In Philadelphia, Obama's Historic Challenge
"The Speech of a Lifetime," Charles Kaiser is calling Barack Obama's address on race this morning over at RadarOnline, and I'm inclined to agree. But here's why:
As a demonstration of grace under immense pressure, his performance in Philadelphia will be a classic study for orators. As an act of moral witness and prophecy for a trans-racial America, the speech was straightforward yet profound in an inimitably American idiom that few partisans and pundits, soused in stale pieties and rancid evasions, comprehend.
He's gambling that most Americans will comprehend him anyway. Here's hoping. Let me explain what I think Obama accomplished with a story I'm sure he'd appreciate, an experience I had 15 years ago with Brooklyn's equivalent of Obama's pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.
In the fall of 1993, as Rudolph Giuliani was challenging New York City’s first African-American mayor, David Dinkins, Al Sharpton’s long-time pastor and mentor, the Rev. William Jones, was reported to have denounced the Giuliani campaign as “fascist.” What happened next anticipated much of what Obama is responding to now, and it shows how well he has responded.
There was no video of the Rev. Jones like the ones we have now of Obama’s long-time pastor and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Accounts of Jones’ remarks were unclear and contradictory. That didn’t stop political operatives and pundits from heaving themselves and the city into convulsions over Jones, of course.
Even though I was leaning toward Giuliani as a columnist at the Daily News at the time, I held my tongue about Jones and went to see him.
I knew that Jones, a former president of the National Black Pastors’ Conference and the pastor of Bedford-Stuyvesant’s gothic Bethany Baptist Church, was a magisterially angry leader of blacks in their ‘50s -- a cohort, sketched by Obama in his Philadelphia speech, that followed men like Obama’s Pastor Wright and sometimes the even angrier Louis Farrakhan or the City College of New York Prof. Leonard Jeffries. These were African-Americans of a certain age who’d come of age when northern cities’ racism was as rigid and enraging as their opportunities were bedazzling to recent arrivals from the South.
In Brooklyn, Jones had mentored not only Sharpton but the Rev. Johnny Ray Youngblood, a leader of the same exemplary community organizing Obama later undertook in Chicago. Jones, a former colonel in the Army Engineers and the first black graduate of the University of Kentucky, might have been a Colin Powell had he been born two decades later. Instead he’d come to Bedford-Stuyvesant with a doctorate from Crozer Theological Seminary, in 1962, a complicated, formidable man.
So I waited one Sunday in 1993 as Jones pronounced the baptismal formula in stentorian tones, lowering infants into the water with strong arms, as his father had done before him in the Kentucky bluegrass country’s oldest black congregation.
I listened as he told his congregants, brooding high in his pulpit, “Anybody who portrays me as a purveyor of slurs doesn’t know me and is perverting grossly what I said. I have been the victim of the worst ethnic slurs all my life, and I know better, by experience and professional training, than to portray anybody as less than human. I am a free man in a free pulpit, proclaiming freedom’s story. The easiest way to upset people in power is to tell the truth.”
As we sat together later, I asked Jones why he’d said that Giuliani’s backers include “elements that can best be described as fascist.” “As I move about the city,” he replied, “I sense a deliberate distortion of reality to demonize Dinkins. It’s a storm-trooper mentality. You needn’t be Mussolini to have it. You can be a [radio talk-show host] Bob Grant. There are black fascists -- Roy Innis,” a well-known New York conservative demagogue at the time.
Jones had written what Wright and many other blacks of their generation believe: that a true black Christian is a race man. “Though not a racist, the race man is the embodiment of racial pride and has absolute distaste for the system. He begs no favors from the establishment but demands justice for his people.”
Like Wright, Jones had joined at times with Jesse Jackson to pressure white businesses in black communities to hire blacks. But he wrote also of “an interim ethic of black asceticism,” in which blacks withdraw from white society psychologically and culturally to plumb their own history, arts, and religion, “a step in the movement from [being] property to pride to power.”
It’s easy to imagine how thinking like this can take wrong turns, and Obama cautioned in his speech that “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism [but] that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made.”
It’s a bit harder to understand why the purse-lipped, finger-wagging scolds we’ll be hearing from can’t acknowledge that men of offended dignity such as a Jones’ or a Wright might talk sometimes as if the racist world they knew in their formative years hadn’t changed -- and that younger blacks like Obama might listen to them but move on.
It’s especially hard to understand why certain Jews -- of all people – can’t acknowledge this and, in fact, actually emulate the worst of it by peddling or succumbing to fears of an anti-Semitic Obama that are far more fanciful than a black preacher’s fears of, say, a racist Republican leader or two.
The answer is that some Jews, rather like Jones and Wright, can’t get past memories of having been classic urban intermediaries between urban elites and the black poor. In New York and Chicago in the 1950s and early ‘60s, Jews often decided whether blacks could get credit at the store, a job, an apartment, a passing grade, an acquittal. But those Jews, too, were struggling and vulnerable; they were white folks whose skin blacks could get under, the first to take alarm at black rage.
