Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Revelations on the Sacrifice of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
Over the past few days, unlike a number of you, I was mightily impressed with the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. late of Trinity United Church of Christ. And coming from me, that is a pretty big compliment. After all, you're reading words keyed by the most marginal black Catholic around.
Full confession -- heck, I haven't been to confession since I was a teenager, haven't taken communion since then as well. Being taught in the tradition that you have actually to go into the confessional and say it out loud, not this new-fangled stuff I've heard where you just silently pray for forgiveness while making your way up to the altar and then stick out your hands to receive your piece of the Lord and Savior. And I rarely get all "I'm Catholic!" unless we're electing a new Pope (and like everyone else I'm suddenly an expert Catholic theologian and historian.) What has kept me even marginally in the fold, is I like the history and pomp and circumstance of the Church. I liked it better in Latin. Like most Catholics, I'm not literate in Latin. I know "In nomine de Patri, et Fili et Spiritus Sancti ." Once upon a time I could recite the Lord's Prayer and Hail Mary in Latin. (But at the time, I was a child performing what amounted to rote memorization tricks.)
As I grew up, I also grew away from the Church. Somehow being told I was supposed to be angry and disapproving of women who used birth control, or wanted out of abusive marriages by way of divorce just didn't sit well with me. I grew wary, and weary, of solutions to problems whose answers always seemed to be more passive than I was willing to be. And I believed then and still do in evolution. The seven-day theory just never added up for me, not in comparison to what I could see with my own eyes.
During the war -- you know the "big" one (at least for my generation) Vietnam, seeing persons of faith make big -- and sometimes very scary sacrifices -- like self-immolation -- helped me frame my growing dissolution with a war we should not have been fighting. (But mind you, I am one of those "military brats" people joke about.) Watching the Berrigan brothers and other priests and priestly types gave me reason to not abandon the Church entirely.
Later, there were the nuns and padres who were killed in Central and South America. By then I had moved further from the Church but still felt a kinship with some of the more radical of the clergy. (I never felt the same thing for Mother Teresa. It wasn't where she ministered, but something about the "why" that didn't jibe with me.)
Along the rocky, switchbacks we take to adulthood, I knew of people who became "born-again" and embraced religions and sects I disapproved of. I had friends who suddenly started muttering "PTL" any time any thing happened. The diner had one last cheese danish ("PTL") or a streetlight changed just in time so they wouldn't have to idle for three minutes longer in traffic ("PTL") or Reagan got re-elected ("Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!").
These once-tolerant friends became inflexible and intolerant of the mistakes of others. They became unrecognizable. They didn't go out dancing with the rest of the gang. Their FM radios got tuned down to the low end of the dial where non-stop sermons played, and driving out the demons -- which suddenly appeared everywhere (look! there goes one now!) -- was a 24-hour, seven day a week job.
It was easier to stay a marginal Catholic than to deal with the impending doom and gloom and Second Coming and plagues and locusts. What did not change through the years was an interest in the historical aspect of religion. How were various beliefs and various belief systems intertwined and why did this or that group develop, revise and then abandon their faiths. The rich stories and songs and tales that found their counterparts in branches of that religious tree -- though taken now as fiction and not fact -- sometimes play out on our secular stage.
All of that exposition is for your contextual map of what I am about to say. (Context, we are told has no place in this election year.) Praise for religion or the religious is not something that comes easy for me.
Today, we watched a man of faith step away from a man who brought him to faith. But what most of us missed (and I admit I didn't get it until early this morning as the sun was rising -- well before the rest of the drama played out) was what we witnessed yesterday.
Jeremiah Wright did not "throw Barack Obama under the bus" nor did Obama push Wright down a flight of stairs. "Father" Wright sacrficed himself to let his "son" Obama go free.
The media, hyperbolic bloggers, the "vast right wing conspiracy", Republicans, Hillary Clinton and some Democrats believed that the "father" and the "son" were one and the same. What Wright said, so said Obama. What Wright wrote, so wrote Obama. What Wright thought, so thought Obama.
Obama did not want to cast out his "father." But after not the Moyers interview (where the calm and reasonable Wright appeared -- and we all were impressed), not the NAACP dinner (where the entertainer and educator appeared -- and we all were impressed) and not even after the speech portion of the National Press Club breakfast (where Daniel appeared in the lion's den) was Obama ready to cast him out, but only after his self-sacrifice (where the defiant Wright appeared ready to be burned at the stake, taunting his audience and encouraging us to "hate" him, hate Wright) was Obama able to cast him off.
