Obama: Not Magic

Barack Obama already lost when he took the stage in Philadelphia today. But he acquitted himself as admirably as any Democrat possibly can. If I were a liberal and a supporter of Barack Obama, I would feel fully vindicated.

I think Obama has exposed everyone who nominated him to be the Magic Negro and he put it right back on them. if he were a Republican, he would have couched the exact same reversal in terms of personal responsibility and not a prerequisite to 'us' solving problems of health care, but the reversal was made. It is not Barack Obama's job to clean up the racial mess in America. It is your job. And every American from this point forward who wants to paint Obama in the colors of racial reconciliation is lazy. Period. No excuses.

Article A

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

 

Article B

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

 

The great charade of this debacle is that critics and fans from the left and right have placed the burden on Obama to be their magic negro, to prove once and for all that Americans are capable of bridging racial gaps. Obama certainly was willing to take on that mantle as the leader of the free world, and why wouldn't he? The president is many things to many people. But when push comes to shove, there is only so much of that symbolism any reasonable man can shoulder, and Obama has demonstrated a bit of wisdom in shrugging off that responsibility today. He disowns no one, and takes no responsibility for their dysfunctions. That's on you.

There's really nothing left to say.

Comments

[cnulan]

The great charade of this debacle is that critics and fans from the left and right have placed the burden on Obama to be their magic negro, to prove once and for all that Americans are capable of bridging racial gaps.

uh.., I haven't seen ANY of this hue and cry emanate from the "left". I've seen a lot of fence sitters and passive gawkers at ethnonationalist excess peg THEIR hopes for effortless absolution from their own sins and the systemic sins of their fathers on this candidacy, however.

I'll take your word for it if you say so, you're a lot closer to hollywood than I am, but I don't think any Black folks have penned any magical negro stories..,

[Cobb]

Obama is not the black power candidate, as Field Negro so sarcastically states. Anyway, I've about had my fill for the day.

[Michael Fisher]

The Magic Negro be thou.

[Mary Had a Little Lamb]

I have to disagree with you. Barak has gone out of his way to avoid race. It's the political surrogates who keep infecting race back into the election.

Faux news has gone on a media assassination. I'm repulsed at the coverage they continue to show about this. Aren't we all guilty by association? Don't we all love somebody with questionable opinions?

I don't know how you can support a political party that is soo pro-white male. You must have some self-hatred issues.

[unclesmrgol]

I have to disagree with you. Barak has gone out of his way to avoid race. It's the political surrogates who keep infecting race back into the election.

His political surrogates, Michelle and the good Rev. Wright, have sandpapered the teflon off of Barack, and he's feeling the pain.

This speech is the result.

I don't know how you can support a political party that is soo pro-white male. You must have some self-hatred issues.

If, Mary, you are a black female, you owe two debts to that "pro-white male" party -- the 15th and 19th amendments together give you the right to vote. Both amendments were opposed by the Democrats and pushed by the Republicans. So, a right-thinking person might ask, "Why do you love your oppressors so much?" With what have they bought you?

[Miss Carnivorous]

The coverage is right and just. If McCain was connected to a White racist preacher, we would be hearing about it 24/7. It would not be ignored by the press, as say, they do the racist shenanigans in Robert Byrd's past. In reality every time they mention Byrd, they should bring up his background. It's hard if not immpossible for the Democrats to face up to their racist past.

I don't know if any of you have heard thus fear expressed before, but I am very, very afraid that if Obama gets the nomination, but loses the presidency to McCain, there will be Black riots across this country. But then I do live in the inner city.

[brotherbrown]

Obama gets the nomination, but loses the presidency to McCain, there will be Black riots across this country.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[brotherbrown]

Both amendments were opposed by the Democrats and pushed by the Republicans.

Uh, you do realize the parties sort of changed places in the 140 years since, right? You do realize that not one southern republican voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the house or senate, right? And that in 2008, the republican party is a southern regional party with scarcely few black elected officials?

