Has Obama put to rest the Wright business?

[metalluk]

I am a Clinton supporter, but contrary to most posters here at DU, I try to look at the various issues relating to each candidate fairly and objectively. My overriding concern in relation to Senator Obama is his inexperience. My take on Obama as a person is that he is intelligent, principled, articulate, well-intentioned, honest (in higher degree than most people, if not absolutely so), and committed to bettering his country as best he can.

My take on the Dr. Wright business seems to be quite different than what I see being expressed by either those critical of Obama or his supporters.

A. An evaluation of some of Wright's more inflammatory statements

Since I work at a University in a liberal state, I have heard or read comments like those of Dr. Wright on various occasions coming from various faculty or students. I am myself a Democrat (with liberal persuasions on some issues and moderate positioning of some others). I try to examine each issue on its own merits rather than simply adopting a position that matches a particular political label.

Wright Statement #1: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God bless America’? No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America.”

My take: As it happens, I am a pharmacologist and drug abuse expert, so I can speak to this particular item with a degree of knowledge and experience. Wright's statement, in this case, is a mixture of some genuine issues and some hyperbole and paranoia. I infer that he is referring to illicit drugs because of the subsequent reference to prisons and sentencing laws. The first part of Wright's statement, "The government gives them the drugs," is simply absurd in relation to illicit drugs. Illicit drugs are distributed by drug traffickers operating outside of the law. The government is in the business of suppressing illicit drug trafficking, however ineffective their efforts might be at times. Were this reference to tobacco instead of illicit drugs, there would be some truth to this first part of Wright's statement. Tobacco companies sometimes concentrate advertising in minority communities because the advertising has more effect on average where people are less well educated. The government in America has failed its citizens by not making illegal the advertising and promotion of tobacco products (as in both the UK and France).

The part of Wright statement that reads "builds bigger prisons" is a just concern. Approximately one in ten black men in America are imprisoned and most social scientists understand that this statistic has a lot to do with a relative lack of opportunity for minority individuals. The third part of the statement, "passes a three-strike law," relates in part, I believe, to a legitimate concern: penalties are sometimes unfairly tougher for drugs prevalent in minority communities (e.g., crack) than those used in upscale white communities (e.g., cocaine HCl). Crack and cocaine are the same drug in two different forms, so there is really no other reasonable interpretation for the penalty differential between the two forms of cocaine other than blatant discrimination.

The final part of Wright's statement above suggesting that blacks should sing "God damn America" is obviously inflammatory and accomplishes nothing constructive, but is understandable as an expression of black anger that is justifiable in large part. I disagree with the form that his anger takes, but I understand its existence.

A related Wright statement: "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

My take: America far too often perpetuates discrimination as well as exhibiting arrogance in the exercise of foreign affairs. It is deplorable. I, too, condemn American arrogance BUT, I see no reason for invoking the name of a supreme being in doing so. An excess of vitriol simply weakens one's point.


Wright Statement #2: “U.S. of K.K.K.A.”

My take: There is no question that black people in America still suffer from discrimination and racism. Progress has occurred in the last fifty years but much remains to be done. Wright's references to "U.S. of K.K. K.A." are attempts to succinctly express his perception, as a black person, that racism still flourishes in America. The essence of his point is valid, but he is engaging in a kind of hyperbole that is inflammatory. The racism that exists today in America is evil and pernicious BUT it is not as overt or immediately devastating as that which was perpetrated by the K.K.K. Furthermore, the phrase "U.S. of K.K.K.A." essentially condemns all Americans (excepting black Americans, I suppose, since they are the ones usually victimized by racism), friend and foe alike. Wright seems to have forgotten that many white people, in every recent decade, have supported the efforts of black leaders to advance civil rights. To condemn all white people or the entire nation is to practice reverse racism. Condemn racism, yes; condemn the entire country indiscriminately, no.

Wright Statement #3: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

My take: Again I agree in part and disagree in part. America needs to understand not only what drives our enemies but also the ways in which our decisions and foreign policies contribute to anti-American hatred. Most conflicts, whether between individuals or nations, involve provocative actions on both sides. Rev. Wright has a valid point to the extent that Americans have consistently exhibited an inability and unwillingness to understand, accept, or change the aspects of our foreign policy that are both immoral and inflammatory. Obviously, we can't change those aspects of our foreign policy that are moral and reflect justifiable concerns for our own security in a hostile world, but we must ultimately come to grips with the various ways that our actions in foreign countries are unjustly aggressive or exploitive. The problem with Wright's statement is that it is just as one-sided in its hostility toward America and its finger-pointing at America as are the views of most other Americans in denying America's contribution to world problems.