As I said, it took me awhile to see what Wright was doing, putting daylight between him and his "son." Re-defining "son" in an image so different than "father" that the lazy media would have no excuse any more to confuse or conflate Wright and Obama into the singular Jekyll/Hyde (as Chris Matthews did, only to be confounded when reminded by Howard Fineman of Newsweek, that the analogy didn't work because they (Wright and Obama) are two separate people.)
Thus we come to this afternoon. Obama, visibly both pained and angry, resigned to do what is most difficult (for the second time in his young life) -- cast off a father (or father figure) to be able to achieve his own goals.
The unsung hero -- yes, hero, not villain -- in this drama is Jeremiah Wright. His motives are misunderstood by most. His mind is far too complex and brilliant to be pigeon-holed into someone who was only thinking of himself, or book deals to come. As long as he was a millstone around the neck of Barack Obama, Barack could not be free. Jeremiah made it possible for Barack to cleanly cut the ties.
(Apologies if this double-posts.)
Comments (41)
Jade what a remarkable post. I too have followed the long and winding road of Catholicism. For just a moment I thought the same thing about Rev Wright. His speech was so bizarrely changed at the Press Club as opposed to the man you heard on Bill Moyers Journal. Almost as if he was scripting "You will never attain the goal you were destined to achieve with my ghost continuously by your side". Too beautiful and subtle a point for the media to ever focus on. That sacrifice will truly be realized if Rev. Wright now remains silent.
April 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, even if he doesn't "fade back into black", Wright has so detached himself from Obama that it shouldn't be a distraction anymore.
April 29, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE SOCIETY CHIMES IN
It is not cyanide laced kiddie drinks being served but revolvers with one bullet.
(insert bewildered Obama donaters here)
HOPEism: The sinking ship is not half full it is half empty.
April 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on.
April 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brain on.
April 30, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeremiah Wright did not "throw Barack Obama under the bus" nor did Obama push Wright down a flight of stairs. "Father" Wright sacrficed himself to let his "son" Obama go free.
It was the prefect opportunity for both men to go their separate ways. On to the issues.
April 29, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I posted a similar thought on a different posts.
I dont know about Wright sacrificing himself, but it definitely allows Obama to go a seperate path away from him.
April 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post makes me so very sad. Not sad at what you see as a sacrifice on the part of Rev. Wright, but sad that you need so much to believe that.
No matter how much good Rev. Wright has done for his community, he is just a man who is quite capable of letting such things as ego, undue pride and error in thought control him for a moment, a week or a lifetime. The same is true of Barack Obama. He is capable, as we all are, of being wrong, being ruthless and acting for political gain. If we don't accept the fallibility of those we admire, we will be constantly disappointed.
April 29, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't cry for me, Argentina..."
Hey, I am not sad. I think I get it. You think it's ego. I don't think so. I don't Obama is ruthless (Clinton is), infallible (supposedly that is only available to the Pope) or motivated solely by political gain (Clinton, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld... and so on...)
I think I see a larger narrative for the story everyone wants to turn into Cliff's Notes.
Accept or reject my theory as is, but "sad" is not a part of the theory.
April 29, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want me to speak to theories, I do have one. I thinks it's quite probable that when Obama was introduced to Rev. Wright's church he found a feeling of community with the congregation and developed a deep relationship with Rev. Wright, who became that "uncle" or perhaps more of a father figure to him.
I think, based on his writings and speeches, that Obama didn't share many of the opinions held by Wright but was able to overlook them because of what the community and the reverend gave him. It's also possible that he found the church gave him a strong political base in Chicago. But, when it became apparent that Wright and his relationship with him would be a political liability, Obama tried to distance himself without severing the ties that had become so important to him. It became extremely difficult with the videos that surfaced and his subsequent statements about Wright probably hurt and offended the good reverend who then took every opportunity to put himself out front with little thought as to how much damage it would do to Obama's political hopes.
I'm sure it was very painful to Obama to say what he did today because he knew it would quite likely sever the last threads holding together his relationship with Rev. Wright. Still, I believe Rev. Wright's actions were due to anger and hurt and Obama's were due to political expediency.
April 29, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of us do believe in fallibility and forgiveness. The sad thing is that these two men were not allowed to handle the uproar over these sermons rationally, make explanations and continue their friendship without having the issue become a witch hunt and their relationship dragged through the mud.
The mantra in politics has become that no one speaks the truth and everyone has something to hide.
