TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 5:30 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM

December 01, 2008 | 6:31 PM
December 01, 2008 | 6:16 PM
December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 6:03 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.05.2008
Putting Wright in Perspective

Ever since Jeremiah Wright made his debut on the wider American political stage many people -- and especially white liberals -- have been wondering: what do he and his church represent in black religious life in the country? When most white liberals (sometimes, I confess, me included) talk about African-American matters, they speak from a very thin, even wobbly base of knowledge. That's been happening in the last six weeks again. It's my impression, in fact, that the consensus in this camp was that Wright was something of a prototypical figure and his church was very much like hundreds, maybe thousands of others. But this was bad news, and so the like-minded made it into a moral tale: white racism was still so rampant that millions of blacks were compelled to see the country, more or less, through Wright's eyes or through eyes like Wright's.

I've finally read an illuminating piece by two scholars who really know American blacks and black institutions, They are Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, a husband and wife team, he the Winthrop professor of history at Harvard, she a political scientist and the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who are optimists about the African American future -- optimists, if only policy-makers weren't so attached to a grim view of what African Americans can accomplish.

In any case, they've written this article, "Examining the United Church of Christ," at realclearpolitics.com that puts Trinity into its proper place in relation to other black churches and shows how different it is from them. The U.C.C. is actually a white church with a few black subalterns. This used to be the old, sensible and modest Congregational Church which maybe still feels guilty for those of its seventeenth and eighteenth century communicants who were in the slave trade.

 

 

Posted: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:27 PM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

blackton said:

God bless you Marty, you have had an exceptional sense of decency when it came to Wright.

May 6, 2008 8:26 PM

liberal reformer said:

One hopes that Jeremiah Wright is atypical of African - American preachers. He obviously retains all the scars that he acquired from living in an earlier America, during times when a black man could never get close to the presidency. He has done quite well in our society, he lives in a gated community in a largely white area. Wright certainly did his best to instill cynicism in his parishoners. John McWhorter is an extremely eloquent African - American voice calling for blacks to look to the future and not buy into the culture of victimization. Wright is about as backward looking as you can get.

Also, it transpires that Oprah Winfrey attended Wright's church for a couple of years in the 1980's until she could take it no longer. You could argue this was a career move but be that as it may in part, it just seems that she found Wright's anger and spleen to not be compatible with her rainbow approach to humanity. This would appear to make her quite a bit more astute than Obama.

May 6, 2008 9:44 PM

ironyroad said:

This increases Obama's "Wright problem" to some extent.

May 7, 2008 12:53 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Wow. So if this line of argument-- Wright's malarkey isn't taken seriously by most blacks-- is accurate, then would we please hear from Obama's supporters the simple, obvious truth, that he never believed in Wright's idiocies and merely used the man for his local political purposes?

This is mystifying: why, exactly, is it so hard for Obama and his fans to just admit that he's no longer representing southside Chicago, that he now seeks to lead the free world, and that he cannot therefore continue to be associated with a huckster who promotes, on a national and even global stage, notions like AIDS conspiracy theories, blacks as right-brained and whites as left-brained etc?

Because Obama's strategists' electoral math leads them to conclude that nationwide he can't afford anything less than the 91% level of afr-amer support that he got today in NC?

This is the only logical explanation for such an unbelievably dumb and hokey handling of the Wright matter. Obama simply cannot be seen as attacking a "strong" afr-amer "leader" like Wright.

Maybe I'm dead wrong on this-- I hope so-- but if Souljah is not in Obama's lexicon, I suspect he will have serious problems in the fall. Especially if McCain has the guts to select an afr-amer VP like Powell or a fresh, brilliant, young nonwhite up adn coming GOP star like Jindal.

May 7, 2008 1:59 AM

sleepyavl said:

tep, this is the crowd that considers Obama as The Anointed One. Your reasoned arguments have no chance here.

May 7, 2008 2:16 AM

liberal reformer said:

Sleepavl is correct, teleplukhin2you, reason and Obama are not conjoined on these blogs. I still have the gravest of reservations about Obama: his inexperience, his quasi - messianism, his vacuous rhetoric of change.

May 7, 2008 5:31 AM

GSpinks said:

sleepyavl: From where I am standing, it looks a lot more like you consider Obama the anti-Christ. Every charismatic politician has admirers who go too far in their support of said politician, but you cannot hold that against the politician. Instead, you compensate by going too far in the opposite direction against the politician. As for reasoning, I've seen nothing from you but bitter, vindictive, thinly veiled racial contempt; there are not the makings of a reasoned argument.

May 7, 2008 10:13 AM

vverma said:

Uh, hasn't this story been beaten to death?

May 7, 2008 10:33 AM

liberal reformer said:

GSpinks: I don't think that sleepyavl thinks that Obama is the anti - Christ. And Obama is a quasi - messianist - he instills the kind of fervor you see in the crowds of Oboamaniacs with his ceaseless (and vacuocus) calls for change and by his elevating of himself above the common run of humanity and above all other politicians.

May 7, 2008 10:51 AM

blackton said:

Tep, again with Jindal. I can write the comedy scripts myself. Captain Jack (McCain) and Gunga Jindal.

Or, why did McCain bring his poolboy up on stage with him, no that is not the poolboy that is his VP.

I can also see SNL bringing out a 10 year old as a stand in for Jindal. Not to mention the whole Apu snarkiness that will come. And then put a brown skinned man who makes McCains skin look even more alabaster. Or how about the whole "is this an arranged marriage" It would be endless. Jindal is both wrong for the right reason, and wrong for the wrong reasons.

May 7, 2008 10:52 AM

teplukhin2you said:

"Gunga Jindal"

"poolboy"

"10 year-old"

"a brown skinned man who makes McCains skin look even more alabaster"

TNR ADMINS: there's a racist troll posting under Blackton's moniker. Please correct.

May 7, 2008 11:49 AM

ironyroad said:

The only way for Obama to play it is:  "This is past history.  And Pastor Wright is not running for president, I am!"  If that doesn't work with some folks, then they weren't going to vote for him anyway.  Then the size of "some folks" becomes important.  But some risks are unavoidable.

May 7, 2008 12:11 PM

sleepyavl said:

GSpinks

"As for reasoning, I've seen nothing from you but bitter, vindictive, thinly veiled racial contempt; there are not the makings of a reasoned argument."

Whatever you've been smoking, is not good for you. What you just said is a perfect example of what's wrong with Obama and his supporters - like yourself. Oh yeah, I dare crirticize Obama and I'ma racist? Perhaps you are a sexist by this imbecile line of reasoning.  

I don't mind Obama's iinexperience. I do mind his vague program. This is not a stupid man - he is a man that he remains vague not because he doesn't know what to do, but because he deoesn't want to. This way he won't be tied to any campaign promises. This way he can also bring all the bastards aboard - Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power and the rest.

I do mind even more the disgusting cult of personality that he enegendered and favors. Whoever runs on personality rather than on program is bad as far as I am concerned. You showed who you are with your comment that I think he is the anit-Christ. First of all I am a Jew who cares zero about both Christ and anti-Christ. Second, you proved my exact point: that you Obama supporters do not want a president, you want a king and a messiah.

I want a president, not a king or a messiah. Obama's speeches remind me a ot of Ceausescu's circa 1984. The cult of personality is quite similar too. If Obama becomes president, there is a high chance he wil try to become a dictator precisely because of supportes who see him in messainic terms - and, more importantly, because that is how he sees himself (based on his rabble-rousing creepy speeches).

May 7, 2008 12:43 PM

ironyroad said:

Well, two points:

1. There's an election before anybody becomes president, with possibly a higher turnout than even 2004.  Royalist tendencies will be noticed, no matter who shows them.

2.  Even his opponents recognize that Obama is a measured and thoughtful speaker, almost a bit academic and chilly, and as far from rabble-rousing as you could get -- indeed, some of us would like him to gin it up a bit and rouse the odd rabble now and again!

3.  With regard to the dangers of a high-handed presidency that appears to think itself a monarchy and looks at the Constitution as an irritating impediment in the road, I doubt if Obama on his worst day could beat the last seven years.

So, all in all, a relief -- no matter who gets through in November.

May 7, 2008 1:51 PM

blackton said:

tep, absolutely it is racist, that is my whole point which is why McCain won't go there. As I said you are wrong for the right reasons: McCain embracing a brilliant young politician of East Asian heritage, but in doing so he will give up the racist vote. I said before Romney would never be elected because he is a Mormon, I lament that. I also lament that McCain won't take Jindal. I genuinely love Indian Culture and lived for a time in Elizabeth, NJ where there is a large Indian community. I would be delighted for these people if Jindal was chosen. You are certainly to be commended for your support of Jindal, and against Hillary it would have been a good choice. (although I think Powell would have been better). But against Obama the most I see him doing is a white woman governor like Palin.

But the crack about the ten year old, that is not racist. Jindal is only 10 years old, isn't he? Ok 36. that is young. Pointing out that youth is not racist.

May 7, 2008 5:53 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.