TheAgitator.com
Obama’s Speech on Race
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008One of the best political speeches I’ve ever heard. One of the best speeches on race I’ve ever heard.
The man has a gift.
Read it here.
-
Site Features
-
Contribute
-
Site Credits
One of the best political speeches I’ve ever heard. One of the best speeches on race I’ve ever heard.
The man has a gift.
Read it here.
His comments on race were very good, some of the best I’ve ever heard for framing the issue. And if he weren’t on the wrong side of most of the economic issues, I’d probably vote for the man.
But he is on the wrong side of those issues, issues which I consider even more important than racial relations (which, sadly, are still a problem in America today)…he engages in anti-business and anti-free trade demagoguery, he proposes increased government intervention in our personal medical decisions, and while he may advocate overlooking the racial differences between us he appears very much in favor of rousing the hatreds of economic classes for each other. I do not believe that any pro-free market libertarian could in all conscience vote for the man when taking his overall platform into account…despite his accurate analysis of one very emotional and divisive issue.
“he proposes increased government intervention in our personal medical decisions”
Except, of course, thankfully if inconsistently, for abortion.
Steve,
Sure…unless he’s followed up by a Republican administration, in which case the “free” health care Obama wants us to receive from the government will ultimately become a tool for the next guy to dictate abortion policy.
I used to watch The West Wing and shake my head at how supernaturally decent and eloquent and thoughtful Jed Bartlet was. “How come we never get real-life Presidents who are that good? There’s three hundred million Americans. You’d think there’d be at least one Bartlet among us,” I’d wonder.
And then, right on cue, here’s Obama.
Man you guys really buy this ‘great speaker’ stuff hook, line, and sinker don’t you? I understand after Bush that we all want a better public speaker, but need I remind you that the best speaker of the 20th Century was Adolf Hitler …. just saying, consider the man and the message more than how ‘eloquent’ or ‘inspiring’ their speeches are.
And Radster, you can hate Bush all you want, but if this guy gets elected, he’ll be by far the biggest Socialist who has ever been president.
Five posts to Godwin. Not bad.
I’ll just second UCrawford… I’m feeling intellectually lazy at the moment.
Laertes,
Because real-life politicians don’t get to do a limitless amount of takes to get their speeches right, and because most TV politicians don’t have competent opponents to point out the flaws and poke holes in the logic when the hero’s full of crap.
To be honest, I was never a fan of The West Wing. Much as I like and respect Martin Sheen as an actor (Apocalypse Now being one of my all-time favorite films) I can’t separate his portrayal of Bartlett from the fact that Sheen’s kind of a flake in real life (like when he invited the homeless to Malibu when he was honorary mayor http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6D8143BF935A15756C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all ).
It seems like Obama’s gift is the ability to take an issue that a lot of people seem entrenched on and say, “Hey, look at this from a different angle. Some people view it like this; others like this. Regardless, be aware that there are different ways to view this,” and do it in a way that gets people to think about what he says.
I also have a lot of respect that he didn’t go throwing Rev. Wright under the bus to try and remedy the political damage that was occurring to his campaign. That would have been easy to do, but it takes integrity to say, “Hey, I disagree with what he said, but he’s still a good man.”
Radley, you really aren’t swallowing this kool aid, are you? I’ve hardly seen more cynical, self-serving bilge in all my life. It’s just a naked attempt to repair the damage done to his campaign by his association with that kook preacher.
If Mr. Obama were so concerned with racial harmony and “healing”, why did he sit in the pews for 20 years swallowing this guy’s toxic hate-whitey-lets-burn-this-mother-down-the-CIA-invented-AIDS stew? Or do you seriously believe he had no clue that the guy held such opinions? (Actually, he admits to lying at the beginning of the speech, claiming now that he heard stuff that “could be considered” controversial.) How convenient that his road to Damascus experience comes right now.
I’m honestly disappointed that you don’t see through such a farce.
James D -
You win for invoking Hitler into the conversation.
THIS is what passes for dispassionate, gimlet-eyed libertarian thought nowdays?!? “never mind what his record implies he actually stands for, obama speaks so *well*! he’s *dreamy*!”
libertarians are supposed to be famous for using the ‘turn it around’ approach to critical thought. if mccain - or bush, say - went to a church that featured a nutty pastor who blamed a lot of the world’s ills on “black folks”…. who went on record as saying that “africa’s descent into hellish anarchy was caused by a black conspiracy! god damn africa!!”….and mccain had *gone there for 20 years*….and given them *tens of thousands of dollars*….and repeatedly *refused to condemn the statements or their speaker*….and *continued to attend that church even after this got out*…..
you’d all be moaning about mccain/bush’s white robes and burning crosses, wouldn’t you.
but obama speaks so well, you see. and he’s *black*, you see. so that makes it *different*, you see.
jeebus, what pack of maroons. you clowns will buy ANYthing that’s shiny and bright, won’t ya. enjoy your socialist president. maybe you can tell yourselves that socialism is actually just like libertarianism, because “obama made a really great speech explaining that at last week’s torchlight parade.”
