Deconstructing Obama Speeches: Let's Get Specific

by Mark Rhoads

IR readers asked me in comments what I meant by a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of some younger journalists as well who seem to gush every time that Sen. Obama clears his golden throat. Let me take another stab.

It is not enough just to observe that Barack Obama is a true master of sophistry, guile, and soft-core demagoguery. He is all of those things and more. But his gift for articulate subversion of logic and common sense demands that his talks be carefully taken apart and examined sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph in order to break the spell and to appreciate the true magnitude of his gift--and his frightening misuse of that gift.

I have written before how dramatic the difference is between listening to a speech by Obama in real time and then reading a transcript in the cold light of a day or two later. The transcript allows you to go back and re-read and analyze the complex word games that Obama is so skilled at playing.

Victor Davis Hanson was one of the first commentators to take apart the Obama Philadelphia speech yesterday in his article for National Review Online. Joan Walsh at Salon.com offers a sensible caution from the Liberal (Progressive) side of town. The long excerpts below might go too far in bending a copyright, but I don't think that Town Hall would mind my praise for another solid analysis by Michael Meved.

Some of the observations by Michael Medved on the Obama speech include the following:

Misleading Comparisons. At several points in his talk, Obama directly equates the controversy over the Reverend Dr. Wright to the dispute over remarks by Geraldine Ferraro suggesting that the candidate wouldn’t be a leading presidential contender if he were white. After lamenting the fact that “the discussion of race in the campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn,” the Illinois Senator notes that “on one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action….On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential…to widen the racial divide….” Later, he pushes the same equation between comments by Ferraro and the unhinged sermons by Wright. “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.”

The comparison between the two firestorms amounts to a slick but unfair attack on Geraldine Ferraro and, by implication, her candidate, Hillary Clinton. No one in either campaign has defended the enraged remarks by Jeremiah Wright (“God d---n America!” or blaming the government for deliberately creating the AIDS virus) as legitimate or worthy of serious debate, but many responsible politicos and pundits agree with Ferraro’s observation that his race played an essential role in Barack’s rise. Moreover, Wright’s comments reflect a long, consistent career of impassioned hostility to the “white power structure” that runs “the U.S. of KKK- A,” while no one had ever before accused the reliably liberal Ferraro of racial animus of any kind.

An even worse comparison involved Barack’s exploitation of his own grandmother (who is still alive) to make a political point. Regarding his on-going relationship with his former pastor, Obama sonorously declares: “I could no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me….but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

This wretched analogy should make all of us cringe: there’s no arguable equivalence between his grandmother’s very private kitchen-table remarks (no matter how insensitive) and the very public and thunderous sermons of a famous clergyman addressing thousands of his congregants and later selling his hateful remarks on DVD. There’s also a world of difference between breaking with a blood relative whose home you occupied as a child, and creating distance with a religious mentor you selected as an adult. No one gets to choose his grandmother, but we do choose our pastors, priests and rabbis. Obama’s selection of Wright as his guide and guru says something profound about his judgment and outlook, while his connection with his grandmother reflects only the accidents of his birth and upbringing.

Distortion of Wright’s Afro-Centric Theology. In his address, Obama many times references the “comments,” “remarks” or “statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.” He speaks of “the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube” as providing the basis for “the caricatures being peddled by some commentators….”

Regarding this claim that revulsion to Wright emerged from a few randomly “cherry-picked” declarations, Pastor Frank Pina, a dynamic church leader who heads a vibrant multi-ethnic congregation in Everett, Washington, sent me an insightful e-mail.

“What I heard coming from Rev. Wright was not just a phrase taken out of context, but a philosophy,” he wrote. “And if you listen to all the different controversial statements, the GD America Sermon (not just a few statements) pretty much sums up the philosophy. And the way the congregation responds lets us know that the philosophy is not just the pastor’s, but the church’s. The point I’m trying to make is that making an inflammatory statement (or two) is not the same as a church’s or pastor’s philosophy. And if Obama didn’t know the pastor’s philosophy after being a member of the church for over 20 years…it speaks to the lack of judgment he has.”