No wonder that every so often, some Jews, no less than Wright, Farrakhan, Jeffries, or Jones, ushers listeners of a certain age into a psychic landscape flickering with old, familiar demons. No wonder that neither side admits that Louis Farrakhan has been in eclipse since 9/11 made “The Nation of Islam” a difficult place to be, and, indeed, since 1995, when hundreds of thousands of black men turned his Million Man March into a poignant manifestation of hope unlike anything he’d intended or understood.
For those who can’t notice or acknowledge how times are changing, Obama was never more effective in Philadelphia than when he put partisan strategists and pundits on the spot by listing the ways they flash race cards on the pretense of responding to someone else’s having done it.
It’s one thing for a white writer on urban racial politics like me to criticize black demagoguery and to draw some distinctions in connection with a Jones, Leonard Jeffries, or Louis Farrakhan. It’s something else for a black man do that, as Obama did in Philadelphia on Monday. That he did it was historic, his observations towering above the nit-picking and rumor-mongering which the speech will prompt as surely as every true call for hope has always done.
Anticipating all this, Obama confronted his listeners with a choice:
“We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
“We can do that.”
“Or….. we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’ This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children…. about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care… about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life…. and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.”
These words were addressed in no small way to a lot of journalists I know. Let’s watch what they do. And let’s also start talking about them if they find choices like the one Obama offered so scary that they leap to scare the rest of us with a Bill Jones or a Jeremiah Wright instead.













Thank YOU Jim, this column was very well written. Those comments you highlighted are some of my favorite too.
March 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant piece. Your analogy with the Jews is apt.
The difference is that the older blacks who are still angry actually experienced Jim Crow. With the exception of, say, Abe Foxman, most of the Jewish types who live in their self-imposed ghetto have never experienced anti-semitism in their lives. They are angry about historical events about which they read, rather than experienced.
Think of the crazy neocons with their Ivy League educations and their wealth. Where does their paranoia come from? At least, the blacks of Wright's generation came by it honestly. This is a point Obama makes when he distinguishes blacks his age with those of people 20 years older.
In our community, Jim, not only did our American-born elders not suffer from anti-semitism, they prospered and lived and live well....but they are determined to act like victims and to be angry at their kids when the kids say "what the hell are you talking about."
March 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great piece. The question is, will America listen? There may not be too many more opportunities if we do not.
March 18, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's speech was indeed a milestone that will last beyond the current campaign. Win or lose, Obama will be credited with openly and courageously confronting a fundamental issue in American society and politics which has hurt the entire country since its founding.
I once commented to an acquaintance, someone from Atlanta, Georgia, and a Bush supporter, that it seemed to me that the economic miracle in the old south, the tremendous rise of the economic base in the South, coincided with the elimination of segregation in the South. In other words, the elimination of state based racism, if not entirely complete, at least led to visible economic benefits for everyone, white as well as black.
His response was interesting: He simply blinked!
If Obama were indeed to become our country's next president, eliminating racial barriers to the highest post in the land, what would that mean for the economy of the country? our educational system? our health care? our politics?
March 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may have been an important speech for Obama strategically, but realistically that's probably where it's importance will end. I find it very curious indeed how eager people are to put Obama either in a league equal to the best liberal icons of the past 50 years or in his own league somehow. The man is smart and he gives a good speech I'll grant ya that. No question about it.
It's tremendously sad, IMHO, that our landscape is so bereft of good or memorable speakers that the first time a decent orator comes on the scene, so many commentators and admirers instantly liken him to MLK or RFK and so on when that is just not the case. I don't say that as a criticism of Obama at all. Give him his due. But I do have a problem with those who attempt to attribute his words and delivery to something more than it is. It is also quite unfair to Obama. Can't he just be what he actually is? Is that not enough?
I think one contributing factor in this tendency to make Obama RFK or MLK, etc... is simply that so few of our liberal politicians even attempt to discuss the nation's problems in terms of our hopes and ideals. Nobody expects Republicans to do that, but people have been thristing for at least 30 years now for Democrats to give voice to our hopes and dreams but by and large they have taken a pass on it.
His message echoes parts of what some of our greatest leaders have said in the past because it is connected by the continuum of history, but it is a different message than the one they had and one for a different time because we have made some progress though we still have much more to make.
For better or worse, I think Obama's message, will stand on it's own over time if he wins the election. If he doesn't win the election, it's very doubtful that his words will have much impact past November because that is simply the way things work. What's genuinely important, in my view, is not the premature elevation of Obama into some sort of American political Vallhalla, but that the valuable part of his message is actually heard and that it makes a difference in the here and now.
Obama has had the good judgement to use his easy, forthright style to point out and identify some real problems that usually don't get dealt with honestly in our country by our politicians and certainly not by our corporate media.
Much of Obama's success has come from who he is in the larger sense. And because of who he is, he is in a unique position to honestly discuss race and what the dynamic of race has been in our society over time and in the campaign thus far. I'm glad he has used his unique position so well on this question. None of this eases my discomfort with his centrist positions and his coziness with corporate interests and so on, but what he said today is of real value and importance especially for white Americans who rarely go to the trouble to really think about race in the way Obama asked his listeners to do.
