A Note To Ann Althouse - To Fix Black Society, Follow The Example Of Martin Luther King Jr.

What is it with those on the right, that either they argue with no passion or they simply cede ground to the left, as if engaging in the arguments is distasteful? Case in point - James Taranto's article in WSJ stating lukewarm disagreement with Ann Althouse that the right should not be pointing out white on black violence in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

In the Trayvon Martin shooting, the race hustlers of the left saw an opportunity to argue to the black community that white racism was still alive and their greatest enemy. To say that they grossly overreached is an understatement.

There is a backlash now to that from many on the right who see the canard - and indeed, are its targets. And the most obvious response is to point to outrageous acts of black criminality against whites, asking the civil rights community to address it. It is a trap of course, as to address this violence, they would open up the entire can of worms on the ills of black society. Thus it is something both the left and Ms. Althouse would studiously ignore. She labels such acts as "counter Trayvoning." According to her, as quoted in the WSJ:

Conservatives have rested on the principle of colorblindness for a long time, and they've taken abuse for it. Look at how left liberals abuse Chief Justice Roberts for writing, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." They consider that kind of talk naive (at best). They push the perceived sophistication of what Justice Blackmun said back in the first affirmative action case: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way."

Those are the 2 well-defined and socially presentable opinions in this country, and decent, sincere Americans have argued from these positions for decades. Now, we're seeing some conservatives who seem frustrated by this taking account of race that's been done on the left. They seem to think it's a good time to spotlight violence committed by black people. This is not a good idea! It's fine to mourn Shorty, but these candlelight vigils are intended to stir hearts the way hearts were stirred at the Trayvon Martin demonstrations.

. . . To stir hearts counter-Trayvonistically is to nurture feelings that white people are oppressed by black people. This alternative to colorblindness is profoundly stupid. 1. It abandons the easy to express, principled position that many people perceive as the high ground. 2. It steps into the arena of taking account of race, where the left liberals would love to take you on. And 3. It gives air to the white supremacists among us. These people have been outcasts for a long time, but they exist, perhaps not quite yet recognizing what they are.

One, while a color blind society is absolutely what we should all strive for, that will not happen by conservatives ignoring race out of distaste for the argument. Ms. Althouse fully misperceives what is moral in this case. In all cases, facing problems and facing them with honesty defines the moral highground. When the left interprets everything through a racial lens and regularly makes outrageous charges of racism, then following Ms. Althouse's prescription would mean we cede the argument to the left. It is being in a war where only one side is allowed to fight.

Two, her claim that it steps "into the arena of taking account of race, where the left liberals would love to take you," is simply ridiculous. The left wholly ignores problems in the black community because they do not want to have to address them. Indeed, the left attacks any attempt by the right to raise address these problems by anyone on the right as ipso facto racism. The absolute last thing the left wants is an honest conversation "into the arena taking account of race." Indeed, as James Taranto points out in his WSJ article, "counter Trayvoning" has provoked liberals into dismissive responses, and thus might not be such a bad thing.

Lastly, her claim that to raise issues of color would give succor to white supremacists is a non-sequitur. White supremacists are and should always be outcasts. But demanding changes in and for the benefit of the black community in order to finally realize equality is an entirely different animal. At some level, doing so might provide temporary succor to supremacists, but the moral imperative to help black society is far and away more important, and in the end, wholly contradicts the goals of white supremacists. Ms. Althouse's argument seems to be analogous to the argument that children should not be inoculated against disease because some small portion of them will become very sick from the inoculation, irrespective of the fact that many more will be helped.

Indeed, Ms. Althouse's argument is taking a tack precisely opposite that followed by Martin Luther King Jr. His most powerful speech, given those fifty years ago, honestly addressed the problems of race, stated the moral imperative, and shamed white America into agreement that equality should be an overriding goal in America. As he said, blacks had come to Washington to cash the check that said "that all men are created equal." I concur, but we won't get there by following the advice of Ms. Althouse and ignoring race.

America should indeed be a land of colorblind equality where racism should not be tolerated. Fixing the plight of blacks in America today is every bit the moral imperative it was in 1963. There should not be massive, cyclical poverty for over 25% of blacks. Blacks should not have the worst jobless rate in America. Black children should have the same educational opportunities as whites. Black families should not be dysfunctional, with almost 3 out of every 4 children born to single mothers. And crime should not be disproportionately a problem of the black community, with blacks far more likely to commit violent crime, including murder and robbery. This state of black America is obscene in the 21st century. But, but, but . . . those problems are not the work of conservative white racism.

