Thomas Sowell on Obama and Race

Thomas Sowell has entered the endless stream of commentary being rendered on the Wright controversy. Sowell, who has written extensively on race relations, has offered an interesting piece entitled "Audacity Without Hope." Sowell has written:

"It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious."

"Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time — and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it."

"It makes a good story, but it won’t stand up under scrutiny."

"Barack Obama’s own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far-left fringe. In college, “I chose my friends carefully,” he said in his first book, Dreams From My Father."

"These friends included “Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets” — in Obama’s own words — as well as the “more politically active black students.” He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman Underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator."

"Obama didn’t just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way-out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college — members of the anti-American, counter-cultural Left."

"In Shelby Steele’s brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama — A Bound Man — it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were — and, like many converts, he went overboard."

"The irony is that Obama’s sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together."

"One sign of Obama’s verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother — “a typical white person,” he says — with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright."

"Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright’s words have a “resonance” in the black community."

"There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan’s words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?"

"While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright’s words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come."

"Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have. "

And more on Obama and Race

Ever since Obama delivered his speech on race I have become increasing interested in Obama and the race question. On the website The Cutting Edge, Edwin Black has recently written:

" It is pivotal to understand that Obama’s potentially insurmountable problem is not about his mere membership in Pastor Wright’s Trinity Church, an affiliate of the nationally diverse United Church of Christ. Obama’s problem is the deep-vein mentoring with Pastor Wright himself. Obama was not just sitting in the pews for twenty years. The two men were and are tight--very tight."

"It was Wright’s charismatic "in your face" African-American activism that first brought unaffiliated, young twenty-something Chicago neighborhood organizer Obama into the Trinity Church as a practicing Christian in the eighties. Obama became a regular attendee and took Wright’s inspiration with him when away. While at Harvard studying law, Obama morally tutored himself with tapes of Wright’s fiery lectures."

"Wright was a moving force in Obama’s family as well. Pastor Wright married Obama to his wife, Michelle, and baptized their two children. The Pastor’s provocative sermon, "The Audacity of Hope," gave Obama the title for his bestselling book of the same name. Obama even huddled with his Pastor for spiritual guidance just before announcing his presidential bid. Wright was given a prominent advisory role in the campaign. Wright is more than an arms-length acquaintance. The Pastor is precisely the mentor and close personal advisor Obama has long declared him to be."

" Exactly what is the objectionable conduct of Wright? To begin, Wright is a close confidant and supporter of Minister Louis Farrakhan. The leader of the Nation of Islam has called Jews "bloodsuckers" who practice a "gutter religion," and has ascended to the apex of virulent anti-Semitism in the Black community and indeed worldwide. Wright was among those deeply affected in the early eighties by Farrakhan’s Southside Chicago activism. In 1984, Wright was one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Khadafy. The ostentatious Farrakhan junket came at a time when Khadafy had been identified as the world’s chief financier of international terrorism, including the Black September group behind the Munich Olympics massacre. By the time Wright and Farrakhan visited, Libyan oil imports had been banned, and America was trying to topple what it called a "rogue regime." In the several years after that, Farrakhan was pro-active for Khadafy even as Libya was internationally isolated for suspected involvement in numerous terror plots including the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland."

"The Farrakhan-Wright connection is no distant matter of the turbulent eighties. Farrakhan, Wright and Wright’s Church have remained in close esteem until this very day. As recently as December 2007, the Church’s publication, Trumpet Newsmagazine, bestowed upon Farrakhan its highest honor, the "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter" Award for Lifetime Achievement. An interview with Farrakhan in the magazine concludes with the words, "he truly epitomizes greatness." Wright himself described Farrakhan in that article as "a 20th and 21st Century giant." Pastor Wright is the CEO of the church publication, which is said to reach 200,000 readers across the nation. Members of Wright’s family act as publisher and editor. As recently as this Palm Sunday, March 16, 2008, the church listed Farrakhan on its Prayer list in the weekend hand-out at church services."

"In the Farrakhan mold, Wright is a firebrand anti-American, anti-White, anti-Zionist preacher. His pulpit statements, by now widely broadcast on cable TV and across the Internet, have histrionically asked followers to chant not "God Bless America" but "God Damn America," to denounce Israel and Zionism for "state terrorism," to hold Washington responsible for creating the HIV AIDS virus as a weapon against Blacks, and to recognize that America is controlled by "rich white people." Immediately after the 9-11 attacks against the World Trade Center, Wright waved his arms and almost danced, bellowing that America had brought the crime upon itself. Nor is he shy about publicly using the words "nigger" and "shit" even from the pulpit."

