I just watched Jeremiah Wright's appearence carefully on
C-SPAN's website, and I don't think the
context improves much of anything. Wright is not only filled with
hatred for the U.S. government (if not its people), but he could
barely contain his contempt for the woman who was charged with
reading questions from the audience, mocking her, taunting her,
calling her ignorant. And for all of his talk about how nobody who
is criticizing him understands the black church, it's pretty clear
that he has no understanding of why people are criticizing him.
For instance, when asked to explain his comments after 9/11 that
the chickens are coming home to roost, he said it was the same
thing as saying you reap what you sow, or that you should do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. "You cannot do terrorism
on other people and expect it never to come back to you," Wright
said. "Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright
bombastic, divisive, principles." Of course those who were offended
by the comments aren't offended by the general concept that
commiting acts of terrorism triggers a response, people were
offended by the suggestion that America was "doing terrorism" in
the first place. The fact that Wright sees the controversial part
of his statement as the origin of the "golden rule" rather than his
characterization of American actions, says all you need to know
about Wright.
His defense of his "God Damn America" statement was similar-- he
just drew a distinction, saying God was damning the policies of the
American government, not the American people.
Wright stood by Louis Farrakhan, saying he was "one of the most
important voices of the 20th or 21st century." He also suggested
Farrakhan was taken out of context when he reportedly said Judaism
was a "gutter religion"-- said he meant zionism, and said that
Farrakhan's views were the same as the UN and Jimmy Carter. (That
latter part is perhaps about the only thing Wright and I may agree
on).
Wright also refused to back off from his statement that the U.S.
created AIDS, suggesting the questioner read Leonard Horowitz's
book on the subject. "I believe our
government is capable of doing anything," Wright said. Talk about
cynical.
Also quite telling, was Wright's repeated assertion that, "We
both know that if Sen. Obama did not say what he said, he would
never get elected. Politicians say what they say based on
electability, based on soundbites, based on polls."
I've always felt that Wright would not be a make or break issue
for Obama, but it will be part of a growing narrative about Obama
that will continue to harm his image as a transformational leader
and haunt his candidacy. Obama's defenders will continue to say it
doesn't matter what Wright said, Obama doesn't agree with his
comments. But the problem is that since Obama has such a thin
public record, since there are few tangible accomplishments his
campaign can point to as evidence of his ability to make positive
changes by bringing people together through shared hope, all the
American people have to go on are his speeches. But it's hard to
take a leap of faith with somebody who you don't know very well.
Therefore, when trying to determine who Obama is, this guy who
within five years has risen from the obscurity of the state senate
to within arm's reach of the most powerful job in the world, his
close relationships take on an added importance.
topics:
Religion, Books