There is a particular irony to Wright's statements in this instance because he is guilty of precisely the same short-coming that he is decrying. He says that America needs to understand how it contributes to anti-American hatred by the unjust elements of its foreign policy. Rev. Wright himself should try to better understand how his use of flame words contributes to the hostile responses to his rhetoric.

B. To what extent is Obama tainted by the inflammatory excesses of Wright's words?

I personally do not believe that Obama is tainted by Wright's words, even if he was familiar with the more inflammatory statements. I also take Obama at his word that he was not aware of having heard these statements uttered in his presence. Obviously, people less charitable than myself are going to continue to pursue the issue and they may succeed in damaging Obama, but those attacks will be deplorable and will not alter my view of the man.

C. What if any continuing concerns should we have in relation to this issue?

In my opinion, Obama has a continuing problem in relationship to his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago. Although Obama disavowed the inflammatory statements of Dr. Wright (a step that was unnecessary for me, but certainly politically astute), Obama also stated, "Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good." The Trinity United Church of Christ has adopted the so-called "Black Value System," which was written by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. Here are the twelve concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System

Obviously, there is much about that list of values that is commendable. There's an emphasis on self-reliance and lofty aspirations. The issue – the only issue really – is the extent to which the value system focuses exclusively on the black community. Were a parallel doctrine implemented by a white church, I believe it would have to be interpreted as racist. For a church serving a minority constituency, especially one that has experienced repression and discrimination over the years, it may be less racist, but is it an appropriate value system for someone who aspires to be President of the United States?

The allegiance of the President of the United States needs to belong to ALL of the people, regardless of race, creed, gender, or ethnicity. Certainly, middle-class Americans might take some alarm from their President having pledged allegiance to a value system that expressly disavows "middle-classness." Does America really want a President with a unique commitment to the Black Community as opposed to all racial communities? Shouldn't a President have as much commitment to White or Asian families as to Black families?

The Trinity United Church of Christ also advocates that its parishioners adopt an African-centered point of view. Wright often refers to African-Americans as simply Africans. Does Obama subscribe to such a viewpoint and, if so, what implications does it have for America's relationships with the nations of Africa? What are the foreign policy implications? Shouldn’t an American President have an American-centered point of view?

In my opinion, these are the questions that America needs to be presenting to candidate Barack Obama – rather than what he knew of Rev. Wright's views. It is Obama we are considering for President, not Wright. Obama needs to either satisfy voters that the doctrine of his church is not inconsistent with the duties of the U.S. President or he needs to give up his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ or his pursuit of the Presidency.

[Johnny__Motown]

1. He did what he needed to do, but it will take time for this to fade.

[sueragingroz]

2. That is a great post and I agree with much of what you say

Unfortunately, not all voters are as reasoned or as nuanced or as informed or as liberal as you.

I wish they were!

[scheming daemons]

3. Too late to read all that.....but to answer just your subject.....

Yes.... I believe this story has less than 48 hours left as a REAL story....


Drudge has it buried already... the GOP wants to put it back in the bottle to re-open it later.


All the major news web-sites.... it's done already.... tornadoes and crane accidents....


...and Monday... EVERY worker in America will be too busy filling out their NCAA brackets to give a damn about this.

[lligrd]

4. You Forgot About Iran Contra - The Government Did Put Illegal

drugs out on the street. Wright is right. Now back to reading.

[killbotfactory]

9. It's true. Look up Ricky Ross.

Ross was sold Nicaraguan cocaine to help fund the Contras. He was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment. His dealer got a job at the DEA. The CIA knew about everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ross_%28drug_trafficker%29
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

[lligrd]

10. Yep, And Those Drugs Ended Up On The Street

which is exactly what Wright is referring to. I thought DUers would be aware of that.

[donheld]

5. To some, nothing Barack will ever do will be enough

to put this to rest, to others nothing Hillary will ever do will be enough
to put her shit to rest. Some will not sway no matter what happens. EVER.

[lligrd]

6. Sounds To Me Like You Just Wish The Race Issue Was Over

It is not and many people still are very angry about the way they and their families have been treated. I think they have every right to be angry and to express that anger verbally. Wright does not blame all white people, nor does he give all black people a pass. You cannot judge a man from a few outtakes and that is what Obama has been trying to get across. I happen to agree with that.

In fact, I am damn angry about what * has done to this country and I am sure some of my remarks would be seen in the same light as Wrights. I do not apologize for this. I haven't killed anyone, * has. I didn't destroy the Constitution, ^ did. I didn't bankrupt America, * did. I think I have every right to be angry and a duty to speak out about it. I suspect Wright feels the same way about what this nation has done to black people.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Are you familiar with religions that cater to one predominant culture?

