Worldview Politics

The Idiotic Reverend Wright 'Scandal'
25 April 2008

Obama Hates America — Not!

It is depressing to write about this topic, but I wish to leave a record of the latest idiocy to engulf the American presidential campaign. In a word, Hillary's grotesque Clintonian ambition appears to be seriously undermining Obama's prospects of winning the presidency against aging militaristic lunatic John McCain. With such an unpopular war, it is appalling that roughly half the voters say they prefer McCain over either Democrat. The pundits attribute this to the bloodletting between Hillary and Obama, which has prevented Obama from concentrating on McCain and educating the American public. Almost all pundits agree that Hillary cannot win the nomination, but she fights on, because it's all about her, just as it was all about her husband, when he was in the saddle. To be fair, Obama has helped himself with some gaffes and an apparent loss of nerve. But what is really happening is that the Clintons have learned well from the Republicans, namely, that trash politics works with the American public. The Clintons (and their fellow DNCers) are the curse of the party, of America, and consequently of the world. We have no real opposition party.

Hillary just won by 9 points in Pennsylvania, which will still not allow her to win the nomination, unless she can persuade scores of 'superdelegates' to betray Obama and vote for her. Her rationale is that only she can win the presidency, by carrying the crucial white working-class vote, while Obama appeals solely to blacks and elite liberals and maybe some libertarian types. The victory in Pennsylvania is supposed to confirm this, but she fails to mention the dirty tactics that enabled her to win. Even the imperialistic New York Times, which had endorsed her before, has criticized her gutter politics. Basically she is trying to paint Obama as some kind of black radical who hates America. She doesn't say so explicitly, but she is very clever at getting the message out, and it has hurt Obama with less educated working-class voters, who frankly don't know much in the first place, are easily swayed with infantile symbology, and are probably still infused with more than a little racism (as demonstrated by some exit polls). Moreover, many of these working-class voters evidently can't see through Hillary's transparent chicanery. (But are the college-educated middle-class suburbanites really any better on average?)

It started with the tirades from Obama's preacher, Reverend Wright. Some clips appeared on YouTube, in which he damned America for its cruel and unjustified wars on defenseless third world peoples. Our political culture is so puerile that any serious criticism of the innate sanctity of our blessed nation is considered the kiss of death for politicians. It so happens that Reverend Wright gave up his student deferment to become a marine, which shows way more patriotism than all the bipartisan blowhard cowards in Congress and the White House, who used connections to evade military service (including Cheney, Bush and Bill Clinton). In addition, Wright has been at the receiving end of American racism, being from the generation of Martin Luther King. So he has a right to be angry with his country. But what the worthless corporate media doesn't tell us is that he criticizes only the evil side of America, and that he really loves his country and wants to make it better. Indeed, he has devoted his life to this. Yet, almost unanimously, the servile and brain-dead establishment pundits have taken for granted that what Wright said was evil, and the only question has been whether Obama sufficiently repudiated his connection to his pastor. What a lot of damned hypocrites!

The sheer idiocy of the patriotism card was on display on ABC's infamous Democratic debate in Philadelphia on April 16, where some foolish lady named Nash McCabe asked Obama if he 'believed in the American flag'. I may paint myself into elitist irrelevancy if I point out that this silly statement appeals to many working-class Americans, but I have to call the shots as I see them. As documented by Joe Bageant and others, working and rural Americans of predominantly Scots-Irish origin often exhibit the unpleasant traits of tribalism, bellicosity and ignorance, which have been carefully cultivated by the unscrupulous Republicans to keep America in a perpetual state of retarded militarism. Of course, the real bastards are the establishment types who play these brain-washing games, and most of them are probably of Anglo origin, in whom the colonial politics of divide and conquer seem to arise by instinct. Thus have our corporate masters divided us with countless trivial issues involving flags, guns, race, personal morals and other emotionally-laden diversions. Meanwhile, they go laughing all the way to the bank, while the manipulated idiots sink ever deeper into the mire of social, psychological and financial failure.

And, like a vulture, Hillary plunges with glee into the exploitation of this political pathology. She has no shame, no honor, no integrity, no decency, and no heart. Moreover, she and her husband are from the same background as the people they now exploit, which only magnifies their perfidy. Yet they have made $109 million since leaving office! Such a demand for their wisdom and grace! This shameless milking of the nation's most exalted office is entirely consistent with selling the working-class down the river with NAFTA, while Bill was in office, so that he could please his predatory Wall Street buddies like Robert Rubin. It took him no time at all to forget the populist rhetoric of his campaign! The Clintons are worse than the Republicans because of their deceit, pretending to be doves and populists, when they have really sold themselves to the imperialists and the rich. At least with the Republicans, it is frequently obvious that you are dealing with troglodytes. Many of them revel in it. The Clintons make me sick.

