq" is mentioned: 15
"- The number of times Rev. Wright is mentioned: 230."
Are you guys trying to break that record?
You better hope Obama is the nominee. Republicans haven't done well against the Clintons in the past.
By Donna B., at
Fri May 02, 06:10:00 PM:
I've never wanted to hear Obama disown Rev Wright as much as I've wanted to hear him disown Black Liberation Theology.
I do think that BLT owes much to the Nation of Islam as well as Marxism and it is deafening silence I'm getting in waiting for Obama to disown, discredit, dis-anything related to either one.
In what he calls "fairness" I fear there's a "punishment" mentality.
By , at
Fri May 02, 09:25:00 PM:
I've never wanted to hear Obama disown Rev Wright as much as I've wanted to hear him disown Black Liberation Theology.
People who aren't voting for Obama anyway can come up with an endless list of things for Obama to repudiate and reject and disown. Liberation Theology. Hammer & Sickle. Symbionese Liberation Front. Palestinian Maoist Falange. You name it. Doesn't matter, Americans are rejecting the politics of "guilt by association" this year.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri May 02, 09:36:00 PM:
Since when did you speak for Americans?
http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/16106143/detail.html
By , at
Fri May 02, 10:16:00 PM:
Short answer: probably not a "meaningful difference" between those two black Americans.
Long answer: the most significant "meaningful difference" is between blacks and non-blacks. The key challenge for MLK was to change to the minds of non-blacks, not blacks. And the genius of his key pronouncement was that the "color of [our] skin" was not what was important, it was our character. Framing his message in that matter resonated with groups who do not define themselves by race first - but who do define themselves by other criteria, like "character". For whatever reason the vast majority of black Americans do define themselves by their race first - and that is the "meaningful difference".
We will one day move on from the issues that are driven solely by race - if for no other reason than time and other events - however it is doubtful if blacks and non-blacks will be on the same proverbial page when we do so. For me that recognition is not about "right or wrong" - so much as a recognition of how the "doing the same thing yet expecting a different outcome" cycle is broken (i.e., a colorblind world does not "compute" for blacks). It is just a different framework to "slot-the-world" - and I can live with that, as long as the majority of us are not held to that framework.
By , at
Fri May 02, 11:13:00 PM:
That's kind of a trick question, I believe, pretending to ask one thing while implying another. Anyone who would suggest, even obliquely, there is no meaningful difference between the two doesn't know much about Mr. Farrakhan and/or has grossly misinterpreted Rev. Wright's remarks.
First of all, Trinity United Church is no Nation of Islam, and the blood of Malcolm X does not lie on the conscience of Wright.
Farrakhan did not give up his college student deferment to serve 6 years in the U.S. military and be part of a medical team that cared for an ailing, acting president.
Far as I can tell (if you know otherwise, citation please) Wright has never preached black supremacy or racial segregation.
Contrary to popular rumors, he has not made racist remarks (in the genetic sense), nor has he made anti-Semitic remarks. Come on, don't play the semantics game, anti-Israel does not mean anti-Semitic. For an example of anti-Semitism, play back Reverend Billy Graham's remarks with President Nixon. Those became public in 2002, but I haven't seen the Clintons (or other presidents for that matter) distance themselves from him.
Wright has never met with, or secured a $1 billion promise of support from a state sponsor of terrorism as Farrakhan has.
Now, the fact they have shared a lifetime of similar prejudices would necessarily predispose them to sharing a small amount of political philosophy, but not more than any other two old African-Americans living on the South Side of Chicago.
By , at
Sat May 03, 12:23:00 AM:
Doesn't matter, Americans are rejecting the politics of "guilt by association" this year.
Not even association with extreme ideologies? Does this mean we don't hate Illinois Nazis any more?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat May 03, 01:02:00 AM:
Wright is a demagogue, not a militant. Similar, yes, but not the same.
But CP has a valid point, in that Wright was a willing accomplice to Farrakhan in his Libyan expedition and *specifically* honored him for being a great person. That implies more than a slight ideological overlap, doesn't it?
However, Squealer.
"Contrary to popular rumors, he has not made racist remarks (in the genetic sense)"
I noticed that little caveat there at the end. Giving him a pass for declaring that white Christians are the devil and saying 'well that isn't *racist.* Genetically. It's just theological' is disingenuous. The inclusion of the label 'white' makes it racist. He didn't say Christians who think this, or do this, or non-Christians. He said 'white' Christians.
By Escort81, at
Sat May 03, 01:20:00 AM:
DF82 - Interesting poll. If NC flips for Hillary, it could start to get tougher for uncommitted supers to go to Obama in May (and he had his presser on Monday regarding Wright at least in part because of discussions with supers). Guess we'll find out Tuesday night.
Squealer -
Come on, don't play the semantics game, anti-Israel does not mean anti-Semitic.
That's a little like saying the Taliban weren't particularly anti-Buddhist when they blew up the Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001 under orders from Mullah Omar, they just didn't want any infidel idols in their back yard.