April 29, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no need to do this if what you say is at all true. Obama was much better served with Wright staying on the sidelines and out of the spotlight, especially in the run up to NC and Indiana. He's out to bask in his 15 minutes because he feels Obama didn't defend him enough. I think this will become readily apparent in his next media circus where he further attacks Obama.
April 29, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has had the effect of liberating Obama from Wright. And your speculation that it might have been deliberate crossed my mind.
If that were the case it would have been a noble sacrifice- and I'd like to believe that's what happened.But my gut feeling is that that's too complicated an explanation. "Occam's razor" which gets referred to occasionally around here says
start with the simple explanation. And that is that Rev Wright meant what he said and Obama means what he says.
I wish Rev Wright well. I'm sorry to see him end 50 years of hard constructive work- for that I rely on Martin Marty, how would I know?-this way.
But it's happened and now Obama -and we- have to move on. I hope he can recover. If he does poorly next week-however that is defined- I can imagine it ending his change. Forget the mathematics
the super delegates, as they should , will do what makes sense to them and a loss in Indiana might make sense of their swinging to Hillary.
And if so, we should support her. At least , I will . Altho I'm still hoping he'll make it.
April 29, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will NEVER support her. She triangulated race and religion in a campaign worthy of Joe McCarthy- as if her positions on Iran and Iraq aren't bad enough.
I don't know if Obama will make a good President, but the thought of the Clintons in the White House again makes my skin crawl.
April 29, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will be fine. I hope you find your way back to faith.
April 29, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade what an excellent post. I think you might be onto something.
I hear what the media is saying. However I do not know what more Obama could have previously said to distance himself from Wright -- Rachael Maddow was talking about this earlier -- he denounced Wright's words, vehemently disagreed with him etc... But I suppose the only difference today is that Obama said it "changed their relationship." On that I guess the Wright issue has been put to sleep. Hopefully *S*
*** Old Sarg Obama did not abandon his faith he simply distanced himself from Wright.
April 29, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he was referencing me... but I've found a comfortable place to land... among the "conveniently faithful with a twist of agnosticism."
April 29, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It definitely crossed my mind that this is what Wright was doing. If he STFU and goes back home, the theory rejected. If he comes back with something else tomorrow, it can be.
April 29, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go needing to [sic] again.
April 30, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of agree with this theory, despite it flying in the face of Occam's Razor, because it is a bit too convenient. The night and day difference between the Moyers interview and his wacky-mojacky performance at the National Press Club, the convenient timing (just after a major primary, and well before a set of primaries where he is favored to win), and the fact that Wright clearly provided a disclaimer during that National Press Club talk. He said Obama was a politician and he was a pastor and that politicians need to do what politicians need to do and pastors need to answer to God. That was a clear line in the sand. That allowed Obama to break all ties with him.
Also, I think it sets Wright free. It lets him be himself and cash in on his new-found popularity without affecting Obama adversely.
April 29, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Jade. I've enjoyed watching Rev. Wright's sermons, and think that his interview with Bill Moyers, and his NAACP speech went over well. I don't have any problem understanding what he's saying, or where he's coming from, but I do think he did Obama a dis-service yesterday with all of his antics. Maybe he did it as a favor, and I do think he was mocking the media yesterday. There is part of this that strikes me as a "tough love", life-lesson sort of display by Wright for Obama. Either way, Obama showed his excellent judgement again today by putting the interests of the nation ahead of his own personal loyalties.
April 29, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade,
I agree with you 100%. I've seen Wright preach a lot in the 90's - and while I've heard a lot of the themes he touched on over the weekend, I've never heard that tone. I've been thinking the same thing all day - but I felt it was better left unsaid.
Wright is incredibly intelligent, and he is a student of cause and effect. He has to know how the press would treat him, and he did it anyway. It was self-sacrifice, and I applaud and thank him for doing it for the country.
Thanks for writing this.
April 30, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I thought of this as well -- this morning, or last night, I can't even remember when the "news" was breaking all over the pus-infested swill chamber we call the Mainstream Media.
I haven't accepted it. I haven't dismissed it. It's worth considering. I don't know what data would push me into one camp or the other.
April 30, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ssshhh...you weren't supposed to tell anybody. Don't tip off the Republicans or Hillary that Obama is running a successful campaign.
April 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It crossed my mind also, but in the end I can't buy it (unless there was some subconscious motivation there for one or the other of them). It doesn't puzzle me that someone would be calm and reflective talking to Bill Moyers but quite different in front of an audience. (Anyone who knows a "limelight addict" has seen that transformation.)
