There are a myriad of reasons why I'm hesitant to write about Rev. Jeremiah Wright this week. Wright's comments have indirectly, yet purposefully, become tied to Obama's campaign. This has not been ethical, nor does it serve to foster the political discussions this country so desperately needs at this point. There has been a media saturation which, by far, has been sensational over substantive.
While news media has focused on Wright, little attention has been paid to the pastors affiliated with John McCain.
These include Texas televangelist John Hagee - who has said Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment against New Orleans for hosting a homosexual parade, that the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves by turning away from the true God,"" and Catholicism is a ""false cult,"" which contributed to Hitler's anti-semitic views. When Hagee endorsed McCain earlier this year, McCain said he was ""proud"" to have the pastor's support.
Six years after labeling the ""late great"" Rev. Jerry Falwell one of the political ""agents of intolerance"" in 2000, McCain delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University.
Regardless, I'm not here to make excuses for Wright - whose most recent course of action has been, at the very least, damaging to Obama's campaign.
Most recently Wright has hit the press circuit, saying some outlandish things claiming, ""Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality."" ""Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,"" he said. ""They have a different way of learning."" He also defended his claim that the government may have invented the AIDS virus - citing the Tuskegee experiment.
Obama officially condemned Wright's statements, saying, ""When I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything I'm about and who I am."" It was a good move from Obama - perhaps even one which was overdue. However, it is somewhat saddening that Obama is constantly required to answer for the actions of his pastor.
It is debatable as to what effect Wright's remarks will have on the election, but the burning question remains: Why does he continue despite the fact that his much-publicized derisive rhetoric is significantly damaging Obama's campaign?
Perhaps it makes some sense that Obama's ""post-racial"" campaign is not being spared Wright's rhetoric. The post-racial mentality does stand in stark contrast with Wright's longstanding ideology - an image of black identity that has been forged as a reaction to the milieu of systematic marginalization and oppression. The circumstances that shaped this identity are by no means contrived and to some extent continue to this day, but their manifestations via Wright in this election cycle may stymie the conceivable progress which Obama's campaign could achieve.
Wright seems to be taking this as a chance to further his own ideology by exploiting the issue of race in America as he sees it via the Obama candidacy, which has thus far emphasized unity and the often overlooked and vast common ground among ethnic groups. If you watched Wright on the press junket this week, it seems abundantly clear that hubris and pride also seem to play their part. He often seemed petulant and patronizing in his tone as he parlayed his 30 seconds of fame into a full 15 minutes. In parts of his address to the NAACP he played like a poor man's Chris Rock - his words were not funny enough to be comedy, yet not nearly insightful enough to be preached from the pulpit.
In short, according to Obama, Wright has ""caricatured himself.""
Wright's criticisms didn't exclude Obama - who he charged with political pandering, saying ""he says what he has to say as a politician.""
I wouldn't call what Obama is doing pandering to the white community (which seems to be what Wright is implying).
Instead, I would argue Obama is attempting to appeal to the predominantly similar sensibilities within the black and white communities. Obama is attempting to win an election in a predominantly white country, but certainly not at the expense of the black community. No one is suggesting that Obama (or his constituency) must forget the sordid racial history of the United States, or that his ascent to presidency would negate the previous atrocities, but perhaps a realistic way to make the future better is to stop focusing on the things that make us different. Instead of focusing on trivial issues we could focus on the vast majority of important and pressing issues upon which people across all races and social strata agree. That seems to be the road Obama is trying to take - without much help from Wright or the mass media.
Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