The idealists of the 60′s, JFK, Patrick Moynihan and their ilk, were deeply concerned and doing what they thought best to truly help the black community. Well, they shot their bullets and, while some of what they did helped spectacularly – the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act – other things that they did failed equally spectacularly – welfare and public education.

If the left could find a way out of this that would not result in their own weakening – or even perhaps demise – they would, I am sure, jump on it. Their catch-22 is that such a solution does not exist.

For the far left to truly address the problems plaguing the black community today would mean addressing failures of left wing programs. It would mean taking on the teachers unions (the group that underwrote the MLK 50th anniversary race hustler palooza a few days ago). It would mean taking a stand on traditional morality. The mortal danger to the left in doing so is that it would fracture the blacks as a monolithic voting block. And in an age where only a few percentage points of votes are what separate Republicans from Democrats, that could well be catastrophic for the left. They are quite happy to leave the black community to wallow in horrendous dysfunction so long as they can make money and gain power off their backs.

So the left continues to beat the drum of imaginary racism as the only true ill of black society. At the same time, they studiously ignore all the problems of the black community. The only way to address this issue is to do what Martin Luther King Jr. did. To raise the problems continuously, to do so with utter honesty, and to refuse to be cowed into silence, whether by the left or Ms. Althouse.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Civil Rights, The Left & The Legacy Of MLK

Two years ago, I wrote a post on race in America, surveying our history and pointing out the far left's bastardization of MLK's dream of equality for all. It is appropriate to revisit that post today. I predicted at the time that, with the election of Obama, we would fall ever deeper, and perhaps irrevocably, into identity politics and multiculturalism, moving ever farther away from realizing MLK's goal of equality. I was wrong:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberal African American NYT columnist Bob Herbert recently had this to say in extolling the virtues of the left:

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Mr. Herbert pretty much sums up what has been the far left / liberal / progressive line for decades. But then how to explain all the vicious, ad hominem and unhinged Palin-bashing coming from the left? To take it one further, how to reconcile that Palin-bashing with the left's acceptance of people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a part of their stable? It seems quite the conundrum unless one knows a bit of history and can identify the massive deceits. Here are some facts, some of which you might not be aware:

- The Republican Party - the party of Abraham Lincoln - was borne in 1854 out of opposition to slavery.

- The party of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan was, as Jeffrey Lord points out in an article at the WSJ, the Democratic Party. And Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) [was the last] member of the Senate who was once a member of the KKK.

- The 13th (abolishing slavery), 14th (due process for all citizens) and 15th (voting rights cannot be restriced on the basis of race) Amendments to the Constitution were enacted by Republicans over Democratic opposition.

- The NAACP was founded in 1909 by three white Republicans who opposed the racist practices of the Democratic Party and the lynching of blacks by Democrats.

- In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. My own belief is that the military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.

- It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.

- Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He "proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s." Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the "Little Rock Nine" incident, "Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school."

- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK - but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision.

- Martin Luther King Jr. was the most well known and pivotal Civil Rights activist ever produced in America. His most famous speech, "I Had A Dream," was an eloquent and stirring call for equality. If you have not read the speech or heard it, you can find it here. I would highly recommend listening to it. Rev. King was, by the way, a Republican.

- "Bull" Connor was not a Republican. . . .

Nothing that I say here is to suggest that racism and sexism could not be found in the Republican party or among conservatives at any point in American history. But if you take any period in history and draw a line at the midpoint of racist and sexist attitudes, you would find far more Republicans than Democrats on the lesser side of that line. And you would find a much greater willingness on the part of Republicans, relative to the time, to effectuate equality. That was as true in 1865 as in 1965 - and in 2008.

Sometime about 1968, the far left movement emerged as a major wing of the Democratic Party. This far left wing hijacked the civil rights movement and made it, ostensibly, their raison d'etre. Gradually, the far left has grown until it is now the dominant force in Democratic politics. JFK, Truman and FDR would recognize precious little of today's Democratic Party.

