While I an Obama supporter, until this election cycle I've never registered as a voter of one party or another. Simply put, I've never felt particularly passionately about candidates from either side of the aisle.
Barack Obama disturbed my slumber enough to energize me into changing that "no party affiliation" status, since Florida has a closed primary. However, it's been with my level-headed independent nature that I've tried to absorb all sides of the controversy concerning his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and assess the validity of their arguments.
Additionally, as an older black American, raised in the tradition of activist black churches, I can identify with the underlying issues raised in this round of tit-for-tat controversies.
More after the fold.
"God bless America? No, no, no...God damn America!"
Powerful words, these and other excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons apparently critical of America. But a sermon, to have its intended effect, must be powerful by definition. The message has to be one that touches something within the congregants, ringing both within their hearts and minds. Given the exhuberant, perpetually-YouTubed reaction of those in attendance, Rev. Wright can clearly proclaim "mission accomplished".
From the early days of Obama's campaign, several conservative commentators have been making the case against the message of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in general, and the messages of Jeremiah Wright in particular. The most notable and vocal among these observers, arguably, has been Sean Hannity, who has used his microphone (daily radio talk show) and camera (Fox News "Hannity's America") incessantly hammer home (what he perceived as) the anti-American sentiment of the messages. By extension, Hannity goes much further -- suggesting those insidious messages must, at some level, be embraced by Barack Obama, otherwise, why would he stay in the church for nearly 20 years?
Of course, Hannity has merely acted as a mouthpiece for conservative objections to Obama's campaign, no less than liberal objectors enjoy their own media champions against Johnny Mac. With that said, I will attempt to catalogue the conservative arguments vis-a-vis Obama and Rev. Wright, and extend some specific answers.
Obama himself addressed the criticisms in a historic speech on race. However, for too many on the conservative side, while likewise viewing the speech as courageous, felt their core objections and reservations were unanswered and Obama was merely changing the subject (albeit a worthwhile subject -- the broader issue of racism in America) to avoid answering the really tough questions.
What tough questions? How about --
- How does your church (TUCC) support the "Black Value System", as mentioned on its website, and not be labelled racist (as any organizations substituting the word "White" would be)?
- Isn't a church supporting a "Black Value System" (as opposed to an American Value System) endorsing a form of separatism?
- When you say in your speech (with respect to Reverend Wright) that you "strongly disagreed with many of his political views", knew him to be "a fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy" and, by your own admission, sat in the pews while he continued to make what you characterize as "controversial remarks"...why would you enlist someone with such an anti-American leaning as a close friend, mentor and spiritual advisor? Either you subscribe to those values at some level -- or you took no action (over almost 20 years) to find another mentor whose values were more in line with yours...which is it?
- It has been suggested that Reverend Wright's statements were taken out of context. What context is allowable for a littany of anti-American sentiments such as "God damn America", "United States of AmeriKKKa", or that the attacks of 9/11 were a product of "America's chickens coming home to roost"?
- How do you defend your pastor and mentor against charges of anti-semitism, when the church award that bears his name was extended to the unabashedly anti-semitic Louis Farrakhan, a man the church magazine stated "truly epitomized greatness" ? Or when the church promotes sermons such as this one that look to condemn America's support for Israel against Palestinians?
The swirl of these questions formed the conservative framing of the Wright controversy, a controversy that will no doubt re-emerge during the general election. In this sense, I believe the questions deserve a reply, given they will not go away. When coupled with the American Flag lapel pin controversy, Obama's association with William Ayers, a principal player with the Weather Underground (responsible for 25 domestic bombings in the 60's), Michelle Obama's statement about this being the first time she is proud of her country, the pledge of allegiance flap, et. al, it is already clear how the Republican attack machine will look to subvert Obama's candidacy in the fall.
Naturally, Senator McCain's fingerprints will be nowhere near the smear campaign, and will even condemn it in an appearance to take the high road.
That said, I'll take an honest stab at answering these queries for Obama's conservative critics -- not in the naive optimism such a response would pacify their objections to Obama's liberalism, but (hopefully) at least to their question of his patriotism.
I'll start by lumping the first two questions together, since they relate to the "Black Value System". Interestingly, as I recall in February 2007 when the issue of Obama's church was first brought up (after Wright was disinvited from giving the opening prayer at Obama's announcement), there was a distinct tab on the TUCC website website promoting the "Black Value System". Today, no such tab exists -- but the page is still accessible on the website, although I can find no specific navigational link to it on the site.
Personally, I think it is unfortunate the church chose to depricate that page, as it suggests a response to conservative criticism. When the system is understood for what it is, such a response is patently unnecessary.
There are two problems with the conservative criticism levied and the "Black/White substitution" example. The first is that "Black" in terms of the "Black Value System" is not a racial construct, but instead a cultural one. Rather than substituting "White" into the words of the value system, try "Jewish" or "Greek Orthodox" instead. Now the notion of commitment to the "Greek Orthodox Community" or to the "Jewish Family" become wholly non-threatening and completely sensible within the framework of a socially-activitistic house of worship.
