Opinion
Obama speech exudes practicality, thoughtfulness
Story by Mark Page | March 20, 2008
Montana Kaimin
In Philadelphia on Tuesday, Barack Obama graduated from rhetorical spinster to a social critic with the ability to bridge deep-seeded tensions with his eloquent elocution.
His “A More Perfect Union” speech accomplished this not only with its content, but also because of the basic fact that he gave it.
Obama gave the speech on race relations in modern America to face down the flak he’s gotten over his refusal to disown his former pastor and spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, after Wright’s racist and anti-American comments were broadcast across the stratosphere.
Most politicians would have taken the easy way out by diving into damage control mode and running as far as possible from the problem person. Instead Obama took the hard road, going for a head-on collision, and accomplishing it with style and grace.
The speech not only took audience members through the history of racism in the United States, but also Obama’s own personal story of racial tension, a story about a family from each side of the racial divide, half Kansas and half Africa. He spun this tale, saying that even his white grandmother had admitted her fear of black men to him; something Obama said made him uncomfortable as a child.
He took his story and pressed it against the history of our nation’s racist past, weaving them together to tell not only why Wright may feel as he does, but also why working-class white America may espouse its own form of racial resentment. Obama said that though these resentments don’t usually get expressed in polite company, they sometimes spill over from kitchen table conversation into the “most segregated hour” – Sunday morning during church.
The purity of the ideas Obama expressed during his 38-minute oration did not come untainted by posturing and politicizing. Obama twice mentioned Geraldine Ferraro, one of Hillary Clinton’s fund-raisers and a former vice-presidential candidate, who created a firestorm when she said Obama’s success could be attributed to his race.
It was unnecessary for him to take a political shot at Clinton while speaking about the serious topic of racist undertones seeping to the surface of 21st-century America.
His mention of working class America’s problem of industrial jobs being shipped overseas did not seem to fit with the movement of the speech either. Obviously this was geared toward Obama’s Pennsylvania audience of blue-collar workers he is furiously trying to court.
Except the political maneuvering, the speech was a noble undertaking. Too often in such a fierce campaign, old friends, even lifelong buddies, can be quickly thrown by the wayside the moment they say something unpopular.
Clinton told Ferraro to hit the road recently and Obama nixed Samantha Power, one of his senior foreign policy advisers, both at record speeds. Sacrificing a friendship as obviously dear to Obama as Wright’s, as quickly as a YouTube video can load, would in itself show a lack of character far greater than attending a church with a radical pastor.
For Wright or Ferraro to reflect badly on the candidates, the candidates must have some attachment to their views, but they don’t. It is unlikely that a spiritual adviser or a campaign fundraiser controls the policy perspective of a candidate, and it is policy they should be judged on.
By giving this speech, Obama headed straight into addressing the issue of race, a subject that he has deliberately steered away from. He has provided possible closure for the Wright problem, a topic that could have hounded and could still hound the Obama campaign. Though Obama does not reflect Wright’s more extreme views, his competitors are desperate for dirt and may not let the public believe that.
But for those who saw Obama’s Philadelphia speech on Tuesday, he has shown his grasp of race relations in America is far from radical, it is in fact more pragmatic and thoughtful than any other contender for the presidency, past or present.
This story has been viewed 1216 times.
Comments
Comparatively speaking, this was one of the better (and straight forward) takes on the speech I’ve read so far. One thing came to mind in reading the BBC’s response- the infamous Lincoln-Douglas debates. While Lincoln lost his bid for Senator of Illinois following those debates, the speeches he gave have become a landmark in American history, and many attribute the aftermath to his unlikely presidential nomination and victory. Obama’s speech may not help him win (it may not hurt him either), but it’s poised to be a landmark in America’s rhetorical history. Obama took the issue head on with brilliant insight into America’s racial divide, on both sides.
He didn’t, however, link that explanation very well to his policies as a political candidate. One analyst asked, what does this mean for affirmative action? And I don’t have any idea.
I have a bit of a problem in that we simplify race, and default Obama as being black. Tiger Woods was once asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American, to which he responded, “It does. Growing up, I came up with this name: I’m a ‘Cablinasian.’ As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian.”
The kind of oversimplification that calls Obama black reminds me of the arcane 3/5th law, in which someone could be legally defined as black, bought and sold into slavery, if 3/5th’s of their heritage was black. Mark Twain’s novel “Puddin’ Head Wilson” makes due fun of this notion. I would hope that in overcoming identity politics, as Obama encourages, we learn from people like Tiger Woods and Mark Twain that race is a slippery notion. Obama’s not just a black candidate, he’s also a white candidate. And either way, he’ll make a damn fine president. Not many of us in our lifetime have the courage to publicly defend an unpopular idea, and Obama did so with grace. Bravo.
Posted by Sean Morrison on 03/20/2008 at 9:00 am
I would like to share a few quotes, and an interesting fact, concerning Barack Obama. After you read them, perhaps Mr. Lane will want to discuss the meaning of the word ‘hypocrite’? On April 11th, 2007, on a program aired by MSNBC: Barack Obama: “I don’t think MSNBC should be carrying the kinds of hateful remarks that Imus uttered the other day, and he has a track record of making those kinds of remarks. Look, I’ve got two daughters who are African-American, gorgeous, tall, and I hope at some point are interested enough in sports that they get athletic scholarships....He(Imus) would not be working for me....I don’t want to be an enabler or be encouraging in any way of the kind of programming that results in the unbelievably offensive statements that were made.” Let’s see...Obama doesn’t want to ‘enable’ or ‘encourage’ that kind of ‘unbelievably offensive statements”. Hmm...well let’s take a look at what Obama said in regards to the unbelievably offensive statements made by his personal friend and Reverend, Jeremiah Wright; Barack Obama, “...’I can no more disown him(Rev. Wright) than I can disown the black community.’ So Rev. Wright can say things like..""no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”...(In a speech to Howard University, 2006), and Obama says nothing, but Don Imus says..."nappy-headed ‘hos”, and Obama calls it ‘unbelievably offensive’, and demands that he be fired. Of course, Obama can’t be labelled a hypocrite(even though i’ve just proved that he is), because he’s a Democrat, and, as we all know from the liberal media, only Repubicans can possibly be hypocrites, or racists, for that matter. And finally, on to the interersting fact that I alluded to earlier. Barack Obama made over $1,000,000 last year. How much did he ‘redistribute’ to the poor? According to an article in Bloomberg, published on March 25, 2008,:
By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Julianna Goldman
March 25 (Bloomberg)—Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.” Hmm..let’s see, what’s wrong with that picture? Less than 1% of his and his wive’s salaries?? I thought Obama was a champion of the ‘poor’, and ‘less-entitled’?? Instead, as just 15 minutes of research can tell you, he’s just another multi-millionaire member of the Democratic party(research the grotesque wealth of Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc). So, in closing, I just wanted to take this time to provide you with proof of the blatant hypocrisy of Mr. Obama with regards to the issue of race and poverty in America today, and the left-wing ideology in general. Mr. Lane, how much research have you actually done into Barack Obama, and what he believes? I’ll wager less than 5 minutes. Have a wonderful day, and don’t forget to write in to the Kaimin and label me as a ‘xenophobe’, ‘racist’(after all, i’m not voting for Obama, therefore, of course, I must be a racist), ‘sexist’(I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton, so therefore, obviously, i’m a sexist) ‘fear-monger’, or, my personal favorite; ‘right-wing conspirator’.
Posted by Daniel Shevlin on 04/01/2008 at 5:56 pm
