Obama Versus the Gotcha Narrative
We’re about to find out how serious America really is about having a national conversation on race.
On Tuesday, Barack Obama offered perhaps the most thoughtful and sophisticated oration on race ever delivered by an American politician, a remarkable address in which he—the son of a white Kansan and a native Kenyan—acknowledged the resentments and fears that define both sides of America’s racial divide and, essentially, warned of the perils of the current, artificial national dialogue that tackles “race only as a spectacle.”
Yes, the speech was prompted by a political imperative—Obama’s need to create distance between himself and his longtime minister—but no one can argue that it was calibrated purely, primarily or even significantly for political effect. The easy, politically safe route would have been simply to toss Jeremiah Wright under the bus, to spare no harsh adjective in condemning the anti-American caricature of a man to which the public had been introduced.
That is not how Obama played it. Instead, he treated Wright like what he is: a human being, a man filled with contradictions, someone who has given much of his life to ministering to a desperate community many Americans would rather not think about, and someone whose life’s work has now been reduced to the inflammatory, context-free apex of an overheated sermon. Contrary to the claims of some on the right, who either didn’t listen to the speech or simply didn’t want to, Obama condemned the specific remarks by Wright that have been called into question.
But then he went further, much further, asking Americans to consider that this country’s maddeningly sluggish racial journey produced generations of people, white and black, similar to Jeremiah Wright: prone, in their worst moments, to uttering ignorant, hurtful and hateful slurs, but equally ready, at their best, to perform some act of kindness and generosity, big or small, for their fellow man.
The point, of course, was that racial reconciliation is difficult and elusive, but hardly impossible, and that it requires recognition from whites and blacks alike of the contradictions that live within all of us. What Obama called for, in short, was a genuine, meaningful and unsparing national conversation about race.
It’s easy for most Americans to accept, in theory, that kind of challenge. But the country has just been handed a test to see if we’re serious about it.
Yesterday morning, about 48 hours after his speech, Obama appeared on a sports radio talk show in Philadelphia. In the course of the conversation, host Angelo Cataldi brought up Obama’s Tuesday speech, homing in on a section of it in which Obama discussed the white grandmother who raised him and the contradictions that she herself embodied on the subject of race.
"The point I was making,” Obama told Cataldi, “was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause), there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way.”
Almost immediately, the online press seized upon this comment, and specifically Obama’s use of the term “typical white person.” So did some in the blogosphere. This is in keeping with the same simplistic, artificial and worthless parameters of the fake conversation in which this country has been engaged for years: Home in on some imprecisely phrased characterization and extrapolate it to its worst possible implications; create, in effect, a straw man for cynical politicians and media members to attack, until finally the person who uttered the offending comment is forced to apologize or clarify.
It’s a fairly brainless exercise. It’s also exactly what Obama warned about in his speech, when he noted how easy it is—and how little courage it requires—to take a quote or a clip or a caricature and “to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.”
The authentic conversation that Obama wants requires a tolerance of imprecise language; a recognition that we haven’t accomplished anything by demanding that public figures speak in a sterile, meaningless language whose primary aim is to avoid giving offense to anyone for any reason. This national conversation can only take place if we resolve to stop playing gotcha with quotes and to begin exploring the context around the quotes that tend to make headlines.
Obama’s on-air comment in Philadelphia was unscripted, off-the-cuff and conversational. He was doing what Americans are fond of saying they want their politicians doing: Talking more like a human being than a robot. The “typical white person” remark was insignificant and revealed nothing meaningful about Obama, unless we’re really prepared to believe the notion that Obama—who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents—is anti-white. To get hung up on it would be to choose—once again—a cheap, easy, surface-level conversation over a deep, probing and meaningful one.
It’s not yet clear how this “story” will play out. The comment drew fire on some blogs and won mention on most mainstream news sites. But, as of late Thursday, it hadn’t landed with the impact of the Wright clip.
Perhaps soon we can get back to talking about something real.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Yah right! And if Hillary had said a "typical black person" you wouldn't be on fire about that?! Part of the problem between the races is that we're not allowed to talk about African-American racism. It can only be viewed from the African-American victim viewpoint. And isn't the big attraction to Obama exactly about his use of language and the power therein? Words reveal a lot especially when someone lets their guard down.
1 it's "homing in" on something, rather than "honing".
2 isn't it time by now to put another reporter on Obama? Mr Kornacki isn't reporting any longer, but spinning and defending the candidate he clearly wants to win.
mayde I do too, but in the meantime I'd like to see serious reporting rather than this
Herman
Homing vs. honing: I think the jury is still out. I agree with Herman but not strongly enough to correct someone else. It seems to me that both phrases entered the language around the same time. Go to http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000378.html for more.
"We’re about to find out how serious America really is about having a national conversation on race." I hate to say it but the answer is, not very serious. And not for nefarious reasons but because this year, other than the rise of the Obama campaign, race wouldn't be on the agenda at all. Read Mickey Kaus's recent posts that reference Archie Bunker. Archie B. (this is my point, not Kaus's) is worried about the economy, even the war, but not race. Why? Because: the inner cities aren't burning, attacks on affirmative action have lost their potency, crime is down, welfare no longer appears to be a drag on productivity, resentment has receded.
So, a lot of Archies look like they might actually vote for Obama in the fall. But now Wright comes along and they're not so sure any more that Obama shares their values. They need reassurance on this point, not a grand sweeping speech on race -- that includes lots to dispute, if you're not a liberal like all of us; but none of which needed to come up right now. I mean, Obama not only brought up slavery (Kaus's point), he brought up busing! Probably the first presidential candidate to address that issue since the 1970s.
I personally agreed with a lot of his speech but it sidestepped, or muffed, his most urgent political need, which was to reassure the modern successors (or remnants) of Reagan Dems (whom he managed to diss as fear- and resentment driven) that he shares their patriotism and not the radical anti-Americanism of an earlier generation. Obama is too wrapped up in his progressive world view (again, a legitimate one in my view, on the merits) to realize the nature of the crisis he is in right now over this.
Excellent article, especially this part:
"The authentic conversation that Obama wants requires a tolerance of imprecise language; a recognition that we haven’t accomplished anything by demanding that public figures speak in a sterile, meaningless language whose primary aim is to avoid giving offense to anyone for any reason. This national conversation can only take place if we resolve to stop playing gotcha with quotes and to begin exploring the context around the quotes that tend to make headlines."
By lashing on to the "typical white person" phrase and attacking it, people are operating under the false assumption that Obama is somehow prejudice against white people, which completely ignores the fact that he himself is white and was raised by his white family. Basically - they can't get past the color of his skin, because all they see is a black man. It's this very inability to see past skin color which prevents us, as a country, from moving forward. That's why Obama's speech on Monday was so necessary. It's not that we haven't been discussing race, it's that we've only been discussing it amongst ourselves. Black people are hesitant to have the conversation with white people because they're afraid they'll be labeled as "an angry black person" and white people are hesitant because they don't want to be labeled as "racist." Like Obama said - we're at a racial stalemate, hemmed in by political correctedness. I was so happy to hear that many universities and churches were using his speech as a springboard for open discussion of race relations. His speech had 4 million live viewers, the video is currently #1 on YouTube & the text of the speech was the #1 most emailed story on several major news websites. This shows just how hungry the country is to have this type of dialouge. Not name calling or finger pointing, but an open & honest discussion about people's fears, struggles and, most importantly, their common humanity. If we can get past our physical differences, then we can discuss the REAL issues - the war, the economy, climate change, the subprime mortgage crisis, oil prices, our eroding civil liberties etc - these are not concerns that are particular to any one race, but to us all. Just imagine what this man could do as president.