Secondly, when one examines the tenents of the "Black Value System", we find the social elements typically promoted and encouraged by conservatives, namely self-reliance, self-determination, the value of education, strong ties to family, God and community, pursuit of excellence, self-respect, personal responsibility, you name it. How they, of all groups, could take any exception to the notion of the "Black Value System", as expressed, is totally beyond me.
The third question above looks to set up a false choice, suggesting that the church/minister responsible for the introduction of Jesus Christ into the life of Barack Obama must necessarily exert influence over his social and political views. As I am sure Senator Obama does not seek the advice of his plumber for stock tips, he is certainly unreliant on Reverend Wright for the formation of his political views.
For most of us, there would be very little way to produce evidence that we weren't unduly influenced by our church's (or minister's) stand on areas not related to spirtuality and our relationship with God. However, it is precisely because Obama is a legislator that we have such proof: his voting record. And when we examine it, we find Obama has worked against unfairness and special interests in the system that affect all citizens. Likewise, given that Obama won an overwhelming majority of ALL Illinois voter demographics when elected to the US Senate -- and shows continued support from those same demographics --after 3+ years in the office, we can conclude that Obama's social and legislative views are largely in line with those of his constituency rather than those of his pastor.
An associated footnote conservatives acknowledge along the lines of the third question is, why didn't Obama pull his mentor aside and express his discomfort?
This totally ignores two obvious points, one being that Reverend Wright is a celebrated theologician and an esteemed religious author. Who is Obama to suggest to Wright that his opinion is without merit?
Secondly, the "transgressions" take place within the confines of Wright's own church. If Obama has a problem with the message, he is of course free to attend another church. He is not free to suggest the Reverend Wright, in a church he built from 87 members to over 10,000, should change the message to address any discomfort Obama might be experiencing.
The fourth question above strikes both at the distinctions between black and white churches (as some have alleged) along with those churches that preach a social gospel and those that do not. Both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, leaders of predominantly white Christian movements who are (or in Falwell's case, were) preachers of a social gospel blamed 9/11 on the GLBT community.
I would argue conservatives are correct in their assessment that over-analyzing context of Wright's divisive statements doesn't change the nature of the sentiment. However, I disagree with their underlying premise that the statements are unpatriotic.
Patriotism is not the blind support of America and its government. When the government or segments of its citizenry fail to live up to American ideals, it is not only permitted for Americans to speak out against such failure, it is their responsibility. For instance, as has been pointed out, in contrast to Reverend Wright's statements, it is part of the LDS (Mormon) church tradition to sing patriotic songs (some of the most stirring renditions of patriotic songs are performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir). Given that the choir started singing in the original Mormon Tabernacle in 1851, these "patriots" also sang the praises of America through slavery, reconstruction, and Jim Crow eras.
While blacks, native Americans, and other groups who were historically short-changed by America's inability to live up to its promise and ideals were no doubt patriotic, they are certainly entitled to license when it comes to holding America accountable for delivering on that promise. Blacks and Native Americans have fought and died valiantly in every conflict since the American Revolution, defending its ideals, even when they were only the slimmest of partners in the benefits thereto.
Show me a person that is surprised by a socially-activist ministry criticizing America for not living up to her ideals and I'll show you a person that rarely (if ever) set foot in a black church.
Further, as Obama has pointed out, to judge Reverend Wright on the basis of sound-bites is to totally cherry-pick the nature of his ministry. TUCC supports over fifty ministries, ranging from those that support ex-offenders, substance-abusers, HIV/AIDS to Cancer Survivors, Food Share, and Senior Care. Who wouldn't be afraid of a church that radical?!
The last question, regarding anti-semitism, is an unfair criticism on several fronts. Firstly, it's guilt-by-association, once removed. This renders an impossible standard, suggesting that every candidate should vet every acquaintance within one-degree of separation. Secondly, anyone that supports the cause of the Palestinians is not automatically anti-semitic, as is the case with Reverend Wright. And lastly, Obama himself spoke out against both his church's decision to bestow the award upon Farrakhan as well as upon Farrakhan's racism and anti-semitism.
Rather, according to Politifact.com, Obama has been lauded by pro-Israeli groups:
The doubts about Obama’s stance on Israel stand in stark contrast to the thumbs-up he has gotten from several major Jewish organizations.
"All of the leading presidential candidates ... have demonstrated a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship," said Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America’s pro-Israel lobby. "All three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the pro-Israel community."
The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) isn’t taking sides in the primary but has concluded that both Clinton and Obama "are strong supporters of Israel."
Not to mention that Obama has spoken out against anti-semitism in front of primarily black audiences, recognizing the sacrifices made by Jews in the advancement of civil rights for blacks.
So there you have it. For those of us that have conservative friends, as mentioned earlier, this might help put their minds to rest on the issues surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If successful, the main objection they can harbor towards Barack Obama...is just his politics.