Even the most cursory examination of the character of Wright’s congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, demonstrates that Reverend Pina’s point is both valid and powerful. The website for the congregation begins with an introductory paragraph under the heading, “About Us,” that unequivocally proclaims: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”

For many years, the next paragraph (recently removed due to the Wright controversy) appeared on the website and shamelessly explained explained: “Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System….We believe in the following twelve precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.” Those “precepts and covenantal statements” include, “Commitment to the Black Community” (Number 2), “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’” (Number 8), “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System (Number 11) and “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.” (Number 12).

A simple thought experiment can clarify the questionable nature of the ideology of Jeremiah Wright’s church. Try replacing the word “black” in the material above with the word “white,” and you’d see a perfect definition of the spiritual approach of the “Aryan Nations” or “Christian Identity Movement” or other neo-Nazi fringe groups.

Could the American people truly accept a President who chose long-term affiliation with an organization that says that “Black Ethics…must be taught” and requires “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System” --- not the American Value System, or the Universal Value System, or, pointedly, even the Christian Value System.

Obama’s church publicly and unapologetically promoted a “Value System” based on racial identity, not common heritage or American patriotism

The additional “10-point Vision” of Revrend Wright (still featured on the church website) specifies “A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.” Nowhere in the “10-point Vision” or the “twelve precepts” or the 25 course offerings for religious education or in any other church materials do the organizers of Trinity mention anything at all about loyalty to the United States of America, or service to the nation that hosts the church, or gratitude to the amazingly benevolent society that has embraced one of the congregation’s members as a leading presidential candidate.

If Joe Lieberman had affiliated for twenty years with a synagogue that never offered prayers for America and its government (as nearly all Orthodox Jewish synagogues do, in fact), but instead emphasized a “non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL,” wouldn’t voters have questioned his outlook and judgment when he ran for Vice President?

In his speech, Obama suggests that his fellow citizens recoiled against Reverend Wright only because they failed to understand that his bitter rage stemmed from centuries of oppression and injustice. “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

Does Obama decry, or encourage, that segregation? If he condemns it, then why would he maintain a long-term commitment to a purposefully segregated, race-based congregation that elevates a mystical sense of “blackness” above Christianity, Americanism or common humanity?

Medved continues:

Changing the Core Message of His Campaign. In all the ecstatic praise for Obama’s speech, there’s been little comment on the way the talk signals a dramatic, permanent, and possibly fatal alteration of his race for the presidency. Until today, the Illinois Senator enjoyed spectacular success with his determination to run as the first-ever “post-racial” candidate for the White House. He refused to allow himself to be pigeon-holed as “the black candidate,” and tirelessly emphasized his desire to unify the nation (“We’re not red states or blue states—we’re the United States of America!”). His campaign succeeded in large part because he implicitly promised to move our society beyond the long and tragic centuries of racial agitation and pain. Yes, he won overwhelming support in the black community, but he also drew huge majorities in states like Iowa, North Dakota, Idaho and Utah, with miniscule populations of African-Americans. For more than a year, Obama has been offering a weary nation an irresistible deal. As Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele observed in his superb book “A Bound Man,” Barack represented the ultimate “bargainer” in a long history of African-American leaders who became popular by suggesting they could reduce white America’s burden of guilt. By generally avoiding discussion of race or race relations, Obama suggested that in supporting his candidacy, Americans could finally escape from the hurts and resentments of the past. Here’s the deal, he seemed to say: if you elect me, we can at last put an end to all the lectures and breast-beating about our brutal racist history. When I stand on the steps of the Capitol building and take the oath of office as your president, that very act will put an end- forever- to the idea of African-Americans as second-class citizens. Rather than endless recriminations and accusations, we’ll all stand together as equals in the eyes of God and the U.S. Constitution. Millions of Americans – including some conservatives who should have known better- rushed to take that deal, and embraced Obama’s candidacy. But now, at a decisive point in the race, the candidate has abruptly changed the bargain. Rather than promising less race consciousness, he now insists we need more. Instead of bidding to lead a post-racial-- or at least a post-racist—America, Obama’s speech tells us we must go back to picking at the old scab. Actually, Barack was right the first time: putting race aside, affirming our common Americanism and humanity, can serve to heal old divides. Obsessing on racial divisions, focusing on “blackness” or “whiteness,” perpetuating the eternal cycle of grudge and guilt, only intensifies the fever associated with the nation’s most menacing disease. Bill Clinton also believed that we needed more talk about race, and as president he participated in a series of televised “public dialogues” (amounting to tiresome gripe fests) that achieved nothing at all other than underlining Slick Willie’s enlightenment and compassion. If the Obama campaign follows up on his over-praised speech and makes intensified race-talk into a new national priority, he may well destroy his chances of winning the presidency. The most “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party could celebrate prospect that a President Obama would get countless opportunities to deliver more lectures on slavery, Jim Crow, oppression, and race differences. But less politically correct Americans may prove notably less eager to seize the chance for additional solemn scolding sessions like the one they just heard in Philadelphia. Most voters, black as well as white, feel weary and wary of the destructive cycle of accusation and apology, so that Obama’s new implied promise of a presidency of endless race-based agitation may well constitute an offer that we easily can refuse.

Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host, is author of 10 non-fiction books, including The Shadow Presidents and Right Turns.

Comments

[spintreebob]

Not true that some are defending Ferraro's comment but nobody is defending Rev Wright. The sad reality is that a large part of the UCC, United Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic religions, their seminaries and clergy are into the same LIBERATION THEOLOGY as Rev Wright. What Rev Wright says is totally consistent with what President Carter says.

We think Rev Wright's position wrong. But we should not make the mistake of thinking that it is outside the mainstream. Unfortunately, it is more mainstream than most of our views.

[Courtenay Barnett]

RACIST AMERICA AND ITS DOUBLE STANDARDS MAKING WRIGHT WRONG!

Obama’s preacher has said that America brought 9/11 on itself, but first consider:-

1. In 1979 did the then Soviet Union invade Afghanistan?
2. Did the C.I.A give monetary and military assistance to resistance fighters that fought the Soviets under a banner of Islam?
3. Did the same fighters funded in what some have called “Charlie Wilson’s war” not morph from Mujahadin into the Taliban?
4. Since the Mujahadin and Taliban were trained with US help then is it illogical for Wright to focus on the original monetary source of the funding, with bin Laden being a beneficiary, himself accused of being behind the 9/11 attack, to conclude in by reference to those interrelationships that – in a certain sense America did bring the 9/11 attack upon itself? Having fanned the flames of militant Islam with the C.I.A’s money, then the militancy was unleashed on America – is Reverend Wright so wrong about that?

With America having marched into Iraq for its oil, it is now the Iraqis to be blamed for resisting the illegal invasion and US occupation – not Bush and his misguided foreign policy.

With true double standards so many are up in arms about what Reverend Wright has to say about America, but just consider from 19th March,2008, ABC’s Good Morning America just how much VP Cheney cares:-

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.
RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

But, back to Reverend Wright, just look below at how in actuality he squares with and decide whether there aren’t double standards and racism. But also link to http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 to consider the top 40 reasons to doubt the official version on September 11 –2001 - huh?

The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley and the Rest Get Away with Everything
Posted by Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post at 12:03 PM on March 19, 2008.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.
Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.
Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.
Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I'm willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It's one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it's another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It's easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of "respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church."
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn't racist, then what is it?
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I'm willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It's one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it's another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It's easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of "respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church."
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn't racist, then what is it?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide.

[Jerry]

(Ignoring retarded commentary from Cenk the Douche)

Mark, I must be gifted. I knew it was crap five minutes into the speech, when it was obvious that he was only trying to save his pathetic campaign, and had no clue and no intention of making an argument for racial progress.

Was that really so hard?

[Ed Jahn]

Mark - you are absolutely right about the lack of critical thinking skills - Obama is counting on the stupidity of the voters as surely as P.T. Barnam said about the gullibility of the American public - The first way to get bounced from a serious debate is to raise rhetoric over logic - and
a majority of listeners don't even know the difference, given how most people have been "indoctrinated" rather than educated.

[yonason]

"With America having marched into Iraq for its oil,..." -- COURTNEY BARNETT

No doubt she is one of those who, after falsely accusing the USA of "stealing" Iraq's oil, will then (as Evan Sayet says) complain, "...and we're paying too much for it, too."

They can't see how impossible it is for both things to be true. They spew falsehoods, and then call us the liars. They are so conflicted that they pretend they don't have a problem, all the while projecting their confusion onto those who aren't.

But don't try to reason with them, because they can't see pass the conspiricy theories they have to invent to preserve their warped world view.