Thanks for your insight. As a former News Anchor I am so sick of the carefully edited soundbites and the shameless slant the media feeds us, designed to push us in the direction of their bias. I hope I'll find the energy one day soon to sit down and write some caustic e-mails/letters to the msm about their irresponsible coverage of the issues and how they are utterly negligent in their responsibility to provide the facts and the story without their biased agendas. I think this is something we all need to do, part of the 'change' we are seeking. I still haven't got over the enormous role the MSM played in pushing us into the war. CNN was particularly guilty. I was appalled by Anderson Cooper last night discussing the ANGLE of the passport breach and how Obama's campaign would use it. Where was Cooper's outrage at the sloppy manner in which this episode of a breach of an individual's right to privacy was handled. Or that there might be a very sinister reason for the breach. Where was his 'journalistic' instinct to get to the bottom of what was really going on? Pathetic.
Max-thanks for your post, and I couldn't agree more. The news media in this country is woefully substandard compared to other nations. People seem completely unaware of how damaging it is that we have a mainstream media, particularly the cable news networks, who have virtually no original fact finding and fill time with endless spin and commentary. This belittles our attention spans and dumbs down the electorate, and I fear the damage may be irreversable.
Obama is biracial. When he makes comments about blacks and /or whites he is talking about himself. I don't see how this makes him a racist. Having been educated in the public school system I understand why many do not understand Obama's perspective. In addition to an open dialogue on race, Americans should also educate themselves on the racial/ethnic history of this country. Not only black/white history, but native american, asian american and mexican american. There was also hesitation on the part of the U.S. to aid the Jews in Germany in WWII. Only half of the real U.S history is taught in school.
America has made great strides in civil rights, but it has a long way to go. The only way to move forward is to know and understand what has happened in the past.
I consider myself a fairly typical, albeit progressive, white person. Well, I can't be totally objective about the fairly typical, or progressive parts, but I'm sure I'm a white person. I know what Obama's talking about. I've lived in a racially mixed neighborhood for the passed twenty years. When I moved here I was hyper-aware of race. I reacted when I realized I was the only white person in the supermarket; I reacted when I'd be walking my dog at night and a black person would come down the sidewalk, or worse yet, be walking behind me. it took a long time for me to realize I was safe; it took a long time to understand the difference between race and class; and I still react when a group of black kids in all their sagging and bagging splendor are coming toward me. I realize I'd react differently if they were white kids. Racial fear is bred into white people, and it's reenforced by the media - black and white media (gangsta rap, for instance.) It takes years of conscious effort to reprogram yourself into a more human stance. These anchor people speaking from their positions of privilege with, I'll bet, little or no contact in any community but white privilege are a joke and an insult. What's worse, they're race-baiters hiding behind anchor desks. They need to get lives that stretch their lives.
Race has not been a major social issue in the country for over 20 years. With very rare exceptions, no one is denied housing, employment, an education, or even friendship solely on the basis of race anymore.
The alleged need for a 'national conversation' is a complete red herring.
But I agree with this much. Mr. Obama's race is, and should be, totally irrelevant (as should his association with a fairly typical loon like Rev. Wright). Instead, the electorate and the media should be focusing on his blatant and potentially disastrous socialist views. Those are actually much more deadly.
yeah right
"The authentic conversation that Obama wants requires a tolerance of imprecise language; a recognition that we haven’t accomplished anything by demanding that public figures speak in a sterile, meaningless language whose primary aim is to avoid giving offense to anyone for any reason. This national conversation can only take place if we resolve to stop playing gotcha with quotes and to begin exploring the context around the quotes that tend to make headlines."
thats why the Obama campaign made such a big deal aboud Ms. Ferraro's clumsey remarks right? They didn't play gotcha at all right?
the problem with Obama supporters is that the rules apply only to other campaigns not to the. They are eternal saints are far as they are concerned and nothing they do is wrong.
These highly selective attempts to explain, be "fair," defend, whatever, any questionable comments made by Obama or any of his surrogates, while, yet, rushing to pound Clinton or any of her surrogates relentlessly into the ground for any perceived slight regardless of how much a stretch it may be, are absolutely astonishing. Most recent example: the media and Obama campaign's recent and ongoing vitriolic comments toward Ferraro.
I can only imagine what the media and the Obama camp would be saying and reporting right now if Clinton had said anything about a "typical black person."
Your selective moral outrage is tiresome and disingenous, as is your candidate.
This "Rev. Wright story" is about judgment and tolerance, and where does excessive tolerance turn into bad judgment. So nobody really cares or should care about the "typical white person" comment. The Senator tolerated the profession of extreme and wrong-headed views antithetical to most Americans for nearly 20 years without publicly or privately objecting. Now he wants to be seen as the leader to correct such wrongheadedness. He had the chance to start working on it with his own church and pastor and he didn't. Why should Americans think he's the man for the job now -- just because he says so? This comment is from someone who walked out of a Catholic mass and left that particular parish because of offensive comments made two weeks in a row by the same priest during a sermon.
I am a Republican and will be voting for McCain because Obama is for abortion, partial-birth abortion and infanticide (He insists that doctors have the right to allow newborn babies be put aside to die of thirst and hunger if they believe the baby won't have a good quality of life.) However, I like Obama and don't think he meant anything by "typical white person." But, I understand why people are upset. If a white person says "typical black person" at work, they will get fired. It is not white people that are causing Obama problems, it is the political correctness police. As Rev. Wright would say, "The chickens are coming home to roost."
It's amazing. The speech could have given Obama a chance to distance himself from Wright as well as to show a bit of humility and climb down off that idiotic pedestal he and the media have him on. Instead, he used it to blame the rest of us (whites especially, blacks less so) for the general problem of racism. This launches a debate? Where have Obama and his media minions been since 1954 anyway? In truth, the issue justifying this speech was NOT the general problem of racism at all, or race in any form for that matter. It was about a rank and vile anti-American hatred of the sort I have seen most often and most up close from white radicals -- which is in fact where Wright and his black liberation theology academicians got it all in the first place.
In other words, Wright is OBAMA's problem, not mine, or yours, or anyone else's. And OBAMA needs to account for HIS problem, not mine, or yours, or anyone else's. (Something he most certainly did not do in his speech.)
A good deal of criticism has focused on the unparallelism of Obama's comparing Wright's lunatic ravings about AIDS and KKKAmerica to his, Obama's, own white grandmother, who on Obama's testimony alone may have uttered a stereotype or two and expressed fear of black men in the street. It is thoroughly offensive to use granny this way, I agree. However, there was a larger purpose here I find even more offensive. It was to show the world that Obama contains within HIMSELF, all
the contraditions, those of blacks as well as those of whites, and that HE ALONE will lead the nation to resolve them. So to you whites who still seethe about forced busing, and to you blacks who still seethe about segregation (both long dead, of course), Obama says, "believe in me and redemption will be yours." Think I am too harsh? Look closely at the speech and you will see that Obama says the PRIME evidence that America is not as Wright describes it is, surprise, surprise, the popularity of the OBAMA campaign! Not only is Obama playing on his blackness, he is also playing on his whiteness. I half expect him to start handing out waffers and wine and telling all us racist sinners to eat and drink -- "body and the blood, body and the blood" -- and then go vote.
And by the way Richard Wells, you seem to think it's wonderfully brave and liberated of you to re-program yourself so as not to make absolutely reasonable judgments about who is more likely and less likely to be a threat to you on a dark street. Keep in mind, Jesse Jackson made the same assessment. Given the relative incidence of violent crime by young black males compared with any other segment of the population, I'd not walk too far from home at night, anyway, if I were you.
Yet another attempt by an in-the-tank Obamaniac to obscure everything with a thick coat of whitewash...
AACK! I mean, "blackwash"...
WAIT, I mean... um... uh... LET'S ALL TRANSCEND RACE AND HAVE HOPE AND AUDACITY AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF AND BLAH BLAH BLAH--
Why, hello, President McCain, sir!
THROW THAT RACIST OUT OF THE RACE!
In the Wright sermon about 9/11, the little snippet about chickens is Wright explicitly quoting from what Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, said on FOX News. Wright makes very clear (if you listen the longer excerpt of the sermon) that he is profoundly distressed and saddened by the events of 9/11 and struggling, as a religious man, to interpret the event and to reflect on how our society should respond. He worries about how the slaughter of innocents on 9/11 may lead to more slaughter of other innocents.
See
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/
03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-
jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
for the story on CNN and a link to the full sermon. Gives a very different impression of Wright.
Now I have not seen the full sermons with the other offending snippets, but certainly this sermon does not convey hatred of America at all.
Obama wants us to be high-minded and he presents a lot of nuance in this speech, but he allows his campaign to pounce on the comments of others and call them racist. Free speech doesn't seem to go both ways.
If we actually talked about real issues, Obama would win hands down. Hillary and McCain need to talk about this stupid stuff. They can not win otherwise.
You are the reason we cannot get any further. You personify the negative. You and others like you will never be able to get beyond your wounded persona. You are flawed internally and refuse to listen to reason. You are unreasonable. The idea of having an adult conversation with a person like you is impossible because you would never be able to hear anything but what you are going to snidely say next.
Serious ideas are lost on you because you are in able to process anything other than your very own stunted opinion given to you by sound bytes and one sided stories.
What if Clinton said "typical black person"? Depending on the context of her comment, do you think that all black people would torch her house?
Probably not, they have been called worse and have had worse done to them. Depending on what she was saying it would be no big deal. You are typically stupid.
cnn anderson 360 has a good peace on barack pastor the 9/11 comment he was just repeating something he heard someone else say go read this www.cnn.com it a anderson 360 peoace he admitted that he was wrong for listening to the 30 second sound bite and not hearing the full sermon.
The last post is a response to: All things being equal (not verified) says:
Yah right! And if Hillary had said a "typical black person" you wouldn't be on fire about that?! Part of the problem between the races is that we're not allowed to talk about African-American racism. It can only be viewed from the African-American victim viewpoint. And isn't the big attraction to Obama exactly about his use of language and the power therein? Words reveal a lot especially when someone lets their guard down.
I don’t need Obama, the good shepherd, to lecture me on race. I mean, I live with a sense of history, and with a sense that racial equality is a sensitive issue about which I have to take a proactive moral stand to keep things moving in the right direction - unlike Obama and his wife and Wright and Farrakan and Sharpton and Jackson...but with no sense of racial guilt. If Obama wants to cash in on slavery and oppression then he must tell the whole story: free Blacks owned slaves. Africans owned other African slaves. Africans and all other people sold their own into slavery. Children and women are still sold into sexual slavery and labor slavery and I don't see Obama righting that wrong. Slavery is the problem and the guilt of ALL people. Blacks are not innocent of that immoral tragedy. Obama never tells things as they are - he's an equivocator, like Bill Clinton. As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby noted, "When Don Imus uttered his infamous slur on the radio last year, Obama cut him no slack. Imus should be fired, he said. 'There's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.'" So when an issue suits his purpose, Obama seizes it and when an issue doesn't serve his purpose, Obama's moral and ethical guideline disappears. He had the same problem with Rezko. The Obamas had no problem dealing with a criminal when the Obamas profited - that mansion they own was just too good to pass up to let ethics get in the way.
Slavery was everywhere - white people didn't invent it so any incomplete discussion of it is unworthy of a candidate who self-presents as above it all - morally superior to everyone else even though he condoned Wright's racist ugliness by sitting through those sermons and exposing his daughters to that vile garbage. Obama thinks Americans are fools and blind. We are neither and we don’t see Obama the way he sees himself, primarily because that image doesn't exist. His hope is hopeless when he crushes it with his false self.
What little institutional racism there is - and not just against Blacks - exists in airless pockets where public scrutiny has not yet found it. When it's found, it's crushed as it should be.
The race card that Obama plays isn't valid anymore and white guilt doesn't exist. Americans owe no one their votes and especially not because of the color of their skin or their gender. Obama and Clinton are both pathetic in their attempt to make either any part of a presidential bid. Americans care about policy and truthfulness and honor and love of their great country, not the pitiful, contemptible, paltry attempt to garner our votes through pity and supposed righting of injustice. Obama and Clinton are shams and should be embarrassed by their falsity. Their failure to be so supports their emptiness and dangerous self-centered ambition.
It is interesting to see that all of America is freaking out over the comments by Mr Wright and no-one seems to realise that he was right in saying that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Only Americans do not know how despised America is in the rest of the world (and not only the Arab world) for its selfish, arrogant, dictative, disrespesctful and hypocritical foreign policies since WWII. Only a man like Barack Obama who has the right approach to foreign policies will improve the image of the US to the rest of the world. I am convinced that had Obama been president instead of Bush, 9/11 would never ave happened. Obama can heal America and the world! Obama for president.
Great - to avoid having to apologize for his long-standing relationship with the Rev. Wright, Obama blames me and you. It's somehow my fault that the Rev. Wright is a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American. Well, you can take that burden if you want, but I decline.
The problem is that Obama's speech was fundamentally dishonest. An honest speech would have said, "I'm sorry. I kept my membership in Wright's church because I needed the politcal support of its membership. I should have left when Oprah did."
SO let me get this straight. America is required to have a conversation on race because a man who failed for 20 years to do anything to help heal the racial divide in the one way he could have, by walking away from the hate rhteotic of his pastor, has told us in order to save himself, that it's our obligation to do so? And in doing so, we must justify and accept Wrights words or else we're racist? Obama didn't have the courage to have a converation on race with his own pastor for 20 years. The media needs to stop aasking us to do something OBama himself was too weak to do. For myself, I would have walked out of such a church. I would have been compelled to take a stand. And someone wanting to be a future president should have done the same. The racism and anti-americanism have no justification. Not in the past or future. I hope America will send that signal to Obama. I think talking about Wright is as real as it gets.
Don't listen to Anderson Cooper. He couldn't even bring himself to break the Wright story-- apologized for having to report it--that's how much he adores Obama blindly. I don't care who Wright was repeating. He said plenty of anti-american statements in that sermon and others and Anderson Cooper shoudn't be trying to defend Wright. He should give an impartial view and let us decide for ourselves, which he seems incapable of doing.
So when McCain says off-handedly that we might be in Iraq for "100 years", it's ok for Obama to use that to attack McCain.
So people shouldn't attack Obama when he slips up, but he can attack others when they slip up.
And you wonder why people are starting to laugh at the media's bootlicking worship of Obama.
The author completely misses the point.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright was considered an educated, authoritative voice of wisdom to his community. He is an educated man who garners enormous respect in his community. His preaching and vitriol would naturally be considered truth to his congregants. Rev. Wrights words infected a generation of children with hatred, lies, and reasons to despise America. He was not building up these people, he was tearing them down.
Who would allow their children to attend a school where hatred, lies, and propaganda are spewed? If Obama is such a great leader, why did he sit idly by as Jeremiah Wright preached lies, hatred, and anti-americanism to his children and all the children in that congregation? . With the lies that he preached, where was Obama to try to educate the community and in some way protect them from the distortions they were being preached?
Answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
Where is the outrage on Obama’s lack of leadership. Why did it take until last Tuesday for Obama to say anything at all about this?. If Wright was Obama’s friend, why didn’t he tell him to stop with the lies and distortions? Instead, Obama dutifully and silently attended Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years.
I remember hippies once telling me “SILENCE IS THE VOICE OF COMPLICITY.” Indeed, Mr. Obama, your silence speaks volumes.