The far left fundamentally altered the nature of the Civil Rights movement when they claimed it as their own. They imprinted the movement with identity politics, grossly distorting the movement's goal of a level playing field for all Americans and creating in its stead a Marxist world of permanent victimized classes entitled to special treatment. The far left has been the driver of reverse racism and sexism for the past half century. That is why it is no surprise that, with the emergence of a far left candidate for the highest office in the nation, Rev. Jeremiah Wright should also arise at his side and into the public eye preaching a vile racism and separatism most Americans thought long dead in this country. Nor is it any surprise that the MSM, many of whom are of the far left, should collectively yawn at Obama's twenty year association with Wright. Wright is anything but an anomaly. To the contrary, he is a progeny of the politics of the far left.

The far left did not merely hijack the civil rights movement, they also wrote over a century of American history, turning it on its head. That is why Bob Herbert, quoted above, is able to wax so eloquently while spouting the most horrendous of deceits. The far left managed to paint the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the prime repositories of racism and sexism. The far left has long held themselves out as the true party of equality. They have done so falsely as, by its very nature, identity politics cements inequality. Beyond that truism, the far left has for decades played the race and gender cards to counter any criticism of their policies, to forestall any reasoned debate and to demonize those who stand opposed to them. They continue to do so through this very day.

For example, Obama has attempted repeatedly to play the race card so as to delegitimize criticism of his policies. And today we have the Governor of New York calling the McCain camp racist for belittling the executive experience one could expect to be gleaned from the position of "community organizer." Apparently, according to Gov. David Patterson, "repeated use of the words 'community organizer' is Republican code for 'black'." What Gov. Patterson is doing is the well worn trick of taking any criticism of something pertaining to one of the victim class and recasting it as an illegitimate attack on the victim class itself. These tactics, which the left has used with incredible effectiveness in the past, have done incalculable harm to our nation over the decades.

We are either a melting pot wherein "all men are created equal" - the ideal of our Founders for which we have long laboured and are ever closer to succeeding - or we are to become a multicultural nation of pigeon-holed special interests. We are to become a nation where groups are encouraged to remain apart, defining themselves by their victim class before defining themselves as Americans. Multiculturalism is unworkable - we can see it destroying Europe and Britain - but that has not stopped the far left in America from their embrace of the concept. Nor has it slowed their efforts to weave multiculturalism irrevocably into the fabric of our society.

The far left has long pushed forward minorities and women to prove that they are the party of inclusiveness. On the right, the process has been slower. You had the percolation of minorities and women to major positions through the natural process of time and selection of the fittest. Only the most jaded would ever argue that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did not earn their positions solely on merit. And love her or hate her, Kristi Todd Whitman was both well qualified and a very good governor.

I have long been waiting for a self-made and accomplished woman or minority to rise to the very top in Republican politics. It is something that would intrinsically expose the incredibly damaging canard that the far left has pushed for near half a century. I had hoped Colin Powell would be that man a decade ago. As to Condi Rice, had things worked out differently for the Bush administration and had she not selected the Sec. of State slot (a killer for anyone with Pres. aspirations) I thought that perhaps she would have a good shot at running in 2008. I've been waiting for Thomas Sowell to run for any elected office for decades - and yes, I would consider him for beatification. These are people for whom neither their skin color nor their gender makes them a victim. These are people for whom what unites us in common as Americans is more important than what divides us into sub-groups. And these are people who earned their success by virtue of their excellence rather than the distortions of identity politics.

It is inevitable that one of the two concepts I earlier described - a melting pot of equals or a multicultural morass of victim groups - will gain ascendance in America. I have long felt that we are at a crossroads in our nation for precisely this reason, and that the ramifications of how we decide this issue will be existential. . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote this post, I thought that electing Obama would take our nation irrevocably down the multicultural path, strengthening in America the victim class mentality that defines the left. I did not count on the rise of the Tea Party, nor that the left would go all out with the race card in a concerted and transparent attempt to delegitimize the message of that grass roots movement. Instead of strengthening the victim class mentality, all indications are that it has had a contrary effect, exposing the device to much of America. It is a tremendous irony that Obama, a man whose promise to lead us to racial equality was always without the barest hint of substance, may well inadvertently lead us to that promised land regardless. As the race card loses its ability to stigmatize the far left's political opponents, it spells the beginning of the end to the victim politics of the left. When the last vestiges of its toxin are banished from our land, then will come the day MLK's dream is fulfilled, and all of our children will "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Update: NiceDeb has a round-up of MLK posts, linking not only to this post, but also to a fine post by Michelle Malkin, asking the left to give the race card a rest on MLK Day. In it, Malkin provides an exhaustive list of the times the left has used the race card in the recent past, concluding with an essay from Jerome Hudson that appears at Human Events:

Like most Americans, I’ve had enough with this administration’s policies. I was fed up and fired up.

