Common Sense Political Thought

I don’t know, maybe this is completely off base, but this thought has been bugging me for a day now. Senator Barack Obama had to denounce his former pastor, the Rev Dr Jeremiah Wright, for remarks Dr Wright made over the past few days.

Now, unless he’s a complete idiot, Dr Wright had to know that what he was saying — indeed, what he was going to say before he sat down for those interviews and made that presentation at the National Press Club — would not help Mr Obama in his quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination or, if he wins the nomination, the presidency in November’s general election.

Sister Toldjah asked, “Is Rev. Wright deliberately trying to hurt Obama’s campaign?” noting former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that Dr Wright is angry with Mr Obama, and may be deliberately trying to hurt his presidential bid.

Pam Spaulding of Pandagon suggested that Dr Wright’s “ego was obviously bruised from the (quite frankly, sensitive) rebuke of his past comments that he received from the presidential hopeful in Obama’s A More Perfect Union speech.” While some parts of the speech to the NPC were OL, Miss Spaulding said that other:

parts added nothing positive to the dialogue showed a public unraveling of the id. Wright felt dissed, and took it before the cameras, damaging his own credibility — and he either doesn’t seem to realize it — or care.

I have a problem with Miss Spaulding’s characterization of what she calls Dr Wright’s “15 minutes of dreadful, illuminating fame” — though in the title it was only “15 minutes of illuminating fame” — because it bears the underlying assumption that Jeremiah Wright is just plain stupid. But he earned a Master of Arts degree in English from Howard University, a master’s degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School and a Doctor of Ministry degree from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. Al Gore might have flunked out of divinity school, but Jeremiah Wright didn’t.

The Rev Dr Wright became pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, in 1972, when it had only 87 members, and led it to a congregation of over 10,000. A minister can’t do that if he cannot speak, if he cannot preach, and if he doesn’t have full command of what he says. There is no way that the Rev Dr Wright could ever be considered a man who doesn’t know exactly what he is saying and has no idea of the impact of his words on listeners.

Dr Wright simply has to know both what he is saying and that the effect of his words is to make Mr Obama’s candidacy more difficult. So, why would he do it?

Miss Spaulding defended some of the logic behind Dr Wright’s words:

Wright’s litany of grievances — including a perceived attack on the black church, the conspiracy theories about the government and 9/11, or inflicting AIDS on blacks (referencing the Tuskegee experiment) — reveal a very real thread of beliefs in a segment of the black community of a certain generation who lived under the thumb of Jim Crow and in-your-face bluntly institutionalized white privilege.

Making light of this kind of thinking diminishes the fact that it comes from an element of truth, and that white privilege, though not as boldly naked as in generations past, is alive and well. It also illuminates the lack of black cultural competence in the dominant culture. This is exemplified by those disturbed by Wright’s earlier remarks (and delivery) in the first place — and generated the fear of what I call the Secret Black Radical Trojan Horse Agenda entering the White House through the vessel of the pleasant, benign Barack Obama. You could read between the lines in the commentary — people were musing, wondering how prevalent is Wright’s belief – the bizarre mix of fact and fiction — in the black community.

This is all crazy making? Not really. Our desperate need to discuss race honestly and openly (and SANELY), is not simply a difficult exercise. Remember, we have people who will not vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances because he is black. No one wants to really discuss those conservative white blue collar workers who fall into this category — the current demo prized by Senator Clinton. They see a “Rev. Wright eruption” and automatically see the Secret Black Radical Trojan Horse Agenda. In Appalachia, George Packer found people who just laid it on the line.

The emphases are hers.

In a way, Miss Spaulding’s article lets us know that she has a good deal of sympathy for Dr Wright’s stated positions, but that she’s appalled that he’d actually voice them at a critical time in Mr Obama’s candidacy. Clearly, it doesn’t help. She spends a few more paragraphs on the white voters who would not vote for Mr Obama, or any other black candidate, simply because of his race. And she recognizes that Mr Obama is basing his campaign on getting past racial divides, which he pretty much has to do: he can’t be elected president by counting on the 13% of the electorate comprised of black voters.

This is where my strange thought comes in. It has occurred to me, and I’ve been mulling this one for most of the day and still don’t know, but is it possible that Dr Wright — and, to a lesser extent, the Rev Al Sharpton — are trying to push Mr Obama into being more of a black candidate? Is the campaign he is being forced to run too “Uncle Tom” for them? Is it a problem for any black candidate who must appeal to a substantial white majority of voters that he must be seen as acceptable to whites to the extent that he can’t be black enough?