Vicious Truths

Commonweal Magazine has a short piece by Don Wycliff, a relatively mainstream writer (teaches media criticism at Notre Dame), who sees Wright's public comments as I do: 

Whatever may have been Wright’s motives for speaking out now, he stands to earn a dubious distinction in American history: the man who torpedoed the presidential chances of the first African American with a genuine chance of winning that office. That’s not exactly the sort of thing you want your grandchildren to have to hear every Black History Month.
 
But political impact aside, what was it about Wright’s National Press Club appearance that got everybody so upset? From the beginning of the Wright drama, when snippets of his sermons began showing up on TV, I have thought that, with the exception of the dark suspicion that the government ginned up the HIV virus to kill blacks, Wright’s principal problem was that he was speaking what an old boss of mine used to call “vicious truths”—things that are true but that the audience would rather not hear.  Read more.

Watch the Moyers interview again, and then watch his other speeches. This man is not crazy. He is not a buffoon. He might be outraged, but outrage, while impolitic, is sanity in our current situation. This brouhaha is all about miseducated (Wright's term) Americans' discomfort with the 'vicious truths' that black Americans have an historical perspective that enables them to see all too clearly. I think Obama sees these truths, but he can't speak about them because that would automatically disqualify him from public office. Obama is not a prophet; he's a politician, which means he has to work in the realm of the possible. And there are some things it is simply not possible for a politician to say.

If Obama really believes Wright's comments about Obama's speaking as a politician were meant to be a put down, I think he's wrong.  Wright was simply recognizing that politicians speak to a different constituency than ministers do. Obama has to worry about polls, and media, and voters; Jeremiah Wright has an obligation before God to speak as he best understands it the unvarnished truth. That's the prophetic calling. But Wright is realist enough to recognize that any politician who speaks the unvarnished 'vicious truth' does not get elected.

Obama's job is the much harder one; it takes more discipline.  He's continuously threading the needle. All the rest of us, including Wright, can speak freely without consequence. Obama, if he is to be effective, has to be selectively truthful because to speak some truths is to step on a landmine. There are some truths Obama simply cannot speak, but that doesn't mean that those who speak them are wrong; it's just that he cannot be associated with them and still be effective. That's the reality of the political calling.   

Comments

[Mike McG...]

Jack:

You take great pains to be gentle with Obama and the dance he's compelled to perform, but implicit in your read is that Wright takes the high road, the principled position, while Obama takes the low road, the compromised position. While you absolve him for saying what he's forced to say, you seem convinced that he's mouthing what he knows not to be true.

Perhaps Obama is the ultimate Rohrshock test. For people who see things in black and white (play on words intended), he's the guy who knows the essential ugliness of America and Americans but is willing to "seem" conciliatory to bring about change. For people who see America's legacy as much more complicated and American people as much less grotesque, he the guy who gets us, sees the essential falsity of ideological cant, and believes that coming together requires more delicacy than hammer.

My question is: can he simultaneously attract voters from both of these worldviews?

[Matt Zemek]

Mike,

It's not a matter of high road-low road. It's this split between, on one hand, the political realm--what's intended for political consumption (and advantage)--and, on the other hand, the religious realm, which involves the prophetic calling/charism.

Wright never intended his sermons, several years ago, to be digested or heard by the country, including and especially mainstream moderate whites. Moreover, he never intended his sermons to be heard with political ears; he wanted religious ears to hear his sermons.

That the media and YouTube vultures ever dredged this up is enough of an outrage in itself; that the controversy could then emerge and lead to this distracting, tangential and corrosive national shout-fest is that much more pathetic.

That--to answer your question--our nation's citizens are plainly unable and (more importantly) unwilling to separate the political from the religious is, simply, sad.

[Mike McG...]

Matt:

Simple question: Does Obama believe what he's saying about Wright to be true?

[Matt Zemek]

I have no way of knowing, but my personal gut response is that he really doesn't.

That opinion of mine and a few bucks will get you a scone at your local bakery.

But for what it's worth, yeah, that's my gut feeling on the matter.