On one level, this is a statement of racial solidarity. But on another, it’s an argument that the church is the embodiment of the community it serves, with all its imperfections, which Obama bluntly describes. This is a very old, very "Catholic" idea of the church as an organic expression of "the people" as they happen to exist. It is likely to be baffling to those white Protestant Americans who think of church membership as more of a matter of consumer preference, doctrinal agreement or family heritage (none of which seem to have been major factors in Obama’s original "conversion" at Trinity UCC) and who also probably don’t understand why Obama didn’t just choose a different congregation the first time he heard something objectionable from Wright’s pulpit. Ed Kilgore
Kilgore’s piece at TPM Cafe is worth reading. Obama may have chosen this church rather than to have been born into it, but does any sane person question the sincerity of his conversion and his loyalty to the man who was instrumental in effecting it? I can understand why secularists might be puzzled by this, but any believer should not be. And that’s why I think Main Street will be receptive to Obama’s speech. That’s why this speech, IMO, was so skillful and effective; it appeals to both Main Street and the puditocracy. The pundits do not think Main Street will appreciate it for the same reasons it does, and they are right about that. Main Street will respond because the speech talks to its every day experience.
Kilgore also tries to put Wright’s "God damn America" comment into a broader context of prophetic preaching style. Isn’t he just talking about "blowback", and isn’t blowback just a word for the ancient biblical idea that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children and grandchildren. If you are uncomfortable with biblical language call it karma or think of it as ‘what goes around comes around’.
Past generations must be held accountable to us, just as we must be held accountable for what we don to future generations. It’s an idea either incomprehensible or too embarrassing to take seriously by most in the puditocracy, and it’s an unpopular idea in the corridors of power, no matter how ostensibly "biblical" our leader in the White House is. But deep down most of us recognize the validity of the idea that actions have consequences, not just on the physical level, but on a moral level as well.
And while white America seems to be in a permanent state of denial about the sins of its forefathers, black Americans for good reason are not. Whatever the politics of the situation, it’s clear that Wright was not talking utter nonsense, but about a reality most Americans would rather not face up to. That’s what prophetic preaching is supposed to do. Our government has often acted badly, and particularly in the last seven years. At some level it is morally accountable.
Anyway, regardless whether you agree or disagree with the legitimacy of Wright’s ideas, Obama cannot be associated with them; neither will he be disloyal to his friend just because there’s a risk that many Americans will be simplistic in their interpretation of Wright’s preaching style. I’d bet a good chunk of change that this "complexity" isn’t alll that hard for Main Street to understand, though. I think it mirrors the complexity of most people’s relationships. The biggest obstacle is the the libertarian/consumerist mentality, which, as with most things, makes people obtuse:
. . .the whole argument still relies on some religious exceptionalism. Something like: "It’s okay to belong a church where you don’t agree with what the pastor says because the church represents the community… good and bad." We don’t tend to make that argument about any other institution. If I were a regular at a bar where the bartender was a fascist, wouldn’t you say: "Uh… why do you go there?" If I shopped at a store that exclusively sold products made by child labor (or worse, if I shopped at Wal-Mart) wouldn’t you say: "Uh, why do you shop there?"
I just have to reject the notion that different rules should apply to a church just because it’s part of religion. destor23
I suspect this consumerist notion is at the heart of many people’s concern about Obama’s relationship with Wright. It’s an idea that is so alien to me that I find it hard to take it seriously. Nevertheless, I’m sure lots of people think this way. My hope is that most people understand their lives more like I do, or like DancingBear does:
I think the point is that bartenders, pastors, grandmothers, uncles–in fact, any of us, are not simply "racists" or "fascists" (or liberals or conservatives or whatever).
Perhaps your bartenders has some stupid political views which he occasionally expresses, but never really does anything about. But you also know that he looks after his patrons, gently cutting them off before they get too plastered, getting them a ride home, talking to them about their troubles. And he is respectful of his wife and caring toward his children. And you know there is this bartender down the street who expresses political views which match your own, but you know he’s an ass in his personal life.
My late Italian-American father-in-law expressed many ethnic and racial slurs. But he had many more black friends and business associates than I ever will, through his years of working as a fight manager and nightclub owner. As I grew to know him, and to learn about the course of his life, I understood how this paradox had developed in him. And I could love and respect him for the totality of what he was, while I rejected his occasional hateful language.
What Obama said was that he knows much more about Wright than what is in those clips, from many, many other sermons, from his many private discussions with him, and from watching his actions and interactions as the pastor of a church which, from the reports which I’ve seen, appears to be very much in the mainstream, and a very positive social force in the community.
And Obama said that he understood how Wright’s background had led him to a certain point of view about racism being endemic in this country, but that he thinks Wright is clearly wrong on that point. But that given all that he knows much more about Wright than his position on that one point, he still believe Wright deserves his love and respect for the entirety of his person.
Isn’t this the way most Americans operate? Do we love people less because they occasionally say things that make us cringe? Sure, some people impose an ideological litmus test to determine who will be their friends, but it’s pathological if that’s the only thing they care about. If I dislike someone, it’s not because of his or her political views. Obama’s standing by his friend humanizes him, and while the idiots with the consumerist libertarian mentality might take him to task, I think Main Street understands where Obama is coming from and will cut him some slack. There will always be a significant idiot factor, and all of us are idiots some of the time, but I refuse to accept that most people are idiots most of the time.
P.S. Along those lines, forestwalker, I hope that the people to which you referred are just going through a temporary bout of idiocy and will come back to themselves shortly.
Leave a Reply