Maybe you'll put that tired talking point to rest. It makes you seem so new to the republican party.

[Cobb]

Bob Jones University is the defacto storehouse of 'white racist preachers' by today's ridiculous standard of what makes a racist. How controversial is that?

[mosquito]

unclesmrgol -- McCain is affiliating with some radical extremist preachers who are anti-catholic and the media isn't covering them....maybe that's b/c McCain has a lot of baggage...he's reversed course and courting lobbyists. Top level McCain campaign officials are lobbyists for the european airplane manufacturer, Aerobus. The same aerobus that was recently awarded a huge contract that was denied Boeing, an American manufacturer. McCain hasn't met a war he does not like--first he said (and then denied) we would be in Iraq for 100 years. Yesterday, McCain said we would be at war in Afghanistan for 100 years. He even sings "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran....." McCain, like Clinton, has not released his income tax returns....so there's plenty to reporton McCain.

Maybe, oh my gosh, there is no major dirt to get on Obama so let's go after his imperfect friends, family, and minister. Does anyone have "perfect" friends and family? Smear them and then make it out as "bad judgement" that Obama would have a friend, minister, or family member that was less than perfect.

Cobb--One of the things I really like about Obama is that he challenges "us" to get more involved and to do our part. He doesn't pretend that "he" is the solution. His role is to help raise the relevant questions and issues and to get our active involvement so our country can make positive changes.

Without hope there is no possibility of change. With Hope to inspire us into action change is right around the corner...IF ONLY AMERICANS DON'T LET THE CORPORATE MEDIA DISTRACT US....then we can elect Obama in 2008 and we can all get to work to make our communities and our lives better.

Buzz...Buzz...

[MS]

mosquito,
Yes, I make my living on HOPE.

I am Asian and neither my congressman who is part of 'black caucus' nor my senator represents my interests or even care. Now with Obama we will have a president who is also going to represent a caucus.

Time to leave and go to a saner country..

[Anita]

a person who feels the way obama does about the US should not become president. he should not even want to become president. he is trying to justify black anti americanism and still say vote for me. if the country is so bad, leave it alone. the sad truth is nothing can make up for slavery. nor can the US promise or deliver a future without any racism or bad experience for any black person. and the complaints are not just about racism, they are about everything that is not perfect, everyone who does not have a big house with a pool, or a high earning job, or perfect children, etc.

in school we are taught that liberalism and prosperity are necessary to escape unrest and revolution, but it is not. that is obvious when i look at the world. a country can be oppressive, intolerant, murderous towards lower castes or minorities, and poor, poor, poor, but still stable and have loyal citizens, fiercely loyal citizens. if most of my brothers and sisters feel that the us is so bad they can't love it, i am sorry. but nothing can be done about that.

[Gringo]

brotherbrown:
Uh, you do realize the parties sort of changed places in the 140 years since, right?
Then please explain why it is that I will be voting for McCain in November, and one of my forbears was killed at Harper’s Ferry, fighting on the side of John Brown. As a child I was very strongly in support of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, and the Voting Rights Bill that followed.

Consider this excerpt from The Myth of the Racist Republicans .

The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace's base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region's traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.
In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South.
The tension between the myth and voting data escalates if we consider change across time. Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These "immigrants" identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants (like George H.W. Bush, who moved with his family to Texas) were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and '90s than they had earlier?

In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South. This is a very strange way to reincarnate George Wallace's movement.

Another way to approach the canard that the racist Democrat southerners all moved to the Republican Party is to point out that to a large degree the old time racism has died out. We aren’t in 1958 any more. Just because Billy Bob voted Republican, and his KKK grandfather voted Democrat, doesn’t mean that Billy Bob would support the KKK today. Bull Connor no longer rules the roost. In 1958, 94% of white Americans disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites, which also indicates that such opinions were not at all restricted to the segregationist South. By 2007, that percentage had gone down to 19% of white Americans.

