Let’s Not Get Carried Away
Posted on March 18th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
To read the Corner today was to be reminded that some are immune to the grace and hope and civility that Reagan summoned at his best; the anger and bitterness is so palpably fueled by fear and racism it really does mark a moment of revelation to me. ~Andrew Sullivan
No one will confuse me for a friend of The Corner, but whatever disagreements I have with them the responses I saw today in reaction to Obama’s speech were not only well within reasonable bounds, but also some of them were making good sense in their criticism of some of the details and policy substance of the speech. There were also several people who responded mostly favourably to the speech–Charles Murray was not on his own. It is becoming depressingly common for Obama supporters to trot out accusations of racism whenever someone frowns in their hero’s direction. Frankly, if they really believe what the man says, this is unworthy of the candidate they are promoting. If an Obama presidency means four years of his fans’ hectoring everyone else about their racial hang-ups (because Obama is smart enough not to do this), it is unlikely that Obama will ever win the election.
Also, Sullivan didn’t need readers to update him that Obama’s speech would be received poorly, would be viewed as condescension and would be ridiculed widely on the right. This is not because of “fear and racism,” but on the contrary reveals the degree to which what George Will called the “exquisite” sensitivity we have all been conditioned to possess has completely consumed the modern conservative movement to the point where many mainstream conservatives are, if anything, more preciously p.c. than university speech code enforcers. In an expression of “turnabout is fair play,” rather than denounce these anti-racism witch hunts in principle as ludicrous thought policing, many conservatives have decided that it is fine to play this game so long as a Democratic ox is being gored.
I am more sanguine about Obama’s Wright problem, in part because I was not aggrieved by Rep. Paul’s association with that newsletter business, and because I generally regard most anti-racism crusades as a lot of hyperventilating by professional activists and hacks. It still puzzles me how angry and even hateful words are regarded as virtual stoning offenses, but warmongering is a mainstream, respectable, even “responsible” thing to do. For the most part, the former are awful but do no real harm, while the latter leads to the slaughter of thousands, but it is the former that disqualifies someone while the latter is virtually a requirement to wield executive power.
The telling point is that most of Wright’s critics on the right were primarily offended by his “anti-Americanism,” a term that they deploy so frequently that one wonders if even they know what they mean by it any longer. It was his offenses against their sense of what nationalism requires that have bothered them the most. Meanwhile, the reaction in Middle America generally will often be similar to the one this reader reported: mockery and disbelief. Imagine that you are someone living in the middle of the country and have been lectured to your entire life about the prejudices that you need to overcome, and then you hear that Obama, the great reconciler, has ties to someone who possesses what you have been conditioned your entire life to believe is the absolute worst sort of sentiment, and then add to that the recognition that Obama’s actual politics are far removed from yours and then guess what the response will be to his speech addressing this issue. The very resentments that Obama was explaining in his speech, for which he demonstrated at least some understanding, were inevitably going to be summoned up by any major speech he gave on this question; it is a pity that his supporters cannot make some similar display of understanding. For my part, I have given Obama the benefit of the doubt on this, probably to the annoyance of many of my readers–should the same courtesy not be extended to his critics?
Filed under: politics
There seems to be a link missing - which reader, Daniel?
” Meanwhile, the reaction in Middle America generally will often be similar to the one this reader reported: mockery and disbelief.”
Indeed, one of Sullivan’s readers described this dynamic exactly:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-right-and-o.html
It was actually a pretty good speech, but not the one that Obama needed to give for electoral reasons. Rather than a examination of the race in America question as seen from 30,000 feet, the controversy that Obama needed to put to rest was his relationship with his pastor, and what that tells us about his judgement. The weird disconnect between Rev. Wright’s bomb-throwing and Obama’s “let us reason together” was jarring.
I agree that partisanship, rather than racism, was the prime mover here.
Race is pretty darn close to politics in the brain of the movement conservative, though. You can debate the precise motivations and implementation of the Southern Strategy, but Lee Atwater was quite up front about the fact that he was putting a new gloss on the George Wallace approach to politics.
Maybe it’s been going on and I’ve been blind to it, but I disagree that “trot[ing] out accusations of racism” has been a common tactic from Obama supporters. I haven’t really seen that.
Also, “Let’s Not Get Carried Away” would be a good name for a blog dedicated to critiquing Andrew Sullivan.
Derbyshire wrote:
What do you believe Derbyshire meant, in suggesting that “nonblack parents” (including himself) will avoid sending their kids to a school with “too many black students” because such a school can be assumed to have “all the problems associated with poorly run public schools”? If that’s the type of comment Sullivan was referencing, I don’t think his reaction is unfair.
I think he meant exactly what he said, and such parents assume that because it tends to be true. Whether it’s concern about safety or about a lack of resources, I think no parents wants their kids in that situation if they can help it. That’s one of the reasons why there is tremendous support for school choice among minorities, who want to get their kids out of the failing districts they’re in, and limited support for it among middle-class whites, whose schools are already relatively good and who aren’t interested in changing the makeup of the student body.
As for Obama supporters using accusations of racism, where should I start? There was the episode where Clinton supposedly “insulted” MLK by stating a matter of fact, or when Bill Clinton was talking about Obama’s Iraq record as a “fairy tale” and this was spun into a denigration of Obama because of his race, or most recently the utterly over-the-top Patterson article that said that the “3 a.m.” ad reminded him of Birth of a Nation. I’m sure there are more, but those come to mind right away.
“The weird disconnect between Rev. Wright’s bomb-throwing and Obama’s “let us reason together” was jarring.”
It was, and I probably should have said more about this. But it doesn’t surprise me that the “meta-candidate,” as I have sometimes dubbed Obama, engaged in this grand sweep of history analysis to address a campaign controversy (and the commentary within the speech about the commentary on his campaign was perfect Obama meta-analysis). It comes across as another example of Obama’s rhetoric in which his campaign forms a new link in the great chain of progressive struggle. This was the “yes, we can” speech: instead of getting rid of “old politics,” he sets up an elaborate story about how to get rid of the “old race relations.” The problem is that his new model for that is just as incredible as the “new politics” he supposedly offers.
Let’s try a thought experiment. A leading presidential candidate belongs to a large and fashionable main-line protestant church, one that draws its membership from the social, economic and cultural elite of one of our largest, most important, and most storied American cities. The pastor is charismatic and deeply engaged, but in his sermonizing he can sometimes go off the deep end, in large part because [and I speak here as someone active in the affairs of a mainline denomination, and who hangs out a lot with ministers] even the best educated ministers are not nearly as sophisticated about public-policy questions as they are about scripture and theology, and tend to view complex issues through a moralistic lens. Now, suppose someone, seeking to discredit the candidate, puts together an edited tape of some of that pastor’s most spectacular excesses and peddles it to the networks and the Internet. How far is it going to go? Well, I’d say that in most cases it wouldn’t go far. What’s different about this case? It’s a *black* church. Really. A white preacher caught on tape the way Jeremiah Wright was, whatever he was saying [and there are plenty of white preachers saying outlandish things with far more media exposure], would not have nearly the impact, because a white audience wouldn’t feel threatened by it. This whole sorry affair wasn’t about legitimate policy issues with Obama; it was about pushing racial buttons, and playing to white fears of those fellow Americans that they still see as “other.” Wright is a much more complicated figure than this cartoon version shows; far from being a “blame-whitey-for-everything” caricature, he’s worked as hard as any conservative would desire to build the social capital of his flock [Take a look at his now-famous "Audacity in Hope" sermon for an example]. Yet his reputation is being slimed in order to get at someone else. Sorry, but I simply cannot accept the notion that the people doing this are motivated by “legitimate” policy differences.
Of course, opportunistically caricaturing a person to damage a political opponent need not be motivated by anything more or less base than the desire to win an election. I don’t rule out that there is probably some of what you say going on, but you would need to give specific examples of the people employing this material in that way. Blanket statements about critics of Obama’s speech, such as Sullivan’s, are clearly excessive and easily disproved in the case of the people he was accusing.
The image that is generating the most damage for Obama is that of Wright as an “anti-American” and left-wing radical. His race is a significant factor in making this into a much larger firestorm than it would otherwise be–I’ll agree that much. But I don’t think that is what is driving most of the elite conservative commentary against Obama over the last week.
Wright has worked to build up the social capital of his flock, but this defense won’t matter to those who are primarily put off by his offenses against Americanism. The truly unforgiveable sin he committed was to suggest that U.S. policies abroad are anything but benevolent and altruistic; the details, some of which were ridiculous, some irrelevant, were almost beside the point. He suggested that America, and here he is really talking about the government, could err.
Probably my own greatest problem with any of the sermons was the idea that Christ was black. According to anything that Christians would regard as authoritative, that’s simply not true and it makes a mockery of the prophecies foretelling the coming of the Messiah.
On the whole Derbyshire appears to agree with Obama, that “segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools”, so why his bombastic reaction? Obama didn’t suggest forced integration, busing, or any other government-imposed remedy. That was all Derbyshire.Derbyshire may well be a white parent, opposing school choice because he is afraid that “too many black students” (his words) will enroll at his child’s school, or that the school will fill up and his child will have to go elsewhere. But that’s not what he argued. He also didn’t express concern with “security” or “resources”. He expressed the concern that schools with “too many black students” are “poorly run”. I understand why you are trying to find other meaning in those words, yet that’s what he said.How many black students may a school have before there are “too many”? Are any other minority groups subject to this “too many [of them / too few of us]” analysis?
“Now, suppose someone, seeking to discredit the candidate, puts together an edited tape of some of that pastor’s most spectacular excesses and peddles it to the networks and the Internet.”
I am wondering what type of “context” we should view Rev. Wright’s comments regarding, say, HIV/AIDS. Is there a way to “unedit” and contextualize the stated belief that HIV/AIDS was created as a tool of genocide against non-whites? Perhaps you would be so kind as to do so in a way that makes the raving conspiracy theorizing a big more understandable/palatable?
My bigger problem with the whole Wright/Obama kerfuffle is that, while I don’t believe for a minute that Obama shares these incendiary views, the unity and new politics and reconcilliation the Obama campaign is based on doesn’t seem to have any basis in Obama actually reconcilling anyone in real life, for example, his pastor. It would have taken courage for him to go to his pastor, even in private, and say “you know Reverend, what you said today was out of line, counterproductive, and here’s why.” Is there really any indication that he has done such a thing, put himself out on a limb like that? To put it another way, “Yes We Can” needs to begin at home, and I remain skeptical that Obama can unify the country to avoid these “distractions” if he couldn’t tend his own little garden back in Chicago for 20 odd years.
Look at how he reacted to the controversy. First he puts out a blanket statement stating that he had never personally heard any of the ‘controversial statements’, (this was made inoperative by his admission yesterday that he had) then he does an interview last Friday, and then, only then is he compelled to give “The Speech.” This has played out just like any campaign tries to tamp down any run of the mill scandal involving any run of the mill candidate. The danger for Obama is not that he will be viewed as some radical bomb-thrower, it is that he will be viewed as just another scheming, cynical pol.
” Yet his reputation is being slimed in order to get at someone else. Sorry, but I simply cannot accept the notion that the people doing this are motivated by “legitimate” policy differences.”
Didn’t Obama himself do a bit of that sliming? At various points he has compared Rev. Wright to his “crazy old uncle” and his statements as “profoundly wrong and divisive”?
“The image that is generating the most damage for Obama is that of Wright as an “anti-American” and left-wing radical. His race is a significant factor in making this into a much larger firestorm than it would otherwise be–I’ll agree that much. But I don’t think that is what is driving most of the elite conservative commentary against Obama over the last week.”
While I think this point is right in general, I think it misses an important nuance (and one which dovetails with the thrust of Obama’s speech) which is that race is part of the reason why Wright comes across as being so radical, so violently disconnected from the norm. For white Americans who have spent most of their lives in all-white or mostly-white communities, Wright probably comes across as terrifyingly foreign. Not only does he very likely seem like a relic of an uncomfortable past, but there’s probably very little sens of a contemporary context in which to anchor him. I’ve read lots of posts in various online fora who declare that it would be unacceptable for Clinton or McCain to belong to a KKK-run church, and that Trinity is no different. It seems to me, as an urban dweller in a racially-mixed neighborhood (same as yours, in fact) that those sorts of statements reflect a pretty profound ignorance about the state of race relations in urban settings, and about the black community in general. I don’t think it’s a malicious ignorance, but it does make Wright a lot harder to contextualize, and it makes Obama;’s refusal to repudiate him very difficult to understand, not only for those posters spouting crude Klan analogies but for commentators who simply can’t get past the idea that Obama should have left Trinity,