Sorry ftp, it just bugs me that we (Americans) are so enthralled with people who are good speakers … it why most politicians are ex-lawyers and actors ….
Of course, Bush is a MAJOR exception to that rule. But I would argue that the South at least partially embraced him because he wasn’t “one of them lawyers from an Ivy league school”.
Yup…his twang and stumbling public speaking made everyone overlook the fact that he was a business grad from an Ivy League school.
On a side note it’s amusing that Godwin’s Law arose as a way to try to stop people stifling real debate with lurid and inappropriate references to the Nazis but has since come to be referenced in response to any reference to the Nazis under any circumstance (thereby stifling real debate).
It’s not disimilar to campaign finance reform in acheiving the precise opposite of its stated aim once people get used to working around the new rules.
James,
I agree with you that it’s disappointing that people are willing to overlook a horrible platform when somebody can wrap it up in a pretty bow. But then again, it’s not like there’s anybody out there giving eloquent, charismatic speeches for good policy either. Ron Paul had more of the the right issues, but was a barely competent (often inept) public speaker in the national forums and engaged in some pretty questionable tactics himself. McCain is a competent public speaker (sometimes very good) but stumbles on the policy he advocates. Obama’s attractive mainly because his competition isn’t.
That said, I think he’ll implement some horrible policy if he gets elected because a) he’s a likeable big-government pol who can sell bad policy to the public and b) Congress is held by Democrats. Libertarians should be very nervous about the idea of an Obama presidency…much of his economic platform is diametrically opposed to what we believe in.
I’m disappointed at how many people are buying his shtick. I can maybe see it if he’d made the speech a few months ago but he didn’t. He made it right when he needed to deflect the political heat from the widespread publicity of his pastor’s hateful remarks.
If he’s such an eloquent healer, why didn’t he heal for the sake of healing and not to cover his azz?
Oh, and he threw grandma under the bus too. Not cool.
No matter what you think of the words that came out of his mouth, one thing remains true:
He associated with a racist. And called the racist a good friend. And had the racist minister his wedding.
“You shall know them by the company they keep” applies here. I don’t hang out with racists on purpose. If I find out that one of my friends is a racist, I drop him.
Obama is simply engaging in the identity politics that the Dems are well known for. (read the whole speech, don’t listen to it)
I kind of half-liked Obama before this, but now, I am so dead set against him, I don’t even have the words for it.
I’ll vote for whomever I think will be able to get the LEAST amount done during their term.
VOTE DEADLOCK ‘08!
James D, I’ll see your Hitler and raise you a Reagan. “The Great Communicator” indeed. He sounded good, but we’re still paying the price for his disgusting fiscal irresponsibility.
Surely you all have to give him credit not only for being a great speaker, but also, on this issue, being absolutely right.
It’s not just that Obama’s a great speaker; you can tell that he actually critically thinks about the things he’s saying. He probably wrote most of the speech himself; if nothing the content was probably all his. As Jesse Walker pointed out here, he’s great in debates…so intellectually quick. I think that’s the best we can realistically ask for in a president. Sure, if someone with similar qualities but with a more libertarian perspective on economics came along, I’d prefer them. But no such candidate has.
I disagree. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Improving the standards of living among minorities such that there is no longer an appreciable difference along racial lines would do wonders for the economy. Likewise, a good economy makes improving said living standards easier.
Christopher,
Imposing a system of socialized medicine, restricting free trade and trying to use government to remove differences in relative wealth (all things Obama advocates) will create the opposite of a good economy.
In order for the government to improve the standards of living for the poor, they must lower the standards of living for everyone else. Robbing the majority at the barrel of a gun to “raise up” the minority certainly isn’t going to improve relations between the two.
I suggest that the best policy for improving relations is freedom, and equality in the eyes of the law. I don’t see Obama championing the repeal of the “War on Drugs” which would do much more to heal the racial divide than any handout policy that he could ever devise.
That being said, a healthy economy certainly won’t hurt matters any. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen anything from Obama that indicates he has the slightest clue on how to fix our economy.
I’m amazed how many of you ‘libertarians’ are sounding more like just plain ‘liberals’ lately.
Obama talks about slavery … what about the idea that Black Americans are ’slaves’ to the Democratic party and it’s socialist ideals which is what is REALLY ‘keeping them back’? Obama’s ‘hope’ and ‘change’ message is really just more Robin Hood “steal from the rich to give to the poor” to try to even things out …. how well has that worked in the past? Shouldn’t everyone on THIS blog agree that when government gets involved, 9 times out of 10 they make things WORSE not better?
And I still don’t understand the libertarian hatred of Reagan … best president in my lifetime, easily. He had a heavily Democratic congress and at the very least ‘talked the talk’ about small government even if as President he couldn’t fully ‘walk the walk’. The only thing he really spent out of control on was the military … which a) I think is one of the few things I don’t mind my tax money gong to and b) was pretty much the reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Can’t we at least agree that he did a better job of limited government that GW Bush?
And Mark J., unfortunately I see either Obama OR McCain being able to get a lot of stuff passed through this congress
I wanted Fred Thompson and most of you probably wanted Ron Paul, but I think we’re all pretty sad with our choices (if we’re being honest with ourselves and ignoring pretty speeches).
Although I agree that this was a very well written speach, and admired his statements on race-relations and his “this is how they see it” remarks for both white and blacks, every time he would talk about actual policies I would cringe.
I really don’t know what to do on election day. Obama is certainly the most likable of the candidates on a personality level, but his policies are atrocious. Unfortunately I feel even worse about Hillary and McCain.
Should I just sit this one out?
Word search:
drug - 0
marijuana - 0
cocaine - 0
police - 2
jail - 0
corrections - 0
disparity - 0
welfare - 5 (one of which actually blames welfare policies for some ills)
This may be a well-written speech and have a lot of good stuff. But, without mentioning the words above, it’s certainly not ground-breaking or anything that even addresses this country’s war on minorities.
really incredible speech. And i’m a conservative.
I love hearing some of these persons responding in this thread say Obama is a socialist threat.
What’s he going to do? draft laws? Interpret those laws? hmm?
You think he’ll actually give Bush a run for his money? That he’ll do worse than bush has? If McCain is Bush times Ten, and Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible president in recent memory, then voting for Obama doesn’t seem like a bad idea.
Particularly when McCain appears to want to start making laws as president and interpreting them in his favor.
It was an extraordinary speech, and I’ve read various things throughout the day indicating that he did indeed write it himself.
I completely understand his appeal, even though I disagree with him on various policy positions. Sometimes I yearn for someone that I can agree to disagree with. I’m sick of the divisive brand of politics that thrives on splitting the country in two, winning over 50.1% of the population and encouraging both sides to hate each other. I don’t have any hate towards intelligent thinkers on any side of the political spectrum; I love being able to agree to disagree.
As best I can tell, and this was already mentioned by another commenter, Obama not only is a great speaker; he’s a great listener. He understands all sides of an issue and he’s able to articulate and understand opposing viewpoints. Regardless of ideology, that’s a key skill. Communication is a key skill, as well.
Looking at all of the major candidates, and assuming that I disagree somewhat equally on policy with all three of them, I’ll take the guy who at least *understands* my point of view and can articulate it back to me.
And I still don’t understand the libertarian hatred of Reagan … best president in my lifetime, easily.
He intensified the war on drugs, he fervently supported terrorists in Central America… What’s not to hate?
Yea, Reagan - another great speaker. All you who buy this lipservice from these pols deserve what you are going to get. Enjoy.
To be clear, I’m not a libertarian who’s being suckered by a liberal giving a great speech. I’m a liberal who’s happy to see a liberal communicating liberal values in an appealing way.
Thank you JD, I agree. What amazes me is how many libertarians actually think the Republicans are on their side. Since when has the government really gotten smaller or less intrusive under a Republican? Who was president the last time we had a balanced budget? Just sayin. And in the meantime, Democrats don’t welcome all the homophobic, racist, theocratic nonsense that is the bedrock of Republicanism. Including John McCain.
The man has a gift….and the emperor has such nice new clothes (The CCM* told me, so it MUST be true).
*Corporate Controlled Media
What speech were you listening to?
If a white man had made a speech like this, defending some white, Evangelical bigot pastor, he would be crucified.
I simply could not believe he was equating his grandmother’s concern about being mugged by young black me with the vile hate speech of his pastor. The spell is broken–Obama is Jesse Jackson.
What I find hilarious about the comments here is that any of you read Mr. Balko with any regularity and believe that his recognition of Obama’s gift both for writing and speaking (which ought to be beyond dispute) or his ability to give a remarkably candid and insightful (for a politician) speech about race, religion, and family in America as some sort of endorsement of the totality of his politics, much less a willingness to grant him power to remake the American economy.
Don’t y’all read the blog you’re commenting on?
#35 — James:
Thanks for doing my dirty work for me.
Election season brings out the crazies, doesn’t it?
For me, actually, the speech *read* better than it sounded. I’ve found Obama to be a tad over-rated as a speaker. What impressed me about the speech was the amount of thought had gone into it and the care he was taking to walk the racial divide.
“I remind you that the best speaker of the 20th Century was Adolf Hitler”
Ha! Ignoring the Godwin in the room for a moment, his speaking skill were extremely over-rated. Both FDR and Churchill were better.
Reading the blog:
I thought you said that the man had a grift.
“If Mr. Obama were so concerned with racial harmony and “healing”, why did he sit in the pews for 20 years swallowing this guy’s toxic hate-whitey-lets-burn-this-mother-down-the-CIA-invented-AIDS stew”
Well, if he’s concerned with “racial harmony and healing” then it would be a good idea to keep in mind how pissed off some people still are over race issues, rather than avoid those people and get wrapped up in a U of Chicago bubble of wealth and privilege, thinking everything’s just peachy because life is good for Barry Obama.
Let me agree with Gary (28), who pointed out Obama’s ability to see an issue from all sides and articulate them as opposed to his opposition.
I don’t like his economic policies, but I think the guy is smart enough to understand the tradeoffs he is advocating. It’s a question of values (equality vs. growth) rather than understanding, and that is a real comfort to me after the current administration.
In my opinion, the biggest issues we’re facing right now are not economic ones or even military ones. I don’t believe Obama or anybody else has it in him to sink the entire US economy in the long term. Civil liberties and the expansion of executive power are the things that can change us Constitutionally and thus fundamentally. Does anyone really believe that either of the other major candidates will move in the right direction on those issues? I don’t. Even Obama has his flaws on this (2nd amendment), but he’s better on the whole, and I believe he is sincere even where I disagree with him. The way he pulls the country together is quite a bonus.
I wouldn’t call myself an ardent supporter, but I do think he’s the best thing going.
“Ha! Ignoring the Godwin in the room for a moment, his speaking skill were extremely over-rated. Both FDR and Churchill were better.”
Adolph was more of a shouter. His shouty speaking style would fit right in on FOX News, where they think that Bush administration fluffing will be more believable if you raise your voice.
best quote of the speech, imo. one that i’ve never ever heard a black politician utter.
“….Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.”
I’m going to add to my above comment as well: some of you have also said not to buy into his excellent, no, incredible oratory abilities. You know what? I know when/if Obama goes overseas, people are going to listen to what he has to say. His persuasive ability is unmistakable. The role of the presidency is greatly diplomatic. And this guy has Irish Diplomacy, if you recall the continuation of the saying.
Thing is…I’m not too worried about Obama as a president. This country has been f’d and f’d by the neoconservatives who have been running it for the last 8 years. McCain is not going to be any different. I can’t actually believe there are people who held thier breath and voted bush in ‘o4 are actually going to even consider McCain.
Mike #34 wrote, “If a white man had made a speech like this, defending some white, Evangelical bigot pastor, he would be crucified.”–> anyone check out the inflamatory remarks by Hagee, who McCain has held closely? (i’m seriously aghast that Hannity hasn’t made a comment on his anti-catholic hatred…but then Hannity would, I bet, allow McCain to publicly humiliate his own mother…so long as it helped him beat a democrat.)
I can’t articulate ANY REASON WHATSOEVER why keeping the status quo is a good thing for this country.
Truth is, none of these candidates are good. However, instead of two nominees that are completely worthless like we had back in ‘04, i know there’s at least a chance there may be one on the ballot who won’t continue to sink our in a maddening continuance of everything we’ve seen over the last few years…
If i recall correctly, insanity comes from doing something over and over again and expecting different results. Go insane, vote McCain.
“I don’t believe Obama or anybody else has it in him to sink the entire US economy in the long term.”
I wouldn’t put it past the Bush administration. When Bush says they’re “on top” of the current financial situation, the image that comes to mind is Slim Pickens on top of the bomb, riding it all the way down.
Graham,
Sorry, but I consider any politician who advocates any form of socialized medicine (as he referenced in his speech) to be completely unacceptable…especially when that politician is a Democrat who (if elected) would have a Democratic Congress at his disposal. I was stationed with the Army in England for six years, where we had to get our medical treatment through the NHS…that was a horrifying enough experience that I never want to see it here, especially if it’s to be attempted by a group of people so economically incompetent as the Democratic party.
Say what you will about the abhorrent economic policy of the Republicans over the last 10 years…at least McCain’s not trying to destroy what’s left of our health care system.
I am a mixed breed libertarian and liberal. I believe in capitalism, but it should based on a level playing field. Who cares if you can buy cheap crap at Wal-Mart if it comes at the cost of exploiting labor and the environment?
Speaking of health care reform, if you don’t think we already have a form of socialized medicine, you are mistaken. While I would not even begin to agree that government is best to handle the health care because of the inherent bureaucracy, your local, state and federal taxes already pay for indigent health care.
I did think it was an outstanding speech. It showed me that Obama can agree to disagree and not pander to the politics that would otherwise suggest he throw his friend under the bus. There is a lot of work that must be done to address race relations in America and indeed as Radley has pointed out in the past, much is needed in regards to the criminal justice system. Obama’s omission of this as a major issue in his speech was glaringly obvious, but it may not be to far a stretch to say that if we address economic disparities, this can go a long way towards reform.
UCrawford and Robert,
I wasn’t suggesting necessarily that Obama will improve the economy (I especially wasn’t suggesting that restricting trade, etc. would do so). I call Straw Man! I was simply arguing that improving racial relations and improving the economy are not mutually exclusive, regardless of Obama’s positions/ideas on either.
I agree that the best way to improve the economy would be to make it more libertarian, and ending the Drug War might be the single biggest thing that can be done to help eliminate racial disparities. But none of the three big presidential candidates will do either of these (at least from what they say on the stump); the only candidate that seems to have the will, insight, and–pardon me–*audacity* to actually move the country forward in terms of race is Barack Obama.
“I was stationed with the Army in England for six years, where we had to get our medical treatment through the NHS…that was a horrifying enough experience that I never want to see it here”
I take it you preferred the socialized medicine of the military hospitals and/or VA?
so a nonspecific feelgood speech explaining away deeply troubling behavior from a presidential candidate (associating *closely* with a racist, anti-american religious nut)(”closely” defined as “making him my mentor; referring to him as my spiritual guide; having him perform my wedding; quoting him for the title of my book”) …..deeply troubling behavior like that just …..just doesn’t count? being outraged by obama’s tacit acceptance/endorsement of vile, america-hating racism is just “the crazies coming out at election time”, is it?
the “diplomad” said it best: obama, the typically corrupt minion of the famously filthy chicago democrat machine, said his flowery lines well. (although it WAS odd how he threw his white grandmaw under the bus for “racism” much kinder and gentler than the reverend asshole’s brand) however, he neglected to mention a few things.
“we wanted to know about obama’s relationship with wright. we wanted to know why obama thought it cool, useful, meaningful, whatever, to turn wright into his mentor and spiritual guide. he spent 20 years with the man and didn’t know his views? or, he spent 20 years with the man and didn’t mind his views? or, he spent 20 years with the man, knew his views, did or didn’t agree with them, but found it politically expedient to maintain the relationship? which is it, senator? no choice reflects well on your qualifications to be president.”
or were y’all just admiring obama’s speechifying as an example of clintonian mendacity and gall? “that rascal’s a-tellin’ whoppers AGAIN!” (affectionate chuckle)
yeah, all us libertarians like and admire that kind of thing. election year craziness, doncha know. so! you think president obama will bring the CIA to justice for inventing the AIDS virus specifically to decimate the black man?
UCrawford,
you are of course entitled to your opinion.
You come from a military background and have experience with British socialized health care, which I have no doubt is as miserable as you say.
I come from an American ER worker background. As I’m sure you’re aware, no one is turned away for emergency care. That means, essentially, that somebody subsidizes the people who can’t afford it, or the hospital closes. Obviously this is a form of socialism.
If you believe, as I do, that no one should be denied emergency care, then it is only sensible to look at more efficient ways of providing care, and ideally of preventing the need for emergency treatment. Emergency care averages about five times the expense of preventative care.
This is only one issue, of course; there are far more problems with our health system. I am not convinced that Obama’s answer is correct, or even that the socialist answer generally is correct in the long run, but I also do not have a convincing or complete alternative. I am not about to deny a person in real need of treatment, and I hope that anyone who works in health care has the same feeling. Would you want a nurse whose decision to help you - to be a nurse - was based solely on your ability to pay? I think you want someone who is actually interested in helping sick people…
Anyhow, to agree with you in some sense - no, I’m not satisfied with Obama’s plan, or anyone else’s that I’ve heard. This rambling response (all apologies) is by way of pointing out that a socialist health care policy is not necessarily insane in some senses. At the same time, I personally believe in voting on the balance of the issues, and not on any one. To vote on one issue is to say that it is so important it supersedes all other factors - for me, the health care issue is not so clear that it can have that kind of weight in this election.
