RoR: Forum

From the article:

At the same time that he offers this reassurance to whites, however, he offers an opposite reassurance for his black listeners, telling them that he will not entirely disown racial rabble rousers like Wright.

This was my biggest disappointment in the speech. In essence it came off to me as duplicitous and merely a political ploy to not offend anyone.

I can't know if Obama was being sincere or calculating, but this is a major issue in American society and black culture in particular. For reasons that have been documented in countless volumes, Black American Culture has yet to come to terms with the diminishing of race as an obstacle to success. In particular, I see young blacks - most of whom have never experienced hard racism - holding on to ideas of American life that haven't been true for more than 40 years.

So, I don't think he was trying to be duplicitous. I think he was being amazingly open about an issue that many black people of his age struggle with. That a politician in this day and age would directly confront such a touchy issue is impressive to me.

Post 21

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 6:12pm

Jordan you are being too kind.

So, I don't think he was trying to be duplicitous. I think he was being amazingly open about an issue that many black people of his age struggle with.

If Obama will not disown racial rabble rousers like Wright, it means he sanctions those comments in some way. The fact that he says we ought to respect this anger is intolerable. What part of this anger, that of saying the "government created AIDS to kill blacks" or any of the other vile racist comments Wright made should I respect? The only reason to say this is to make an attempt to reassure whites you are justified in your resentment, and to reassure blacks, hey I haven't forgotten about your "anger". But these are in contradiction. Either one is right to feel resentful or they are not, and if they are right to feel resentment then this anger is unfounded. If the anger is to be respected, then there is no grounds for a legitimate reason to feel resentful.

Post 22

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 7:16pm

I thought he did a good job turning Rev Wright's negative comments into a positive by pointing out that this racial mistrust is more endemic of the older blacks as well as the older whites like his grandmother.

What was most self-indicting about the speech is that he practically admitted that his entire religious formation and the formation of his daughters has been for the past 20 years been under Rev Wright. This would be just as bad if a white candidate said his religious formation was under Rev Hagee.

Post 23

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:39pm

This one paragraph review from Charles Murray of all people is interesting (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=):

Have I missed the competition? [Charles Murray]

I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant�rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

Post 24

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 2:23pm

Was it a good speech about race?

Yes.

Did Obama shift the focus of the original contention from his association with a hate-mongering Church with a Pastor who spreads paranoid laced lies about the United States to a more general issue of race relations?

Yes.

Obama seems to have successfully shifted the issue away from his poor judgment in choosing to be associated with a hate group. Many charismatic politicians are good at that. He's probably the best I've seen. But it still doesn't explain why for 20 years he chose to continue going to this hate group, and why he continues to choose to be a member of this church.

Post 25

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 2:35pm

What I've not yet read from any popular commentator on any point of the standard political spectrum is the correct analysis. To wit: race has not been a major social issue in this country for over 20 years. To fail to recognize that is to play right into the hands of the Democrats and their supporters.

In case anyone should need some evidence to support this contention, consider:

With very rare exceptions no individual of any race is denied housing, employment, friendship, or any other value solely on the basis of race.

In particular, there is no shortage of black politicians. The (ex?)CEO of American Express is black. Interracial marriages occur often and hardly anyone does more than blink and move on. Close to zero teens of any race are denied a college education, even lacking funds.

The leading contender for the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States, as it happens, is African-American.

If this isn't persuasive, spend ten minutes and think of or discover 10 more examples. Then ten more, then another ten. Try to find a dozen counter-examples. Sooner or later, induction will kick in.

This alleged need for a 'national conversation' is a complete red herring.

Post 26

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 2:48pm

What I've not yet read from any popular commentator on any point of the standard political spectrum is the correct analysis. To wit: race has not been a major social issue in this country for over 20 years. To fail to recognize that is to play right into the hands of the Democrats and their supporters.

That this is a fact is undeniable. What I find interesting/confounding is how much the modern black culture acts like this is not true. What Obama did was to directly acknowledge this - which I haven't heard any other politician do.

Post 27

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 3:00pm

I don't know to what extent the 'black culture' does so (I'm leery of making a judgment based on media popularity), but to the extent that it exists it's likely from two factors:

1. In an altruist-socialist culture being seen as a victim brings benefits,

2. For decades buffoons like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and apparently this Wright creature have been telling blacks that they are exactly that. Such people are more often listened to by a segment of the population than are men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, and it's that segment that gets quoted by the press.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 3/20, 3:03pm)

Post 28

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 4:26pm

Yes, it is a very good analysis. Tracinski is an excellent writer and thinker. I subscribed to his monthly Intellectual Activist in January, 2006. I just wish he'd send me the magazine as promised. At the rate I've been receiving it, it might as well be called "The Intellectual Inactivist." Thus far, I've received only 7 of the 12 issues that I paid for, the last one dated November of 2006. I even bought a Christmas gift subscription for a friend of mine in December of 2006, and so far my friend has received only two of the 12 that he was promised. This is not the way to spread Objectivism.

I've written Tracinski two letters asking for a refund on the balance of my subscription and the gift subscription for my friend, since, for all practical purposes, the magazine is no longer being published. Both letters have gone unanswered. Yet Tracinski continues to publish TIA Daily.

On the assumption that perhaps Tracinski didn't have the money or resources to continue publishing the monthly magazine, my friend asked that his gift subscription be transferred to TIA Daily, which is published online. Adding him to the list of online subscribers would have cost Tracinski nothing and would have enabled him to meet his contractual obligation. Unfortunately, my friend's letter has also gone unanswered.

I paid for a product -- a magazine -- and I didn't get what I paid for. I can understand someone's running into hard times. What I don't understand is his complete refusal to reply to my letters (and my friend's letter) and to try to work something out. Here is someone who is speaking out very eloquently against injustice in the broader society who refuses to practice the virtue of justice in his own personal life. Go figure!

(Oh, sorry to hijack the discussion! I posted this before I saw the followups to Jordan's link to Tracinski's article.) Good discussion btw. I especially liked Jeff Perren's observations!

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/20, 4:37pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/20, 9:29pm)

Post 29

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 5:30pm

Bill, it sounds like the guy could use a customer service department! If I treated my customers like that I'd be out of business.

Post 30

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 9:38pm

John,

I think he and his wife are running it.� I called their number and got a recorded message.� I again asked them to please answer my emails or to return my call.� They have done neither.� He is basically blowing me off.� He evidently figures that if he doesn't answer my emails or my phone calls, I'll go away.� He lives on the East Coast, so there's not much I can do about this.

I'd like to subscribe to his TIA Daily, but I can't in good conscience pay him for another subscription, when he refuses to make good on the first one.� It's depressing to see a prominent Objectivist intellectual act this way.

Ah well.� Such is life.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/20, 11:05pm)

Post 31

Friday, March 21, 2008 - 6:53am

A great speech by a great man -- relatively speaking. But Obama's still strongly anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-American, and anti-white. He mostly matches his former pastor and the current black community in this. And that ain't right...

Post 32

Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:10am

Bill: If the events you relate in Posts 28 and 30 are accurate, then Tracinski's behavior is an absolute outrage. He's a thief and a lowlife. But you seem to be taking it with far more equanimity than I could -- or would even want to. You write: "Such is life." Well, such is life in the cult Objectivist Movement. 90% of the maliciousness, injustice, and inexplicable weirdness (not 100%, alas!) comes from them -- not the normal Objectivist Movement.

Post 33

Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 5:08pm

A great speech by a great man -- relatively speaking. But Obama's still strongly anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-American, and anti-white. He mostly matches his former pastor and the current black community in this. And that ain't right.

I wouldn't say that Obama was a "great man." I don't know what you're criteria of "greatness" are, but I wouldn't dub someone "great" who holds his political ideals. To be sure, his speech was well articulated and politically astute, but the altruist-collectivist sentiments it reflected are deplorable. It was definitely anti-freedom and anti-capitalist, although I wouldn't say it was "anti-American" unless by that you mean that the political views that he expressed were not in the best interests of the country. I don't think Obama is in his heart-of-hearts, anti-white, although he condones rhetoric and attitudes that definitely are, which reflects poorly on his judgment, the strength of his opposition to racism and the sincerity of his desire for national harmony and unity, all of which make him a poor choice for president, even if one disregards his collectivist politics.