I am even more so in the wake of the most moving gathering I’ve ever been privileged to be a part of.

At one point, some of the people attending the Rev. Al Sharpton’s “counter rally,” coined “Reclaiming King,” stopped me. I guess they must have been judging me by the color of my skin not the content of my character, because they asked if I was going to come join them.

“No, I won’t be there,” I told them. “Why?” one of them asked with a grimace on his face. I looked at him and said, “I want to be where the Lord is and the Lord is in this place.”

One of the older black women in the group asked me if I felt like I was “selling out” for being one of the “tokens” in the Beck rally crowd?

I laughed and said “Ma’am, Al Sharpton is a pretender. He is going to tell you to pretend that the color of your skin matters. He is going to ask you to ignore the now overwhelming proof that 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, blacks are now destroying each other faster than the KKK could have dreamed.”

As I walked away, the group stood frozen, not knowing how to reply.

Later, as Sharpton preached a divisive message void of actual solutions on how to “close the education and economic gap” in the “black community,” Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece, invoked the spirit of her slain uncle proclaiming, “I too have a dream, that white privilege will become human privilege and that people of every ethnic blend will receive everyone as brothers and sisters in the love of God.”

Her comments on restoring the “foundation of the family” in America were met, not with boos, but with a thunderous applause.

(What bigots those white folks! Having the audacity to cheer Dr. King’s niece like that. Racists the whole lot of them!)

I was probably the only 24-year old black college student in the crowd. It’s hard to know, because we had over 300,000 people there. But that didn’t matter to me. As we all stood hand-in-hand, American shoulder to American shoulder, our myriad faces streaked with tears as we sang “Amazing Grace.” It was a moment I will be proud to tell my grandkids about one day.

What that moment taught me is this: Something profound is happening in America that runs far deeper than politics. The ground is shifting, and it’s in freedom’s direction.

Update: Welcome ALICU blog readers. Always nice to welcome people from the left side of the blogosphere. Please feel free to read, comment and argue. As to the blog mention from Roy Edroso, one, thanks, two - "honkeys in tricolor hats?" - lol, not too cutting edge there Roy. I haven't heard "honkey" used for 20 years. Let me guess - you're a child of the 60's who hasn't quite broken you're pot habit?

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama as Marley

"I wear the chain I forged in life," replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?"

- Marley's Ghost addressing Scrooge, from A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, 1843

On Tuesday morning, Obama held a press conference in order to stop the bleeding caused by his pastor’s, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s, racist and anti-American screed broadcast live to the nation from the National Press Club on Monday. Because Obama was not honest with the public, the bleeding will continue and portends to be fatal. It need not have been.
____________________________________________________________

Many people have said that Obama needs to distance himself from the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But much like Marley's ghost, Obama has, of his own free will, been creating a chain attaching himself to Rev. Wright. After near twenty years of close association, that chain is so long and ponderous that it cannot simply be cut with a bald repudiation - despite what the editorial board of the NYT posited in the wake of Obama's news conference. That poses a problem for Obama that is quickly becoming, if not already, insurmountable.

If Obama had chosen to be honest and fully forthcoming at any point up through his news conference on Tuesday, a transcript of which is here, Obama could have innoculated himself from much of the negatives of his relationship with Rev. Wright and his membership in Trinity United. He would still have stood a realistic chance in his bid for the presidency. Instead, in an amazing display of hubris, Obama has taken the opposite path. He is being dishonest with the public, attempting to hide his past rather than address it.

Reverend Wright’s several public appearances over the weekend brought into stark relief both the seriousness of Wright’s negatives for the Obama candidacy - particularly in November's general election - and the disingenuousness of Obama’s attempts to paint these negatives as unimportant. The issue of Rev. Wright and Obama’s relationship is a core issue of Obama’s candidacy. It goes directly to Obama’s character, judgment, beliefs and, because of the way Obama has handled this issue, his veracity. Obama admitted as much Sunday, in an interview with Fox News. But he could not have framed this issue any more clearly than he did inadvertently in the Tuesday morning press conference:

. . . When I go to church it's not for spectacle. It's to pray and to find -- to find a stronger sense of faith. It's not to posture politically. It's not -- you know, it's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs.

