Chicago Indymedia : http://chicago.indymedia.org
Chicago Indymedia

LOCAL Commentary :: Civil & Human Rights

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is right

The corporate lynching of a Black reverend

You know a political system is bankrupt when telling the truth becomes a scandal.

In the last week, the corporate media has effectively sullied the image of Barack Obama to millions of potential voters. He has not been exposed for an extramarital affair or fiscal corruption. No, the scandal is that Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, talks openly about the history and perseverance of institutional racism in this country.

Jeremiah Wright
Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been the
target of a racist media campaign.

Wright is a Black liberation theologian, encouraging his congregation to embrace a perspective that reveals and highlights the concealed role of Africa and people of African descent, so they can speak "for themselves, as subjects in history, not objects in history." He is a widely respected community leader whose sermons focus on social justice, public health, collective responsibility and Black self-determination. Trinity welcomes people of all nationalities. He is part of the United Church of Christ, a Protestant denomination that includes 1.2 million members from all backgrounds.

Regardless, the corporate media pundits seized upon the remarks of Obama’s spiritual advisor and smeared him as an anti-white, anti-American "Black racist." In this demonization campaign, political and social context were thrown out the window, and all pretenses of objectivity abandoned. As with the media campaign against Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic in the run-up to the imperialist invasions of their countries, the only thing that emerged out of this slanderous "journalism" was the image of the "demon."

The campaign has been effective at pushing some white voters away from supporting Obama. In a national Democratic poll conducted between March 14 and 18, Sen. Hillary Clinton overtook Obama by seven percentage points. Just a few days earlier, Obama was ahead by several points. Obama lost his lead over Sen. John McCain in the same period. This abrupt swing can only be attributed to the racist demonization campaign conducted against Rev. Wright.

Corporate media shapes racist consciousness

When Obama won the Iowa caucuses in early January, he started off his speech with the words, "They said this day would never come." His message was indirect, but clear: his presidency would unite the nation and heal the historical rifts, between blue states and red states, Black people and white people. If an African American man could win a state that was 92 percent white, clearly there was reason to believe or "hope" that this country could finally bury racism.

Obama himself has gone to great lengths to avoid being labeled as the "Black candidate," leaving it to others to emphasize the potential symbolism of an African American president. He has hewed the Democratic Party line closely, avoiding any subjects that could appear as "Black issues."

With his message of "change," powerfully orated and carefully packaged, Obama went on to win not only the states in the southeast with large Black populations, but also overwhelmingly white states like Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming. This in itself was a remarkable development. It showed that without an active racist campaign stirred up by the government and the media, there exists the basis for multinational unity—even if in this case on patriotic and non-working-class terms—organized under Black leadership.

It was actually Bill Clinton, the self-styled ally of the Black community, who first tried to stir up racism among white voters. He suggestively compared Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s victory there 20 years earlier. In doing so, he intended to elicit fears from white "middle" America that Obama was a civil rights warrior in disguise.

Later, Hillary Clinton prodded Obama in a presidential debate about why he had "denounced" but not "rejected" Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The question was beyond ridiculous. It was merely an attempt to link Farrakhan’s name with Obama’s in the minds of backward white voters. At present, the Clinton camp is undoubtedly celebrating the vile demonization of Rev. Wright.

This is the tragic reality of racism in U.S. society. It is not automatically the overriding factor in every political context. But it can be turned on, almost with the flip of a switch, by the country’s ruling class. With the mass media, they have tested and precisely calibrated this racist machine over generations. Like all ideologies, it can be challenged, cracked, and in some instances, smashed. But this requires an active anti-racist struggle, which shows through experience the class character of the media and the common benefits of multinational organizing.

If these white voters had sat through one of Wright’s sermons, had heard a fuller clip of his remarks, or had been given the chance to hear the reverend himself, it is doubtful his comments would have had a major impact. But instead, in show after show, newsreel after newsreel, FoxNews and CNN only played sound-bites of Wright saying "Goddamn America." Long before corporate-owned television had become the primary instrument for shaping popular consciousness, Marx famously wrote, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." Centuries later, his words hold true.

Wright is right

Rev. Wright was right when he identified the centrality of racism in U.S. history and said, "the country and culture is controlled by rich white people." A brief survey of Wall St. board rooms—or the Senate floor—makes this an indisputable fact.

Rev. Wright was right when he said, "the government lied about the Pearl Harbor." Rev. Wright was right when he said Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Rev. Wright was right when he called the government an "arrogant, racist military superpower."

He was right when he called Black men turning on Black men "fighting the wrong enemy," because "both are primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat." Look at the disproportionate incarceration rate and lengthier sentences for young Black men.

Rev. Wright was right when he said Washington supported "state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans" and now, referencing the World Trade Center attacks, "the stuff we’ve done overseas is now brought right back home into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."