Bill: If the events you relate in Posts 28 and 30 are accurate, then Tracinski's behavior is an absolute outrage. He's a thief and a lowlife. But you seem to be taking it with far more equanimity than I could -- or would even want to.

Well, I'm upset about it, no question, but what am I supposed to do? -- take him to Small Claims Court? I'd have to travel clear across the country for that, which isn't worth the $56 that I'm out.

You write: "Such is life." Well, such is life in the cult Objectivist Movement. 90% of the maliciousness, injustice, and inexplicable weirdness (not 100%, alas!) comes from them -- not the normal Objectivist Movement.

Well, Tracinski is no longer connected with the Ayn Rand Institute, if that's the organization you're referring to by "the cult Objectivist Movement." As I understand it, he's been ostracized for not agreeing with some of Peikoff's political views.

- Bill

Post 34

Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 7:18pm

Here's an email I just sent (to folks who don't post here) ...

==============
Hey, I've just got to vent about something ...

As a lower-case "L" libertarian I think all big presidential candidates suck. Comrade Clinton scares me the most with her Soviet-style policies -- and J. McCain would likely ruin the country (via a slow blood-letting). But then I get this news about Obama and wonder how much farther I can stick my head in the sand and pray that it all just goes away sometime soon. Since that's not likely to happen I have felt the need to vent so that I don't blow my cork. Here's the problem in a nutshell ...

--Obama's been a 20-year parishoner of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church in Chicago.

--Wright appeals to the authority of the "black liberation" theologian, James Cone.

--Cone maintains the following disturbing view:
"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 ..."

The $64,000 question is:
If Cone's God has got to be a racist (because of stuff whites have done to blacks), and Wright's God has got to be Cone's God (or else he wouldn't champion Cone's views as he does), and Obama at least tacitly accepts Wright's God (or else he'd walk straight out of that church with his family and never go back) -- then doesn't that call into question most voter's best interests regarding Obama as possible president?

Here's the breakdown:
Most U.S. voters are white. God -- according to Cone -- must be against whites. Therefore, God must be against most U.S. voters; even -- or perhaps especially! -- against those whites voting for Obama.

The slogan would run like this:
Vote for me white people (and you others, too). I tacitly accept the view that God is against you (or else God would be a murderer), but it's still in your best interests that I should lead you. Think of it this way, if I'm in charge I might be able to protect you from God's wrath (which you deserve). ...
==============

;-)

Ed

Post 35

Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 1:10am

Yes, but Ed, don't you see that Obama wants to "bring us together" -- to unify the country and to bridge the racial divide? Don't you see this?! Forget the fact that the church he attends and the pastor who ministers to that church is preaching the opposite message. You don't expect Obama to agree with EVERYTHING his minister says, do you??

- Bill :-()

Post 36

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 5:10pm

In Post 32, Kyrel wrote: "Bill: If the events you relate in Posts 28 and 30 are accurate, then Tracinski's behavior is an absolute outrage. He's a thief and a lowlife. But you seem to be taking it with far more equanimity than I could -- or would even want to." In Post 33, I replied, "Well, I'm upset about it, no question, but what am I supposed to do? -- take him to Small Claims Court? I'd have to travel clear across the country for that, which isn't worth the $56 that I'm out."

Actually, I could contact the Attorney General's office in the State of Virginia. On Tracinski's website, he lists "This Month's Print Issue" as November 2006. So the evidence that he's far behind schedule is right there for anyone to see. I think the AG would find my consumer fraud complaint credible.

Amazing how someone who holds individual rights as the core his political philosophy could ignore them in his personal life the way he has. I've had similar problems with other Objectivists who don't practice what they preach, which tells me that they don't really believe the philosophy they're espousing. I wonder what kind of rationalization he is using to justify ripping off his customers.

- Bill

Post 37

Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 4:49pm

Doing the Wright thing ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617eK2XIaLk

Ed

Post 38

Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 7:07pm

Note that I'm hearing Wright referred to as Obama's "former" pastor on local and national news broadcasts.

I also heard on the radio last week that Oprah Winfrey joined his church years ago, but quit after a very short time, less than a month, if I recall.

Post 39

Friday, March 28, 2008 - 1:29pm