The commitment from this church to Africa is really no different from the commitment you would see in a synagogue toward Israel. Or a commitment the Polish Catholic Churches have to Polish-Americans and even those still residing in Poland.

This was taken from a website for the Church of Holy Trinity of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, a Polish Church.

With great optimism we look forward to fulfilling our promises as we celebrate the rich traditions of our Polish heritage. We pray for the Lord's guidance in our journey.

http://www.holytrinity-phoenixville.net/main.html

Is that really any different than what you see in Obama's church? And I might add, there are white members in his church as well, but since it's located in a predominantly black area, that is the culture they cater to the most.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Catholic Church, but since it's so large and ethnically diverse, the commitment of its parishioners varies based on their cultural background. If you attend a Catholic Church in a very large Italian-American neighborhood, you would find that its connection with Italy is very strong. I'm guessing many still have a commitment to their culture and their background community. But since Obama's church is black and has a commitment to the black community, it must be anti-American and bad. Except this is very common in many churches located in ethnically dominated areas throughout this country. Whether it's Greek, Italian, Polish, Irish or in this case, African.

[metalluk]

11. I am not condemning

black churches or any other kind of church for their community-centered activities, even if that community is predominately all one race or all once ethnic group. The issue is whether a church's doctrine is such that there would be a conflict between belonging to that church and being President of the United States.

Let me suggest a couple of parallel concern involving other denominations to demonstrate that this is not simply about black churches.

I personally would have grave reservations about voting for Joe Lieberman as either President or V.P. of the U.S. because he is both a Jew and adamantly pro-Israel. I would be delighted for a Jewish person to be elected to either position if that person had demonstrated in their political life an ability to deal with Israeli (and Palestinian) issues in an utterly evenhanded way, but not a Jewish person who feels an ethnic or religious commitment to support Israeli interests in all circumstances. If a Jewish person strongly supportive of Israeli were to become president, there would be increased risk that Israel might intensify its aggressive posture, being confident of U.S. support no matter what.

I would be happy to support a Catholic who was otherwise qualified and who was seeking the presidency, but not if that person indicated that, as a Catholic, they would be compelled to do everything in their power to ensure that abortion was viewed and dealt with as murder.

Voters have every right to ask a candidate to clarify how their religious affiliation will affect their policies and decisions. Obama's church expects its members to pledge allegiance to the black community. If Obama is agreeing with that provision of his church by being a member, there is a problem -- not with the church but with Obama's candidacy for the presidency.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. I do not think being pro-Africa or pro-Israel lessens someone's understanding of affairs.

Or makes them any less capable to lead this nation. Do you honestly believe Obama would put Africa above his country? C'mon, that's the same argument they made against Kennedy in 1960, but with Catholicism instead. One can have allegiance to their country, but a pledge to help the land their ancestors came from. Look at Ted Kennedy, Hugh Carey, Pat Moynihan and other Irish-American politicians and their investment in Ireland. They're no less American than a protestant southerner whose family came over from England in the 1700s and has no connection ancestral England.

[metalluk]

13. Understanding is not the issue.

Nothing I said implied that Obama's understanding of foreign affairs would be affected by his religion. Nor would a person's affiliation with Judaism.

The issue is even-handed treatment of other nations and making decisions primarily based on America's interests rather than a commitment to another nation or continent. The issue is being committed to the welfare of ALL Americans and not just one group. Nothing about Kennedy's Catholicism required that he pledge allegiance to Ireland or Irish people. Every American has some kind of old-world heritage, whether in Asia, Europe, or Africa. Kennedy being Irish was no more of an issue for reasonable people than a President having an English or Germanic heritage.

Kennedy reassured the American people by clarifying that his religion was a guide to his private and personal life, not his political life. Obama needs to clarify how he interprets the points of doctrine of his church in relation to how he would conduct his presidency. If his allegiance is specifically to the black community, black families, and black leaders, as the doctrine clearly expects of its members, he has no business being President of the nation. If he does not subscribe to his church's doctrine in relation to his role as a politician, he needs to say so, just as Kennedy did.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. I think you're really stretching with this one.

You can pledge to support a nation or continent without turning your back to your own country. You're trying to make this an issue and it just isn't. And for what it's worth, many people thought Kennedy would first pledge himself to The Vatican before his country and that was false, even though the Catholic Church asks you to commit yourself to its values and history.

As for Obama clarifying his religion, unlike you, I don't think he should. I didn't think Romney needed to about his faith, nor Kennedy. Because I'm not of the tin foil hat type who actually believes Obama will use the presidency as a front to support Africa and ignore America.

[Petrushka]

8. Well said. Thank you. K&R (n/t)