Barack Obama took the stage this morning to give what was billed as a
"major
speech on race." It was, of course, an attempt to rescue his campaign from
the
revelation that his so-called spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright,
espouses a virulently anti-American and antiwhite worldview called "black
liberation theology."
Here is the part of the speech that bothered us most:
I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother--a
woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and
again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything
in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black
men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one
occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me
cringe.
Our first thought was that it was pretty low of Obama to exploit his
(still
living) grandmother in this way. Is it really necessary for the whole
world to
know about her private expressions of prejudice? Doesn't simple decency
dictate that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones
with
discretion?
Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his
"white
grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's
hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter. Said Obama:
For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the
memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone
away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.
That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white
co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the
barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger
is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial
lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning,
in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are
surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons
simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated
hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.
Note how Obama elides the difference between a comment at the "kitchen
table"
and a sermon delivered to a congregation of thousands and recorded on DVD.
Obama rightly faulted his spiritual mentor for using "incendiary language
to
express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide,
but
views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation."
But
he tried to treat Wright's most outrageous comments as if they were
aberrations rather than the most extreme expressions of an extreme
ideology:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements
of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some,
nagging questions remain.
Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American
domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make
remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in
church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political
views? Absolutely--just as I'm sure many of you have heard
remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you
strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't
simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's
effort to speak out against perceived injustice.
Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this
country--a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that
elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know
is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the
Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart
allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse
and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just
some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points"
page
of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black
liberation
theology." Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological
Seminary
with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's
description
of black liberation theology:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified
totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not
for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and
we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill
Gods who do not belong to the black community. ... Black
theology will accept only the love of God which participates
in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the
divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power
of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by
any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in
this holy activity, we must reject his love.
So here we have, on the one hand, an old white woman who would be
completely
ordinary and anonymous but for her grandson's astoni****ng political
success,
and who harbors some regrettable prejudices; and, on the other, a leader
in
the black community who uses his pulpit to propagate an ideology of hate.
Obama said this morning, "I have asserted a firm conviction--a conviction
rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people--that
working
together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in
fact we
have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."
But if he cannot speak out unequivocally against the public, organized
bigotry
of his spiritual mentor, how can he possibly live up to this promise?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
|