Because he has the attention of the nation and does not have lots of negative baggage (at least not yet)he is in a unique position of being able to discuss this and have a very wide audience of whites actually focus on what he's saying, listen and consider this information in a way far different than had the same words come from almost anyone else. Black Americans generally speaking don't need to be brought up to speed about the reality, details and history of racism in America. So bravo for Obama for doing what he did!
On one point that some have seized upon I want to raise a note of caution. It is quite true that older black people had a different experience of a harsher sort of racism than do younger black people in America. It is true that the anger of someone like Rev. Wright exists in a different way and expresses itself differently than with young black Americans. It is also very true that Rev. Wright's generation has every right to be as angry, if not angrier, than they have been about the raw deal they've had all their lives in this country and about the denial of their basic human rights.
I would caution white people about assuming that somehow the issue of anger and resentment on the part of black Americans younger than Rev. Wright is not also an issue or somehow that issue has magically disappeared or that this means that somehow we are now past "all that." We ain't.
Racism is real. It is an ongoing, very present fact in the lives of every African American on a daily basis. What kind of person who experiences the treatment our black citizens put up with daily would not be angry and resentful under such circumstances? The character and degree and tactics of racism have changed, but racism has not in disappeared by any means or been reduced to the level that the issue is not ever present and pervasive for black Americans regardless of income or social status. Whites forget this easily and do so at their peril.
The anger has changed to be sure, but it has by no means abated or gone away. Whites who conclude from today's speech by Obama that black anger is no more are making a huge and insensitive error. IMO, the most important part of MLK's I Have a Dream speech was when he said this:
"No, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
We have yet to come to that point. Until we do, we will continue to have a deep, abiding anger seething from within all the victims of our nation's racist ways. Their anger is and will be justified until justice and righteousness comes as King said. It's our job to get there, to hasten that day's coming so that not a single additional generation is victimized by it. Once we have gotten there, every soul in America will benefit regardless of race just as every citizen has benefited each and every time the pwoer of racism has been diminished in our lifetimes. Insofar as Obama's speech today helped move us toward that place, it was a welcome and significant thing.
March 18, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no little irony in the fact that none other than then president Bill Clinton once asked his countrymen to cultivate a dialogue on race in America (I'm one of those who believes the Clinton camp has "played the racial card" in calculated fashion). Be that as it may, Obama rose and met that challenge today, and did so in a brilliant display of common sense candor.
It was the first time I've been truly impressed with the man. Or for that matter, with any presidential candidate since I came of age to vote. Up till now, I'd never drawn a bead on just who he was. While prepared to support him come November, my vote would have been simply another in a long line of having crossed my fingers and rolled the dice, in hopes for the best. That's no longer the case. Hereafter, I'll support him possessed with that intangible spirit of doing so with some pride.
March 18, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J.-- Oh, don't I know it! I think that there's also a little bit of "Hansen's Law" at work in the Jewish community, though: "What the father wishes to forget, the son wishes to remember," by which I mean that while my parents' generation of American born-and-raised children of immigrants never spoke of the Holocaust, their children went through a period of needing to know all about it, and, of course, it became an industry, a hedge against fears of total assimilation -- not a problem African-Americans have yet encountered.
Of course, what happened to Jews didn't happen here, while what happened to blacks certainly did, and that truth reinforces your point: There's a real perversity in some Jews' remaining so frightened (and/or frightening) and small-minded in America. Indeed, neo-cons and others who feel and act that way are betraying the American republic and everything Obama evoked so bravely today, and I think it's time that more people told them so.
So, right on. Jim
March 18, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent.
I'd also add that I do not, and will not, support media conglomerates, or their sponsors, who profit by encouraging and pandering to the worst in people.
March 19, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Jew who has experienced anti-Semitism and I once had a job taken away so it could be filled by a very decent black man who was so overwhelmed by the job and what it did to his life that he sadly killed himself. None of that matters and I don't understand why you pundits think it's so important. I'll very happily vote for Obama if he's the nominee and I'll equally happily vote for Clinton.
My father (long passed on) taught me that people come in only two varieties: red blooded and good and red blooded and bad. In my view everyone starts off good. A very few earn my feelings that they're bad. Obama and Clinton are good.
Just as an aside, I consider Farrakhan good. I don't like him and I despise some of what he says, but he's still good. Jefferies is another story. I think he's earned a position of bad in my view.
steven@bobker.com
March 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this insightful post.
You brought me back to Brooklyn, community organizing there, and Rev. Jones.
More importantly for me, you invoked the image of my grandfather, who loudly and firmly declared himself to be "a race man"; and he was. My grandmother, a white woman from Kansas, was proud to back him in those assertions.
He was also a staunch Republican, "Party of Lincoln!" he would proclaim. My grandfather was born in 1875, in TN, a son of newly emancipated parents.
For those unfamiliar with the term, one of my favorite authors Langston Hughes’s most popular fictional characters "Jess B Semple", was a proud "race man". Strongly recommend that folks read those tales.
March 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink