May 2, 2008: Ranting Like a Crazy Man, Swift-Boating Obama, Lessons in Parochialism

“I hear a preacher on the corner
Ranting like a crazy man
He says there’s trouble, troubles a coming
I can read it like the back of my hand”

          -----The Rolling Stones, “Back of My Hand” (1)

The right Reverend Wright has taken to the airwaves in an erstwhile effort to defend himself. Ever since he came to national prominence he has been thrown in the spin-cycle of cable news where he has been left to be wrung out. Now he has chosen to once again thrust himself center-stage in an effort to repair his tattered reputation. So first appearing in an interview with Bill Moyers, then later in a speech before the National Press Club, the Reverend began a haltering and convoluted defense of himself that quickly spun out into charges that “of course Barack had to say those things”, he is a politician. Missing a grand opportunity to clarify his statements and perhaps inject a bit of rationality to the controversy, the Reverend Wright chose instead to add to the proceedings yet another level of misunderstanding.

What one would have longed to hear from the good Reverend is that he was not damning the United States; he was damning its sins. From the record this could have been readily demonstrated. Instead the Reverend chose to further impugn the character of his congregant by implying that it was mere political calculation that made Barack put distance between himself and the Reverend. How this will “play in Peoria”, as Mr. Nixon would say, is yet to be determined but it has given Fox Noise and the chattering classes an excuse to put the Reverend through several more spin-cycles.

Obama, walking the high wire of presidential politics, stood before the cameras and in a firm but soft voice, and with a look of resignation in his face, once again explained that those were not his sentiments and that clearly the Reverend did not understand who he is or what he and his campaign are about. With no joy in his voice he then publicly repudiated the Reverend saying that he clearly is not the man he thought him to be. One hopes that this is the end of the business, for this campaign has been distracted far too long over such an issue.

One can ask, as many have, why Obama would sit in a pew and listen to such sermons. But the truth is that we all have sat in pews and listened to admonitions we find unpalatable. I remember the 1960 campaign. We were instructed from the pulpit to vote for Nixon because if Kennedy were elected the Pope in Rome would run this country. At school we were told to remind our parents not to vote for the Catholic. Long lectures about the inquisition and the Catholic persecution of Protestants were held. It was as if the Inquisition had happened yesterday. I went home and told my mother who, after patiently listening to my political advice, simply said “nonsense, we’re Democrats, we’re voting for Kennedy”. So it was with all my classmates who lived in the neighborhood. Grand Haven went for Nixon, but not my neighborhood. It is easy to put labels on people, to try and tag them by such associations, but I have yet to sit in any pew and not disagree with at least half of what is being said—beginning with the preacher’s misunderstanding of natural history.

What we have here are inflammatory remarks, loosely associated with the candidate that can be spun into smear. Another simple instance of ‘swift-boating’. The question is why would the Reverend seek to once again raise the ugly issue and by so doing participate in the ‘swift-boating’ of the man he mentored?

I think the answer is that he does understand his congregant. The Reverend Wright does understand what Obama is all about, and that is the problem. To a degree all religions, and all denominations within each religion, are based on the concept of exclusivity. In order to maintain the institution one must maintain its identity. In order to maintain its identity one must constantly strive to see to it that the congregation does not melt back into the larger society. Therefore to keep the flock together it is necessary to draw distinctions be they over dress, dietary restriction, religious holidays and observances, ritual, and an abiding belief that only the version of truth taught by this denomination is the way to salvation. Only by separation from the larger community and following the ‘true’ path can one be saved. Walls of varying descriptions are then erected between oneself and the larger society, sometimes (as in the case of the current scandal in Texas involving a renegade Mormon sect, or the Branch Davidians) becoming a bit bazaar. In any case, not so deep under the surface, lurks a great deal of intolerance. It is intolerance that prevents the Bible-thumping fundamentalist from embracing the Mormon Mitt Romney, as it is intolerance that prevents the Reverend Wright from witnessing before his very eyes the work of his own parishioner. To embrace the greater community, to cross the line of demarcation and transcend one’s own parochialism is seen as ‘backsliding’ into heresy. This is an old story, at least as old as the reaction of Christ’s disciples when Peter told them that they must now take the Gospel unto the Gentiles. The Reverend Wright, who had built his church on drawing distinctions between ‘them’ and ‘us’, now finds that he cannot bring himself to embrace ‘them’. It’s no different that Jerry Falwell’s difficulty embracing homosexuals. “I love the sinner, but hate the sin”, Falwell used to say. The problem, of course, is that we are all sinners and therefore cannot be so easily separated.