Why is it so hard to believe that a destructive and imperial foreign policy creates enemies abroad? U.S. activity in the Middle East—not to mention the occupation of the Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war—caused widespread indignation in the region.

Yet, while Democrats have scored points off of Bush’s declining popularity due to the Iraq war, it is still considered heretical to suggest that the plane hijackers had a motive beyond "extremism." Bush’s ridiculous notion that they "hate our freedom" still holds sway.

Rev. Wright was right when he said "the government lied about the Tuskegee experiment" and "purposely infected African American men with syphilis." In every stage of U.S. history, Black people have had to endure criminal and sadistic medical experimentation. Puerto Rican women were forcibly sterilized. This history is rarely mentioned in history textbooks, but is well known in the most oppressed sectors of society. A grave distrust for the established medical consensus on the origins of HIV is perfectly justifiable.

And yes, Rev. Wright is right when he says "Goddamn America" for killing innocent people without batting an eye and "for treating her citizens as less than human." Should the country be blessed for defending apartheid South Africa and upholding Jim Crow too?

On March 18, Obama gave a lengthy speech condemning "in unequivocal terms" Wright’s comments as "not only wrong, but divisive."

Obama referred to Wright as a sort of radical uncle, whose views he does not endorse, but who he cannot disown any "more than he can disown the Black community." He called Wright’s views on the centrality of racism in U.S. society "profoundly distorted," a reflection of an embittered civil rights generation for whom "the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away." Distancing himself from Wright’s defense of the Palestinian people, Obama emphasized that conflicts in the Middle East stemmed not from "stalwart allies like Israel," but instead from the "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

The New York Times lauded Obama’s speech as one of the most important political pronouncements in 50 years, for having stimulated dialogue on such a sensitive issue. This episode— in which the media forced Obama to repudiate the politics of the Black community in order to maintain credibility—reveals what the liberal commentators will not say: Wright is right.

Although it is certainly historic that millions of white voters have entered their local polling stations and pulled the lever for a Black candidate, a more profound anti-racist struggle is needed to halt the ruling class’s racist campaign. A good place to start is to defend Rev. Wright from the corporate media lynch mob.

 
 

Add a new comment
Title
Author
  Create a new account
Text Format

Comment

Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Don't let Obama off the hook

There is much in this article with which I agree. Jeremiah Wright speaks truth to power in portraying the US government as an agressive agent of domestic profiteering and global domination from chattel slavery thru Hiroshima and backing the Israeli terror regime, to the retaliatory attacks on 9-11.

Still, to portray Obama as "forced" to repudiate Wright is to ignore the senator's long record of cooperation with the corporate rulers who cannot decide whether to back him or Hillary as they decide how best to advance their interests.

The web site Black Agenda Report does not let Obama off the hook.

www.blackagendareport.com/index.php
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

And it looks like Barack tossed Rev. Wright under the campaign bus once again in the press.

Obama Suggests He Would Have Left His Chicago Church if Wright Kept Preaching

Staff
AP News

Mar 27, 2008 22:11 EST

White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

In his sermons over the years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has railed against the United States and accused it of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism. He also has said the government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has shouted "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities.

Videos of his remarks circulated on the Internet and on television.

In an attempt to quiet the controversy, Obama gave a speech last week in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not repudiate him.

Obama said Wednesday he has spoken with Wright, who retired from Trinity United Church of Christ last month but remains as a senior pastor.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, broke her silence on the matter Tuesday, saying she would have parted company with a pastor who spoke about the country the way Wright has.

Asked about the controversy Wright's comments have created, Republican John McCain said while campaigning in Denver: "I can only say that I am sure, knowing Senator Obama, that he does not share the extreme views that were expressed that I saw on television."

Source: AP News
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

www.blackcommentator.com/270/270_i_obama_pastor_under_bus.html
is where you can read the insightful article by Reverand Irene Moore in the Black Commentator, entitled, "If Obama Can Throw His Pastor Under the Bus, What Will He Do to Us?" The topic is, among other things, how Obama ultimately is working against the interests of Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Transgender voters, etc.
O'Bama MUST BE DEFEATED!
Defeat O'Bama Now!
 

Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

'Defeat Obama Now!'

You've got to be kidding. This is terrific. (Although I'll bet the Rev Wright votes for Obama.)

At least McCain and crew want to wait until November, and Hillary til July, LOL!!!

Talk about being a poster child for the old formula, 'Left in Form, right in Essence.'

I just got to get used to the fact that when I log on to Indymedia, I'm really entering a 'Doo, Doo, Doo, Doo' alternate parallel universe.
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

of the three, Obama is the most dangerous, since he will fool and mislead the most people.
people already understand that McCain is a fascist war criminal, and Hilary a stone reactionary and racist. The left, therefore, should focus its exposure against the misleader Obama
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Give it a rest, Carl. The reason you post to the Indymedia network is that it is one of the few venues where you get to interact with those radical activists under the age of 60 you so despair of.