But Obama has been a bit disappointing too. Surely, he knew this was all coming. He seemed so suave before, but he has displayed a dismaying failure of nerve. For instance, with Nash McCabe, he could have shown some wit and said something like this: 'God bless your patriotic heart, dear Nash McCabe. Of course, I believe in the American flag and what this country is supposed to represent! And it is because of our awesome power that the president must deeply search his soul and pray to his God before taking the momentous decision of going to war. He must not lie, as George Bush did by linking Osama and Saddam. He must inform himself with experts of the possible consequences of invasion, such as a vicious civil war in a divided nation.' And so on. He could have slammed back at the pious and cretinous propaganda by slipping some God-talk into a message that is basically progressive and peace-oriented, all the while appealing to ordinary human moral instincts. But he didn't think of it. He wasn't prepared. He is too cautious. He thinks too much of winning, not as ruthlessly and cold-bloodedly as Hillary, but enough that he loses the aura of candor and honesty that got him this far.

Is He A Snob?

UPDATE (25 April 08): Oh no! Obama said that 'bitter' working-class Americans 'cling to God and guns'! He has exposed himself as a left-wing intellectual snob, and the stain will never wash away. He is damaged goods with our resentful public! Throw him in the trash and give the nomination to Hillary, who is vulgar enough to get elected! That's what many pundits are basically saying.

Obama said these words to some supporters at a campaign meeting in that bastion of left-wing snobbery called San Francisco, which makes it all the more damaging, or so they claim. Actually, he wasn't trying to put anyone down. He was just trying to analyze the psychology of certain less-educated Americans to his generally urban campaign staff. That is, poorer white Americans have lost faith in their government, which belongs entirely to the rich, so they 'cling' for security to whatever values remain in their lives, such as religion, or even guns, that quasi-phallic symbol of manliness, independence and self-sufficiency. Most of us 'cling' to security blankets of one kind or another, but a shrewd politician exploits this human tendency, rather than analyzing it out loud. Never be a psychiatrist if you're running for President! It's a minefield waiting to blow up.

Not that I necessarily like Obama's analysis. I could easily fault it as simplistic. The word 'cling' is too pejorative. Some of the working-class folks are yahoos who believe wholeheartedly in God and guns, and some probably even identify the two. For them, it is more than a desperate clinging, it's an obsession. On the other hand, many poor or working-class whites may not care that much about God or guns, at least when it comes to elections. They just want jobs, please, but may not fully comprehend the corrupt political forces that have caused them to lose theirs. It hasn't been explained to them in bumper stickers, but could be. A little class warfare please! Finally, I will mention that a right-wing pinhead like Bill Kristol has seen 'Marxism' in Obama's presumed portrayal of religion as a kind of opiate of the masses. This line of reasoning, especially coming from a neocon, is pure political cynicism masquerading as pretentious European intellectualism. We can dismiss it. Thank God William F. Buckley is dead.

Frankly, I prefer people who say what they think about me and my kind (if there is such a thing) to my face — but only if they do it in print! I can take it, and I like to see what people really think. Heck, a few class or ethnic jokes are fine too! It's funny how we bomb the hell out of foreigners, while assuming our own public is a bunch of crybabies. Well, to tell the truth, our establishment has been dealing in infantile politics for so long, that much of the public may have in fact degenerated to that state by now.

Who Says Obama 'Lost' Pennsylvania?

UPDATE (25 April 08): He was 25 points behind Clinton not long ago, and he progressed to only 9 (OK 9.5) by the time of the election. And this, despite the Rev. Wright flap and the ludicrous 'bittergate'! Sounds to me like he's making inroads on the working poor. Also, western Pennsylvania has an aging population. So the state is not necessarily representative of all states full of 'working poor'. But I'll leave this slicing and dicing analysis to the articles below. It's worthless anyway. The election could be determined by the price of gas in November, or whether McCain appears in public with his fly down. Or whether Bush gives us an October surprise with fireworks over Iran. Bombs away!

Rev. Wright Strikes Back!

UPDATE (30 April 08): I've already covered Reverend Wright here, but he is back in the news, in a big way, so I'd better say a bit more. The reverend just gave a speech to the National Press Club, which is considered incendiary by mainstream puppets — er, pundits — and to which Obama has had to respond in the strongest terms, by repudiating Wright in harsh and unequivocal language.

I don't want to rehash all this, but, briefly, my views are as follows. A few of Wright's minor comments are wrong, such as the wild claim that the US government has injected the black community with AIDS. (But remember the Tuskegee experiments!) On the other hand, he is right to criticize our cruel prison policy which puts so many nonviolent, mostly minority drug offenders in prison. His 'chickens coming home to roost' statement regarding US foreign policy is right on target, though this has been twisted into the calumny that he thinks the people in the Twin Towers deserved their fate on 9/11. (To spell it out, for the benefit of halfwits like Joe Klein, it simply means that we should expect a violent reaction when we meddle violently with others. The CIA itself has called this 'blowback'.) And he is dead right that it is outrageous for Bush, Cheney, and Clinton to have used their connections to get military deferments, while poorer kids go to die.

I would fault Wright for giving implied approval to Faraquan's statement (of many years ago) that Zionism — not Judaism — is a 'gutter religion'. Wright was trying to say that it is Israel's brutal policies against the Palestinians that are wrong, not Jews per se. However, Zionism can also be enlightened and humane, so this use of the word 'Zionism' is inappropriate. He should have criticized Likud or AIPAC, though even 'moderate' governments in Israel have promoted the settlements, as well as collective punishment for terrorist attacks.

When it comes to race, I agree that black leaders think too much of grabbing a slice of the taxpayer pie just for black people, though this is precisely how corporations and other lobbies work. It would be better, though, for the government to give a helping hand to poor people in a color-blind way. And perhaps black groups do sometimes stress victimization a bit too much, and their leaders sometimes posture in a self-serving way, like all politicians. Yet nothing Wright has said should be so very shocking. Unfortunately, our public has been so dumbed down by the bipartisan oligarchy and their media marionettes that any rhetoric that deviates from the most retarded patriotism, or that dares to mention class or race inequality, presents a minefield to our politicians. No wonder so few good people go into politics!

Rev. Wright has also been criticized for 'megalomania', due to his claim that an attack on him is an attack on the black church. I agree that's going too far. This is like the conservative claim that criticism of US foreign policy is an attack on the troops, or on all patriotic Americans. Wright's fiery oratory scares many older white Americans, who associate it with Black Panthers and similar militant black groups of bygone years. Actually, white preachers can be just as fiery, and a little passion never hurt anybody. What matters is the truth behind the words, and Wright is mostly right. One trivial criticism of Wright, at least when he appeared on Bill Moyer's show, was his brief detour into academic pretension. Surely the word 'hermeneutics' should have been banned by the Geneva Conventions by now. Just kidding.

Regarding Obama, I don't blame him for denouncing and repudiating Wright. He probably couldn't get elected otherwise, and maybe he and Reverend Wright have a private understanding. However, I do blame Obama for some tactical errors, such as pretending he was 'not in the pews' when Wright made his most inflammatory comments. That is as foolish as Clinton claiming he 'didn't inhale'. The press will have a field day with those slip-ups. (I notice that Obama has explicitly repudiated Wright's 'outrageous' statements linking 'America's wartime efforts' with 'terrorism'. Frankly, any unjustified war, like the one in Iraq, is indeed terrorism. Of course, no politician can say this, and most Americans would probably be indignant. This is where Christian morality collides with tribal patriotism. Naturally, the latter always wins, notwithstanding our hypocritical national piety. Don't you just love how Obama downplays it with the innocuous words 'wartime efforts'? The language of leadership!)

A final question: Is Wright trying to sabotage Obama in a petty and vindictive way? Wright claims that he is only speaking out as a pastor must, and I buy this. Why shouldn't he say what he fervently believes? It is Obama who should have got himself a 'whiter' preacher by now, if that is essential to his viability as a candidate. However, as many have commented, I think that Obama, if he is clever, can take advantage of this situation to contrast himself with his preacher and make himself look good in white eyes. Indeed, he is already doing this. No doubt, the Republican smear machine will hammer on his connection to Wright in the general election. Fortunately, Obama has a secret weapon: McCain's pastor Hagee has damned the Catholics! Perhaps Obama and McCain will wisely agree to ignore each other's pastors. (Hey, wait a minute! I don't believe that. I think Wright is mostly right, while Hagee is a retarded peasant of the worst sort. Even his AIPAC buddies are secretly holding their noses. Still, from a political point of view, it might be wise to declare a 'pastor ceasefire'.)

Corporate America Loves Obama

UPDATE (30 April 08): Haha! The joke's on us. All this ridiculous diversion over reverends and flag pins. Meanwhile, very few journalists have inquired into what Obama really represents. Chris Hedges is one of them, and his research tells him that corporate America loves Obama. Even his antiwar stance is suspect, according to Hedges, amounting to no more than a single speech belied by subsequent behavior. You can read about all the money Obama has taken from corporations in Hedges' article. I would only point out that Obama's slight increment of decency, compared to his opponents, has raised a firestorm of money on the net, which could begin to drive a wedge into the influence of corporate money. And Obama's personality is far better than that of vampire Hillary or nutso McCain. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the relatively good. The pure will never wield power. Politics is the art of ambiguity, which takes human folly into account, and tries to prevent the most evil bastards from taking over. There have been a few successes along the way.

Is Obama Doomed Against McCain?

UPDATE (30 April 08): Probably. That could explain why so many Republicans seem rather sympathetic to Obama, even (or especially) since the Wright flap. Frankly, Hillary may be right that she has a better chance to win the election than Obama, but I could never vote for her. Given that Obama is black, it was always hard for him to win, even without Reverend Wright. A whole lot of prejudice still lurks beneath the surface, particularly in certain less-educated quarters (or so it seems). But who knows? Americans are affected by images, literally. Dukakis did look like Rocky Raccoon in that tank, while Obama has a much more presidential image. Being black didn't stop Colin Powell and Condi Rice from rising in the Republican party, since they too have the right 'professional' demeanor. Carter was done in by OPEC and the hostage crisis. Gore won more popular votes, but was skewered by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. And if all hell breaks out in Iraq again, Americans, with their toddler attention span, may be reminded that they don't like casualties. McCain has hitched himself to the war. This may not matter much if Americans aren't dying in large numbers, but the mood could change swiftly if the gore resumes. (Of course, this refers only to American blood. Americans, as a whole, have never given a damn about foreign life.)

McCain's Crazy Preacher Ignored

UPDATE (3 May 08): The mainstream media proves its bias and worthlessness with every new event. For several weeks, it has obsessed over Obama's preacher, Reverend Wright, who has said many incendiary but true things about American foreign and domestic policy, with only a few doubtful oddities thrown in. Even those doubtful oddities, such as that the CIA injected the black community with AIDS, or peddled drugs, are not without some basis. For example, there were the infamous Tuskegee experiments, and Alexander Cockburn, in his book Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press reports that the CIA's IG has confirmed that the Contras were involved in drugs. So Rev. Wright is mostly, if not entirely, right, yet he brings the wrath of the press on his head as if he were Satan.

Meanwhile, McCain is close to a Pastor Hagee, who is certifiably nuts. He has damned Catholics, takes the Book of Revelation literally, and believes that Christians should strive to make the Armageddon become reality. He actually looks forward to nuclear war in the Middle East, and McCain's irresponsibly gung-ho attitude amounts to the same. You'd think the press would be obsessing about them, if this were a rational world.

Progressives and other half-decent Americans have come to take the delinquency of the press for granted. But given its power to brainwash Americans, I wonder if it isn't time to rein it in somehow, notwithstanding the sanctity of free speech. Shouldn't there be some basic standards? Of course, implementing those standards would open up a whole new can of political worms.

Then there is Reverend Moon.

A Little Extremism of My Own

UPDATE (3 May 08): Allow me a little outburst of my own, in the spirit of Reverend Wright, that something corrupt lurks deep in the dark depths of our society and soul. This may seem a bit far-fetched, but I think that what I will say has a grain of truth, and it shows how the conservatives are both very right and very wrong.

I just read an article in the Washington Post, called The Art of Folly at Yale, which describes how Aliza Shvarts, a senior at Yale, which costs $180,000 for four years, plans to conclude her college experience: 'The art major would repeatedly artificially inseminate herself, then induce miscarriages, which she would record on video. She would build a four-foot-wide plastic cube and wrap it in layers of plastic. Between the layers would be Vaseline mixed with blood from the miscarriages. She would hang the cube at an exhibition and project video of the miscarriages onto four of its sides.' We can dispense with her rationale.

Now this kind of story, along with crucifixes in urine, is precisely what gets conservatives all fired up about moral decadence in America, especially among liberals, elitists, and other perverts. I'll grant that this particular project is a bit extreme. But then I got to thinking. What about the million-plus dead Iraqis, per the Lancet and Johns Hopkins University, as a result of our illegitimate invasion based on trumped-up intelligence? What about the half a million or so dead Iraqi children before that, due to our sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s? What about the massive destruction of Vietnam, including Napalm, Agent Orange, and the subsequent birth deformities, all to fight an 'enemy' that was overwhelmingly popular with the Vietnamese people? What about the bombing of Hiroshima, which melted the skins of 200,000 Japanese civilians — clearly a war crime according the the Geneva Conventions — but which has never been an object of serious soul-searching in America? How curious that the same pious conservatives, as well as many of the so-called 'liberals', have nothing to say about our government-sponsored horrors afflicting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. One silly art project seems like small potatoes in comparison. And perhaps the writing on the wall...

An Optimistic Note

UPDATE (6 May 08): Andrew Sullivan reminds us that over 1.5 million Americans have donated to Obama, far more than to any other candidate in history. Could this be the beginning of the destruction of the stranglehold of big-money donors over US politics? There's a glimmer of hope. And we have technology (i.e. the internet) to thank as much as Obama.

Online Articles

Presidential Campaign: Hillary Slimes Obama

Joe Conason: Whose elitism is worse?