During last week's Presidential debate, the candidates were asked to address the increasingly negative tone of the campaign. John McCain asked Barack Obama to specifically repudiate the comments by Rep. John Lewis of Georgia that John McCain was creating an atmosphere of hatred not unlike that which was stirred up by infamous segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace.
Obama noted that at McCain's rallies, people shouted things such as, "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" McCain responded that he was proud of his supporters and that "you're always going to have some fringe peoples." He then started to mention T-shirts which he found "unacceptable", but did not elaborate. (Transcript here.)
Now, what are these T-shirts which were offensive to Sen. McCain? He would be at great pains to describe, say, this one on national television. (Language warning!)
But wear this shirt, and be called a racist. Logical. (Remember this sign and all the attention it garnered? Also remember that it was a radio stunt and not actual sexism?)
Oh, this is charming. Normally, I'd ignore an Internet-based insult, but considering it reached the front page of Reddit, it most certainly warranted a mention. Also, this joke is gaining traction amongst my friends. Nice, eh?
The national media have yet to leap on any of these incidents, but they have had a field day with, in part, the "Kill him!" incident - which apparently never happened.
Now, why did I put out this laundry list of seemingly unconnected smears against the McCain/Palin ticket in light of the rowdy, insane people we have seen attending McCain/Palin rallies? (Those wanting a laugh about the subject can go here. Oh, crazy rally lady, how you endear us.)
Because this is the attitude of most - sadly, not all - but most of the McCain/Palin supporters I know. (UPDATE: I just saw the first link covered by CNN. Kudos to them!)
I admit, I know people who think Obama is a closet Islamic terrorist and others who think Obama may not be a natural-born citizen. They're wrong and ignorant, but they will always exist in a campaign. There are plenty of McCain rumours (and Lord knows how many Palin rumours) which my friends parrot and I correct, sometimes to dismissals of my partisanship.
In fact, I know people who are voting against Obama in part because of his race. It's stupid, but they are. Likewise, Obama's race plays a part in the support of some friends, because positive racism ("It's time we have a black President!") is not treated with the same disdain as negative racism ("I don't trust a Negro in the White House."). The problem is, that's still racism - and I don't mean that as a value judgement, I mean that in terms of logic.
I don't view voting based on race in emotional, moral terms. I view it in the same way as voting based on party, regardless of issues; that is to say, it is illogical and runs counter to democracy. So, again, let me say something which needs to be said: In terms of voting, a vote for John McCain because of Barack Obama's race is no better or worse than a vote for Barack Obama because of his race. And full disclosure, I am an issues voter, period.
What bothers me is the racial undertones of the Obama campaign. Anyone willing to look can't deny that they are there.
Case in point: Obama's "great" speech on race. The media hailed it as a grand piece of oratory and used the lack of new events afterwards as an excuse to kill the Wright story.
The issue was ultimately never whether Obama was some sort of closet racist - his positions on affirmative action, for example, belie that theory, nor was it the fact that there were substantive issues to tackle. The problem was remarks like these:
"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend 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."
This is a disgusting attempt at moral equivalency. The idea that a conspiracy theorist who shouts like a banshee and considers that a sermon is merely saying certain disagreeable things is absurd. What sort of thing could one "strongly disagree[]" with in a proper religious setting, anyway? That is, can one be a good, say, Christian and disagree with one's priest if that priest is professing that faith to the letter? Likewise, can a truly good priest teach a clearly deviant theology?
Obviously, it is never a politician's place to make pronouncements of Faith. As long as there has been an America, there have been Americans of different faiths. It has always been the task of the President to refer to the Almighty in strictly vague terms - never praying in the name of Jesus Christ, Yahweh, Allah or any other deity. As such, a politician is in no position to say what "good" religion is.
But again, that's not the issue. The issue is Obama's clumsy and half-hearted attempt at connecting his pastor's rants to the average worshipper who isn't quite on the same wavelength as his or her clergyman. Given the circumstances, there really was nothing else Obama could say or do to distance himself from the offensive comments at hand, and his explanation did endear himself to both political and religious moderates. Die-hards like me - unabashedly conservative (albeit libertarian in many respects) and staunchly orthodox in terms of traditional Catholicism - would likely never be won over.
But the next portion is what set me off:
"That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
...
I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him 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."
Everything about that is wrong.
Mr. Obama: Blacks are not a homogenous group, that is true. What is not true is that Wright somehow represents the "black community" - or that blacks are solely defined by one type of worship.
Case in point: My personal faith experience covers both bases: My dad is an Anglican priest, and our parish is mostly black.
It stands to reason that a white clergyman might very well conduct himself in a manner different from that of a black clergyman - although to some extent, I would hope that a certain level of similarity in teaching might exist amongst all of God's shepherds: God is love, do unto others, all that jazz. My father's speaking style is firm but loving. He raises his voice, but doesn't scream, gesticulates, but does not flail, and he hits controversial issues, but avoids politics.
But of course, there are always poseurs (see Father Pfleger, heretical Roman Catholic priest and utter tool).
And as for our worship - Think a Roman Catholic Mass before Vatican II - albeit in Elizabethan English. Race has nothing to do with how we pray - nor should it. There are no colours at St. Mary's, only Christians.
Instead of the utter fawning which followed Obama's speech - which no-one can seem to remember from memory, I might add, there should have been a serious criticism of Obama's gross stereotyping of black Americans and his attempt to make Wright into a worthy representative of an entire race of very diverse people.
In fact, I would argue Obama did not come off as a black man defending his faith and explaining its relationship to his race. He sounded like a white liberal who did not know the first thing about blacks. And technically, he is a white liberal. Remember, by our ludicrous standard of race, Obama is just as much white as he is black - we just choose to classify him based on looks rather than genetics.
And I could go on and on about Obama's shameless race-baiting: "They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?" "You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name." And perhaps most ironically, after thanking John McCain for his call to be civil, he warned his crowd not to be "hoodwinked" or "bamboozled" - just as he did when campaigning in the South Carolina primary, which he won due to the overwhelming amount of blacks who voted in it.
But that's not the media narrative. Instead, it's been, "Why is John McCain so negative?" "Are the Republicans inciting violence?" Oh, and don't forget, John McCain's ancestors had slaves! Let's put that on page one (which they did)! Never mind that Sen. Obama is in a similar situation.
Barack Obama has accomplished a great thing, of this there can be no doubt. But Obama is in many ways everything he should not be. Obama's appeal is his supposedly post-racial campaign, but he has repeatedly appealed to the worst aspects of race-mongering during his campaign. Be it pre-emptive charges of racism from his opponents or his mealy-mouthed attempt at somehow reconciling the very rhetoric he admitted was unacceptable with the "black community" as a whole. His entire campaign has had an undertone of racial pandering which insults the intelligence of any thinking human being and should concern anyone who wishes for a world free of prejudice and hostility.
Should we celebrate the fact that so many Americans see past race and will vote purely on the issues which matter to them? Absolutely. But should we celebrate that this particular individual might be the one to break the highest colour barrier in the world? I would recommend one give pause before answering that query.
Obama noted that at McCain's rallies, people shouted things such as, "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" McCain responded that he was proud of his supporters and that "you're always going to have some fringe peoples." He then started to mention T-shirts which he found "unacceptable", but did not elaborate. (Transcript here.)
Now, what are these T-shirts which were offensive to Sen. McCain? He would be at great pains to describe, say, this one on national television. (Language warning!)
But wear this shirt, and be called a racist. Logical. (Remember this sign and all the attention it garnered? Also remember that it was a radio stunt and not actual sexism?)
Oh, this is charming. Normally, I'd ignore an Internet-based insult, but considering it reached the front page of Reddit, it most certainly warranted a mention. Also, this joke is gaining traction amongst my friends. Nice, eh?
The national media have yet to leap on any of these incidents, but they have had a field day with, in part, the "Kill him!" incident - which apparently never happened.
Now, why did I put out this laundry list of seemingly unconnected smears against the McCain/Palin ticket in light of the rowdy, insane people we have seen attending McCain/Palin rallies? (Those wanting a laugh about the subject can go here. Oh, crazy rally lady, how you endear us.)
Because this is the attitude of most - sadly, not all - but most of the McCain/Palin supporters I know. (UPDATE: I just saw the first link covered by CNN. Kudos to them!)
I admit, I know people who think Obama is a closet Islamic terrorist and others who think Obama may not be a natural-born citizen. They're wrong and ignorant, but they will always exist in a campaign. There are plenty of McCain rumours (and Lord knows how many Palin rumours) which my friends parrot and I correct, sometimes to dismissals of my partisanship.
In fact, I know people who are voting against Obama in part because of his race. It's stupid, but they are. Likewise, Obama's race plays a part in the support of some friends, because positive racism ("It's time we have a black President!") is not treated with the same disdain as negative racism ("I don't trust a Negro in the White House."). The problem is, that's still racism - and I don't mean that as a value judgement, I mean that in terms of logic.
I don't view voting based on race in emotional, moral terms. I view it in the same way as voting based on party, regardless of issues; that is to say, it is illogical and runs counter to democracy. So, again, let me say something which needs to be said: In terms of voting, a vote for John McCain because of Barack Obama's race is no better or worse than a vote for Barack Obama because of his race. And full disclosure, I am an issues voter, period.
What bothers me is the racial undertones of the Obama campaign. Anyone willing to look can't deny that they are there.
Case in point: Obama's "great" speech on race. The media hailed it as a grand piece of oratory and used the lack of new events afterwards as an excuse to kill the Wright story.
The issue was ultimately never whether Obama was some sort of closet racist - his positions on affirmative action, for example, belie that theory, nor was it the fact that there were substantive issues to tackle. The problem was remarks like these:
"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend 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."
This is a disgusting attempt at moral equivalency. The idea that a conspiracy theorist who shouts like a banshee and considers that a sermon is merely saying certain disagreeable things is absurd. What sort of thing could one "strongly disagree[]" with in a proper religious setting, anyway? That is, can one be a good, say, Christian and disagree with one's priest if that priest is professing that faith to the letter? Likewise, can a truly good priest teach a clearly deviant theology?
Obviously, it is never a politician's place to make pronouncements of Faith. As long as there has been an America, there have been Americans of different faiths. It has always been the task of the President to refer to the Almighty in strictly vague terms - never praying in the name of Jesus Christ, Yahweh, Allah or any other deity. As such, a politician is in no position to say what "good" religion is.
But again, that's not the issue. The issue is Obama's clumsy and half-hearted attempt at connecting his pastor's rants to the average worshipper who isn't quite on the same wavelength as his or her clergyman. Given the circumstances, there really was nothing else Obama could say or do to distance himself from the offensive comments at hand, and his explanation did endear himself to both political and religious moderates. Die-hards like me - unabashedly conservative (albeit libertarian in many respects) and staunchly orthodox in terms of traditional Catholicism - would likely never be won over.
But the next portion is what set me off:
"That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
...
I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him 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."
Everything about that is wrong.
Mr. Obama: Blacks are not a homogenous group, that is true. What is not true is that Wright somehow represents the "black community" - or that blacks are solely defined by one type of worship.
Case in point: My personal faith experience covers both bases: My dad is an Anglican priest, and our parish is mostly black.
It stands to reason that a white clergyman might very well conduct himself in a manner different from that of a black clergyman - although to some extent, I would hope that a certain level of similarity in teaching might exist amongst all of God's shepherds: God is love, do unto others, all that jazz. My father's speaking style is firm but loving. He raises his voice, but doesn't scream, gesticulates, but does not flail, and he hits controversial issues, but avoids politics.
But of course, there are always poseurs (see Father Pfleger, heretical Roman Catholic priest and utter tool).
And as for our worship - Think a Roman Catholic Mass before Vatican II - albeit in Elizabethan English. Race has nothing to do with how we pray - nor should it. There are no colours at St. Mary's, only Christians.
Instead of the utter fawning which followed Obama's speech - which no-one can seem to remember from memory, I might add, there should have been a serious criticism of Obama's gross stereotyping of black Americans and his attempt to make Wright into a worthy representative of an entire race of very diverse people.
In fact, I would argue Obama did not come off as a black man defending his faith and explaining its relationship to his race. He sounded like a white liberal who did not know the first thing about blacks. And technically, he is a white liberal. Remember, by our ludicrous standard of race, Obama is just as much white as he is black - we just choose to classify him based on looks rather than genetics.
And I could go on and on about Obama's shameless race-baiting: "They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?" "You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name." And perhaps most ironically, after thanking John McCain for his call to be civil, he warned his crowd not to be "hoodwinked" or "bamboozled" - just as he did when campaigning in the South Carolina primary, which he won due to the overwhelming amount of blacks who voted in it.
But that's not the media narrative. Instead, it's been, "Why is John McCain so negative?" "Are the Republicans inciting violence?" Oh, and don't forget, John McCain's ancestors had slaves! Let's put that on page one (which they did)! Never mind that Sen. Obama is in a similar situation.
Barack Obama has accomplished a great thing, of this there can be no doubt. But Obama is in many ways everything he should not be. Obama's appeal is his supposedly post-racial campaign, but he has repeatedly appealed to the worst aspects of race-mongering during his campaign. Be it pre-emptive charges of racism from his opponents or his mealy-mouthed attempt at somehow reconciling the very rhetoric he admitted was unacceptable with the "black community" as a whole. His entire campaign has had an undertone of racial pandering which insults the intelligence of any thinking human being and should concern anyone who wishes for a world free of prejudice and hostility.
Should we celebrate the fact that so many Americans see past race and will vote purely on the issues which matter to them? Absolutely. But should we celebrate that this particular individual might be the one to break the highest colour barrier in the world? I would recommend one give pause before answering that query.