So what does his twenty years of membership in Trinity United tell us of his core beliefs? We are still not sure, as, in between angry denunciations of the outrageous, now fully in context comments Rev. Wright made before the National Press Club, Obama at his press conference was being incredibly disingenuos about the black liberation theology of his Church and the nature of the sermons to which he has been privy.

John Perazzo wrote an exceptional article in February, before Rev. Wright’s name became a household word, explaining the origins and doctrine of black liberation theology. But for the religious overlay, it is a theology that espouses a world view that is marxist in its purest form, both in term of economics and by interpreting all events within the rubric of blacks as permanent victims of oppression occurring at the hands of whites. It is a gospel and a world view out of touch with reality and one that is completely at odds with the persona Obama has painted to the public in an effort to win the presidency.

Obama was asked at his press conference about the nature of black liberation theology and why he chose a church that practiced that philosophy. Obama’s response was rambling and disingenuous rising to the level of an outright falsehood. Obama's initial response was redolent of a seasoned lawyer defending a guilty client - in this case, himself. He claimed that, despite twenty years at Trinity United, he had no idea about the nature of black liberation theology:

“Well, first of all, in terms of liberation theology, I'm not a theologian. So I think to some theologians, there might be some well-worked-out theory of what constitutes liberation theology versus non-liberation-theology.”

To describe that response as disingenuous is an understatement. But then he rose to unambiguous falsehood when equated Wright's black liberation theology to the "social gospel" of Martin Luther King. This does not stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. Black liberation theology was just being born in the crucible of the Sandanista's communist revolution in Nicaragua at about the time MLK was assassinated. It did not originate out of MLK's sermons or philosophy. More importantly, as to substance, MLK was explicit that his goals for blacks were equality with whites and full integration of blacks into the mainstream of society. And he stated his goals with incredible eloquence:

. . . And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today! . . .

See his speech here.

The black liberation theology of Rev. Wright could not be more different than MLK’s “social gospel”. Black liberaton theology is centered on placing the blame for all the ills of black society on the white oppressors. It does not seek equality, it seeks a reckoning of the historical balance sheet. And wholly opposed to MLK’s soul stirring plea for an integrated nation of equals, Rev. Wright’s black liberation theology promotes separatism and makes an explicit call for its members to reject white middle class society. For Obama to equate Rev. Wright to MLK in an effort to diffuse the issue and halt any further inquiry is an outright falsehood.

But Obama, in his Fox interview on Sunday, actually went one further. He equated the vile anti-American fantasies and diatribes of Rev. Wright to MLK’s 1967 Riverside speech criticizing America’s involvement in Vietnam. Again, this does not hold up to the slightest inquiry. MLK’s criticism of American policy did not “damn America” for genocidal acts against blacks. It was a factually based criticism of why MLK saw the war as wrong. And indeed, the facts that formed the foundation of his criticism are well documented in the Pentagon Papers. That is a far cry from the fantastical claims of Rev. Wright, a man who does not argue a rational point of view, but rather paints a fantasy of evil white society at war against blacks and the world at large. In short, the differences between MLK and Rev. Wright are, dare I say it, as clear as black and white.

And that brings us to the core of the Obama approach to all of this. Despite what we know about Rev. Wright, despite what we know about black liberation theology that animated Trinity United long before Obama became a member, and despite Obama writing that “white greed runs a world in need” in his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama claims that he heard nothing in the pews over twenty years in the nature of the racism and vile anti-Americanism that forms the core of Rev. Wright's black liberation theology.

During the course of me attending that church, I had not heard those kinds of statements being made or those kinds of views being promoted. And I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency. I was a member of the church.

It is simply unbelievable on the facts we know. It is completely counterintuitive. And Obama’s sarcastic remark about not “vetting” his pastor is an insult to our intelligence after he spent twenty years in the pews. His denial assures that this issue will not go away. Moreover, given the absolute nature of his denial, this was Obama's "I did not have sex with that preacher" moment. Future revelations regarding what he knew and when he knew it will utterly destroy his credibility and, with it, likely his bid for the presidency.

All of this is unfortunate in the sense that by his very candidacy, he could have made a difference for America on racial issue. He in fact could have led the nation on a true discussion of racism in our society - and I am not refering to the self serving pablum of his Philadelphia speech. Given the robust victimhood culture and grievance politics of the left, such a discussion is sorely needed.

