BOTWT 3-18

Obama and His 'White Grandmother'

By JAMES TARANTO
March 18, 2008

Barack Obama took the stage this morning to give what was billed as a "major speech on race." It was, of course, an attempt to rescue his campaign from the revelation that his so-called spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, espouses a virulently anti-American and antiwhite worldview called "black liberation theology."

Here is the part of the speech that bothered us most:

I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother--a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Our first thought was that it was pretty low of Obama to exploit his (still living) grandmother in this way. Is it really necessary for the whole world to know about her private expressions of prejudice? Doesn't simple decency dictate that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion?

Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his "white grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter. Said Obama:

For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.

Note how Obama elides the difference between a comment at the "kitchen table" and a sermon delivered to a congregation of thousands and recorded on DVD.

Obama rightly faulted his spiritual mentor for using "incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But he tried to treat Wright's most outrageous comments as if they were aberrations rather than the most extreme expressions of an extreme ideology:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely--just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country--a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday, Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

So here we have, on the one hand, an old white woman who would be completely ordinary and anonymous but for her grandson's astonishing political success, and who harbors some regrettable prejudices; and, on the other, a leader in the black community who uses his pulpit to propagate an ideology of hate.

Obama said this morning, "I have asserted a firm conviction--a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people--that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."

But if he cannot speak out unequivocally against the public, organized bigotry of his spiritual mentor, how can he possibly live up to this promise?

Poor Little Rich Californians

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics has lent his prestige to anti-Iraq hysterics, joining forces with Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes to publish a recent tract called "The Three Trillion Dollar War." Our erstwhile colleague Tunku Varadarajan sums it up nicely: "The faux-precision of the book's title . . . is propagandistic. One might aver that the aim of the authors was not so much to write a book as to coin a catchphrase."

But this is hilarious. Bilmes and Stiglitz wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times and apparently were asked to come up with a local angle. So they claim that "the cost will fall especially hard on Californians":

Californians are going to face a disproportionate share of the bill for three reasons. First, California's population is among the youngest in the U.S., with 26% under 18 (compared with 24% nationwide). Because of irresponsible fiscal policy (cutting taxes for the rich while a war is in progress and borrowing the money to pay for the conflict), the burden of paying for this costly adventure has been shifted to these younger Americans.

Irresponsibly cutting taxes on the rich, check:

The second reason California will pay a disproportionate share for the war is because its residents are so rich. California already contributes a disproportionate share of federal taxes--more than 14% of the total last year from a state that makes up only 12% of the nation's population.

Poor Californians! They're rich and undertaxed, and they're rich and overtaxed. If they weren't rich, they wouldn't have anything going for them at all!

Man Without a Party

From New York's Daily News, something we're really not sure we needed to know:

The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state's new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.

In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.

But at least the News doesn't tell us everything. For instance, it leaves out Paterson's party affiliation, as does the New York Times story on the same subject. By contrast, check out this Times story on another politician's nonprivate sexual misconduct:

City Councilman Dennis P. Gallagher resigned from office and pleaded guilty on Monday to two misdemeanors, admitting that he sexually abused a woman in his district office in Middle Village, Queens, last summer while he was intoxicated.

Mr. Gallagher, 43, a Queens Republican, told the court in a non-emotional tone that he touched the 52-year-old victim against her will, a position in contrast to his earlier claims that they had consensual sex after meeting in a bar.

The Times mentions Gallagher's party affiliation in the second paragraph, which means he's almost certainly a Republican.

Reliable Sources

The New York Times's Adam Liptak, in a story about state supreme courts, quotes an unidentified justice from an unidentified state:

Justices in other states did not embrace the study.

"Not to be too petty about it," one wrote in a detailed critique when asked by a reporter, "but a report by the chief supervising attorney of the Supreme Court of California and the reporter of decisions of California that concludes--voilà!--that California is the most 'followed' jurisdiction in the nation is presumptively suspect." The justice was granted anonymity to allow him to be petty.

We'll admit, that was witty. Hats off to Liptak.

Zero-Tolerance Watch

Fifteen-year-old Amanda Rouse of Seaside, Calif., had a scary moment on the school bus the other day. After a turn, the bus driver fell out of her seat and hit her head. Quick-thinking Rouse "jumped up and applied the brakes, bringing the bus to a halt after striking two parked cars. No one was injured."

So how did the school respond? As the Associated Press reports:

Rouse said she was punished because she wasn't supposed to be on the bus.

Rouse said she fell ill on the way to school, but instead of calling in sick, she asked the bus driver for a lift back to the bus yard before the accident happened. She must attend Saturday school as punishment for failing to call in sick that day.

In our day, when we got sick, we didn't "call in"; we just stayed home and brought a note from Mom when we returned. Schools now have phones, and we suppose that's progress.

Homer Nods

Yesterday's item on Eliot Spitzer (since corrected) referred to a photo caption from Agence France-Presse, not the Associated Press as we had it.

Someone Set Up Us the Bomb

"Cheney Wants Arab Envoys Curb Iran's Role"--headline, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), March 18

News of the Tautological

"Pediatric Allergies Take Toll on Kids Too"--headline, Reuters, March 17

Breaking News From 1789-1919

"White Male Vote Especially Critical"--headline, Washington Post, March 17

News You Can Use

• "Bar Cams Reveal Where the Action Is"--headline, Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.), March 17
 
• "The Perfect Gown Is One That Fits Your Body: Tall, Short, Skinny, Etc."--headline, Salt Lake Tribune, March 17
 

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Beer Likely to Flow at Harley Festival"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 17
 
• "Woman Says Attorney Over-Billed; Attorney Says Claims Unfounded"--headline, Associated Press, March 16
 
• "Right Underrepresented in Press's Diversity"--headline, Washington Times, March 18
 
• "Chafee Raps Clinton as Bush Enabler"--headline, Associated Press, March 17
 
• "Belgium Forms Govt After 9-Month Crisis"--headline, Associated Press, March 18
 

Hell No, We Won't Go (Outside)!

In Grand Rapids, Mich., it's the 1960s all over again, reports the Grand Rapids Press:

Nearly 300 anti-war activists marched, drummed and chanted their way through the streets of downtown Saturday, calling for the end of the 5-year-old war in Iraq and dodging police cruisers trying to keep them on the sidewalk.

Three hundred, wow! That's a lot of protesters! Or is it? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Grand Rapids was 193,083 as of last year, so that only 0.155% of the population turned out. Where were the other 192,783? There is an explanation:

As 19-year-old Kirsten Zeiter watched the crowd gather, the Grand Valley State University student worried not enough people were coming out to protest.

"People are anticipating the end of George Bush's presidency," Zeiter said, theorizing they were staying home rather than protest.

As we noted yesterday, we also are staying home. We suppose we're out of step with public opinion, but we very much hope that George Bush is still president the next time we venture outdoors.