"Despite his extremism, Wright is no fringe member of the African-American mainstream. He is a giant in the Black community. Wright built the Trinity Church from an 87-member congregation in 1972 with a $30,000 annual budget to a Black megachurch said to boast as many as 10,000 members--the largest in the United Church of Christ--operating on a more than $9 million annual budget with its own $2 million credit union, donating its own $100,000 check to Hurricane Katrina relief, and selling advertising in its house organ for $5,000 per page. In 1993, Ebony Magazine listed Wright among its top 15 pastors. In March 2007, Wright was honored by a resolution of the Illinois House of Representatives."

And according to Black, how did Obama defend himself and Wright?:

"In a political defense that now ranks with Bill Clinton’s assertion that he "never inhaled" and "never had sex with that woman," Barack claims he was never in the pews when Wright expressed his hateful sermons. Not a few in the media are now scouring Pastor’s Wright’s video tapes to spot Obama’s face in the rollicking crowds, or those much-loved audio tapes Obama so passionately studied to detect bigoted language."

"Obama’s defense that he did not know of Pastor’s Wright bigotry is opposed by the record itself. More than a year ago, Obama suddenly uninvited Pastor Wright to offer the invocation at a major campaign event. Wright told The New York Times in March 2007, "Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack... One of his members had talked him into uninviting me." Wright pointedly chose the Yiddish term Shabbos to refer to the Friday night time of the call."

"Many critics have long self-censored on Obama’s hate links, even among the Jewish community where sensitivity to any connection Farrakhan runs high. For example, the Anti-Defamation League recently issued a press release that it was satisfied that Obama had disavowed Wright’s race hatred and anti-Zionist fervor. But now, in a weekend interview, ADL national director Abraham Foxman says his view is different. "More is now known," says Foxman. "It is not a casual, one-way way relationship with Pastor Wright." Foxman has joined the growing chorus of disbelief about Obama’s ignorance. "It is very difficult to believe that throughout these years, Obama has been unaware of the conspiracy, bigotry, and anti-Zionist views.""

"While most in America are worried about playing a race card, Barack Obama has shown he is still carrying around a full deck."

More fom Hanson on the Obama Speech.

Victor Hanson's commentary on Obama's speech on race in America was continued today with the latest installment of his analysis. Hanson wrote:

"The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes."

"For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else."

"Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable."

"The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure."

"Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense."

"What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred."

Hanson wrote that Obama must now deal with certain facts:

"(1) Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration;"

"(2) Hillary may not just win, but win big in Pennsylvania (and maybe the other states as well), buttressing her suddenly not-so-tired argument about her success in the mega-, in-play purple states. Michigan and Florida that once would have been lost by Hillary in a fair election, now would be fairly won — and Clinton is as willing to replay both as Obama suddenly is not; and"

"(3) The sure thing of Democrats winning big in the House and Senate is now in danger of a scenario in which a would-be Senator or Representative explains all autumn long that the party masthead really does not like Rev. Wright, whose massive corpus of buffoonery no doubt is still to be mined. (The problem was never “snippets,” but entire speeches devoted to hatred and anger, often carefully outlined in a point-by-point format)."

So, according to Hanson, how can Obama fix his current problem:

"I would go buy about 10,000 American flags to blanket every Obama appearance, have a 4x4 lapel-button flag custom-made for the senator, have Michelle finish every appearance by leading a chorus of “God Bless America,” draft every middle-of-the-road crusty drawling Democratic veteran (the knightly Harris Wofford doesn’t cut it) to criss-cross the country — and try to Trotskyize Rev. Wright from the campaign."

"Oh, and no need for any more Obama half-conversations about race and “typical white person” clarifications. All that does far more damage to the country than even to Obama himself."

Victor Davis Hanson on "The Tragedy of Obama's Speech"

More from VDH on Obama's speech on race in America:

"The tragedy of Obama's speech and the mindless endorsement of it was the rejection of any constant moral standard — an absolute sense of wrong and right that transcends situational ethics, context, and individual particulars. And once one jettisons such absolutes, they won't be there when one wishes to seek refuge in them in a future hour of need."

"When he failed to 'disown' Rev. Wright, and then brought in parallels of things purportedly as bad, or offered excuses that Wright had done good things to balance the bad, or that there were certain mitigating circumstances that explain his hatred, then the universal wrong of Wright's racism and lying disappears and with it any ethical standard by which we have moral authority to condemn such vitriol."

"That this self-serving relativism was used to address a self-induced political disaster is especially unfortunate for a self-appointed moralist. I think the liberal blanket endorsement of the Obama speech will later come back to haunt its enthusiasts, once they see the creepy freak show that emerges from the woodwork, immune in public discourse now from absolute standards of rebuke."

"In that regard, the grandmother metaphor, the radio talk show simile, the evocation of Ferraro, the context of the black church, etc. were meaningless without any unequivocal rejection of Rev. Wright and what he stands for."

"This was a transformational speech — but in ways its endorsers can hardly believe but will surely regret. The voters of Pennsylvania will be the first indication of Obama's folly, followed by the moral paralysis that meets the next outbreak of racism and hatred in the public forum."

