March 16, 2008


Dissent of the Day

Filed under: Cultural Issues, Dissent of the Day
By Feddie (Email) @ 9:54 pm

Courtesy of the always thoughtful Muskrat:

When I worked in intel analysis, the smartest guys I knew would always ask not “what does this quote from, e.g., North Korea, sound like to us,” but “What does it sound like to THEM” — what does it mean on the context of the politics, linguistics, mythology, etc. of the audience for whom it was meant.

No offense, but Wright’s words weren’t meant for Feddie, the staff of NRO, or the rest of the blogosphere. They were meant for a largely (but not entirely) black congregation in Chicago, which had experienced the million little ways that big government can futz up your life in very real ways.

Wright’s words aren’t all that different from right-wing wackos like Falwell and Robertson who see various bad things (hurricaines, 9/11) as divine retribution for the nation’s sins. Falwell, Robertson et al just pick different sins.

This blog has been full of references to a “Culture of death,” which Wright’s words can also be read as condemning, although his concern is the state of the black community, not the prevalence of abortion. But if it’s wrong to waste a life for the convenience of the mother, it’s also wrong to waste a life because society has decided that dealing a little weed or coke deserves a life sentence. (USING a little weed merits felony time in the slammer, unless you went to Harvard or Yale, in which case it merits… the White House)

Update: Just because I select a comment as the ”dissent of the day” does not mean that I necessarily agree with its substance. It just means that the dissent in question was thoughtfully stated, and has points contained therein that are worth considering.


Trackback/Pingbacks:

The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2304/trackback

  1. Comment on Dissent of the Day by Poker Player

    2. [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

  2. Comment on Dissent of the Day by Poker Player

    3. [...] Joaquin "The Rooster" Ochoa wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe issue to me is not what Wright has said, but the fact Obama evidently doesn’t understand that the comments weren’t acceptable. That labels him as just dumb. And that is an excellent reason to keep him on the South Side of Chicago … [...]

  3. Alcohol Posts » Comment on Dissent of the Day by Centinel

    4. [...] Centinel wrote a fantastic post today on “Comment on Dissent of the Day by Centinel”Here’s ONLY a quick extractTom Davis — a wine-&-cheese liberal of the highest caliber — has put the cherry on the Bush debacle by stating that our erstwhile president has “killed the GOP brand,” and I start remembering all those good times back in 2004 when I … [...]

19 Rebel Yells to “Dissent of the Day”

  1. BillyHW Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 12:16 am

    Nope, it doesn’t quite work for me. The guy is wacko.

    And no Republican running for an important office actually attended Pat Robertson’s church.

  2. feddie Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 7:33 am

    I agree Wright is a nutcase, but I still think Muskrat makes some fair points.

  3. Michael Simpson Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 7:55 am

    Yeah, it doesn’t really wash with me, either. It would be one thing if Wright were just making “prophetic” denunciations of a system he thinks is fundamentally unjust. If his sermons were laced with angry rhetoric about how America was deeply racist and unfair to blacks, I really wouldn’t be all that interested - that’s pretty standard law professor stuff, right? But Wright takes it a step (or two or three) further, dipping into all kinds of wacko-conspiracy territory and seething - *seething* - with hate towards his purported oppressors. He’s a crank, not a prophet, and the fact that Obama has thought so highly of him (until he became politically inconvenient) is a big strike against him.

  4. Centinel Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am

    Well, I’ll be skint and cooked with collards — Feddie’s back.

    I’m reading a story about how Rep. Tom Davis — a wine-&-cheese liberal of the highest caliber — has put the cherry on the Bush debacle by stating that our erstwhile president has “killed the GOP brand,” and I start remembering all those good times back in 2004 when I predicted the coming Apocalypse that would accompany a second heaping helping of “compassionate conservatism” and how geniuses — GENIUSES — of the conservative movement lambasted me or, to paraphrase Emerson, whipped me with their displeasure, when I have the idea to look up some of those arguments on the old, sadly defunct SA and remind myself of my stunning prescience and ponder the question of whether I would have gotten invited to write for the conservative flagship magazine if I had been complicit in the current sorry state of affairs rather than been (and could, you know, write).

    Instead, I find a reopened shop with the old proprietor sitting behind the counter. It’s time to pull my “Feddie for SCOTUS” shirt out of mothballs and tip back a bit ‘o bourbon in honor of your safe return. Huzzah!

  5. Daniel S. Goldberg Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    I’m just as thrilled it drew Centinel out of the woodwork.

  6. Joel Leggett Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Feddie,

    Please explain what fair points you think Muskrat made in his post. I agree with him that Mr. Wright’s sermon’s were not intended for conservatives, white people, or anyone else that does not buy into black separatist social theology. So what? That does not make it excusable. That does not make it OK for him to beseech God to damn an entire nation from a pulpit or spew racial hatred. Such speech in America before Americans, regardless of color, is inexcusable regardless of your intended audience.

    Muskrat says that some of Mr. Wright’s comments were not that different than what Falwell or Robertson have said. Even assuming that is true what is Muskrat’s point? That two wrongs make a right? That if one preacher engages in vile hate speech then it is OK for someone else to do the same thing?

