More points from yesterday’s “Audacity of Hype” speech on race
|
|
Yesterday, my post on Obama’s speech on race was mainly focused on his inclination to use big government as the solution to the nation’s woes; however, there were two other really important points that also should be highlighted.
First, Obama, in his effort to be a uniter, uses very subtle language to insult and continue to divide us. As fellow contributor BK noted on Reagan’s GOP, he outright accuses the Reagan coalition to, in large part, have been formed due to race issues. It’s a sad commentary on his inability to get “past race” and see that the Reagan coalition had several other, more important factors drawing voters to Reagan.
Second, Obama, while critical of Wright, completely used the “aw, shucks, it’s just my pastor” approach. He condemned the words, but made little to no effort at distancing himself from the man. In a very real sense, Obama asked all of us to give Wright a free pass. He said that there were a whole bunch of other things that caused Wright to think this way and say these things, so we shouldn’t be so tough on him.
Really? So, I guess all the times the Democrats attacked Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms, it was acceptable to say that “it was the environment” that caused these people to think this way. So, just forget about it and lets move on.
There is no doubt that there needs to be a dialog on race. And, we, at the local and state level, have a long way to go to ensuring that there is equal access and opportunity. But I feel Obama really glossed over these more tangible and substantive issues in his speech, all the while giving his pastor a free pass. In the end, he directed the problems related to race on others, as opposed to accepting any personal responsibility for the present and the future.
Regarding Wright, i think he took the right approach. If he were to “throw him under the bus”, what would that say about his faith? He was not raised as a Christian, and came to Christianity later in life. From the sound of it, he credits Wright with much of the kindling of that faith. The Christians i know who have found faith later in life often have a very strong bond to that first pastor who guided them and nurtured their struggling beliefs, a bond on some level associated with the strength of their faith itself. I would imagine in some ways this would be even more so in an environment like how Obama describes Trinity, where emotion and openness can amplify that bond. I think it would show a profound shallowness from Obama were he to dissolve that bond under political pressure, not too mention IMHO reflect poorly on his own personal commitment to his beliefs.
He’s not saying “Don’t attack Wright, he’s really a good guy”. He’s saying Wright is a complex, imperfect person, with whom he has a strong bond due to Wright’s role in his kindling his faith. He’s not asking you to like Wright or what he says - he’s asking you to understand that Wright is more than a 30 second sound bite, and that though he has some beliefs to which he does not subscribe, Wright played large a role in him finding salvation. And for that, he will always have a bind with Wright, no matter how much he may disagree with his rhetoric.
Funny, we are now being told by Rev. Al, and ALL the “Black community” leaders that we are taking the many, many statements by Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. out of context when compared to his many sermons.
I’m just thinking that the same people didn’t think twice about taking 45 seconds out of 3 hours per day, five days per week for 30 years from Don Imus out of context!
Call me crazy, but…………………………………
Obama said “Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.”
Where in that should i see him referring to race as an overriding factor? “Helped” is a subjective word, with a whole spectrum of meaning. I can “help” Obama win the presidency by donating $100 to his campaign. And a mugger can “help” make my wallet lighter.
I personally think the influence of racism was smaller than other factors, but i can see how others may see otherwise. For one thing, Reagan pulled in most of the Scotch-Irish vote from the Dems, and that was a major component in his coalition. Also, the Scotch-Irish community was the both the birthplace and the primary support base of the Klan. Put those two together, and i can see how some would consider racism a major factor. To do so drastically overly stereotypes an entire culture - but hey, that’s never stopped anyone before.
I agree Obama does want us to give Wright a free pass because African Americans have a lot of anger, and Wright is just acknowledging that.
Obama’s grandmother acknowledged her fear of black men, and this puts her on the same level as Wright? Was grandma preaching to hundreds of people that black men were violent? Or was she sharing this fear with her family?
Obama dissed talk radio, and he wants to get rid of talk radio. What is talk radio but a host acknowledging the anger of a bunch of primarily white men? Obama should be more understanding of talk radio.
I would like to congratulate Obama’s grandmother for voicing her fears. It is only when we voice our fears that we are ready to discuss them. Maybe Obama thought grandma should have kept her fears to herself and let the fears turn into resentment. That would really help race relations!
If Obama wants to truly be a uniter, he should invite us as Americans to discuss our hopes and fears instead of making us hide behind political correctness and a fear of “divisive statements.”
Did firing Imus help race relations? No, it upset one group of people who are tired of having to watch what they say, and it made another group of people feel good that a man lost his livelihood. That’s not the America I want to live in.
Stand behind your pastor, fine. But be man enough to thoroughly condemn SPECIFIC—no gloss–teachings such as the government invented AIDS to kill the black man and all Wright’s other bizarre rants. And acknowledge his saner, more rational teachings.
And start supporting the rights of talk radio host, Reagan and other who channel anger coming from some place other than from African Americans.
What is wrong with divisive statements? And why should they be rejected? Divisive means to cause disagreement or dissension. In a country as diverse as the US, we are going to have dissension and disagreements. When we trade divisive statements we learn about each other. This can lead to understanding, acceptance, and compromise. When we stop talking because we are afraid of offending someone, we start isolating ourselves. We talk with others with similar views, and we tend to become dogmatic. This deepens the racial divide. This has happened too long in America.