Here's a project for you: approach 10 of your friends who are mainstream liberal Democrats and who are also Jewish, tell them you really have serious misgivings about Israel (better yet, use the phrase "the Zionist entity" for 5 of the 10) and whether it should remain a Jewish state, and say it’s possible Jews should be permitted to remain in Palestine, and then see if they are still your friends. Then get off the hook by saying it was just a stupid test and that some joker posting on a blog put you up to it.
I don't have the opportunity to get invited to a synagogue very often, but I've been in a handful over the past few years, and each one has had an Israeli flag not too far from the American flag. There are a small number of American Jews who are highly critical of Israel (Chomsky, Finkelstein, Zinn) and many others who are moderately critical in an anti-Likud sense (that is, they would happily be part of the peace movement in Israel as Israelis -- meaning they are not anti-Israel), but a huge majority of American Jews have a strong identification with the State of Israel. I think you start to walk on very precarious ground when you make anti-Zionist statements (i.e., favoring a one-state solution, essentially demographic elimination of the Jewish State) in front of most American Jews.
All of that said, I can’t say that I think Wright and Farrakhan are exactly interchangeable, and machined from the same mold. Wright is to Farrakhan what Charles Lindbergh was to Father Coughlin. Kind of.
The wheels have not come off the Obama campaign (although a loss in NC would be a pretty flat tire), and I would still put some money on Obama being the nominee. Given how tough a year it is for Republicans – slow economy, an incumbent POTUS with Truman-like end of term popularity numbers, unpopular war in Iraq – the general election ought to be quite competitive. That actually should not come as a surprise, looking at the Electoral College map of the last two cycles.
By Escort81, at
Sat May 03, 01:28:00 AM:
Cardinalpark -
VDH summarizes why Obama gets a pass.
By , at
Sat May 03, 09:46:00 AM:
Paul Zrimsek:I noticed that little caveat there at the end. Giving him a pass for declaring that white Christians are the devil and saying 'well that isn't *racist.* Genetically. It's just theological' is disingenuous. The inclusion of the label 'white' makes it racist. He didn't say Christians who think this, or do this, or non-Christians. He said 'white' Christians.
The essence of Christianity is admitting to God that each of us (white, brown, black) is indeed the devil, and we are in need of a Redeemer. When Obama's pastor points to others as a group and calls them a devil, that is scapegoating other human beings, which usurps the role as scapegoat taken on by God's only Son. That is the theological error mentioned by Obama. There is also an undeniable racial element, and there is hatred. All of these things about Reverend Wright are on display by Reverend Wright. None of these things are on display by Obama, who insists America needs to overcome the collectivism of racial thinking. But righties insist that Obama must have this mindset after twenty years of listening to Reverend Wright. They deny the ability of humans to render their own judgment, and basically reduce humans to a series of groups being brainwashed by leaders. This is also a form of collectivism and is not a traditionally conservative trait.
By , at
Sat May 03, 12:03:00 PM:
Giving him a pass for declaring that white Christians are the devil and saying 'well that isn't *racist.*
Where does he say that? I wouldn't be completely shocked if he did sometime in the course of a lifetime, but I've searched the phrase many ways in Google and can find nothing.
What I meant by qualifying racisim "in the genetic sense" was to distinguish between remarks referring to African-American culture as opposed to a racial classification. So to describe African-Americans as different is not automatically racist (having particular musical tastes, for example) because he's talking about a distinct culture and not implying these differences are the result of shared, biological differences.
By , at
Sat May 03, 01:36:00 PM:
Sort of off the immediate topic, but I think GOP candidates are really playing with fire, picking up the Wright issue and using it in local campaigns (as Fox is reporting happening in North Carolina and Louisiana). If the GOP does this the candidates risk giving Hillary an opportunity to defend. Barack, thereby giving the Dem's the long sought way to unity.
To the GOP: stay away from this fight! No one ever likes the "third man in" any battle, and the Democrats are hungry for a way to unify. Do not give it to them.
Andrew
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat May 03, 02:57:00 PM:
Squealer: I read it in an article in March when this joker first appeared in the national spotlight. I can't find it now either because the internet is now flooded with thousands of articles about the guy.
Teresita: "But righties insist that Obama must have this mindset after twenty years of listening to Reverend Wright. They deny the ability of humans to render their own judgment, and basically reduce humans to a series of groups being brainwashed by leaders."
You continue to miss the point. It's not a question of "did listening to that for 20 years brainwash him." It's a question of "why did he listen to that for 20 years?"
There had to be a reason, and "well, he agreed with it" is at the top of the list of probabilities. So is "doing so was politically helpful." Somewhat further down is "his wife made him go."
So either he has faked an ideological belief system in order to help himself politically in Chicago, he really does believe in that system and is faking now, or he was drug into hostile, paranoid, twisted excuse for a house of god by the person who would be the First Lady.
It's not complicated.
