To be honest, I struggle with this level of critique at this point in the race. I feel like we are past the point of finding our "perfect" candidates... yes we can sit both Dems in front of us and write lists of what is not quite right. We are down to the wire here, though, with a race dragging on far longer than it was supposed to and the Republicans gaining ground all the time as they solidify support around their candidate. So yes, there are things we can pick out that our ideal candidate might not have said in this speech (your 'original sin' example being a great one, and obviously we'll disagree with most mainstream Middle East perspectives, and every American politician believes in American exceptionalism - that's why we're not running for president). But that's not the reality of this moment. The reality is that with two Democratic candidates left, one is operating from an entrenched position of attack, fear, and old politics. And the other made what, frankly, is the best speech on race ever given by an American politician. Rather than denouncing his pastor to offer the quick headline that many wanted - which would have been the easiest thing to do by far, and which most politicians would have done - he instead seized the opportunity to deliver a remarkably nuanced statement on the biggest issue our country struggles with, which also happens to be the one everyone avoids talking about. And to critique at this level, when seemingly those actions are something you'd be applauding? Of course Clinton wouldn't make a sweeping speech on race - not only couldn't she, but she wouldn't have. By the same token, Obama wouldn't give a sweeping speech on gender - that's something I believe we're still waiting for from Clinton.
A lack of nuance and context is something we always find fault with politicians over, here on m-pyre and in conversations regularly... so when a candidate finally gives us an incredible amount of nuance and a recognition of anger and conflict (another thing we regularly fault politicians for steering clear of), we fault him for it and pick apart his sentences? We are in the eleventh and a half hour here. I get panicked just thinking about it. I want action and critiques that call for action. What are you calling for here? What about writing something pro-Clinton that would be a call to support her? Or ending your Obama critique with a call not to support him? Because that's the place we're at - say where you stand and fight for that position. It's March 19, and there is no Democratic nominee, and it's time to choose camps and make something happen.
All that said, I think his speech showed exactly why so many people have supported his candidacy, and why so many of those supporters have felt shut out of the political process before. This speech embodied exactly why he's the candidate that he is.
New York Times editorial:
There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.
Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.
Washington Post editorial:
SEN. BARACK Obama's mission in Philadelphia yesterday was to put the controversy over inflammatory statements made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his spiritual mentor and pastor for 20 years, behind him. But Mr. Obama (D-Ill.) went deeper than that. He used his address as a teachable moment, one in which he addressed the pain, anger and frustration of generations of blacks and whites head-on -- and offered a vision of how those experiences could be surmounted, if not forgotten. It was a compelling answer both to the challenge presented by his pastor's comments and to the growing role of race in the presidential campaign.
Boston Globe Editorial:
BARACK OBAMA could have made a much shorter speech. He could have protected his campaign yesterday by denouncing and rejecting his former pastor, Rev.Jeremiah Wright, as a crank. Then Obama could have rushed on, hoping that someone else's scandal would push his own out of the headlines.
Instead, Obama took the opportunity to engage the question of race in America, starting a bold, uncomfortably honest conversation. He asked Americans to talk openly about the deep wells of anger and resentment over racism, discrimination, and affirmative action. It's a call to break out of the country's racial stalemate and finally reach a new national understanding.
I understand your perspective Maggie. The reason I haven't made a strong case for either one of them is the same reason I always gave. It hasn't changed. I bluntly state here that I have more than one point of disagreement with him, and it's true. As to picking apart what he said, in my mind the first two points particularly are essential to point out given how this speech will be read and re-read broadly for years to come. Sometimes I feel that Obama supporters want me to ignore these issues, but I can't. I'm not faulting Obama for his nuance here. I'm disagreeing with his perspective on certain things I think are important. And they were glaring to me in his speech. I can't agree that Obama is leaps and bounds ahead of his peers without first coming to terms with these things. Having said that, I can see your perspective that maybe I should just keep my mouth shut. But there's a danger in that as well.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the positives I noted about his speech are pretty substantive, with the things that I highlight having a lot to do with my own experience of life. You suggest that I'm not applauding what he said, when in fact I do quite clearly. I think it's perfectly valid to give my perspective in all respects.
I actually appreciate the points you make marjorie. I was touched by the speech, but I'd be lying if when I read Ashley's story I didn't stop and say, this story better be true, or I'm going to be pissed.
I say that because trust is important here. We trust what these politicians say, especially a speech of this caliber, so not to point out the glaring omission of the genocides of Native American People would be wrong. A part of me wants to say, “Well maybe he just forgot.” Unfortunately, that would be pretty bad. But what would be worse is if he did think that the “Original Sin” was indeed slavery and not colonization. This would be worse in my opinion.