I attended a parochial school and within its walls learned the true meaning of the word. To be parochial means to be limited, be it geographically or intellectually. It means to adhere to a narrow and more constricted version of truth, to the exclusion of all else. It means teaching to fear the other, those not like us. It means if no Lutheran is running for President, then we must vote protestant over Catholic, Christian over Muslim or Hindu—whatever the lines of demarcation and such lines there must be. That is what fuels the internet smear that Obama is Muslim, and this is what fuels the infatuation with the rantings of Reverend Wright. We can appeal to our parochialism, our collective intolerance, and do it with religious sanction. The opposite of parochial is cosmopolitan, urbane, and in a word worldly. Barack, by seeking to transcend parochialism, as he must do if he is to become President of all the people, has offended his mentor who now fears his success. To transcend his station, to preach to the gentiles as it were, to appeal to the larger community is seen as ‘backsliding’; a heresy threatening not only the theological ‘certainties’ of ‘black liberation’ theology, but the very identities of the church and the Reverend who built it.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_rolling_stones/back_of_my_hand.html



.

April 28, 2008: I Walk the Line, Bird on a Wire, The Ties That Bind

“I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time
I keep the ends out for the tie that binds”

----Johnny Cash, “I Walk the Line” (1)

There has been much said of late that Barack Obama is too “aloof”, too cerebral, too distant and, therefore, somehow out of touch with America. They cite his oratorical style, his lofty language, and foremost his unwillingness or inability to get down ‘in the trenches’ and deliver the body blows necessary to emerge a champion. To support these arguments pundits point out that to the degree his constituency extends beyond the racial barrier his support is primarily among the better educated professional classes and that somehow this son of Chicago’s south side cannot relate to the laboring masses. This analysis, put forward so eloquently by Chris Matthews on his MSNBC ‘Hardball’ program, and Pat Buchanan, the pugnacious Nixonite who learned nothing from the experience, materially misunderstands the natural limitations of Obama’s candidacy.

On occasion, when confronted with such questions, it helps to turn to the world of sports to find adequate and instructive parallels. In order to understand the paradigm, the limitations as well as the promise of the Obama candidacy, one needs to turn to other arenas for instruction. Professional sports went through much the same experience when it came time to confront such racial barriers and finally allow persons of color to participate at the highest level. Here one must remember Branch Rickey’s selection of Jackie Robinson, or Joe Lewis who became the first black boxing champion since the controversial Jack Johnson (so controversial that blacks could not get a title match for decades), or Arthur Ashe in tennis or Tiger Woods in golf—other lily-white endeavors-- until these great athletes rose to challenge Jim Crow. These athletes had several things in common: all were great athletes and all in relatively short order were welcomed onto the national and international stage. The reasons for this were not only were they in possession of great athleticism but also great temperament. From this perspective the choice of Jackie Robinson is instructive. There were several black athletes laboring in the old negro league who could, on the basis of athletic ability, have been easy selections as the athlete who would overturn decades of racism in professional baseball. Satchel Page, Josh Gibson leap immediately to mind. But what recommended Robinson to Dodgers’ general manager Branch Rickey was knowing he would have to endure endless taunting and racial slurs from the crowds and from other players—some his own teammates-- and that his choice would have to keep a cool head, would have to stand above it and teach by example what tolerance and acceptance looked like. His skill was a necessary condition, for it would not do to bring him to the major leagues only to watch him struggle and fail; but it was his temperament that was the sufficient condition for his selection. Without the proper temperament, Rickey’s choice would put undo pressure on himself and his team and possibly trigger a vicious spiral of violence or threats of violence always lurking just under every rock. To be successful, Rickey’s choice must have the ability to make himself welcome into the hearts of not only Brooklyn, but also the nation. And so he chose Jackie Robinson who, whatever his visceral reaction to the outrages that permeated America and it’s pastime, would remain cool, calm and collected and go about the business of demonstrating that he had every right to be on the field.


This, it seems to me is the high wire on which Barack Obama is walking. “Why doesn’t he react!” cries Chris Matthews and the chattering classes. “Why doesn’t he take off the gloves?” If he could only show a little more emotion….

This he cannot do, just as Lewis or Robinson or Ashe or Woods cannot. They live and lived in a world still circumscribed by racial stereotypes and the fear engendered by such collective misunderstandings. To react strongly is to risk being seen as “uppity” or condescending; to get angry is to be seen as not ‘in control of oneself’. We all know the stereotypes. From this perspective the limitations of Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s campaigns were that they emerged from the civil rights struggles, and not only bore the stamp of righteous indignation over such obvious injustice, but because change—especially wholesale social change—threatens the established order,it is mostly unsettling, often frightening. The task at hand is to present change not only in its most promising and positive light, but to make change less threatening—to make change safe.

That was the task of Jackie Robinson, Arthur Ashe, Joe Lewis, and Tiger Woods; to be the first to take the stage and make it safe for others to follow. To make it safe not only for those of ‘color’ tot take a place at the table, but for the entire nation to welcome them.

The calculus is further complicated by his quest for the presidential nomination against a white woman. To be overbearing, to come on too strong, risks the likelihood of any such candidacy pitting a man against a woman that it would be perceived as somehow chauvinist. One cannot be seen to be figuratively beating a woman especially on a stage for the entire world to see. Indeed every time he has deigned to respond to the guttural attacks by playing ‘hardball’, to borrow Chris Matthews' motif, the Clinton camp has played the gender card to the effect that the boys are ‘ganging up’ on her. Obama, as any male opponent, must tread lightly lest he be perceived as abusing the woman, a problem that is compounded by the murky cross-currents of race. For several compelling reasons Obama must keep his eyes wide open all the time.

The national quadrennial spectacle that is the Presidential election in the United States has always involved the mortification of the flesh. In recent years the public has demanded that candidates wear their hearts on their sleeves. It has been yet another meaningless qualification instituted by the generation of swine that candidates must ‘bare all’. To that end long confessionals are in order, and the public demands visceral reactions to public events. To be analytical is seen to be detached and aloof, to commit the cardinal sin of being unfeeling. But are these qualities we want to see in the leader of the ‘free world’?

Much has been made of the similarities between Barack Obama and Robert Kennedy. Not since Bobby’s brief campaign 40 years ago has such enthusiasm been so manifest. I am reminded of that spring so long ago, but perhaps we are not drawing quite the correct analogy. In many ways Barack Obama reminds me more of Jack. It would be said of Jack, if he were running today, that he too is aloof and cerebral, distant and calculating. Nixon, on the other hand, was Nixon. Once when Kennedy was musing he paraphrased Lincoln by saying of Nixon “with malice toward all, and charity for none”. Imagine if the choice in 1960 were otherwise, if America chose its president based on the need to ‘emote’, on appearing ‘real’?. Can you imagine Halderman and Erlichman, or perhaps Colson and Liddy helping Nixon walk through the mine field that was the Cuban Missile Crisis?. No, for my money I want someone aloof, calculating, and rational in charge during such times of trouble.

And so Barack moves among us with eyes wide open holding out the ends for ties that bind.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/iwalktheline.html

April 27, 2008: Mischief of the Gods, Squaring the Circle, Postript from Manila

“He’s never going to shake her off”, wrote Maureen Dowd in last Wednesday’s New York Times, “not all by himself…She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have ‘what it takes’ to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place…how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran or stop Osama?”(1). Chris Matthews on his nightly “Hardball” program has likened this contest to a boxing match between two featherweights with neither contender possessing a knock-out punch. The implication, by extension, is that perhaps neither Democratic rival is truly presidential timber.

While Democrats “watch in horror as Hillary continues to scratch up the once silvery sheen on Obama” (1) and while John McCain consolidates his base it is perhaps too easy to dismiss this contest as one between political lightweights. What we may be witnessing instead is a struggle between two of the largest and most loyal constituent blocs within the Democratic coalition, each with clear and compelling claims to the party’s loyalty, and each strong enough to check-mate the other, in a titanic struggle to determine which social and political barrier will be broken first.

For some perverse reason, perhaps the simple caprice or the mendacity of mischievous deities, the Democratic Party has chosen this moment in history to square the circle of social injustice. In any case the traditional mold of the standard-bearer has been shattered opening the door to those who have loyally supported through thick and thin every Democratic nominee be he FDR or Walter Mondale. The party, and its faithful, cannot turn its back on the aspirations of such groups without appearing to be devouring its own—or, in Obama’s case, devouring its young. And so the party stands transfixed as this drama is played out on the national and international stage from one dreary primary to another, each contestant exhausted, each laying against the ropes, in the hope that the contest will play itself out and one or the other will win on points.

To win on points….that is the crux of the matter. The Matthew’s and the Dowd’s would love to see a knock-out. We have long been accustomed to such contests ending this way, but this year it was not to be.

In one corner is the heir to the champion; in many ways Hillary was Bill’s sparring partner, like Jimmy Ellis and Larry Holmes both sparring partners of Muhammad Ali and both later champions in their own right. In the other corner is the “Louisville Lip” himself reincarnated into the inscrutable Barack Obama, a political force capable of inspiring the crowd by transforming what is a very brutal “contact” sport into an act of poetic grace. Their fighting styles are markedly different, Hillary a tough scrappy fighter who needs to get in close and deliver body blows, Barach, like Ali, dances and moves, floating like a butterfly delivering his punches from long range. Each has demonstrated enormous strength in the primary campaign. Each has raised well over 150 million dollars and won over 15 million votes. Each representing major power blocs within the party is capable of knocking the other out. The question is why hasn’t it happened? As Ms. Dowd put it, “why can’t he close the deal?” (1).

Perhaps the first question is “why didn’t she close the deal?” It has become standard fodder on the talk circuit in recent weeks for the chattering class to ask rhetorically “he could have finished her in New Hampshire but couldn’t close the deal, he could have finished her on super Tuesday but couldn’t put her away, he could have finished her in Ohio but didn’t, and now Pennsylvania. Why can’t he seal the deal?” The problem with this critique is that it assumes that he has been the front-runner all this time. In fact he was not. She was still the odd-on-favorite through New Hampshire and everyone—including the Clinton camp—had assumed that Barack would meet his Waterloo on Super Tuesday. The more compelling question was—and still is—why didn’t she put him away? Why couldn’t Hillary seal the deal?

To answer that question one must go back once again to the Michigan results. Uncontested Hillary got only 55% of the vote. Obama, by becoming the voice of the other half of the party, quickly reached parity and so began a long struggle between two almost evenly matched forces within the party over who will be its champion.

Perhaps the best boxing metaphor is the Ali-Frazier trilogy. Here were two of the greatest heavyweight champions in the history of the sport, each possessing extraordinary power and boxing skill who were, nevertheless, locked in long and brutal contests to decide who would be champion. “The closest I’ve ever come to death”, said Ali after the “Thrilla in Manila”. So it was. Finally, at the end of this rubber-match to decide for all-time who was best, it came down to Joe Frazier finally not answering the bell and Ali collapsing on the ring floor. This is what we are witnessing, in my view, two very formidable political figures, each representing powerful constituencies, each equally matched and neither quite ready yet to throw in the towel. But the classic fight in Manila may be instructive in yet another way: both fighters left too much of themselves in the ring and were never thereafter the same. That is what worries the Democratic faithful at a time when neither the party nor the country can afford to lose.

Footnotes”

Http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=17hp&oref=slogin