Your announcement that you'll back Hillary Clinton in the general election in the unlikely event that Obama loses the nomination pretty much sums up the situation. Do you really think you have any credibillity left here?

And as the rightwing attacks against Obama sharpen in the general election, it's also predictable that Progressives for Obama and those Barack has already described has 'Tom Hayden Democrats" will be tossed under the bus along with Rev.Wright. How long will it be before the Obama campaign goes into hyperdrive to disassociate themselves from the likes of Prof. Rashid Khalidi, or renounce Obama's past contacts with the Arab American community here? And flee screaming from any visable association with Sixties activists?
 

Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Your view of CIMC and my posting to it are a little warped, for sure. Believe me, there's a whole wide world of youth activists out there, and venues for me to interact with them, who never heard of CIMC. Most of them these days are wearing Obama buttons. Check your nearest campus or high school.

No, the reason I like CIMC and other IMCs have much more to do with my efforts at online cybernews from the left long before Windows or Web Browsers, when the internet was all text. When Seattle brought you into being, it was a dream come true for me, even if dominated by the politics of the anarchist cul-de-sac. But I figure, hey, it's an open forum, and having recovered from my own anarchist youth, maybe I'll fly my neo-Bukharinite Gramscian Third Wave Red Flag and see what happens.

Fortunately, quite a bit has happened; unfortunately, not much in these quarters. Truth be told, I think you have a crisis in your own ranks as to 'what is to be done.'
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Hooey, Davidson. If the debate between Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill's call for preserving a modicrum of progressive political independence in in order to pressure the Dems around the war and the latest "Progressives for Obama" strategy for "constructive engagement" is any indication, the crisis your sector of the movement faces is far more profound. Rumor (Sneed) has it that Edwards is poised to endorse Clinton, which should muddy the waters even further in places like Penn.

Still, it should be a hoot to watch your bud Hayden try and spin this little gem for the antiwar movement. It's gonna require a triple twist half gainer off the high board this time.

Obama Aligns Foreign Policy With GOP
By DEVLIN BARRETT – 12 hours ago

GREENSBURG, Pa. (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

At a town hall event at a local high school gymnasium, Obama praised George H.W. Bush — father of the president — for the way he handled the Persian Gulf War: with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives.

Obama began a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, the largest remaining primary prize in the contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Sen. John McCain is the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.

Obama faced criticism in January from Clinton and then-challenger John Edwards for saying Reagan had changed the trajectory of American politics — and that Republicans had been the party of ideas for the last decade or more.

In one of the more heated moments of the Democratic debates, Clinton challenged him directly on the topic, saying those GOP ideas were "bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas."

In his speech Friday night, the Illinois senator charged that Clinton, for all her criticism of the current President Bush, has too often gone along with his decisions.

"I do think that Sen. Clinton would understand that George Bush's policies have failed, but in many ways she has been captive to the same politics that led her to vote for authorizing the war in Iraq," he said. "Since 9/11 the conventional wisdom has been that you've got to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the Republicans, and I disagree with that."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama "represents an absolute departure" from Reagan and other presidents "whose strength in the face of an outspoken and determined enemy won the greater peace for a generation."
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

There's nothing in Klein and Scahill that's substantively different from what we're doing. Wanna make a bet on whether they come out for Obama?

Very little spin is required on Obama's latest foreign policy missive. We said he's trying to represent and speak to the center, and this is a case in point. The best spin you could put on it is that it's a rejection of pre-emptive war, the NeoCon policy separating Bush Jr from Bush the Elder. I'm sticking to 'Out Now' and exposing the counter-insurgency crap, which is far nastier than this statement. That's why we set this up, so we don't have to spin Obama's every twist and turn. We can build on our views, pressure him and defend him vs the right, all at the same time. It's called politics.

But you guys never cease to amaze me with how little politics you have, as opposed to moralizing 'gotchca's' over correct lines. I just came from a meeting of 100 or so workers, white and Black, men and women, mostly from steel and related industries. We watched the Norman Soloman antiwar film. All these folks were for Kucinich, and they're all very aware of the differences between their guy and Obama, on both the war and health care. But now that Kucinich is out, they're very clear as to what they're next step is in this election. In short, they know their interests and fight for them, and they do it in the context of being engaged in real life politics. I can't tell you how refreshing it is compared to what passes for politics on CIMC.
 
Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right / 29 Mar 2008

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Yup, I'll bet those steelworkers you met up with just loved Obama's triangulating on NAFTA, where his chief economic adviser told the Canadians not to worry about his throw-away campaign chatter against the deal (not that Hillary's any better).

If you really had any "politics," Davidson, you might have brought that up with them, and not in a way of attempting to defend the indefensible. But no, it's easier to confine one's "politics" to sitting behind a keyboard most of the day trashing other people on this site. Given the enormous amount of time you have to post comments on this site and blog, you really should get out more, and try talking "politics" to people in person.
 