If we omit critiques, then we “trust” that he has good intentions without really knowing what he REALLY thinks. I think this election is historic and great, but I won’t shut my eyes and ears to the realities of rhetoric. Again, I was highly touched by his speech and it did make me believe that maybe the type of change I want to see is possible. Finally someone is talking about race and class in a way that is so much closer to my beliefs that anyone before. But I won’t hold my breath. My point is that I think it’s important that these types of critiques are given, to engage in the actual conversation.
As to the primary race, I’m not panicking in all honestly.
For me, it's not about picking a camp and then fighting for it at this moment in time. Once a nominee is elected, then I’ll pick. If you make me choose now, then my camp is my political analysis of our economic system that is highly critical of electoral politics and candidates. Especially when campaigns are run by corporate media.
I don't think this election is being dragged on far too long. Let the people decide. I actually think its wrong for right and left wing media to be asking any candidate to get out of the race. How is that democracy? Having all this “drama” with the Democratic candidates is only helping them with the press. The right wing is pissed because they’re taking up all the media attention. I listen to the right wing media everyday, and they are not happy, they are actually freaking out and don’t know who to attack more: Barack or Hillary. It’s pretty entertaining.
We should be pushing the democratic agenda now more than ever. Once they get nominated, then I’ll be singing a different tune.
If he were giving a lecture as an academic or a talk at a think tank as a policy wonk, I think your critique would be right on time. I certainly agree with your criticisms.
However, in running for president at this point in time I think he bit off more than enough in this speech. The perennial problem with being a politician running for office is that in order to get elected to try and achieve at least some of the things you believe in, you must also appeal to large and diverse blocs of voters and other kinds of power blocs that can make or break your election.
To also take on the genocide of Native Americans, delve into the explosive realm of Middle East complexities and take on the prison industry would have, I think, just muddied the waters and created new reactionary furies at a time when Obama is vulnerable, to say the least. Not a good time to have too many plates spinning at once.
However, witnessing how his mind works via the speech on race, I have a significant amount of confidence that his positions on most volatile issues are probably just as nuanced, fair and thoughtful as those he expressed about his main topic, even if he isn't speaking out on them right now.
The realities of election politics make being even semi-pure on most issues almost impossible. That he was incredibly honest and forthright on the main issue of race is stunning in and of itself without going into any depth on the other topics you mentioned.
It's unfortunate that all the blocs a Dem needs to win over to get elected aren't as progressive as the liberal wing. But I have a hunch that Obama, more than any other presidential candidate in ages, would actually lead as progressively as he could if he gets the chance. Maybe I'm dreaming, but that's the gut reaction I have.
I agree that taking on all those issues does muddy the waters. But HE decided to take on the issues at hand. He doesn’t have to mention the genocide of Native American People or even affirm the struggles of Jewish People. He chose to negate the struggles of Indigenous people by saying that Slavery was the Original Sin. Simply adding “one of” would have been okay.
In terms of his comments about the Middle East he’s clearly blaming “radical Islam” for what is happening, again negating the colonization from the western world amongst other things. If that’s truly what he believes, which I also “trust” that he does, then we highly disagree. He should have just left it out, but he didn’t.
This is why I love m-pyre, always great discussion.
Hey peeps. I'm really wary of continuing the reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection that leads to distorted interpolation of what I say that is commenting on blogs. You know, we're talking about a speech, the media's reaction to the speech, a blog post, comments and even a few conversations about the conversation about the conversation.
But...
I generally agree with most of the points you make Marjorie.
Yet I actually think Barb is dead on.
So for the sake of, well, being specific, I will comment on each one of Marjorie's bullets.
- Original sin. This is about being specific. The first 3 paragraphs should be read very, very critically and carefully. There is not a wasted word in the speech. He set the context for a speech on something very specific in those paragraphs. You're right, I suppose, that the original sin of Europeans coming to the Americas was genocide of indigenous peoples. (The original sin of colonization of the Americas by the Spanish, French, English and everyone else was genocide of indigenous people.) But in the context of the speech - you know "across the street" from where the "founding fathers" signed the Declaration of Independence - the original sin of that document, their "revolution" and the "country" we know as USA was, in fact, the question of slavery. Besides he said "native americans" in his speech - who as a group, and I don't have to tell you this, are an insignificant bloc of voters in terms of numbers. So why would he do that then? He asks rhetorically.
The second point Marjorie makes, I pretty much agree with. It was the only part of the speech where I actually think he pandered in a bad way in terms of the gromscian idea of the battle of ideas. But I have an analysis of why, as we all should. This is one of the true litmus tests of becoming POTUS. You MUST, I mean must, stand in front of the court and express your allegiance to the flag and Isreal as an ally. It's as cliche and expected as any other of the silly rituals we have (like wives standing next to scandalized husbands) yet it's more serious and gross. (Jo Ann: HE didn't bring it up, Clinton did when she asked him to not only denounce, but reject Farrakhan. I can't tell you how strategic that was, and it forced Obama to have to say he's not a muslim and he is down for Israel. Which, btw, one of his few flip flops...)
Marjorie's third point is very insightful. Where I differ is the frame of American exceptionalism as the core problem in the context of the speech. It's more, to me at least, the narrative of constant progress that's, well, a little intellectually dishonest. You and I know that it's a web and flow of victories and setbacks. As for patriotism and love of country - do you really think anyone is going to get elected anywhere on the planet by saying I hate my country and we're mediocre?
About the B-word and N-word. I suppose you're right that Clinton has been called bad things. Wrights comments are grossly out of context here, though. This is the type of conversation that leads to oppression olympics, so I won't go much further. But, Wright, in the clips that they've shown endlessly on TV, wasn't really talking about epithets, he was talking about relationship to power. Besides, I think he explicitly talks about gender barriers in this speech:
"But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family." (Why would he mention immigrants who can't vote, he asks rhetorically again?)
On the prison industrial complex. I think you completely missed the point on this one. Is this what you're talking about?
"That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. "
If it is, I suppose by itself out of context, it could be taken like you saw it. But in terms of the whole speech he really weaves personal and institutional responsibility values (the very idea of using shared values strategically for progressive public policy change) throughout the speech.
He answers it here.
"Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system..."
Nothing on Marjorie's last point. Interesting. And I really appreciate the wrap up.
I'm also really appreciative to have this convo with you all. I just wish I could do it in person, with charts and body language and all...
But I have to say I think my great friends Jo Ann and Marjorie just expect too much. To expect him to agree with Jo Ann about colonization and imperialism (while he's getting elected for sure, but any time really) is truly a stretch. He is not running for the nomination of a powerful people's party. That doesn't exist. That's our job. To force someone to actually HAVE to say that to get elected.
That a viable candidate for POTUS is advancing messaging and framing that's been identified as a strategic communication intervention to open up the public debate to serve progressive pubic policy is truly the most historic thing about this election, at least in my lifetime (yes, even more historic than gender or race). And, in a way, we've already won as a result - no matter what happens from here on out. But to spell it out - a debate that marginalizes progressive voices and values and impacts public opinion in favor of reactionary forces ends in harmful public policy for our communities. A debate that highlights progressive voices and values and impacts public opinion in the service of justice and progressive forces will end in better public policy for our communities.
There is no reason to do this - it's not known to get you elected - other than if you want to actually affect good, progressive public policy.
Thanks for all of your comments. I’m very glad Obama gave this speech, at the same time it upsets me that he had to give it in the first place because it’s propelled in response to a serious lack of understanding about race in our society.
I continue to be very moved by his description of the contradictions we all face when it comes to the people we love. In the speech, that is the most important part to me personally. I feel that in this area he is explaining us to ourselves, it’s both sad that he has to do so at the same time it feels good to know someone else has the same experience.
It’s probably a failing on my part that the horse-race of electoral politics isn't front and center for me when I approach topics, which I can see may not always be entirely strategic. Like Jo Ann, my politics are largely centered in a place that is highly critical of the electoral arena. We both may indeed have expectations that are too high, but the flip side is no expectations at all (I can do either one pretty good actually). I agree with Jo Ann that engaging in a conversation propelled by this speech is important; in fact, essential might be a better word. And the critiques I offer of it are the critiques I think necessary in order to acknowledge the many interesting and profound other things he mentions, both directly and indirectly.
Barb, I have a similar hunch about Obama despite my entrenched resistance to having any expectations at that level. Karlos, in general I know that we largely agree and I would be splitting hairs with you to continue with the point by point. We can have a conversation about our points of disagreement later. Do I think Obama should have expounded on all my points in his speech? Of course not. But the choice of words is important, and their use is powerful, as his candidacy has clearly shown.
Nice wrap-up, Marjorie!
I really appreciated all the points raised by folks, as my own reaction to the speech was profoundly emotional. It helps to hear the nuance of others' reactions and critiques.
I find the balance between maintaining a strong grasp of critical analysis and being strategic for the overall progressive movement is sometimes tough if not impossible. I appreciated seeing how that played out in our discussion here at m-pyre. You all are so good!
So thank you to everyone!
Commenting by HaloScan