    Muskrat states that this blog (SA) has been full of references to the “Culture of Death” as if that is remotely similar to a purported man of God asking the Lord to visit damnation on his nation or stirring up racial hatred. I never cease to be amazed at how many people, especially on the left, fail to understand that you can criticize your mother without kicking her in the teeth. You can point out failings in our country’s popular culture with out asking God to send the nation to hell.

    The ability to understand the aforementioned difference is a matter of judgment. That is why the issue of Obama’s close association with Mr. Wright is so relevant to, and such a problem for, the Obama Campaign. There is no way to spend 20 years in a church pastored by a man like Mr. Wright, to have him preside over your marriage, baptize your children, give him large sums of money, and not know that he is preaching hate and racial intolerance. Even if Mr. Wright has legitimate grievances his manner of addressing them before a congregation in a house of God is beyond the pale. Anyone who would continue to voluntarily associate with such a hate monger, even if they don’t personally internalize or accept such hateful ideas, is still showing abysmal judgment. However, good judgment is precisely what the Obama campaign says it has in spades over the other candidates. His good judgment is supposedly what makes up for his lack of experience.

    I would like someone to explain how Sen. Obama’s membership in this church demonstrates good judgment.

  7. Feddie Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Joel=-

    I think you’ve identified them. On the substance, you and I are in complete agreement.

  8. Muskrat Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    The Waahington Post is reporting that Obama is going to give a speech on this issue tomorrow…should be interesting. I’ll save any further arguments until then.

  9. Poker Player Says:
    March 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    The issue to me is not what Wright has said, but the fact Obama evidently doesn’t understand that the comments weren’t acceptable. That labels him as just dumb. And that is an excellent reason to keep him on the South Side of Chicago instead of the South Lawn of the White House.

    BTW - Found you through UrgentAgenda. Anytime you want to pick some, drop by
    Tall Cotton.

  10. Grover Gardner Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am

    “The issue to me is not what Wright has said, but the fact Obama evidently doesn’t understand that the comments weren’t acceptable.”

    I think he understands that very well.

    What Obama cannot do, and will probably *never* do, is deny that Wright expresses the feelings of many people in the black community. He cannot deny it any more than McCain would deny that Hagee, Robertson and other white evangelists represent the views of many white Americans. “Liberals” or Democrats or whoever want him to deny it–they want to deny it themselves, but that doesn’t change the facts.

    None of which is to say that Wright is correct in his views, any more than I think that Falwell was correct to blame 9/11 on homosexuals. But you cannot deny that many white Americans are angry about what they see as the moral degradation of their country and its institutions. By the same token, polls indicate that black voters overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq and think that our judicial and economic institutions are heavily weighted against them. It’s all very well to say that they’re wrong or misguided, but that doesn’t go very far toward addressing the underlying fears or concerns. And dismissing them solely on the basis of Wright’s extreme rhetoric only serves to exacerbate the divide.

    It’s interesting to me that people critical of Wright’s statements are saying, “It’s time to have a national conversation about racism.” Which is to say, it’s time to call out these angry black people on what is perceived as their own racism and hatred. Well, I’ve got news for them: We’re having that conversation now, and it’s not going very well. It’s going to continue to go badly as long we dismiss Wright as a contemptible racist and hate-monger.

  11. Joel Leggett Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am

    Grover,

    What is required for a productive discussion on race in this country is exactly to dismiss Wright as the contemptible racist and hate-monger that he is. As long as significant portions of the academy and the media look the other way when black pastors spew this garbage or write it off as simply a “black thing” then the very same black population you mention above will continue to see such ranting as morally acceptable. It isn’t, no matter what your color. Just as we would condemn a white preacher for promoting racially charged conspiracy theories and preaching intolerance so we must also condemn black preachers who do the same thing. Either we reject racism or we don’t. We can’t have a meaningful or productive discussion as long as we condemn racist speech from one group but excuse it for another.

    If a lot of blacks believe the government created HIV simply to kill black babies then we must confront that pernicious lie forcefully. We simply can’t turn our collective heads away and shrug it off as a “black thing.”

  12. Grover Gardner Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am

    To clarify what I said in concluding above, I think what many people demand is that Wright and his ilk be written out of the equation altogether, in the same way that liberals want the Hagees and the Falwells to be written out of the equation. But that isn’t going to happen.

  13. Joel Leggett Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Wright and his ilk need to be written out of the equation.

  14. Grover Gardner Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am

    “What is required for a productive discussion on race in this country is exactly to dismiss Wright as the contemptible racist and hate-monger that he is.”

    And what is singularly unproductive, IMO, is to equate Jeremiah Wright with David Duke based on a handful of provocative statements. If you can show me that Jeremiah Wright wants what the average white supremacist wants, I might agree with you. But I don’t think you can.

    “If a lot of blacks believe the government created HIV simply to kill black babies then we must confront that pernicious lie forcefully.”