But, basically, I'm not sure Wright would be THAT good an actor. His anger isn't feigned, and even in the earlier sermons there was a certain "glee" in the angry expressions. ------- His over-the-top with no excuse statements/actions began in the Dec '07 sermon that was part of the video clips loop - the part where he is so ugly about HRC and WJC, something very antithetical to Obama's entire approach. That suggests some very strong anger AT Obama bubbling there for some time, probably since he was "un-invited" from the Springfield ceremony. He could have been outrageous enough to warrant the 'divorce,' if that was the purpose, without being do deliberately destructive to Obama (he's only saying what he had to say because of politics).
I don't know --- I get the picture of a very intelligent and in many ways wise man who is probably undergoing some changes just because of age and retirement who is *furious* that his chance to bask in the glow (and publicity) of possibly being "the President's minister" taken away from him. He managed to hold in that anger, for the most part, after the dis-invitation, but the Phildelphia speech was too much an affront.
But either 'story' could well be true -- or both. Even if Jade's version is accurate, I think it would be pretty much all Wright's doing. He *might* be a good enough actor to carry it off, but I don't think Obama is, however, and he was quite clearly angry and hurt.
Very interesting post.
April 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2, I think you overlook the fact that with nearly 40 years of "acting" under his belt, Rev. Wright is far more capable than his critics want to give credit. Part of developing the "rep" as being an outstanding preacher in any black church -- is the ability to "work the crowd."
And I think you also need to give credit to the intelligence of a man with Wright's background, multiple advanced degrees, facility in multiple languages, a musician as well. There are subtleties to Wright's ministry that have to be discovered fully by the larger audience that is white America.
I don't think his anger is feigned, but I do think he showed remarkable restraint with Moyers and at the NAACP. But at the National Press Club, what so many people have likened to the "lion's den," the sheer stupidity of the questions may have given him even more latitude to just let loose.
I don't think there is "anger" at Obama. Wright clearly is in Obama's camp. HRC has not ever been called the n-word, and WJC sure ain't black. and if you followed any of the background (read that: "serious") reporting on the relationship of Obama and Wright, you'll know that the two had a long discussion well before Obama announced where Wright said he knew at some point, Obama would have to make changes -- because Wright might too easily be lumped in Sharpton and Jackson. (And you all know how you react to them.)
April 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright called Obama a liar and a black radical, albeit euphemistically, thus grossly undermining his campaign. Wright said that Obama had repudiated Wright's most inflammatory remarks only because he was a politician. Obama is already under seige for being a black radical and for hiding it--lying about it.
Not to worry. Obama will rise above the fray and lead us out of the guilt by association tactics of his opponents and Wright's speculative rants about what Obama really believes.
April 30, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
...seems as if the same people who were vociferously encouraging Obama to repudiate his former pastor's willful ways are now just as vociferously accusing him of throwing said preacher under the bus..
Hypocrites!
April 30, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this theory is that the timing is way off - i.e. right before primaries that could end the race if he wins them.
Better timing would be at the beginning of the General, as a preemptive strike against GOP swiftboating.
Even better timing would be after Obama's inauguration.
I think a more likely theory is that Wright unconsciously wants Obama to fail. Otherwise Wright's whole Blacks-as-victim premise doesn't work so well any more.
April 30, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Obama as Failure" Team all have sided with Clinton... including folks who -- from a black person's perspective -- should have known better.
April 30, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Narcissist of the first order. Come on Obama people. Don't be so starry eyed. Stop watching PBS and get over your black guilt. What next? If Clinton get's the nomination a vote for Nader.
Ugh...................
April 30, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Narcissist in Chief" is named William Jefferson Clinton.
April 30, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maria, My wife is a long time devotee of Frida Kahlo and has become an expert on her work and life, so I'm curious about your choice of one of Frida's self-portraits.
As to your comment, I won't vote for Nadar, but I will feel like voting for Nadar. And if the DNC hijacks the election, I will vote for Nadar. That's because she destroyed our hopes for health care by tarring and feathering moderate democrats, even campagining against them, when they opposed her initial plan. I expect her to further destroy our hopes for health care, because she is, as she says, a "fighter," someone who polarizes people without regard to the needs of the populace. She's a vicious lady, as she has demonstrated repeatedly in this campaign. And, as Nadar says, we've got to send a message to the DNC that they are far too much like what we oppose and must wake up to that and let someone else lead. If we could get real change in four years by that method, the suffering would be worth it.
April 30, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preach,
(1)As a Latina I have had to capture my real self from the debris of what American culture and many men present as reality.
(2) As an artist (though not a painter) Frida represents a special place of pureness for me, a realm that only she inhabits.
(3) She took crap in her life, but not in her art. She is immortal, her "husband" is not.
(4) I am for Obama. But I want him to paint in more vivid colors. If Clinton steals this through racism, I can't vote for her. I won't vote for Nader either.
You are a very lucky man to be married to a women who has chosen such a remarkable work in life. Best wishes to you both.
April 30, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
neck lady
when is the last time you took a shower
April 30, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing. Sorry.
FOR ME Nader is just as much a narcissist as Wright. To say that Nader cares about stopping a war or getting health care for us is a joke. I can't vote for him. He wasted lives in electing Bush. I'd want his supporters to count them.
Clinton, who has put back feminism decades (can you see Hillary and Bill reading about Frida Kahlo together?) is so repulsive I can barely discuss it.
One can protest a Hillary primary win by NOT VOTING rather than encouraging Nader. Don't encourage him. History will not treat him kindly.
April 30, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't be sorry
show me your green card
April 30, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it significant that Rev. Wright made his most objectionable comments in response to questions to the audience? Since he was invited to speak at the Press Club by a Hillary advocate, and the questions could have been planted to provoke a damaging response, it seems to me that he was used for political purposes. I feel sorry for the man. He was receiving so much positive feedback, and the he got caught because he let his guard down. He thought he was among friends. I imagine his heart is a little broken, as I imagine is Obama's, to have such a loss of friendship. Because although his remarks are offensive, you can't negate the beauty of Rev. Wright's life of service to this country and his fellow man.
April 30, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Special thanks to CNN (especially the Wolfster & Campbell Brown....who's husband works for Fox), Fox News, especially Hannity the media king of race baiting, Joe (keep her in so we can win)Scarborough, Pat 'hate anyone of color'Buchanan, Laura Ingraham, Flush Limbaugh, and the whole GOP media gang (Medved, Prager, Hewitt, etc.) for running the Rev. Wright story totally in the ground. Now that the whole Wright issue has been settled, all superdelegates can now come to Obama's side without fear that the Wright ordeal will be an issue in the GE. When the GOP brings it up in the general....it will be old news. THANKS MEDIA ! (can you say.....back-fired!)
FIRED UP....READY TO GO !!!!!!!!!!
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth)
April 30, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand why this is not fundamentally understood--but Reverend Wright is a Hillary supporter. He is NOT supporting Obama. He went AFTER Obama. Hello!! I guess there was an unspoken assumption that Rev Wright would support him, as a member of his Church, even though he has a long standing political relationship with the Clintons. Come on folks, it's time to see the forest for the trees. Look at the timing of the first videos released to Fox--that camera was running inside HIS church--it wasn't shot by private detectives. Then, he is silent till after the PA primaries are over, and he emerges on a whirlwind press tour neatly arranged by one of Hillary's supporters. It's called 'strategy'. Right before NC and IN. Machiavellian. Obama was right to get angry. He got played.
April 30, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accepting everything you said after "see the forest for the trees" consider for a moment that Reverend Wright doesnt have a "alternative reason".
I am VERY wary of making assumptions of people.
I mean. If we were to accept what you said then we also have to accept what HE has said. And the one thing that jumped into my mind was "I am not a politician". I dont see what is so hard about just accepting that whathe is saying is his views, his feelings, his emotions and what he thinks in his mind to be just or right.
If you accept it for what it is, I think you may get alot more sleep.
Saying he is a Hillary supporter, or he just wants to hurt Obama.....I think is a stretch.
Granted it wasnt good timing......but as far as I can see, between now and November, there never would be a good time for him to start talking.
Ok sure he could have waited to see if Obama gets the nomination. But what if Obama was to lose? Then people would say "Where the hell were you a couple of months ago?"
OR he could have came right out after the youtube thing and people/media/clinton would have said "See...you two are the best of friends...." and maybe Obama's Pennsylvania win wouldnt have been within 9.4%, maybe more.
OR...if you bear with me....he could have waited until Obama won the nomination and did this, say in July or August...then this would all be fresh in everyones mind and could possibly hurt Obama more in the GE.
From my thought process, he couldnt have picked a BETTER time, nor a worst. It always feels like this is the worst time because it is still current.
THINK about it.......between March and November, when would you have came out to speak if you were in Reverend Wright's shoes?
April 30, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment