Since Barack Obama’s “major speech on race” yesterday I’ve talked to several people, mostly Obama supporters, who thought the speech was brilliant. Even Charles “The Bell Curve” Murray thought it was tremendous. But most of Murray’s colleagues at National Review had a much different reaction, and even some non-aligned pundits are skeptical that Obama accomplished what he needed to.
The speech was about race, but I don’t believe this is the real underlying problem in the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio. One aspect of the controversy is religion, but I don’t think this is it exactly, either. Rarther, the problem is a combination of race and religion, and it doesn’t take an expert pundit to recognize that’s a dangerous combination.
As I noted in a previous post, it would be a cruel irony if the upshot of Obama’s campaign was a widening of suspicions between blacks and whites. If so, this will happen by white voters having to confront a strain of Christian thought which they are currently unfamiliar with and may not like very much once they do. And whether this strain is a prevailing belief among blacks or not, even those who do not subscribe to it just may take the opposite position out of perceived racial solidarity.
Now, I don’t claim to know much about Black Theology, other than what Wikipedia tells me (not much). I also do not know how representative Wright’s views are of the wider black electorate, but Newsweek has demonstrated that Wright’s views are not a fringe minority among prominent African-American clergy.
That said, here is the quote from its most prominent scholar, James Cone, making the rounds of the blogosphere:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
This version of the quote originated in the Asia Times, and previously appeared only in in academic books. It stands to reason that this heretofore obscure quote is going to get more significant play. Note the screen capture below of recent popular keywords on Free Republic:
No doubt Obama supporters and Democrats generally would dismiss the Freepers as populating the “fever swamps” of the right. But they’d be unwise to ignore them — and already, pro-Clinton bloggers are starting to pick up on it.
Unfortunately for Obama, his speech was not about religion. The words “liberation” and “theology” do not appear in the text of his remarks.
Obama should have gotten out in front of Wright’s anti-American rants long before this week, but he apparently chose not to address them until he was forced to do so. Likewise, he should have used Tuesday’s speech to address Black Liberation Theology itself. Too late now.
Assuming Obama wins the Democratic nomination, and that is still the way to bet, the only question now is whether this will happen during the primary or the general.
It is Obama’s game plan to ignore controversial subjects until they are out in the mainstream of the campaign. I can only surmize that this is done because he or his staff are hoping the unpleasantness will simply disappear. It will not! One would think, by now, he would be wise to that fact. The Rezko “situations” the Flag pin incidents, the “present votes” and now the Rev. Wright debacle. The impact, while still there, could have been lessed by coming out in front with an explanation instead of waiting. However, not only has Obama chosen not to prempt the explosion and contain the damage by be pro-active, he then chooses to only reveal parts of the story, thereby making it worse when the other shoe falls.
This is not the type of shrt range thinking and faulty judgement that is needed in a President. Not at this time and not ever!
RWD
I agree that Obama is making a mistake by addressing as little of the real issue as possible while trying to distract people from the issue by giving an uplifting speech. His speech at the 2004 Dem convention worked because there were no expectations and he wasn’t under fire for anything. Just delivering another stemwinder isn’t enough.
On the other hand, Obama’s failure to address the issue head on reminds me of two similar incidents in the last two campaigns: 1) Kerry’s slow, inadequate response to the Swift Boaters, which may have cost him the election and 2) Bush never addressing his DUI, which may have cost him the popular vote.
“This is not the type of shrt range thinking and faulty judgement that is needed in a President. Not at this time and not ever!”
You’re right. At this time in this country, we need the type of shrt range thinking and faulty judgement that only McCain can provide!
What Danimal said.
Here’s an article that really explains Black Liberal Theology. It is evaluated and examined, and ultimately refuted.
Truth About Black Liberal Theology