The old nativist/segregationist types have by and large died off. See the above. For white Americans 50 or above, 64% approved of interracial marriage. For white Americans 18-49, 86% approved of interracial marriage.

Another problem. If the parties changed places, then why is it possible to draw a parallel drawn the Civil War Copperheads of the Democratic Party, and such Democrats as Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin regarding the Iraq War ? I am reminded of a mailing I received several years ago from the Democratic Party, asking my opinion on a wide variety of issues. The only question the survey had with regard to the Iraq War was phrased in terms of withdrawal, and there was no answer that stated: when we had successfully completed the job. Copperhead sounds pretty accurate to me.

And that in 2008, the republican party is a southern regional party
Those Red versus Blue maps go rather wide. I guess that the Mason Dixon line has been moved north to the Canadian border, as Montana and North Dakota voted for Bush last time.

Foreign policy is the main reason that I left the Democratic Party years ago (I have no idea why they mailed the survey to me), and Obama doesn’t appear to deviate from the McGovern school of foreign policy.

[urbanleftbehind]

brother brown and miss carnivorous:

I think miss c is correct to fear a riot, especially in a close race with a significant bradley effect. In a weird way, that also may explain my mom's support of Clinton; she probably cant stand her, but she is also a "macadamia nut in a chocolate cake" so it probably crosses her mind about Obama being the victim of a contested loss or worse. This is a woman who was the only white-ish person riding home on a couple of south side CTA buses the evening of April 4, 1968. Thank god media technology had not caught up yet.

[Mary Had a Little Lamb]

This is complete media assassination. McCain & Hilary have truckloads of scandals and baggage. They have both aligned themselves with homophobes and racists. Both have business scandals that would make one faint. I don't understand why this has been ignored. Barak's FORMER pastor did not have an impact on his voting record or legislative accomplishments. What this has shown me is how truly evil our government is? What this has shown me is that the rich will stop at nothing to confuse and rape the uniformed. McCain will win whether Hilary or Barak gets the nomination. America will plummett into darkness.

The Republican party is pro-white male. I could care less about what they did over 100 years ago. Times have changed and so has this party.

[cptnapalm]

I had not thought that there would be potential riot concerns by anyone... I'd say, if there is any possibility it would be due to a very close loss by Obama rather than if it was a landslide against him.

Obama is in a sticky position. He was touted by liberals because he is a liberal black politician who does not focus his total being around race grievances and who gave a very nice speech on unity four years ago. So the "magical negro" aspect did not come from him, but it is how he got to be a serious contender for the Presidency. Depending on how things go, this speech may help him break out of that box.

What I did appreciate, oddly enough, is that he did not say "Get thee away from me Wright!" I find the man to be a hate monger, but when politicians suddenly disassociate themselves from people they have been on the best of terms with for decades, that does screams "expediency" to me. In not doing that, Obama displayed some genuine integrity. That he goes there in the first place, on the other hand, shows some questionable, though not necessarily bad, judgment.

I did not care for his dragging his grandmother into it. Wright spoke publicly in his capacity as a public person. His grandmother's private views expressed in private to her family being brought up so he, a public person, can publicly demonstrate his magnanimity was, I thought, very distasteful.

Obama's hand seems to have been forced by the statements of his pastor becoming more widely known. Even so, it was about a year ago that I first read something to the effect that the Senator and his pastor had a discussion on what might have to happen if what just happened happened. (NB: I need a broader vocabulary perhaps?) And from what I remember, they vaguely agreed that should what the pastor has said become an issue, it might be necessary for Obama to distance himself from Wright, which Obama's speech did while not disowning the association.

[cnulan]

not-see comedy gold:

hates having "private" racism either intentionally or unintentionally disclosed.

as if the institutionalized fruit of that racism were not abundantly self-evident all around us - 24/7/365 - the emperor is blithely unaware of his nakedness.