Obama and the Race Question.

On Tuesday morning Barack Obama delievered a speech with the intent to defuse some of the anger swirling around the incendiary remarks made by his paster, Jeremiah Wright. The speech was a very good speech, but he dodged the many concerns held by a significant portion of the electorate. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has pointed, in his article "An Elegant Farce," that "Obama’s Tuesday sermon was a well-crafted, well-delivered, postmodern review of race that had little to do with the poor judgment revealed in Obama’s relationship with the hateful Rev. Wright, much less the damage that he does both to African Americans and to the country in general." "The Obama apologia," argued Hanson, "was a 'conversation' about moral equivalence. So the Wright hatred must be contextualized and understood in several ways that only the unusually gifted Obama can instruct us about:"

"1) The good that Rev. Wright and Trinity Church did far outweighs his controversial comments, which were taken out of context as 'snippets' and aired in the 'endless loop' on conservative outlets."

"2) We are all at times racists and the uniquely qualified Obama is our valuable mirror of that ugliness: Wright may say things like 'God damn America' or 'Dirty Word' Israel or 'Clarence Colon,' but then it must be balanced by other truths like Obama’s own grandmother who also expresses fear of black males (his grandmother’s private angst is thus of the same magnitude as Wright’s outbursts broadcast to tens of thousands)."

"3) We don’t understand Wright’s history and personal narrative. But as someone who grew up in the hate-filled and racist 1960s, it was understandable that he was bound to mature into his present angry anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white mentality. (As if all blacks did?)"

"4) Indeed, Wright does nothing that much different from radio-talk show hosts and those of the Reagan Coalition who thrive on racial resentments. But whereas Wright has cause as a victim, his counterparts are opportunists who play on white fears."

"5) And if we wish to continue to express worries about Obama’s past relationships with Wright — never delineated, never explained in detail — in trite and mean-spirited ways such as replaying the Wright tapes, then we have lost a rare opportunity to follow Obama into a post-racial America."

"6) We, both black and white alike, are victims, victims of an insensitive system, a shapeless, anonymous 'it' that brings out the worst in all of us — but it will at last end with an Obama candidacy."

Hanson concluded: "Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama."

Bugs Bunny does the Civil War.

I found this video on the Civil Warriors blog and I thought it was a great example of how the Civil War is remembered. So, enjoy.

Thank "God" for Hitchens.

One of my favorite writers, Christopher Hitchens, is making atheism fun, or at least seem fun. I am not claiming to be an atheist myself, but I do enjoy reading books by sworn atheists. Lately there has been a growth in the popularity of books denouncing religion. Some writers, such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), come off as, well...preachy. They're arrogant and, one can argue, stuck-up. However, Hitchens's God is Not Great is a rather fun read. I highly recommend it. If you are a religious person you should definitely read this book because it provides a concise critique of religion and raises questions and issues that those who believe in God must reconcile in their own faith. (here is a recent article by Hitchens on belief.) Another great book on religion by Hitchens, which I suggest should be read with God is Not Great, is The Missionary Position. In that book Hitchens exposes the lies and hypocrisies of Mother Teresa. So, thank God for Hitchens for making atheism seem interesting.

Abraham Lincoln and Material Culture

In a recent essay, published in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Erika Nunamaker examined Abraham Lincoln's "egalitarian refinement." "Egalitarian refinement," according to historian Joyce Appleby, can be described as "an oxymoron that nicely captured the split personality of American society, with its yearning for the manners of the better sort and appreciation of the vernacular culture of ordinary folk." Nunamaker wrote that Lincoln, in 1837 when he was just starting his career as a lawyer, purchased a expensive horsehair couch. He defied all cultural customs of the antebellum gentry by reclining and spreading out on the couch while reading. Lincoln's to purchase such a couch shows his desire to be thought of as a gentleman, but his improper use of the couch illustrates "his refusal, whether conscious or unconscious, to resort to affecting behaviors or aping manners that did not come naturally to him."

Nunamaker's propose in writing this essay was to call attention to a wealth of primary sources that have been largely ignored by historians and Lincoln scholars. Studies in historical material culture reveals what peopled desired to own and what objects they bought. Examining Lincoln's furniture, as Nunamaker has done, shows how Lincoln was influenced by common cultural assumptions and how he defied them. There are tens of thousands of books on Lincoln, but the examination of the objects he bought demonstrates that there is still much we can learn about this man.

Civil War Battlefields

Earlier this week the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) released its annual report on the country's most endangered Civil War sites. Here is the list of the 10 most endangered sites in America: Antietam, Md., Cedar Creek, Va., Cold Harbor, Va., Hunterstown, Pa., Monocacy, Md., Natural Bridge, Fla., Perryville, Ky., Prairie Grove, Ark., Savannah, Ga., and Spring Hill, Tenn.