    Yes, this is wrong and deserves condemnation, just as I believe that the notion espoused by many preachers, both black and white, that homosexuals are “responsible” for AIDS, should equally be condemned–not only because it’s wrong but because it’s downright self-destructive. Yet such people are still courted by politicians because of the constituencies they represent.

    As I said in my addendum, you want Wright to be written out of the picture altogether. Liberals want Hagee and his ilk written out of the equation. It isn’t going to happen either way. Obama isn’t going to totally and summarily reject the fears and concerns of many in the black community any more than McCain is going to dismiss those of the hard-core evangelicals he hopes to win over. There are plenty of harmful, unpleasant fears and notions on both sides. Summarily labelling them as “racist” or “hateful” is unrpoductive, to say the least.

    Jerry Falwell said some of the stupidest, most hateful things I’ve ever heard. But writing off his influence among white evangelicals was a mistake no white politician has ever dared to make. Wright’s sway over black voters pales by comparison, yet there’s panic at the very notion that he should be allowed to speak to or for the black community.

  15. Grover Gardner Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    “Wright and his ilk need to be written out of the equation.”

    I’ll assume then that you feel the same way about Hagee and his ilk.

  16. Joel Leggett Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Grover,

    To begin with, I don’t know much about Hagee. I understand that he has made some anti-Catholic statements, the substance of which I am unfamiliar with. If those statements simply highlighted theological differences between his denomination and Catholicism then I am not offended. If he said all Catholics are going to hell then he should be condemned for that statement in the strongest possible terms. As a lifelong Southern Baptist I, and everyone I know, have always condemned hateful speech directed at Catholics, or anyone for that matter.

    In every Church I have belonged to my pastors have exhorted me to love homosexuals but hate their sin. I have been instructed to separate the person from their behavior. I think the vast majority of Evangelical churches approach these issues the same way.

    In this issue Hagee and Wright are as different as apples and oranges. McCain does not belong to Hagee’s church, has not given the man thousands of dollars, was not married by him, nor did Hagee baptize his children. The relevance of whatever Hagee said to McCain pales in comparison to the close relationship Obama had to Wright, a man that was specifically designated as his spiritual advisor and a member of his campaign.

    Lets not support a double standard whereby black churches get a pass for promoting racially charged hate speech but everyone else gets crucified if they engage in such speech.

    If racism is wrong for you and me it is wrong for Mr. Wright as well.

  17. Grover Gardner Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    “To begin with, I don’t know much about Hagee.”

    You seem to know an awful lot about Wright!

    “In this issue Hagee and Wright are as different as apples and oranges.”

    Indeed. Which is worse–to separate oneself from a long-term relationship when it becomes clear that it’s harmful? Or to heartily accept the endorsement of a man you hardly know whose views you then have to disassociate yourself from? How hard is it to turn on someone you barely know? And how far has McCain really gone is rejecting, fully and completely, Hagee’s endorsement? Who is more cynical here?

    “Lets not support a double standard whereby black churches get a pass for promoting racially charged hate speech but everyone else gets crucified if they engage in such speech.”

    Let’s not. But let’s also not extend that double standard to other issues. Is promoting suspicion or fear, or even contempt, of Catholics worse that promoting suspicion or fear or contempt of the “white power structure” or the government? I don’t think so. Yet you’re willing to frame Hagee’s views in some sort of context that might make them less egregious to you. Are you cutting him slack that you’re not granting to Wright?

  18. Joel Leggett Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Grover,

    I will say it again, I don’t know what Hagee said. I know what Wright said because there are video clips of his sermons being played almost around the clock on cable news channels. I will also restate that, depending on what Hagee said, i.e. Catholics are going to hell, god hates them or whatever, that I would condemn him in the same terms I condem Mr. Wright. Consequently, I think I am holding both to the same standard.

    Nevertheless, I do think that Sen. Obama has more to answer for than Sen. McCain in this issue even if Mr. Hagee’s statements were as bad as Mr. Wright’s. Sen. McCain is not a member of his church and could simply not have known about Mr. Hagee’s statements, whatever they were. Sen. McCain has already specifically disavowed any anti-Catholic statements that Mr. Hagee may have made. Sen. Obama was a member, still is, of Mr. Wright’s church for 20 years and admits, at least in his latest speech to have been aware of some of these “controversial” statements. This reflects poorly on Sen. Obama’s judgment because anyone who witnessed such hateful behavior should have left and joined another church. You don’t just sit there in the pews and give this man money if, on some level, you haven’t made peace with such hatred.

    There is no excuse for continuing to expose oneself and his family, and finacialy support, the hate speech of Mr. Wright. PERIOD!

  19. Anonymous Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Muskrat’s dissent might be more convincing is whites weren’t constantly being told to think first and foremost of how their own words might sound to blacks. This rule has reached absolutely hysterical and nigh-totalitarian heights, in the form of PC and “hostile work environment” suits and policies. Suddenly, though, when the person uttering, not just conceivably hateful, but obviously hateful rhetoric is a black pastor, whites must once again–you got it–assume that the words mean whatever blacks say they mean at any given moment.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress