Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Crossfit Group on Facebook
Gourmet Beer Bill Passes Alabama House

Reaction: Obama’s Speech on Race

Posted by Midnight on March 19th, 2008

Yesterday I watched Barack Obama’s speech on race relations and his associate Reverend Wright.  I watched the speech in its entirety, and I seem to have taken away something different than most conservatives: I thought it wasn’t half bad.  He did hit a tangent of some leftist ideas that I don’t agree with– and I noticed– but I thought the overall message of his speech was constructive and adequately addressed criticism of his connection with Rev. Wright.

Conservative talk radio has been incredibly critical of the speech.  Some of the criticism is deserved, and all of it is expected, but judging from the inability of conservative commentators to acknowledge anything good about the speech, I discern they were determined to cry foul if Obama did anything less than morph into a young, black Ronald Reagan on national TV.  We all knew that wasn’t going to happen.  This morning WVNN’s Dale Jackson said in regard to Obama’s reaction to Rev. Wright’s comments, “All I heard was excuses.”  This is ironic, given that Obama said, “Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not.”  I believe that nothing discredits a debater or commentator more than when he refuses to acknowledge any valid points of his opposition.  It shows that one thinks they might not be able to logically counter the points if taken head-on, so the points must be unacknowledged or dismissed outright.  Liberals, stop wagging your fingers; you’re the biggest culprits.

One thing Obama said that did put a blip on my political radar was “In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people.” I thought to myself, “Great, this is going to be another line of the same old race warfare dogma.”  I almost tuned myself out. Then I decided to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and just for a little while I would pretend that I hadn’t been jaded by the mindless drivel of the Jacksons, Sharptons, Farrakhans, and now the Wrights of the world.  For a moment I decided to wipe the slate clean.  I would judge Obama’s words without any prior conceptions that attempts to explain racism were attempts to blame me for failures and transgressions which I had no connection to whatsoever.  I put that aside and listened.  I thought, “OK, I’ll assume that racism is still a factor in society.  What do you want to tell me about it?”

He proceeded to tell me a lot about it.  I think he made some intelligent and valid points on how the education and employment system that ended 50 years ago still has trickle-down effects today.  I also think his point is valid that while he refutes what Rev. Wright said he cannot disown the man.  I see where he’s coming from.  Politics aren’t everything in this world.  I’ve got a couple of very liberal friends and at least one very liberal member of my family.  I’m not going to disown them because they are big government, tax and spend, hurt those evil wealthy people liberals and I’m a small government leave me the hell alone so I can unapologetically become one of those evil wealthy people libertarian.  I care about them.  I value their presence in my life.  Therefore, even though I don’t think they’re fit to govern a troop of Boy Scouts, I’m not going to break ties with them because we disagree on politics.  The counter-point is that I don’t, in fact, have any acquaintances that think “God damn America,” “the government lied about Pearl Harbor,” and that this is the “US of KKK A.”  I probably wouldn’t care to be around someone like that.  However, Obama is close to Rev Wright and does care to remain acquaintances with them.  While I do understand Obama’s stance, it does somewhat bring into question his judgment and convictions in choosing to be close friends with such a person.  That’s probably the harshest criticism that can be legitimately brought from Obama’s speech yesterday.

I particularly think Obama did a superb job of painting the picture of race in America from both sides.  I had never heard a politician enunciate the following point:

“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…And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist,                  without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.”

Thanks to Obama for finally throwing me a bone for being pissed off that any supposedly objective selection process based on merit (jobs and college admission) gives an advantage to anyone of any race simply because of his race.  I doubt Obama will become a sharp critic of Affirmative Action, but at least he acknowledged the counterpoint.  Many liberals just dismiss it, or claim you are racist for not believing anyone (including yourself) is entitled to any special privilege because of race.

One of the most important points Obama made came near the beginning of his speech when addressing the comments of Rev. Wright, “…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.”  Once again, kudos for acknowledging all that is right with America—that Rev. Wright’s flamboyant and public criticism of his elected government (however misguided) is an almost uniquely American concept. There aren’t any Islamic Sheiks in Saudi Arabia preaching “Allah damn the government of King Abdullah!”  At least…they don’t do it for long.