On "being engaged in real life politics"

The "real life politics" of former radical Carl Davidson brought us from the antiwar movement during the Vietnam aggression, thru the wearing down of the anti-militarist "Vietnam syndrome," to the Al Gore and now Obama-backed Gulf War I, right to Obama and Clinton voting funds to keep the current Iraq atrocity going.

And now Carl tells us to get change, we need to keep voting for the Democrats. This isn't "real life politics." This is insanity: expecting something different, while engaging in the same old behavior.

Maybe I'll write-in Jeremiah Wright for president.
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Writing in Jeremiah Wright would be a step forward for you, Bob Schwartz, given your long-standing antipathy to Black preachers, so by all means, go for it.

Moreover, Bob, I'm not urging anyone to vote 'Democrats', but certain ones. I'll back an effort to take Rahm out any day, and I vote Green, too, like with Whitney.

As for Obama's NATFA stand, the workers in question here are well aware of it, and could probably educate me some on its local implications. But they also know how to survey the field, and are clear on what to do between now and election day, and afterwards. You see, they have some politics, where a good number of CIMCers have many 'positions' but little in the way of real world politics, which is my point.
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

"having recovered from my own anarchist youth, maybe I'll fly my neo-Bukharinite Gramscian Third Wave Red Flag and see what happens."

Ah carl you repeat the myth that anarchists are just young and misguided. I'll remind you(and you should no this) that you youth was dominated by marxist leninist maoist garbage. You know Bernadine Dohrn don't you? she's a little more anti-authoritarian now then she was back then, and she's not the only aged one who has aged by finding youth again
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Well, Davidson, we're all gonna have an opportunity to see just how successful your latest organizing efforts will be in W. Penn in the next several weeks. And since you've already endorsed Hillary in the general if Barack can't secure the nomination, it should be equally fascinating to watch you argue for "Progressives for Hillary" down the road.

Meanwhile, you might want to think about how to get those tire tread stains off your jacket when Obama's handlers toss Progressives for Obama under the bus -- along with Rev. Wright.

As for Klein and Scahill, they're conditioning their support for the candidate based on their actual stance on the issues. Period. So if Obama actually shifts leftward on ending the war in Iraq, Blackwater, NAFTA, healthcare, they might. Wanna place a bet on whether he will?
 

ABM.

To quote directly from your own website in response to a Clinton supporter arguing for her candidate rather than Obama....
[ www.blogger.com/comment.g ]

Carl Davidson said...

"I'm very clear that, should Clinton win the nomination, she'll get my vote vs McCain."

No nuance or ambiguity there. This from a key organizer for Progressives for Obama.
 

Re: ABM.

Actually he hasn't endorsed Clinton at this time . Just publically pledged to vote for Hillary in advance if she wins.
 
Reply: Re: Re: ABM. / 30 Mar 2008

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Look back further, 'anarchist,' to 1965-66, to my anarcho-syndicalist days. Maoism didn't come into full bloom until 1970 or so, in my case. My only saving grace there was that I was with the 'rightwing' trend of Chou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, until I moved on in later years.

As for LOL, we'll do OK in PA. I hear Obama just had 22,000 turn our for his rally at Penn State today, breaking all records. Senator Casey turned out for him, and a number in Hillary's camp are now wavering.

The main danger here is McCain. Even if Hillary takes the primary, as she may. Obama is the underdog here, looking for an upset or just to do better than expected. I doubt she'll get the nod down the road.

BTW, I haven't even endorsed Obama, let alone Hillary. I just said it would be wise to vote for them--'our best option'--versus McCain. Obama first, Clinton second. I don't have to apologize for or prettify any of them--just make a sober assessment of which White House you'd rather live under, and if you see a difference that makes a difference, use common sense and act accordingly.

For those of you who think giving someone a vote is the same as endorsement, well, as I said, I'm always amazed at the low level of real politics here on CIMC.

All that assumes, of course, that you want to be engaged in this political struggle, working with these new people and allies coming forward, as well as the Black community and labor.

You can sit it out, I suppose, or find another church service to disrupt somewhere as an alternative path. But I think this one will suit me and a good number of people just fine; in fact, it's probably better that you folks stay right in your own cul-de-sac, while we get on with our tasks with fewer distractions.

Or better yet, you can do like Klein and Scahill, and keep waiting for the right nuance to get off you butt, right up until the week before the election, and then come out, which is what I predict. But then you just deliver your vote but without building any of the benefits of months of independent engagement in the struggle. Timing matters, and I think we're doing OK.

But some of the young radicals are missing the boat, or at least seem to be. Yesterday at the antiwar demo in Pittsburgh, of 500 or so, about 25 anarchists--all decked out in their vintage dark clothing costumes, body paint and masks, with four black flags and two Red and Black, reminding me of kids having fun playing dressup or halloween--took their group to the top of the hill at the end, sitting in splendid isolation, all by themselves. They got the main picture in the Post-Gazette, though, while the other antiwar students, including a group of Obama campaigners from UPitt, were ignored for this story.