[Miss Carnivorous]

I hope that you are right brownbrother and that I am wrong, but I'd be willing to place a bet against you on the subject of riots.

As for the Republican Party being the party of white men, the fact is that few people benefit from the policies of the Democrats.

The Republicans don't always live up to their own standards, but the Democrats have no standards. And they discourage personal responisibility, which is the only way to better your circumstances.

Poor people need conservative values far more than rich people. Every behavioral pathology disproportionately affects the poor. Liberals can't expect working taxpayers to support selfish and self- indulgent behavior indefinitely.

Whatever liberals may think, many people are living in poverty because they have extremely bad habits, or are of low cognitive ability.

I grew up on welfare and got to see this first hand. My father abdicated his responsibilty in pursuit of his own pleasure. My mom would rather have slept all day than gone to work. The way I bettered myself was to become self sufficient and fiscally responsible, something my mom, dad and neighbors were unwilling to do.

I am not talking about choosing paper or plastic, or caring about global warming, I am talking about using self control and delaying instant gratification. Not having children if you can't afford to take care of them. Expecting your kids to do well in school, by actually studying. These are not values championed by liberals, who seem to want to reward and excuse people for bad behavior. They promote school kids who are steeped in the utmost ignorance.

Obama is talking the same smack all the liberal politicians talk. Leftist crap. He uses secular/Marxist terminology in a preacher's cadence. The government replaces God as the great benefactor.

My city has been run by liberals and outright leftists for 45 years and it has not done minorities or anyone else a damn bit of good.

[cnulan]

"liberal" is not-see code speak for "n*gg*r-lover"

conservatism is not fundamentally about ideology, but about the preservation of elite power, maintained as a form of identity politics. Elites then claim "natural" leadership, in the name of protecting, defending and exemplifying the group identity against evil, enemy "others." Ideology matters to the conservative project solely as a means for justification, including identity formation. It supports the forms of policies, practices and institutions that preserve group identity and power--and, thereby, elite rule. Consistency matters to this ideology only insofar as it proves necessary. Therefore, "the abandonment of conservative principles" is to be expected when those principles no longer serve those in power.

America's history of racism provides examples of how conservatism adapts, responding to repeated movements for social justice, which profoundly alter the relationships of radical, liberal and conservative forces. Inconsistencies are generated at multiple levels whenever this happens.

Which is why all these yapping, yammering ignoramus not-sees don't have jack shit to say about the Bear Sterns bailout.....,

[mangiacake]

We don't know exactly what kind of losses Bear Stearns was sustaining, but it begs disbelief that it was worth no more than $2 a share. Yet it was caught unable to cover positions in the short term. That was no bailout; that was a forced sale in lieu of emergency financing; it was a great gift to Morgan Stanley, perhaps. Anyway, that was the government's way of teaching Wall St. a lesson.

If conservatism is about preserving elite power, why do Manhattan, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, suburban DC, etc., vote Democratic? And why are the Republicans dependent on the poorer, truly "red" states?

cnulan strikes me as another chap divorced from reality by his own resentments. That's the thing about resentment: it's truly color blind; it blinds everyone, whatever real injustice from which it may first blossom.

[Miss Carnivorous]

C, of course the elites rule. Always have, always will. Do you really want to be ruled by the underclass? I never have understood why some "elite intellectuals," such as yourself, think that the poor are better or nicer or purer than the rich. There are just as many greedy, evil poor people as there are rich ones. In fact, many young princes can be seen strutting around in the inner cities, dressed to the nines.

[cnulan]

mangiacake, don't worry - cnu vision's not blurry. I just have no patience for liars and idiots. As for racists, folks who view me and mine as an other species, why you're simply enemies. (:

[cnulan]

C, of course the elites rule. Always have, always will. Do you really want to be ruled by the underclass? I never have understood why some "elite intellectuals," such as yourself, think that the poor are better or nicer or purer than the rich. There are just as many greedy, evil poor people as there are rich ones. In fact, many young princes can be seen strutting around in the inner cities, dressed to the nines.

Piggy posits a patently false dichotomy.

Madame, I want to live in a genuinely democratic society in which I'm not required to lie or suspend disbelief to go along and get along with people stupid enough to be divided, conquered, and exploited by warsocialist elites who use racism as a primary instrumentality of governance. I know quite well who they are, what they are, and what kind of a weak mind is amenable to their specific modus operandi of exploitation. I know it from lifelong association as well as I know the back of my hand.

Projection, Denial, Hypocrisy - The Roots of Division....,

I spent my junior high and high-school years in the very heart and origin of American dominionism - going to a school operated and controlled by founders/funders of this movement. Having listened to countless hours of Schaeffer and his disciple ideologues, I know precisely whereof his son speaks. That the son has repudiated the teachings of the father speaks volumes to the hypocrisy and falsity of the ethnonationalist memetic assault on Barack Obama via the proxy of his former minister Jeremiah Wright. Control of the mental and lexical space in which every voice not approved by Bill O'Reilly is divisive, multi-cultural, and treasonous - is the ultimate expression of cognitive and cultural supremacy and the root cause of division and discontent in America.

It's the main reason I won't compromise or seek complacent middle ground with folks who have no direct interpersonal relations with Black folks, yet have the unmitigated gall and audacity to opine about the same and pretend that they're basically decent. They're not.

[shipwreckedcrew]

Hello Cobb. Very interesting subject matter you tend to here.

Re this particular post, I think you are onto something here in suggesting that Obama has never held himself out to be the grand reconciler on all matters of racial division. Others have projected that role onto him as part of what they want him to be. He has enabled that projection by being a blank slate being politically propelled by empty slogans like "We are who we have been waiting for." Ok -- if I could be both a bus driver and a person waiting at a bus stop, I too could be who I was waiting for.

His speech, however, was the first instance in which he chose to push back by putting the onus of dealing with continuing divisions over race back onto the perpetrators -- including Rev. Wright.

So, since its "on me" to take responsibility, that would apply to my vote in the next election as well.

I take responsibility for my vote by chosing to not vote for the candidate of empty slogans who has now revealed himself to not only be an empty slate, but an empty vessel as well.

[mangiacake]

cnu,

but I'm an "enemy" who will always insist on beating you with our common humanity.

The first sign of blurry vision is someone who says he has none. If humanity were transparent it would be well known and blogs would not exist. But in fact we're all resentful to a degree and so we're all delusional to a degree. Original sin, the human condition, etc., etc.,

But don't worry the American elites are on your side: just take a poll in (almost) any university. Or go to Hollywood, or most of the MSM, or much of the judiciary, or the state department: not "conservatives" at all.

[Cobb]

Which is, shipwreckedcrew, a perfectly reasonable vote - so long as it doesn't cosign the perception that Obama is a racist, or that he harbors or defends racist individuals.

Where none of this discussion has gone is to whether or not the UCC itself is a racist church or if Wright's outburst are characteristic of his ministry and what the position of the UCC might be on him. That's the only useful discussion as far as I'm concerned, and I'm trying really hard to limit myself to useful discussion. Yet I'm afraid it won't be had and I will end up spending time criticizing people for not thinking the way McCain is, by not letting this distraction be a significant issue.

[Sweet Jones]

Cobb,

You can hear the President of the United Church of Christ, Rev. John Thomas, positions on Wright for yourself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cYla5xdPTUg

[Sweet Jones]

http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

Thomas' released statement:

Responding to Wright controvery, Thomas asks, 'What kind of prophet?'

Written by staff reports
March 17, 2008

The Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, released the following statement on March 17 on the rhetoric of preaching, in light of recent news coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Chicago's Trinity UCC.

What Kind of Prophet?
Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching
in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
and Trinity United Church of Christ

The Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

Over the weekend members of our church and others have been subjected to the relentless airing of two or three brief video clips of sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ for thirty-six years and, for over half of those years, pastor of Senator Barack Obama and his family. These video clips, and news stories about them, have been served up with frenzied and heated commentary by media personalities expressing shock that such language and sentiments could be uttered from the pulpit.

One is tempted to ask whether these commentators ever listen to the overcharged rhetoric of their own opinion shows. Even more to the point is to wonder whether they have a working knowledge of the history of preaching in the United States from the unrelentingly grim language of New England election day sermons to the fiery rhetoric of the Black church prophetic tradition. Maybe they prefer the false prophets with their happy homilies in Jeremiah who say to the people: "You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place." To which God responds, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. . . . By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed," (Jeremiah 14.14-15). The Biblical Jeremiah was coarse and provocative. Faithfulness, not respectability was the order of the day then. And now?

What's really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this. Will Clinton's United Methodist Church be next? Or McCain's Episcopal Church? Wouldn't we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past, that Martin Luther King's harmonious multi-racial vision, articulated in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and then struck down by an assassin's bullet in Memphis in 1968, has somehow been resurrected and now reigns throughout the land. Significant progress has been made. A black man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. A black woman serves as Secretary of State. The accomplishments are profound. But on the gritty streets of Chicago's south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly? How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.

The gospel narrative of Palm Sunday's entrance into Jerusalem concludes with the overturning of the money changers' tables in the Temple courtyard. Here wealth and power and greed were challenged for the way the poor were oppressed to the point of exclusion from a share in the religious practices of the Temple. Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright's rhetoric or his politics. Not every member will rise to shout "Amen!" But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith. For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

[cnulan]

but I'm an "enemy" who will always insist on beating you with our common humanity.

if you fail to call out and denounce the source of ethnonationalist evil in America, then we have no common humanity and we can reconcile ourselves to a condition of perpetual enmity.

[Gary in Texas]

I've just found this site, by way of Patterico, but feel the need to respond to cnulan.

The Dem's have always been the party of projection - stealing elections, intimidating voters, dealing in the politics of hate - while claiming their opponents are the ones who do these things. You take it to new heights though, cnulan. Claiming that the party of farmers, firemen, soldiers, and engineers are the "elitists" and the party of trial lawyers, uni-profs, hollywood celebs and hedge traders like Soros are not? I've read at least a dozen diatribes by your kind about how much more intelligent, rational and "elite" you are compared to the people who feed, house and protect you.

Get a clue, cnulan, 'cause you haven't got one now.

[cnulan]

Klansman Gary,

you and yours don't do a goddamn thing for me except serve as poster children for everything stupid, vile, and hateful done in the name of America.

Let me parse my words very carefully so there won't be any misunderstanding between us, ok? Fuck you.

This isn't a dialog about democrat vs republican, I got no beef whatsoever with intelligent principled republicans. However, stupid knuckle dragging scum like you are an abomination and worthy of nothing so much as perpetual enmity and uncompromising contempt.

[mangiacake]

cnu,

...denounce the source of ethnonationalist evil in America...

And so I take it such as you are not "source", just a symptom? Or are we playing some S&M game?

Well, the minimal source of the tribal is something rather fundamental to our shared humanity: the inability of cultures/languages, especially the early tribal ones, to grow beyond a certain size, without splitting off (a geographical as well as cultural-political problem).

I'm not going to denounce the tribal, per se. That's like a feminist denouncing maleness, as a way of not having to deal with a large part of reality, of the world the way it is by dint of Creation. And by extension, I'm not simply going to denounce its minimal "source" "in America". Because I'm not at war with minimally necessary reality, only with the denial of contingency and freedom (e.g. by those who find certainty in the identity of their enemies). I will denounce particularly nasty or unethical or no longer necessary forms of tribalism however.

And why your rant against Gary "in Texas" should not qualify for such denunciation is not immediately apparent.