James D is absolutely right.
You Obama people are fucking deluded.
Because the next president is going to be a bloody disaster, no matter who it is, I could just about almost wish that this creep gets elected, just to see the looks on your faces by about mid-2010.
Mark my words.
(On Reagan…)
“He intensified the war on drugs, he fervently supported terrorists in Central America… What’s not to hate?”
He signed the law that made it illegal, for the first time in American history, for anyone to work and get paid for it in this country without first being identified by the federal government. (Go investigate the “Taxpayer Identification Number”.)
To hell with Ronald Reagan. He was never a friend of mine.
I’m becoming convinced that a substantial percentage, perhaps even a majority, of the comment-posters on this site are socialists who think they’re libertarians just because they’d like to enjoy their dope without bein’ hassled by da Man.
James, I don’t know about the other posters, but I certainly didn’t take Radley’s compliment about Obama’s speech-writing/delivering ability as an endorsement of his policies.
I was just agreeing that it was a well written speech, but pointing out that I did not agree with many of the words behind the inspiring tone.
The Quality of Obama’s Character
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2008/03/obama_and_me.asp
“…I grew up on the south side of Chicago in the 1970s and 1980s so I have a bit of local interest in Senator Barack Obama’s race for the White House.
Obama and his family live in my old neighborhood, Hyde Park. My siblings and I all attended our local public high school – Kenwood Academy. Obama’s wife Michelle went to Whitney Young High School. The city swimming championship was always held there. My older brothers were members of Kenwood’s swim team. Aside from its swimming pool, I never saw much of Whitney Young. It was a magnet school. But my parents always said that didn’t mean much. All of Chicago’s public schools were basically horrible.
Kenwood was reclassified an academy rather than a regular high school sometime in the 1970s. It was the principal’s way of expelling the gang members from the school. In the Chicago public school system, if you attended an academy and weren’t passing your classes you could be expelled. I understand that the distinction was removed a couple of years after I graduated in 1987, and the school rapidly declined to its previous status as a gang and drug infested flophouse for adolescents. The year after I graduated, in a sign of what was happening, the school authorities installed metal detectors at all the entrances.
When I went to Kenwood, the school was 85 percent black and 15 percent other. The others were mainly white with a sprinkling of Asians and Latinos. Going to school there probably gave me a somewhat skewed view of the reality of race relations in America, because the only bigotry I experienced was black bigotry against whites.
I was one of the only white girls on the track team and my coach, Joyce Brown was quite a black bigot. She made every white girl on the team run the mile and two mile. Only the black girls could sprint. It didn’t matter to her that I was better at the 200 than the mile. When I asked to run sprints, she just said, “No, that’s not for you girl.” So I quit.
I was in 9th grade in the lead-up to the 1984 presidential elections. Most of the kids in the school were fired up about Jesse Jackson’s candidacy. I was personally offended by their support for a man who referred to New York as a “hymietown,” and I let my feelings be known. I don’t think that anyone thought worse of me for saying I didn’t support a man who was anti-Jewish. But then, it never occurred to me to care. If they had thought worse of me for standing up for my rights as a Jew, then that was their problem, not mine.
At any rate, I remembered my exchanges with my classmates about Jackson today as I read Obama’s speech about race and his pastor Jeremiah White. It was an excellent speech as far as it goes. But it left me feeling very uneasy about the quality of Obama’s character.
I was 13 years old when I stood up alone to all my classmates and told them that I thought they should be ashamed of themselves for supporting an anti-Semite for president. I was a child. But Obama came to Wright as an adult. And as an adult, he sat through 20 years of Wright’s anti-white, anti-Jewish, and anti-American vitriol and said nothing. Indeed, until just a few months ago, he was honoring him as his spiritual mentor. What does that say about him?
As a child, I thought that my track coach was discriminating against me because I was white and so I got up and left. When he — as an adult — heard his pastor spewing poison, he never said anything and he didn’t quit.
It can be argued that there is a difference between how I reacted to black bigotry and how he reacted to black bigotry because I was an outsider and he was an insider. I wasn’t trying to become a member of the black community. I was simply demanding to be treated with respect as a non-black by blacks who happened to be the vast majority of my classmates and teachers.
But then, here’s another example.