The 22,000 at Penn State, however, could not be ignored.

One poor anarchist kid said online he would promptly go home if he saw one Obama button at the rally. I wasn't wearing one, since I was doing nonpartisan work for Peace Action, distributing voter guides for electoral activists to take home, reproduce and use later. But I covered the crowd, and at least 20 percent were proudly wearing their Obama buttons, and a few T-Shirts and signs as well. One union guys was even brave enough to wear his Hillary button
 

Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Wonder if Carl's been paying attention to the latest manuevering with superdelegates and the Gore camp? This behind the scenes campaign is gaining traction fast as it becomes all too apparent that Obama can't lock it up before the DNC and Hillary won't quit.

So will we be expecting "Progressives for Gore" anytime soon? Or just "Progressives for whoever the Dems come up with in August" At this point, Davidson and the DLC both agree. The main danger this year is McCain and the objective must be to secure a Democratic victory in November. All other issues are of secondary importance. Small comfort to the Iraqis or GI's who will continue to die while the politicians jockey for power.
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

"I don't have to apologize for or prettify any of them--just make a sober assessment of which White House you'd rather live under,"

Carl with your methodology we'll always be under a white house
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

'The main danger this year is McCain and the objective must be to secure a Democratic victory in November. All other issues are of secondary importance.'

The first sentence is correct, but not the second.

The main task and the key link is stopping the war sooner rather than later.

That's why, in the electoral arena, as you sum up my point, 'The main danger this year is McCain and the objective must be to secure a Democratic victory in November.' Exactly what part of that do you find wrong? Do you really think its fine if the GOP and McCain take it? You're all bigger defenders of Rev. Wright these days. Go over to his church this Sunday and make your case. After all, according to your views, they're all supporting a warmonger with even more enthusiasm than Cardinal George. So dump a little fake blood on the carpet there to set them straight.

What a bunch of shamefaced wimps. You'll rant an rave here, but get all shy and tongue-tied in the real world.

The electoral arena is only one arena, however. There's also work in the military and mass action in the street.

All three are required. I've said this here so many times it's practically a mantra.

You, apparently, think it doesn't matter to the antiwar movement, or the people of Iraq, whether McCain's faction holds the White House or not. So you won't bother getting a massive turnout at the polls for any candidate, even the Greens, because, if you truly did it in a mass way, you might bring two more votes for Obama than you would for Nader or McKinney.

You'd rather us not waste our time here and get on with really important stuff like disrupting more church services, I suppose. I could even support that in some cases, but it wouldn't rate as secondary. Tertiary is more like it. 'Small comfort to Iraqis and GIs,' indeed.

And you say my politics is going to keep us 'under a White House'? And playing Halloween dressup with masks, body paint and old clothes, banging on drums, is going to set us free? I rather enjoy it as comic street theater on teenage angst, but as political strategy that can move us forward in these times?

Once again, the lack of any real politics here never ceases to amaze me.
 

Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Nice bait and switch, Davidson but it won't wash. You still have yet to answer Scahill and Klein's central criticism. Or make a case for just exactly how you intend to "pressure" the Obama campaign around ending the war sooner than later -- and with what, now that you've signed on the dotted line. Real politics, indeed. Do you actually believe David Axelrod or Obama's eager Wall Street donors give a rat's ass? Why should they, knowing you'll work to GOTV no matter what the candidate's position is - or how much you disagree with the specifics. And Hillary can count on the same, in the unlikely event that she wins the nominaton. The applicable "real politics" term here is "in the tank".

Ironically, Obama's latest foreign policy declaration embracing the 'centerism" of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. occurred almost immediately after your latest pet project's launch. But then, he had made already clear his views about the utility of 'Tom Hayden Democrats" in shaping his campaign. Ballast, like Rev. Wright, to be dropped overboard at the first sign of choppy weather.
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

I think that Carl just fell for Obama's Colgate smile and contagious charisma... just like a naive and sexually inexperienced teenager.
 

Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Pitiful, 'Marty.' You still don't get it.

Answering Scahill and Klein? What's to answer? We agree with their critique of Obama on Iraq. Hayden's written a better one. The difference is they are going to pressure Obama by writing a few articles, and waiting, while we're going to do it by writing even more articles and, much more important, pulling together thousands of people across the country, outside the official Obama campaign, in P4O, putting out an independent line from the campaign?

And you're going to pressure everyone by disrupting church services, and the like, as the path forward? Spare me.

You miss the even more important point: how will YOU grow YOUR strength among those taking up the campaign, so you'll have something to consolidate once it's over and the official apparatus is shut down?

You haven't a clue; you don't even want to be there.

Wall Street donors? What a joke. Here's a campaign that's distinguished itself with raising more money from more small donors than anything like it in history, and they're invisible to you. And what campaign that can win in 2008 doesn't have donor from Wall Street? Blinded by the 'left cul-de-sac' once again.

We've already made Obama's centrism explicit in our call, and the need to counter it, which is what we're doing, but within a common effort to defeat McCain.

Speaking of which, if you want to put it in those terms, who are your antiGOTV efforts helping most, Obama or McCain? As I said, go make your case to Rev. Wright and his flock. Tell them they're supporting warmongers and spread a little fake blood on the floor there. It seems if anyone is open to your fears about being tossed under the tires, they would. But somehow I think they're very clear on what to do, while you're trapped inside a mobile with the Memphis blues again, the illusions of the 'left bloc' variety.

What even funnier is how self-righteous you are about it, how 'lofty' and 'pure.' LOL, indeed.

We know David Axerod well, and he is what he is. But you have to hand it to him for taking a Black South Sider and getting him thisclose to the presidency, whatever you want to say about his other projects. Who wouldda thunk it two years ago? Not me, and certainly not anyone on this site.

No, Marty, I've seen this movie before. Answer one point, and you'll find another to harp on, all the way, in glorious self-justification, protecting your purity and the glorious self-isolation of the left bloc, all decked out in body paint and masked costumes, a left bloc that can only look in amazement and bewilderment as their generation, Black and white, is making history in the electoral arena 22,000 out at Penn State yesterday, cheering Obama calls to end the war, white kids backing a Black man for president in turf where that hardly comes naturally, and all you have to offer is standing with the GOP guys, telling everyone not to drink the Kool-Aid.

As I said at the beginning, Pitiful
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

"white kids backing a Black man"

I just noticed that you always write Black with a capital "B" and white with a small "w".
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Yes, Black gets capitalized because its refers to a nationality--as in African-American nation, Black nation, and back in the 6th Comintern/Marcus Garvey days, Negro nation. Also as in Mexican-American.

The term 'white,' on the other hand, refers to skin color, and not very accurately at that. It's not even a race, but a social control construct put together between 1640 and 1690 to make English bondservants think they had more in common with their masters than African bondservants, after Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. So it's lower case.

But if I use Anglo-American, Euro-American, Latin-American, or just American, then the upper case, obviously, is proper.

WEB DuBois and others waged a long struggle to get the New York Times to capitalize 'Negro,' and eventually won. When Black supplanted Negro in the 1960s, in many situations, the struggle had to be waged anew.

So yes, sometimes there's a story behind 'devilish details.'
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Gotta love it, Carl, how in post after post on another thread you said you supported the Holy Name 6, but here you just trash them. You've been hanging around your Democratic friends too long, as you've picked up their talent for talking out of both sides of your mouth.
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Davidson. At this point, you've got a bare bones blog website,a petition for endorsers that to date has collected little over 200 signatures, largely from liberal academics, intellectuals, pundits and former Sixties radicals who are likely to do nothing BUT write articles. This, after Hayden's article appeared in the Nation, Huffington Post, and across the progressive blogosphere. Not exactly explosive growth noted, but it has sparked a lot of debate. So who are you trying to kid here?

Here's a challenge. Call an Out Now! statewide antiwar rally in Penn., modeled on your effort in Chicago on Oct. 27. This time, have it explicitly sponsored by Progressives for Obama with a focus on organizing GOTV for peace voters - independently of the campaign organization. And then invite your candidate to appear and speak. Wanna take a bet on whether he shows?

There's always hope.

Meanwhile here's another critical take on Obamarama from the Left Business Observer - not exactly a screaming "ultraleft" site.

Would you like change with that?
Left Business Observer #117, March 2008
[ www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Obama.html ]

Super Tuesday II, as Fox dubbed it, took some steam out of the Obama bandwagon, but he’s still the likely Democratic nominee, and therefore the likely president-to-be. Which is remarkable, really—a nonparticipant can only stand slackjawed in awe of Obamamania. Previously rational people whom LBO admires, like Barbara Ehrenreich and Christopher Hayes, have fallen in love with the Senator’s brand of change we can believe in, a slogan that has to be one of the emptiest since Sandburg’s “The people, yes!,” that the New Party used in New York in the early 1990s. Obama has become the Tokio Hotel of politics.

On what is this mania based? Obama is inspiring the young, lifting the alienated off their couches, and catalyzing a new movement for…change, presumably one we can believe in. The content of this change is hard to specify. Some serious leftists we know and love point to Obama’s roots as a community organizer in Chicago, though many people in a position to know say he didn’t rock many boats in those days. He was embraced by foundation liberals, however, who greased his way into the Harvard Law School via a lakefront condo.

All of which doesn’t make Obama uniquely bad: he’s just another mainstream Democrat with a sleazy real estate guy in his past. Though he’s being touted as an early opponent of the Iraq war, he told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position….” He voted to renew the PATRIOT Act, campaigned for happy warrior Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in 2006, and wants to increase the size of the U.S. military. He supports Israel’s continuing torture of the Palestinians penned into the Gaza Strip. A Congressional Quarterly study found his Senate voting record was virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s; the only major difference in their votes is a surprising one: a move to limit class actions suits against corporations, which Clinton voted against, and Obama for. Obama’s vote was against the preferences of a Dem financial base, trial lawyers, but pleasing to the Fortune 500 and Wall Street.

In this binary world, when you criticize Obama, people immediately include you’re a Hillary Clinton fan. Uh, no. Her politics are bellicose and neoliberal. Her “experience” consists largely of having watched her husband be president for eight years, though it’s likely they were sleeping in separate bedrooms for much of the time. A plague on all their houses.

Agendas

Some more thoughtful victims of Obama Disease point to detailed position papers on the candidate’s website. These must always be taken with a grain of salt, especially during primary season. Candidate Bill Clinton promised to “invest in people” and ended up being the president of “a bunch of fucking bond traders,” as Hillary’s husband memorably put it. LBJ campaigned as the peace candidate in 1964, and ended up killing a million Indochinese.

Obamians also point to his rejection of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC); they put him on their list of rising stars, and he asked to be removed. Encouraging—except for the fact that his chief economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, the fellow who told the Canadians not to take the anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously, is the DLC’s chief economist. Goolsbee has written gushingly about Milton Friedman and denounced the idea of a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. That hire is more significant than asking to be struck from a list.

Big capital would have no problem with an Obama presidency. Top hedge fund honcho Paul Tudor Jones threw a fundraiser for him at his Greenwich house last spring, “The whole of Greenwich is backing Obama,” one source said of the posh headquarters of the hedge fund industry. They like him because they’re socially liberal, up to a point, and probably eager for a little less war, and think he’s the man to do their work. They’re also confident he wouldn’t undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth. You could say the same about Clinton—but you know those hedge fund guys. They like a contrary bet. A share of Obama stock on the Iowa Electronic Market was 30 on May 19, 2007, the day of Jones’s Obama bash; it peaked at 86 on March 1, a gain of 187% (in a year where triple digits are rare). It’s since settled back into the low 70s, which is still quite a gain.

The phantasmic

LBO would be the last to argue that politics is all about rationality. Fantasy matters. But fantasy can have some relationship to policy. Take the example of Ronald Reagan, a man for whom Obama professed some admiration for having rolled back the “excesses of the 1960s and 1970s” and bringing back “a sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” Reagan promised to make America “stand tall again” and “to get government off the backs of the people.” Certainly these phrases didn’t appeal to the rational faculties of the electorate, but they did correspond with a military buildup, a greater willingness to go to war, and an economic agenda of deregulation and reverence for private wealth. And Reagan had real political forces behind him—first, his cabal of right-wing Southern California businessmen, later supplemented by the corporate and financial establishment, and operating with a playbook written by movement conservatives and the Heritage Foundation.

What does Obama have? A lot of slogans that connect with nothing in the real world; in fact, their very emptiness may be the source of their appeal, because it allows people to project whatever they want to onto him, without getting bogged down in specifics, as Reagan liked to say. (Under attack from Clinton and McCain, he did get specific in his long Wisconsin victory speech. This brought attacks from Karl Rove and others, placing him on the “far left”; it’s not likely we’ll see much more of this irresponsible stuff from Obama as November approaches.) And despite the grand claims of enthusiasts, he doesn’t really have a movement behind him—he’s got a fan club. How does a fan club hold a candidate accountable? It’s not like he’ll take the phone calls of all those 27-year-olds who gave him $100 on the web as quickly as he’d answer a summons from Paul Tudor Jones.

Obama’s appeal is a strange thing. Though he’s added to it as his political momentum builds, his original base consisted of blacks and upper-status whites. The black support is out of racial pride, but the initial white support was driven by his post-partisan, post-racial appeal. Well-off whites love to hear a black man say that racism has largely receded as a toxic force, though it’s really hard to figure out what the hell he’s talking about in a world where black households earn about 60% as much as whites, and where black men are incarcerated at more than six times the rate of white men. And what of this post-partisan business? Politics is about conflicts over resources and priorities, and over the state’s power to coerce; how ever could comity prevail in a world where interests and preferences diverge so widely?

As Adolph Reed told LBO, an Obama presidency could give us the worst of all possible of worlds: one in which race is completely repackaged as a discourse of celebration and, to the extent that that had already become the only metaphor through which American politics could accommodate critical discussion of inequality, the language of ‘disparity,’ it will no longer be possible for critiques of inequality to be heard as an appropriate topic for political discussion. Obama already when he talks “black” (e.g., with his “Cousin Pookie” riffs, which are the exact equivalent of Shelby Steele’s rantings about underclass, shiftless “Sam”) opts for the Bookerite/Cosbyite metaphor of victim-blaming in the phony first-person plural, and he has always played the Immigrant Success Story Up From Slavery Ain’t America Great and Don’t I Show It angle. And, moreover, what many of his white supporters like about him is that he doesn’t have the ‘chip on the shoulder’ that so many indigenous blacks do. Add all this to his commitment to appealing to the right and to the investor class, and the upshot is that inequality could lose whatever vestigial connotations it has as a species of injustice and be fully consolidated as the marker, on the bottom end that is, of those losers who failed to do what the market requires of them or a sign of their essential inferiority.

Turn to cheer

Enough critique; the dialectic demands something constructive to induce some forward motion. There’s no doubt that Obamalust does embody some phantasmic longing for a better world—more peaceful, egalitarian, and humane. He’ll deliver little of that—but there’s evidence of some admirable popular desires behind the crush. And they will inevitably be disappointed.

As this newsletter has argued for years, there’s great political potential in popular disillusionment with Democrats. The phenomenon was first diagnosed by Garry Wills in Nixon Agonistes. As Wills explained it, throughout the 1950s, left-liberals intellectuals thought that the national malaise was the fault of Eisenhower, and a Democrat would cure it. Well, they got JFK and everything still pretty much sucked, which is what gave rise to the rebellions of the 1960s (and all that excess that Obama wants to junk any remnant of). You could argue that the movements of the 1990s that culminated in Seattle were a minor rerun of this. The sense of malaise and alienation is probably stronger now than it was 50 years ago, and includes a lot more of the working class, whom Stanley Greenberg’s focus groups find to be really pissed off about the cost of living and the way the rich are lording it over the rest of us.

Never did the possibility of disappointment offer so much hope. That’s not what the candidate means by that word, but history can be a great ironist.
 

Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Well, I'm not surprised, 'Marty', to see you and other IMCers join LBOs 'Depress The Vote 2008' campaign, though I don't think you'll do very well.

Just why you or Henwood think this is the left or radical thing to do in this period is beyond me. Just using a lot of cynicism to avoid Sartre's 'Dirty Hands' choice is my guess.

Pittsburgh just had its antiwar rally--not modeled on Chicago Oct 27, more along your lines, but the 25 anarchists looked very cool with their body paint, masks, black clothes and flags. About 500 others on a nice day, about 100 with Obama buttons, which I talked to. So another one is not in the cards. About 22,000 did turn out for Obama at Penn State, though, cheering all his best lines on the war.

No, I'll throw your challenge back at you. How about CIMC going over to Trinty this Sunday and read Henwood's LBO piece, then telling people they shouldn't vote for Obama. Or try to get the Rev. Wright to support your 'Don't Vote for Obama' line.

You're not saying not to vote for Obama? You might do it yourself come election day? If so, what's the deal? You're in our camp, just in the shamefaced contingent cheating us out of dues.

In Chicago, though, you have a partial out if McKinney gets on the ballot. No such luck here and in some other states, though. If you go this route, you still face the task of whether you sneak into the polls by yourself, or get lots of antiwar people to go with you, whether their for McKinney or not. That would be cool, and you can even read Henwood to them all day. Most will still figure out what to do.

As for our website, I'd say it's not bad for six days, and there's a lot more going on on the ground. Read Thorn Dreyer's stuff from The Rag in Texas, or today's piece on their battle in the caucuses, and Thorn's a day-one P4O member. Now there's some folks with anarchist roots who managed to gain some politics over the years.
 

Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Here's a news flash, Carl. Some of us were just at Trinity UCC and present at St. Sabena when Jeremiah Wright returned to receive a hero's welcome from these congregations. And had the opportunity to talk extensively with parishioners there. And you know what? Affirming the right wing's criticisms of Wright's sermons and announcing that he would leave Trinity if Wright didn't retire produced more than a considerable amount of anger toward your candidate and sense of real betrayal from a fair number of his co-congregationalists. In fact, I think Cynthia M. would be pretty well received there these days.
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Ann,

You don't know how happy we are the Right that Wright is around. Look forward to our ads in a few months.
 

Re: Re: Re: Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Right

Nice try at the switch, but my point was how far did you get claiming Barack was a warmonger and no one should vote for him because of it? What's more, did you jack up the Rev Wright for meeting with warmongers, from Clinton to Obama, even telling folks to vote for the later, and spill some fake blood on his carpets?

I doubt you did any such thing, or even remotely close to it.

I'll tell you right now that there's no doubt Cynthia would be well received, for the simple reasons that's she's unbowed and a Black woman running for President. But I also have no doubt as to whom the vast majority there will give their vote to. Easy enough to find out - Come November get the nearby precinct results.

Time to jump off McCain's 'Depress the Progressive Vote' bandwagon and come to your senses, at least those of you that have any sense.
 
Donate

Views

Account Login

Media Centers

 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software