The Lynching of Jeremiah Wright
Somebody should explain to corporate media bloviators that the United Church of Christ is mainstream — more mainstream, in fact, than they are. Formerly known as "the pilgrims", the early church in America is perhaps more responsible for the political ideas and practices embodied in the U.S. Constitution than any other group. The Presbyterians (my family's affiliation), with their highly decentralized polity, might come close. These establishment WASPs, however, are a dying breed, almost never heard from anymore. Easy targets.
I would add, considering the five Catholic Supreme Court Justices appointed for the purpose of shoring up executive rule, that it would be inconceivable — then or now — for Catholics to have ever proposed or adopted the U.S. Constitution. Too liberal. Something worth thinking about.
So it's refreshing to have Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an ordained UCC minister, taking advantage of media cupidity to spread the message of social justice. Sure, talking heads are afraid he might stir up trouble. Not much deference will be paid. Bill Moyers (now also UCC, having abandoned the Baptists due to their contemporary doctrinal insanity) is about as good as it's going to get. What I'd like to see, and given the intense attention this would not be unreasonable to expect, is a serious poll of the public's attitude. Two questions: (1) Have you heard more extended comments from Rev. Wright than the typical looped sound-bites, and (2) if you have, what's your reaction? Simple.
My guess is that if venomous commentary were excluded a majority of those who are familiar with some set of extended Wright remarks would approve. It's a poll I predict you'll never see. Whatever, the Rev. Wright seems like an honorable and intelligent man to me.
Perhaps Obama had to repudiate Wright. I don't know. More interesting, what will be the effect of Wright's speaking out on voters in Indiana and North Carolina? I don't know that, either, but I'm skeptical that it's anything like as negative as commonly portrayed and might even be a positive.
In the bigger picture what worries me is that Wright's defenders seem mostly to come from the black community. A further (ominous) sign of the decline of WASP vitality.
Posted by George Kenney on April 30, 2008 12:53 AM 
« Feeding the World | Main | Principles of the Imperial New World Order »
Comments
Only some of Wright's minor comments seem wrong to me, such as the wild claim that the US government injected AIDS into the black community. Even then, one should remember the Tuskegee experiments! I quite agree with his 'chickens coming home to roost' statement regarding US foreign policy. Unfortunately, that is twisted into the idea that the vicitims of 9/11 'deserved' it. As for poverty, I would want to see a color-blind helping hand from government.
Anyhow, the main point is that wild and stupid passions still abound on such topics as war and peace, patriotism, race, etc. Frankly, I don't mind if Obama repudiates Wright, if that is what it takes to get a half-decent person into the White House. Politics is full of ambiguity. The pure will never wield power. I'll bet Obama has secretly read a little Chomsky, or even some Chalmers Johnson!
Interesting comment on the UCC being WASP. And as an ex-Catholic, I'd have to admit that many of them have been inculcated to defer to authority. That's what the pope is all about. But let's remember that polls show that Catholics roughly follow the American public in their views, with a comparable split between 'liberals' and conservatives, not that that is necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: benjamin777
|
April 30, 2008 11:23 AM
Benjamin777's comment is truly Solomonic and articulate, acknowledging that politics is more non-rational whim and passion then sound empiricism and adherence to principle. He can tolerate Obama's defenestration of Wright on the off chance that Obama may have read Chomsky and is committed to the same principles as Wright. I did say 'non-rational whim', and the idea that by disassociating himself from Wright he will win the hearts and minds of the lower class voter, is superficially non-rational.
However, when one considers that over 50% of Obama's campaign backing comes from Wall Street and the lawyers for lobbyists, then open revulsion of what Wright stands for makes sense.
Posted by: Gregorio | April 30, 2008 8:12 PM
Hi Gregorio. It's thrilling to get a response, almost the only time I ever did here. I didn't exactly say that I'm willing to 'tolerate Obama's defenestration of Wright on the off chance that Obama may have read Chomsky'. That's a frivolous way of putting it. My point was simply that Obama would be dead in the water otherwise, and would you really prefer Hillary or McCain? (BTW, I would bet that McCain wins no matter who the Democrat is, at least when I'm sober.)
Posted by: benjamin777
|
April 30, 2008 10:57 PM
Correction: Rev. Wright said it was the Iraq Ambassador who made the "chickens come home to roost" comment.
[ed. That would be Ed Peck — also a former guest on EP.]
Posted by: Sandy Carmichael | May 2, 2008 2:28 PM
Bill Moyers followup essay on his Wright interview and the National Press Club event is worth reading/watching - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html
a rare expression of lucidity from a TV voice.
Posted by: Richard
|
May 3, 2008 6:24 AM