Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
there you go, Joan
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You got your pound of flesh.
I hope your "concerns" are duly resolved.
I understand the ritual of the political process, Joan, as idealistic as I am, I'm not an idiot.
I just don't understand why you, of all people, in this, of all forums, are leading the charge.
I hope you'll lay aside your pitchfork now, at least for a term.
Congratulations on you moral victory.
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Probably because I'm feeling besieged.
Because I find the very notion that Obama was compelled to say these things to be an net loss for liberalism and liberal values.
I don't know if Obama is "outraged" or not, but I suspect his feelings and opinions are far, far more complex than he lets on in the quotes you've provided.
I refer to your pitchfork because, as I see it, you and all the others who have fed on this "controversy" seem to have succeeded in making Obama jump through the hoop and flap his fins for you.
Again, I understand how American politics works, I'm just dismayed that you, as someone who seems to believe in the values of liberalism, would be leading the charge to dumb down the conversation through these race-baiting, guilt-by-association, divide and conquer tactics.
When I say "congratulations on your moral victory," I mean to say that I don't understand why you seem so invested in this outcome where Obama does the pandering he's expected to do.
-
@ Reality Kid
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suspect Obama knows perfectly well that there's a valid leftist critique wherein terrorism is indeed comparable to war, but it's politically impossible for him to talk about it.
He tried to do the grown-up, non pander thing with his speech in Philadelphia and it would seem his gamble that the American people are better than they are was put to the test.
So now he's been forced to pander (whether Obama believes wholeheartedly in the words Joan's reproduced here or not is not the point--the point is he was compelled to make them at all, that's the pander) perhaps more than I've seen him do during the course of the whole campaign.
And it's all thanks to people like Joan, backing him into a corner and screaming: "Witch, witch!" long enough and loud enough.
So he is not now, nor has ever been a member of the communist party.
A day that should make American liberals proud.
-
@ ethics_professor
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hi there, ep.
I think one of the reasons for the frustration (at least, speaking for myself) is precisely because Joan shows so little effort to engage with the arguments her critics make.
Part of my frustration is precisely because, in seeming to ignore substantive critiques, Joan seems hostile to the intellectual method you invoke.
If only she'd say, "I can see your point, but what about this?'
She just doesn't seem intellectually engaged with the criticism she's getting but yet still remains firmly ensconced in her own agenda which is fine, but she's not very transparent about what that agenda (i.e., guiding principles) is.
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Could be, Joan. I've not watched the speech, I've only read the excerpt that you provided here.
Based on that excerpt (and the circumstances that compelled him to address these issues at this particular time), I infer serious pandering.
As I say, the pandering isn't necessarily in the sentiments, but it's definitely in the fact that he had to express them at this time in direct response to what I believe has been a witch hunt.
But I'll try to listen to the speech for myself. Maybe I'll have a different opinion after that, though I'm sceptical.
-
@ Reality Kid
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"With respect, I do not see my views in this regard as being a function of political orientation as much as a function of what I'd prefer to believe is my humanity. (I also worry that such labeling is anything but helpful and actually assists in diminishing large and embracing ideals into small and divisive political pigeonholes.)"
Fair enough. I didn't mean to label it and I agree, it's unhelpful. I used the label because, broadly speaking, it's a critique more associated with the left/liberal spectrum of American politics. "Centrists" and those "right of center" tend to ascribe to a different view on the matter, which is that warfare is morally legitimate but "terrorism" is not, period.
I suspect it's this "center-right" segment of popular opinion Obama was reaching out (pandering) to by expressing indignation here.
But I agree with you, labels are often counter-productive. I try to avoid using them, but sometimes they are convenient.
-
lots to say
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, I generally agree with Gthrasher. On a deep level, his analysis of what's going on resonates with me and I don't think it's hard to substantiate.
I watched Obama's response and one of the things that jumps out is that he was so much more two-dimensional than he was in the Philadelphia speech.
In Philadelphia he tried to articulate that, as wrong-headed as Wright's more extreme comments might be, they come from a deep place and must be acknowledged, respected, and engaged with.
He spoke about the full range of black experience and black opinion represented in his church.
Today he said "Wright's outrageous comments in no way represent "the black church."
Surely we can see how Obama has been forced to dumb down the dialogue to satisfy his myopic, obtuse, anti-intellectual, etc. critics.
His "outrage" doesn't ring true when compared to his much more nuanced analysis in Philadelphia.
And that's what's been lost: nuance.
I thought we as liberals believed in nuance.
I thought we believed that the world is not manichaean, but complex.
The nature of Obama's words today, while certainly honest on some level, were dishonest inasmuch as he omitted all reference to the nuance he so admirably articulated in Philadelphia.
It's astonishing to me that "liberals" can't see that.