In any case, I don't expect to get far in negotiating what kind of tribalism is acceptable with someone who simply wants to denounce his enemy. Transcendence requires we first both respect certain existential realities concerning the Other.

As for perpetual enmity, nothing lasts forever. An identity built on resentment will either be destroyed by its enemy or it will destroy itself, either before or after it has destroyed its enemy.

[cnulan]

Cake, old bean..,

Here is an example of a source.
Identity Politics and Bill O'Reilly's Memetic Assault on Obama

Now it's not so much the pompous sexual harassing gasbag O'Lielly - as it is the devious southern strategist Roger Ailes who devised and put him up to the task - as well as serving as his paymaster.

Oh yeah, FUCK Gary in Texas. Wrapping himself in the faux piety of farmers, firemen, soldiers, and engineers - I AM an engineer and have done and forgotten more in a single day than that backwards assed countryfuck's entire lineage has accomplished over the course of seven inbred generations. (now how's that for an unvarnished ripsnort?)

As for your nifty new age admonishment to "transcend resentment" - you're an anonymous Internet avatar identified with cake eating. Don't confuse reality with virtual venting at asinine avatars.

[mangiacake]

Heh, "new age"? Ouch!

Of course we can't transcend resentment, which is part of the human condition. But we only survive by transcending, or deferring, particular desires and resentments. To this end, virtual venting is a good thing, and all that encourages it.

As for your O-Reilly file: whatever you think of the man, that's a pretty crude conspiracy theory you spin there about conservatism. History, and existential uncertainty, is never explained by even the most sophisticated conspiracy theories, like those postmodern masterpieces confounding knowledge and power and identity. history is rather an open-ended, unpredictable, exchange, in which we all participate, by which we all share in deferring the ever-present possibility that we rip each other apart.

"mangiacake"? it means "anglo nob", or something like it, in a certain immigrant speak.

ciao,

[cnulan]

Cobb, Undercover Black Man had a playful way of engaging this sturm und drang today. I made a comment there - and would link it if blogger permitted - that fairly well sums up my ethos on finding common ground. If you don't already know the cat, he's an angeleno in showbidnis who shares your political and interpersonal calling. You should add him to your local area network.

[cnulan]

that's a pretty crude conspiracy theory you spin there about conservatism.

I didn't spin it, I linked it. And it's actually not particularly crude at all as the theory posits a nexus of logic language and values parameterizing ideological consensus. Anyone capable of manipulating or controlling that nexus would wield considerable influence - and Faux news certainly has the means and the intentionality for playing in that arena.

[Gary in Texas]

Facist cnulan,

That's a much more accurate title than "Klansman Gary" as I would be dissallowed membership in that organization based on the skin color in my home. But a vicious, racist, closed mind like yourself will always jump to conclusions. Texas is a pretty big and diverse place, facist cnulan.

As an engineering manager myself, electronics in my case, I'm extremely pleased that my staff isn't as closed minded and obviously unintelligent as yourself. We do discuss politics on occassion. Having also served in the USMC, I also can safely say that "soldiers" tend away from your politics. That, and the fact that Dem's tried to dissallow military votes in Florida. They know which way they go. A look at the map of way precincts vote will cover the farmers. Fireman were included based on a polling data. Can you deny that the demographic I listed for the Dem's is accurate?

You came back with no argument, just profanity. Still missing that clue, aren't you, Facist cnulan?

[Gary in Texas]

cnulan: "I AM an engineer and have done and forgotten more in a single day than that backwards assed countryfuck's entire lineage has accomplished over the course of seven inbred generations."

I've been an engineer with a major multinational for over 23 years. I expect my accomplishments compare favorably with yours. I'm afraid I can't claim to seven generations in Texas, as I'm only second generation American.

This "inbred" thing, you into doing your relatives, cnulan? How's that clue search going?

[Cobb]

Take it outside boys.

[Gary in Texas]

Aye aye, sir.