In January, I spoke at an anti-jihad conference in Dallas, TX. It was organized by a group called the America Truth Forum. Basically, it was a conclave of an anti-jihad public with anti-jihad speakers. That is, we were all members of the same ideological community – or so I thought when I agreed to attend.
One of the speakers on my panel was an older man named Paul Williams. I had never heard his name before. He approached me before the panel and flattered me, saying that I was the best writer around. So it goes without saying that I was not ill-disposed to him.
But then he began to speak; and pure poison came out. He began his remarks by telling the audience of mainly religious Christians that some woman had told him that he is a prophet. That already had me questioning his character. But then he went on, giving incorrect statements about Muslims. Rather than provide information about jihadist doctrine or infiltration of American mosques, he simply began demonizing Muslims as a group. They became this amorphous “other” incapable of individual choices or actions. It was bigotry pure and simple.
And so, I walked off the stage and out of the hall. I didn’t return until he finished speaking and when I returned, I refused to shake his hand or have anything to do with him.
I saw that the audience had given him a standing ovation and so I began to wonder if I shouldn’t simply return the check I had received from the organizers and leave. But I decided to stay and to challenge him.
And that is what I did. I quietly and forcefully explained why what Williams said was wrong, un-American, and in defiance of both Christian and Jewish values and approaches to human beings. And, as luck would have it, I received an even larger standing ovation than Williams did.
The point here is that I didn’t nod my head to fit in, or treat him politely simply because we sat on a stage together. And I didn’t surrender the floor to him. We were supposedly on “the same side,” but his statements were so contrary to what I believe that it occurred to me that I’d rather be shopping with Nancy Pelosi than sitting through his hateful nastiness.
And I write all of this not to puff myself up. I don’t think I did anything extraordinary by standing up to Williams or to my classmates and teachers in high school. I think that it is how people should behave particularly if they are smart enough to understand that ideas are important. And Obama is certainly smart enough to understand that ideas are important.
Obama’s denunciation of Wright’s bigotry amounts to too little too late. The time to stand up to him wasn’t now, when his association with Wright is sinking his hopes for the White House. The time to have stood up to Wright was when Obama was just another member of his church. If he truly believes in what he says he believes, he should have walked out of Wright’s church or grabbed Wright’s microphone and told his fellow churchgoers that Wright was wrong and that they mustn’t hate. In twenty years of attending Wright’s church, why didn’t Obama once stand before his fellow church members and tell them that they mustn’t hate their country and their fellow Americans?
The fact that he didn’t, and the fact that he upheld this man until just a few months ago as his spiritual mentor and still refuses to condemn him and his deeply flawed character tells me everything I need to know about Barack Obama. I think that he is an opportunistic, weak man. I hope and pray that he doesn’t become President….”
So she attended an “anti-Jihadist” conference expecting racial sensitivity?
Actually, it was the best, non-violent revenge we could ever have on the North for burning down half of the South in the Civil War. 4 years of rape and pillage, eight years of Bush. I think it evens out, don’t you?
All kidding aside… if the races were reversed, Radley would be spittling about racism and nazism were it a white guy like McCain. As Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost put it, if you replace “black” with “white” and “African” with “Aryan” you get a church doctrine that is pretty much identical to the pseudo-Christian, Nazi-created “German Church” while Hitler was in power that embraced all manner of vitriolic racism.
Christopher,
I agree with you that Obama would probably try to help move us forward in regards to race relations. On the other hand, based on his comments in this speech and elsewhere, I think he would also do a lot to move us backwards in all the other areas I referenced in my original comment (economics, health care, economic class hatreds). The trade-off is simply not worth it.
Graham,
I have no problem with someone believing that everyone should be entitled to medical care (emergency or otherwise). It is an admirable goal. My problem lies with the idea that everyone else should be forced to pay for it…particularly since doing so will insure that the quality of health care for everyone else will degrade as a result of those bad methods (as I discussed when I wrote a guest post about my experience in England at The Liberty Papers).
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/01/you-like-europes-health-care-so-much-then-go-live-there/
And as multiple sources in the mainstream press from countries with socialized medicine have noted:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
If you believe people have a right to health care, there’s nothing wrong with individuals, hospitals, businesses, or any other private entity setting up funds, programs or charities to help take care of those who lack the funds for adequate medical treatment. Once that charity becomes compulsory and the cost becomes so high that people find their health care options taken from them (as has happened in every country that has installed “universal” health care), it is no longer an admirable goal.
holy shit there’s a difference between the white experience and the black experience in america
you fucking pathetic shitheads
Graham,
We are in agreement on that. Personally, I feel that most of the problems with the high costs of medical care in our country today can be tracked back to government intervention and regulation. Despite what the “universal” health care supporters would like to believe, our medical care is not private enterprise, it’s managed care. The solutions of politicians like Obama are headed in the wrong direction…they intend to add more of the elements of our health care system that don’t work. The best of all possible worlds would be to find a politician who will look at de-regulation (starting with the FDA and its drug approval process). Failing that it’s better to have a politician who’ll simply do nothing.
“I voted for Ron Paul this afternoon. For the last couple of weeks, I had planned to vote for Obama…. I imagine I’ll vote for Obama if he’s the nominee against McCain in November. I sure as hell couldn’t vote for McCain.”
-Radley Balko
February 12, 2008
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/02/12/i-voted/
Read the whole thing.
But given Radley’s recent playing of the racist card, and his other comments about Obama, it’s understandable that some people would read what they do into this brief blog post.
“What does that say about him?”
Still not too sure. But, I think it is very reasonable to conclude that all religious leaders are whack-jobs. Hagee, Haggard, Wright, Falwell. In some way or another, they all espoused some sort of contempt for others. I think these things we can be assured of.
But as I’ve echoed above, it would be hard to believe that an ivy league graduate would take to heart, word-for-word, what a religious pastor says and integrate it into his own personal doctrine. If a man wants to get into politics, he’s gotta have a church. And if he’s gonna have one, it should be the most beneficial to him. You stay there long enough, and you’ll probably start making relationships regardless of your individual thoughts.
It’s not hard to believe that any black person over the age of 45 has some personal connection to the racist past of this country. it is thus hardly a stretch to think that a pastor, who unifies the voice of the community, is also going to carry those long-held sentiments…
Just read a few things that Wright has said:
” He called the United States ‘the No. 1 killer in the world.’”
Well, we have manages to start a number of wars, under the guise of freedom by force. This isn’t entirely correct, but it’s really not inaccurate, unless you think the American government can do no wrong.
“He accused the government of having ’started the AIDS virus.’”
Bit of a stretch, but there is the understanding that the government did nothing while it continued to spread.
“After 9/11, he said, ‘America’s chickens are coming home to roost.’”–> Blowback, anyone?
“And he said, ‘God d—- America,’ for ‘killing innocent people.’”
Also not inaccurate, unless you believe only guilty people get the death penalty, that only the guilty people have died in Iraq, and that our foreign policy is virtuous.
As far as I can tell…he’s pretty damn critical of the American government. Which is ironic, considering he’s being condemned by a block of people who have historically been known to be skeptical of an ever-expanding government and the powers it gives itself to overreach into our private lives.
Being critical of the government, yes, even the American government, has never been a bad thing…in fact it’s what this country came to be created by. Telling us that we should otherwise accept that our government can do no wrong is outright absurd. particularly in light of what I read here on a weekly basis.
UCrawford,
read your two posts here and your old blog post (quickly). Sorry I don’t have much time here so this may not be well thought-out.
It’s not that we’re in intellectual disagreement. Health care should not be a right, as far as I’m concerned. The problem is that when people are confronted with that principle in action, human compassion takes over, treatment is provided, and costs are incurred.
Confronted with an actual patient who is in obvious need I’m going to do everything I can for him, even though I’m uncomfortable with the way it’s paid for. That’s how health care people are, for the most part. I see the problem with it; indeed, I feel it acutely; it’s been a source of internal conflict for me for years. But I can’t hold to principle when it means watching someone suffer. I don’t believe that’s a moral flaw on my part. If so it affects almost everyone in the business.
The point is, people are always going to be treated whether or not they can pay, because some softy schmuck like myself is going to see to it that they are. Given that, there is some room for considering the most efficient way to do it, and that means some form of socialistic system. I’d like to keep that aspect to a very small segment of the industry to cover the poorest people, but there’s room for argument. And I agree with you that private charities are the best way to approach this, but that’s not currently a realistic total solution.
Anyhow, it’s a gray area, for me, even though I get what you’re saying. Most relevant point to this discussion is that I’m not so clear on this that Obama’s health care policy would deter my vote.
The choice will be Obama or McCain. Both are big government. Both will have a tall order to fill if they hope to spend the amount of money the current administration has frittered away.
I’ll take Obama over McCain any and every day of the week. And I too voted for Paul in the primary.
UCrawford,
You are aware that Obama does NOT mandate healthcare coverage, right? His plan is more market-based. Lower the costs and make it affordable and people will choose it on their own.
But I suppose the spectre of more insured people outweighs the assaults on libertarian values that will continue in an extension of the Bush Administration via McCain…
Graham,
I can understand where you’re coming fro