The CWPT also named 15 sites that are at risk. Among the at risk sites are Brandy Station, Va., Kennesaw Mountain, Ga., and Petersburg, Va.

Atlantic Emancipations 200 Years Later.

This years marks the 200th anniversaries of the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in the United States and the year during which Pennsylvania's gradual emancipation law finally bore fruit. The Library Company of Philadelphia is hosting a conference marking the anniversaries of these events, which will feature some of the most prominent scholars within the field. (the conference website can be viewed here.) The keynote speaker will be Pulitzer Prize winning historian Steven Hahn, author of A Nation Under Our Feet. The conference will also feature other important historians such as Gary Nash. It will be held on April 10-12. It is free and registration is open to the public.

8 Dead in Jerusalem

8 were killed and 9 were wounded in an attack on a rabbinical school by militants. Palestinians took to the streets and celebrated. I hope Israel's retaliation is swift and decisive. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. (article)

Lincoln and Douglas...the standard for political debates

A little over a week ago Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton participated in the twentieth presidential debate. The Republicans have also held countless debates over the past year. With John McCain as the Republican nominee and the Democrats thinned out to just two contenders the general election will soon begin bringing the promise of yet more debates. One would think that with the sheer number of debates that have taken place, then the American people must be the most informed electorate in all the world. This presumption is dead wrong. These debates that we have had to endure were not true debates and pale in comparison to a series of seven debates between the two candidates who were campaigning to be a senator from Illinois in 1858. These two men, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, participated in seven debates with each lasting for about three hours. At the heart of these debates was the issue of slavery and the fate of the Republic. These debates were racially charged and were not short on sexual innuendos. Here is an interesting article on the debates written by historian Allen Guelzo.

Allen Guelzo on the Daily Show

Allen Guelzo, one of my favorite historians, was on the Daily Show recently. Guelzo and host Jon Stewart discussed his new book Lincoln and Douglas.

The inexperience myth... or how the Clintons sold their supporters and half the electorate a bunch of lies.

Over the past several months I've heard from countless people, both talking heads featured in the media and average voters, that Barack Obama is inexperienced. The other part of this myth is that Clinton is running on decades of experience.

I'll deal the Obama's supposed inexperience first. This idea that Obama is inexperienced is just total nonsense. Obama has eleven years experience in public office as an Illinois state senator (1997-2004) and he has been in the US Senate since 2004. Prior to that he gained experience as a civil rights attorney, university lecturer, and community organizer. You could say many different things about these facts, but one thing you just cannot say is that he is inexperienced. Then there is the argument that his experience isn't the right kind of experience that a potential president should have. What?!?! First, I must ask; What is the right type of experience one should have before serving as president? Never mind that. Let's compare Obama's experience to those who have served as president. The most common comparison that has been made is the one between Obama and John F. Kennedy. When JFK was elected president he had just three more years experience in public office (US Representative, 1946-52 and US Senator, 1952-60). Obama is also three years older than JFK when he was elected to the presidency. Here's a list of presidents that Obama has had more experience in national political office than they had when they were elected to the presidency: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (Obama is also older than Bill Clinton was when her was elected), and George W. Bush did not serve in any elected office in the federal government prior to being elected president. Some of these men were great presidents, others mediocre or just plain bad. The best comparison one can use is Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had served just one term in the House of Representatives (1847-1849) prior to his election to president in 1860. So, is Obama experienced enough to be president? Yes, of course he has enough experience.

Now let's turn to Hillary Clinton, who is running on 35 years of experience. This is preposterous! Hillary Clinton has served in national elected office longer than Obama (US Senator 2000-2008), but this is the only public office she has ever been elected to serve. This means that Obama has had more experience in elected office (national and state) than Clinton. Clinton also resorts to arguing that the years she spent as First Lady and the First Lady of Arkansas makes her more prepared to be president. Well, the last time I checked, the First Lady was not an elected office nor does it carry any duties that can be comparable to being the president. I concede that Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of certain policies such as health care. What was the result? Well, Hillary failed at bringing about universal health care and her attempt to do so resulted in a landslide for the Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections that brought about 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress. I am left to ask; does simply being married to a president mean the you are experienced and qualified enough to be president? No and to think so is sheer stupidity. Is the spouse of a lawyer qualified to try cases in a court of law? Is the spouse of a heart surgeon qualified to perform open heart surgery? Of course not and being the spouse of a president is not the measure of whether or not one is qualified or experienced enough to be president.

Hillary should stop trying to feed us the lie that Obama is inexperienced. If she wants to play that game we can discuss how inexperienced she is compared to John McCain. All in all, this talk about experience is a waste of time. One's experiences prior to entering the Oval Office cannot be used as an indicator of the successes or failures that one may bring about as president.