With Obama’s unique background and given the reality that our country’s history is stained with racism and slavery, I think the vast majority of Americans, including conservatives, might have accepted a mea culpa from Obama. Were I to write that speech for Obama, it would be along the lines of what I have written below. I do not know if it is accurate, but I suspect that it might be:

As a young man, I was attracted to Rev. Wright by his dynamic presence, his message of hope, and indeed, his message of black liberation theology. That message combined an admirable belief in Jesus with a dream of hope for bettering the world that so captured my imagination that it still remains at the heart of my motivations today. Unfortunately, Rev. Wright's preaching also contained a message of racism and separatism that grew out of the black experience of the 50’s and 60’s.

I long ago separated the wheat from the chaff at Trinity United. I embraced the belief in Jesus as my savior and am eternally indebted to Rev. Wright gifting to me an unshakable belief in the audacity of hope. In those respects, he gave my life a meaning and a direction that have animated me since.

But the point where I agreed with the other aspects of Rev. Wright’s ministry ended within the first years of my joining Trinity United. I was able to recognize that our society has moved beyond Rev. Wright’s racial perspective and, indeed, have staked my entire political life and philosophy on promoting the opposite message. All the facts of my life in the public realm and in the private realm support that.

There are many good things about Rev. Wright that, indeed, have kept me close to him over the years. But his message of racism and his portrayal of a white government at war with blacks were not among them. I stayed in the Church and close to Rev. Wright wholly in spite of those things.

Many will say this reflects on my judgment. I would like to think it reflects far more on my loyalty and sense of duty to a kind, if flawed man to whom I am so indebted. And while I mean that with utter sincerity, I also speak with utter sincerity when I say that, in retrospect, I wish that had I been forceful over the years with Rev. Wright in expressing to him that his message, to the extent it contained a racist message, was wrong. At first I kept silent in the pews simply out of fear of offending Rev. Wright. As I aged and matured, I made the error of just keeping silent in the pews. I do hope that you will understand and forgive me for that error.

Unfortunately, even if the above is correct, we have seen repeatedly that Obama accepts no personal responsibility when he thinks that he can skate by. Obama lacks the necessary foresight, the intellectual honesty and the intestinal fortitude to make such a mea culpa. And indeed, the time frame in which he could do it and survive politically is likely passed. To attempt a mea culpa when future revelations come out will be interpreted as hypocritical political expediency and unlikely to salvage his bid for the presidency. Like Marley's ghost, Obama has doomed himself to walk the earth under the weight of the chain he built, link by link to Rev. Wright, over a period of twenty years. And he has securely tethered the chain to himself with buckles formed of hubris.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Death of MLK & Racism In America Four Decades Later

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Eugene Robinson, writing in the Washington Post, takes stock of the strides we have made towards a post racial society as well as the lingering problems. What he does not address are the causes of the lingering problems as well as the limitations the left's identity politics imposes on our ability to debate and discuss solutions.
__________________________________________________________

This from Eugene Robinson writing in today's Washington Post:

Forty years after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, we sometimes talk about race in America as if nothing has changed. The truth is that everything has changed -- mostly for the better -- and that if we're ever going to see King's dream fulfilled, first we have to acknowledge that this is not an America he would have recognized.

On April 4, 1968, it was possible to make the generalization that being black in this country meant being poor; fully 40 percent of black Americans lived below the poverty line, according to census data, with another 20 percent barely keeping their heads above water. African Americans were heavily concentrated in the inner cities and the rural South. We were far less likely than whites to go to college, and our presence in the corporate world was minimal.

Today, about 25 percent of African Americans are mired in poverty. In many ways, being black and poor is a more desperate and hopeless condition now than it was 40 years ago. For those who managed to enter the middle class, however, most of the old generalizations no longer apply.

There remains a significant income gap between whites and blacks in this country, although it shrinks when educational level is factored in. But the gap in wealth, or net worth, is huge, even when you control for education, age, family size and whatever else you want to throw in. Still, African Americans control an estimated $800 billion in purchasing power. If that were translated into gross domestic product, a sovereign "Black America" would be the 15th- or 16th-richest nation on earth.

Forty years ago, not even 2 percent of black households earned the equivalent of $100,000 a year in today's dollars. Now, about 10 percent of black households have crossed that threshold. George and Louise Jefferson aren't so lonely anymore in that "deluxe apartment in the sky."

Then again, if "The Jeffersons" were being produced today, George and Louise probably wouldn't live in an apartment at all. More realistically, they'd be on a cul-de-sac in a suburban community. In Washington and a growing number of cities, more African Americans now live in the suburbs than within the city limits.

