I am not an American. I don\u2019t like to interfere with American politics. This post should certainly not be construed as any kind of endorsement or rejection of any particular candidate for President of the United States. Last time I checked, only Americans have the responsibility of selecting the leader of the free world! I do appreciate, however, the strength of feelings on all sides that Obama, and more recently the comments by his ex-pastor, have ignited. You should not try and read into this post a position on Obama\u2019s policies, although you would not be surprised to learn that, as a conservative Christian, I obviously have serious concerns about some ethical issues.<\/p>\n
I think that in assessing political happenings, it is interesting to look at candidates as emerging leaders and examine what works or does not work in their attempts to persuade the electorate to suspend its usual cynicism and believe in their abilities to deliver on their rhetoric. So I am interested in trying for a moment to put aside some of the political issues and look at this speech as an example of someone attempting to assert leadership in the face of a stormy challenge. Is it a good example? Will it \u201cwork,\u201d at least in some sense? Is it inevitable that this subject will arouse more heat than light? The strength of the reactions I have read online today on both sides of the fence might suggest that is the case. But I wonder what the political feel will be like once the reactions have had time to settle down. Again, don\u2019t expect me to pin my colors to the mast in answering those questions decisively. I don\u2019t know enough about the American scene to give such clear answers. Think instead of this post as throwing a few half-formed ideas of my own out there, and also reflecting and linking to some other material on this that I have found online. It is more a brainstorming exercise designed to make YOU think about this issue for yourself. I am asking the questions more than giving the answers.<\/p>\n
As I hinted earlier, I enjoy following the political scene, not so much from a purely political perspective, but rather from being a student of leadership wherever it is found. I think that the concept of leadership is something very important to study, and about which we should learn all we can. In many ways politics has two sides\u2014policy<\/strong> (which these days often reveals few significant differences between candidates) and leadership<\/strong>. I am much more interested in the latter. So, for example, even in my most politicized post yet\u2014when I was strongly critical of Prime Minister Gordon Brown<\/a>\u2014in my mind, it was less about his policies and more about his leadership style.<\/p>\n It is impossible, of course, to completely separate leadership style from the impression we form of a candidate or leader from the media\u2019s coverage of him. I am a great believer however, in trying to base one\u2019s judgment of a leader on what he himself says. As a result, I couldn\u2019t help sharing this video here for any of my readers in America and elsewhere who have not already seen it. I am particularly interested in the comments of American Christians on what is found in this full-length address given in direct response to the controversy over Obama\u2019s ex-pastor.<\/p>\n I won\u2019t say much about Obama\u2019s speech myself, except to state some initial reactions. In the video we see a man fighting for his political life. This is surely the most important speech of Obama\u2019s life. He could easily have sounded evasive or defensive. Instead, he faces the issue head on and uses it as an opportunity to express his views about how to tackle the racial divides. He seems to me to be trying to strike a calm note, and even at one point attempts to direct the whole nation in how it should think about the current election campaign. Whatever you might think about his politics, it is certainly interesting to consider this speech and come to your own conclusion about whether it succeeds in the goal Obama clearly had for it. People will come to very different conclusions, I\u2019m sure. Some loved it. Some hated it. This is surely because in some sense Obama has been identified as part of unfinished business in the minds of many Americans. As Shelby Steele put it in an article for the Wall Street Journal<\/em> entitled \u201cThe Obama Bargain<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n \u201cFor many Americans\u2014black and white\u2014Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America\u2019s very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The BBC has a comment piece<\/a> that applauds the speech as nuanced and subtle and as truly great. But then they add to the following quote an honest confession that they simply do not know what it will do for Obama\u2019s votes:<\/p>\n \u201cBarack Obama has probably given one of the best speeches of the campaign, genuinely reaching out to resentful whites and blacks, dousing the usual allegorical and oblique debate about race in a huge dose of honesty.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It was a great speech. A black and a white colleague both called it the best speech on race since Martin Luther King spoke about his dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. That\u2019s one hell of a compliment.<\/p>\n But there is a difference. King had a dream. Obama also has an election to win.<\/p>\n And yet, this was the only speech he could have given. As someone of mixed race, he was the only candidate who could have given it with any integrity. I have swum in those waters, as he likes to say.\u201d<\/p>\n On the side of Obama supporters in the media and online, many have hailed his racism speech as the one that will give him the keys to the White House once all the dust has settled. The Washington Post<\/em> described it in the following headline: \u201cInvited to Wrestle in a Racial Mud Pit, Obama Soars Above It<\/a>\u201c. In addition, The Dallas News<\/em><\/a> seemed similarly impressed saying:<\/p>\n \u201cFor months, the matter of race has hovered like an unwanted guest at the edges of Barack Obama\u2019s presidential campaign. Barack Obama\u2019s speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday was organized amid controversy over several comments by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. On Tuesday, he put the subject squarely in the middle of the room.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Facing a firestorm over his pastor\u2019s remarks about race in America, Mr. Obama took a bold step\u2014rather than play down the conflict, he embraced it. In a 37-minute speech that pulled no punches about attitudes among both blacks and whites, he challenged the country to have a serious dialogue about race.\u201d<\/p>\n On the other hand some conservatives have responded very strongly to the current situation. Dan Phillips is a notable example<\/a>, although he does not mention the video of Obama\u2019s speech. Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost <\/em>also reports his rejection of Obama\u2019s association with a certain form of black theology<\/a> and is highly critical of him as a politician. He has read the speech<\/a>, a Justin Taylor shares the YouTube video of the original video of Wright\u2019s comments<\/a>, but also has called the speech the best he could imagine<\/a> in the circumstances, while still expressing significant concerns about Obama. He also pointed us to John McWorter\u2019s response<\/a>.<\/p>\n McWorter claims to have understood Obama\u2019s speech from the perspective of the black community. The argument could be made that it is understandable that a young man of mixed race would join a strongly black church in order to cement his own understanding of his heritage. The real story to McWorter is that Obama was incredibly bold to stand up to his ex-pastor and proclaim that his view of race was just plain wrong. Although the wrongness of Wright might seem obvious to almost all whites, it is far from obvious to many blacks who feel anger and resentment about past and current injustices. As McWorter puts it:<\/p>\n \u201cIt must be understood what a maverick statement this is from a 40-something black politician. In the black community one does not sass one\u2019s elders. One is expected to show a particular deference, understandably, to the generation who fought on the barricades of the Civil Rights movement. That is, to people of Jeremiah Wright\u2019s vintage.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n McWorter goes on to argue that Obama cleverly softens what could be considered a real blow to the black community.<\/p>\n I would add that to me the cleverest part of the whole speech is where he also softens the blow that directly speaking about racial advantage is to whites. To acknowledge clearly that there is a whole segment of white society who have not in any sense benefited from the historical and current advantages enjoyed by some blacks was surely an example of good leadership skill.<\/p>\n Erika Anderson\u2019s article is a good example in contrast of the disbelief many feel that Obama could continue in a church led by Wright for twenty years<\/a>. Thomas Sowell believes the speech raised more questions than it answered<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Jake from Charlotte argues that the original trigger for all the furor that led to this speech has a bigger problem than a few sound bites<\/a> cherry-picked for the media. He writes:<\/p>\n \u201c. . . the real problem with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is one that, sadly, has historically been systemic in the black church. The problem is that he\u2019s a political crusader masquerading as a minister of the Gospel. . . . What you\u2019ll find noticeably lacking in any of Wright\u2019s pulpit rants is any real exposition of the Bible. Even more noticeably lacking is even a passing reference to the salvation found in Christ. No reference to sin (except, of course, that of white America) and grace. In short, no Gospel. That, not his detached-from-reality political views, is the real problem.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nlthough his second post doesn\u2019t interact with it, but instead criticizes the whole notion of speechwriters.<\/p>\n