I think that’s an important concept to take from the speech as a whole.  Sure, I can elevate what is wrong with Obama’s speech above what is right.  I can dwell on the fact that he said “the corporation you work for will ship [your job] overseas for nothing more than a profit.” (I’m sorry, are corporations supposed to aim for a loss?  What’s the ‘reasonable limit’ on how much profit they should make? As determined by you, I’m sure?  I suppose corporations exist to support their employees? Perhaps they should just give up profit to distribute Girl Scout cookies and plant trees on Arbor Day.)  I can dwell on the fact that he never stressed individual responsibility in overcoming oppression.  He said, “there were many who didn’t make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.” (Nobody has ever failed on his own; it’s always due to something beyond his control.)

All those things are contrary to the ideals I hold, but there is a larger message to the speech that I think is very valuable: We can’t overcome a problem if we continue to ignore it, and especially if we magnify it beyond its scope.  As Obama said, “It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.”  Bravo and Amen.  We will probably disagree on how to properly invest in the education, health, and welfare of everyone, but the fact that once properly achieved it will lead to prosperity is hardly arguable.



Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

I just began reading your blog-I found it via Sarah Boxer’s “Ultimate Blogs” and thought I would stop by.

While I don’t agree with every point you’ve made and don’t exactly like being boxed into the whole “all liberals dig affirmative action” statement…I am impressed that you are able to acknowledge that politicians from both sides of the table have valid points and should not just be dismissed just because they are Democrat or they are Republican…and I am glad that you are able to put your prejudgments aside and actually LISTEN to what is being said.

I think one of the downfalls of the government-especially in recent times, is that there aren’t more people like you…and instead the country is filled with those who are in the mindset of-well they are a Liberal so whatever comes out of their mouth is b.s. and vice versa.

Silver,
Thanks for the input. My massive grouping of liberals is usually more for sarcastic effect than a reflection of reality. I understand that every person carries different views, even if they identify with a political party.

I appreciate your vote of confidence. I try to always weigh things objectively and see where that gets me instead of starting with an opinion and extrapolating facts from there. In my brief experience on this earth, this has led me to the views I currently hold. As I receive and evaluate more information those views may change. That is one thing that has always bothered me about grilling politicians about changing sides on issues (ala Mitt Romney). I see it as a virtue that someone changes an opinion based on new information or a new perspective. My grandfather only had a 3rd grade education, but he told me repeatedly “A wise man changes his mind. A fool never does.” I think he was right.

Don’t be so intellectually dishonest. Shoot, I even know someone from your personal “gaming life” who is a 9/11 denier. Which is essentially as you state: “God damn America,” “the government lied about Pearl Harbor” type of person, who you’ve cared to be around in the past. Similarly after 9/11, I’m sure you heard the popular xenophobic, racist comment from friends or family with varying levels of seriousness that we should just “nuke the bastards”.

Now I’m not saying deep down you specifically have racially charged beliefs. But it seems, all of us, are one way or another blind to our own bigotry or those beliefs held by friends and family.

I have friends. Who, if you were to know only of them the direct discriminatory quotes I’ve heard them say in the past, you’d characterize them as bigots, racists or something else. Yet, I do not consider them as such.

It this weird perplexing duality of character. Reverend Wright seems like a contradiction. But is his problem hatred or ignorance. And is there a difference? I certainly think there is.

“Liberals, stop wagging your fingers; you’re the biggest culprits.”

I’m wagging my fingers; not at what came before or after, but at this statement itself. You know I guess I could harp on and on about this; and if I did, I guess I would be just as dishonest as your statement here, at ignoring an otherwise very well thought post about Obama’s speech. I will say this: I think you see them as the biggest culprits, because you choose to see them that way.

Jason, that’s the second time in three blogs that you’ve called me intellectually dishonest. I wanted to make sure I understood what it means, so I looked it up. From wikipedia:

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. It is an obfuscatory way to say “you’re lying” or “you’re stupid.” The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker’s on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.

Given that definition of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ then I can assure you that you are wrong in accusing me of it. I write this blog because I enjoying expressing my opinion which I believe has merit. I have no illusions that it is influential in American politics. In short, I can’t fathom why I would be intellectually dishonest.

If I actually have acquaintances that think those things, then I am ignorant of that fact. I don’t know every detail about everyone I know. Perhaps a more constructive point on your end would be “Actually, you might be surprised at the extreme positions some of your acquaintances hold that you don’t know about. For example: ______. In that light your criticism of Obama’s judgment for remaining friends with Rev Wright is unjustified.”

However, it is getting tiresome that every time we disagree (which is most of the time) you contend that I am intellectually dishonest. I really hold these opinions. I’m not a fiction writer. I don’t have an agenda to push. As I told you on another forum, I don’t blindly latch onto the agenda of a political group and advocate it against reason. In short, there is no trickery going on here. I am not trying to trick my readers into believing something I know to be false, and I am not trying to trick myself into the same.

I may be wrong, and if I am I encourage you to tell me why. But stop insinuating that I am always conducting mental trickery either of myself or my readers. I am a blogger, not a magician.

You’re right. I was wrong to call you intellectually dishonest.

I definitely can come of as abrasive when I state my opinion; but try not to take it as an insult, it is just my character to say what I think. I hope you do not see me as simply as a disagreeing blog troll. It just my character to highlight disagreements, as I like having good debates amongst people I respect. Agreement I find boring; and in a way, is just self-indulgence. I must say earnestly, I think we agree more often than you think. In truth, I actually responded to this post because I agreed with your basic premises.

Now I admit I was wrong; but in a way to cop myself out, I originally wrote that statement towards your thought about liberals being the biggest culprits of ignoring valid points. I felt this was intellectually dishonest, not what came after or before.

With this though, I guess I should explain what I see as “intellectual dishonesty”. Notwithstanding the Webster or Wikipedia definition; it isn’t for me a nuanced elitist way to call a person a liar or consciously being dishonest. Instead I see as this; people have there own biases. Whether conscious or not, people filter information through their these biases. If what comes out of these “bias filters”, for lack of a better term, isn’t fair or ignores another side. I consider that intellectual dishonesty. Fair, in this context, is of course very subjective.

I must say, it is just one of my pet peeves. In fairness, I don’t hold any illusion that I’m not guilty of it myself. It seems to me, you don’t like it much more than I do. When you say: “it shows that one thinks they might not be able to logically counter the points if taken head-on, so the points must be unacknowledged or dismissed outright.” I see that as the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. It is as if a persons “bias filter” is on overboard. Never being able to see the other side of the road.

I see what you mean. You seem to be saying that the sentence in question is a result of me viewing information through one of my bias filters (that I agree we all have to some degree). It’s possible, I’ll admit. It’s a difficult thing to prove one way or the other.

Midnight,

Such a thoughtful entry. Your insightful, objective and fair appraisal of the Obama speech is refreshing. I am so used to the shrieking, angry right wing lunatics on conservative radio that I was prepared to tune you out as well. But you surprised me. But, please consider this. Many people of all political beliefs found Obama’s speak appealing because he was treating his audience as adults. He acknowledged other’s viewpoints and didn’t offer simplistic solutions. That is why so many voters are attracted to him. Here in California it is surprising how many Republicans are saying they are going to vote for him. I believe they are tired of the fear mongering, the with us or against us mentality of this administration and the Republican party’s pandering to it’s fundamentalist supporters. . They are tired of so many viewing opponents as mythical, stereotypical caricatures of ideals they dislike. I am quite sure “right wing, peckerwood, KKK member racists” are about as rare as “big government, tax and spend, hurt those evil wealthy people liberals.” Obama is a refreshing addition to increasingly polarized and rigid political landscape.

I just found your blog searching for, appropriately enough, “Marine Officer blog”.

I’m sure you’re familiar with Nathaniel Fick. I’ve been so impressed by the guy that I was inspired to seek out what other Marine Officers were saying about the issues of the day.

Your take on Obama’s speech is probably the best I’ve read, definitely the most even-handed.

Great read!

Hear this interesting story on bathroom grafitti as US military bases…have you seen this http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2008/03/the_writing_on_the_bathroom_wa_1.html

Thank you for your service Sir!

RG.

Jeff,
You make some great points in your article. I would like to bring your attention, however, to an alternate way of viewing affirmative action. Many people, including myself to a degree, believe that people are responsible for their own actions and living conditions.However, when you look at the world through socioeconomic lenses you can hopefully see how people can and do disagree with the statement made above. An example that was given to me that allowed me to see both sides was in a Foundation of Education class. It stated that if a person is born into a low socioeconomic situation that child is more likely to be malnutrition. This child is then more likely subjected to be underdeveloped. I could go further and actually pull statistics to support this , however, I believe that you understand where I am going with the argument. Minority groups are at the bottom of the of the socioeconomic ladder and are therefore caught in this vicious cycle. It then becomes even harder for these children to over come poverty because before they were even born they were already behind majority of their peers. Now I will say this that this example is not always the cause for children staying in a low socioeconomic state. However, I do believe that these types of situations are present and are all too often not equated into the overall problem of equality. One has to be able to realize that sometimes outside factors are the reasons for a persons inability to succeed.

Well let’s start with some defintions. A racist is someone who believes his race is genetically and culturally superior to others and, on that basis, is entitled to dominate and oppress the “inferior” races.

A mere bigot, by contrast, is just someone who feels antipathy for other ethnic groups but without any accompanying delusions of genetic superiority.

Rev Wright has never espoused the former, nor the latter in his sermons. But given the history of the Tuskegee Airmen, WMD, Three Strikes & Your Out, and the outright racism he and most of his parishioners experienced it should come as no surprise that out of several thousand sermons he said something that white America would find objectionable.

If you go to a UCC, or Universalist Church, you will hear similar sermons, because the underlying truth is there for those who are willing to consider it.

From the tone of your post, you are; but many are not comfortable having to re-examine the biased truths they have absorbed.

im not really a navy,i work as a customs official and one of my designation is underguarding a foreign ships..i do understand the kind of job you have…well, all i can say is keep up the good work.. your country needs someone like you. GOD BLESS AND MORE POWER.

The problem with the people who fail and and did not make it are that they did not learn from their mistakes. They listened to the negatives that are said about them, their ideas, their concepts. Just because you grew up in a certain area does not mean that you are that type of person. There are plenty of people who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and are able to succeed in whatever they want to. Granted there are some limitations, like not everyone can become President, not everyone can date or marry a Playboy playmate, or other things that no matter how hard you try you just cannot attain.

I think that one major problem with society no matter what country you live in, there are all of these groups that you are put into. You find employment and they want to know what race you are, if you are male or female. I went out to eat the other day and the server handed me a survey about the service, BEFORE she took my drink order. They asked where I live, how much money I make, my race, gender, sex, age, education level. I am sorry but why does a restaurant have to know that information about their customers? It should be do you like the service, was the place clean, etc. I know I am rambling, I do this often bear with me. But if we were not so worried about a person’s views, what political party a person is affiliated with, whether or not he or she supports or is against something that is headline making news, should not be held against this persons character. I am one of those people that have both conservative and liberal views, I also have my own opinion of what I think should be done about the companies that cut jobs here and send them to another country. Do people agree with me? Not if they own stock in the company they do not. I do think that there has to be something done to keep jobs here, I am from Ohio, and we keep losing jobs left and right unless you want to work for a little over minimum wage, no health care, and get treated like crap. When a Wal-Mart superstore opened in Cleveland over 1,000 people went to fill out applications, they were looking for 400 employees. It is like that everytime a new place opens up around here, there are LINES of people who need work. As far as getting hired at a job based on race, it does happen. Also employers are afraid to fire certain people or else they can be sued for being racist. I left a company because no matter how many times 2 people were written up for violating company policy they were not fired. These people told the management that if they were fired they would sue for discrimination. These people were BLATANTLY stealing money, groceries, one of them walked out with a television set and NOTHING was done. That type of behavior is disgusting. But because I did not like working with them, and kept my personal belongings locked up where they could not get them, I was the racist. I was the only WHITE person working there, how could I be the racist? People do not want to accept any kind of punishment for their actions, they want to take the easy way and make everyone else do the ball busting work. There are too many things that have to be fixed and no matter what happens, no matter who is elected for president, it will always be a mess. So what everyone has to do is keep plugging away, find their own solution and hope someone doesn’t sue them for it.