In a sense, then, the most striking measure of how far African Americans have come since 1968 isn't the rise of Barack Obama. It's the story of Stanley O'Neal.

That's not to minimize the prospect that a nation midwifed by slavery could soon have its first black president. But O'Neal did something that would have been equally unimaginable 40 years ago. He rose to become chief executive of Merrill Lynch, one of Wall Street's biggest firms; by all accounts, he was a taskmaster of a boss who cared less about whether subordinates liked him than he did about the bottom line. He placed big bets on mortgage-backed securities, generating record profits for the firm. When he got caught in the mortgage crisis several months ago and was forced to write off billions in losses, he resigned -- and floated back to earth with the help of one of the loveliest golden parachutes Wall Street has seen.

Oh, and his grandfather was born a slave.

Lacking family wealth accumulated by prior generations, middle-class black Americans are right to worry that their economic success is more precarious than that of many whites. But no one can deny that most African Americans today have opportunities that weren't remotely possible 40 years ago.

For those who haven't made it into the middle class, however, things are different. Inner-city communities were hollowed out -- a process accelerated by the riots that followed King's death -- and left fallow for decades. Middle-class professionals fled, businesses closed, schools disintegrated, family structures fell apart. Drugs and crime were symptoms of the general rot; the gentrification of recent years has just shifted the pathology from one part of the city to another, or perhaps to a close-in suburb, sweeping it into a corner.

The African American poor are a smaller segment than they were 40 years ago, but arguably they are further from full participation in society than they were in King's era. It's not that they have no interest in climbing the ladder, it's that too many rungs are missing.

It's misleading, then, to make any general statement about the condition of black Americans without recognizing black America's diversity. Economically speaking, there is one group of black Americans that has achieved success and one that hasn't -- and the distance between those groups is growing. To make more progress toward Martin Luther King's dream, we have to make an honest assessment of how far we've come -- and honestly account for who's been left behind.

Read the article. I believe Mr. Robinson accurately and eloquently states the tremendous progress towards a post racial society in America. And I beleive that he accurately identifies, in part, that there are lingering problems that have resulted in a disproportionate amount of our black population below the poverty level and, in many cases, rejecting traditional values.

Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson does not address the causes or solutions. Liberal solutions are not working, yet the left's identity politics has made any reasonable discussion about the problem impossible. If I ever hear Mr. Robinson or Mr. Obama state that criticisms of affirmative action programs or our other policies that impact on this situation are not inherently racist, then I think we may be moving into the final stages of Rev. King's dream of equality among the races.

Ironically, the initial promise of Barack Obama was to be able to end the identity politics and lead us onto that higher plane where honest and open discussion of race could occur. Obama's post-racial promise was to heal the divide brought on today far more by the left's identity politics than the shibboleth of systemic white racism. It promised to be a plane where the problems of the lower strata of blacks today could be realistically addressed without race cards being played.

That promise went out the window when Barack Obama spoke on race several days ago in order to defend his two decade long association with the poisonously racist Rev. Jerimiah Wright. He billed the speech as the start of a much needed dialogue on race. Yet he opened that speech by discussing the founding of our country and referring to slavery as white America's "original sin." That wasn't the start of any open dialogue on race, it was a game of 52 race card pick-up designed to forestall any cricitism of his association with Rev. Wright and Rev. Wrights vile racism.

I look forward to the day when America when MLK's dream of true racial equality becomes the complete reality. We are, in many ways, but a step away. It is unfortunate that I do not see anyone on the horizon who will help us to take those last few steps.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Memorium: Martin Luther King, Jr. 1929-1968

Martin Luther King was one of the great men of American history. It was almost a century after this country had fought a bitter civil war largely animated by the question of slavery, and near a century after Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclomation that Rev. King led the March on Washington. There, he made a speech that has reverberated through the pages of our nation's history ever since:



And here is the text of that speech, made available from the website American Rhetoric:

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.
We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. *We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only."* We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Update: One wonders if, like Abraham Lincoln before him, had not Martin Luther King been assassinated, whether the history of our nation might not have turned out much differently. Lincoln's assassination resulted in the a decades long punishment of the South by law makers in Washington - something which Lincoln himself opposed. For his part, King sought to achieve equality. But after his assassination, what has emerged is a theme of destructive identity politics that has warped the civil rights movement and created the theme of identity politics. As PJM asks today, what would MLK have thought of that?

Read More...

Summary only...