Barack Obama’s comments this week about American values reveal not just elitism and a lack of understanding about the values most Americans hold dear, but they also expose him as using religion for political gain.
As a reminder, here is what he said. There was a question from some of his donors who asked what they could expect in Pennsylvania when they traveled there to campaign for him. They had to work to do, Obama responded, because voters in a lot of the communities feel beaten down by job losses and betrayed by their government. “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said.
Let’s start with the easy part: It’s human nature to project our experiences on to other people–to assume that they have traveled a similar road and that our experiences and conclusions are somewhat universal. Perhaps this is how HE views these issues—that religion is placebo for the problems of the world or that guns make people feel powerful when they have no power. But Obama’s comments not only show that he believes the way he lives his life to be better than the way many Americans choose to live their lives, but they also show that he isn’t aware of this tendency towards projection. Which means that if he is given the chance to lead this great nation, he will do so only guided by his own personal view of the American Experience and without even a limited understanding of what the majority of Americans truly believe. He doesn’t understand the underlying conservative (not Republican–conservative) values that most Americans hold dear. I’m not saying he has to be able to bowl a 160, or hit a soup can with a 9mm from 50 feet, or even raise his hands in worship. He just needs to know that a significant number of Americans do–and it’s a choice we freely make; if for no other reason than it lets us spend time with our friends and neighbors who like the same things.
His inclusion of religion in his remarks, however, also tells us something about the Illinois Senator. The inference from his recent comments is that, as Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” Religion isn’t something real in our lives. It isn’t a relationship with the Creator. Religion, Marx and Obama tell us, is a painkiller for what really ails us—economic hardship brought on by others, victimization at the hands of “the man,” powerlessness. Furthermore, he implies that this phenomenon is unique to the weak members of society who cannot otherwise cope with their predicament. This is from a man who wrote in his memoirs, “Inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story.” Are we to assume that he feels the thousands of black church members are simply looking for a way to deal with their frustrations? Because I didn’t hear him say any of that last month when speaking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Was David clinging to religion when he found the courage to take on Goliath? Were the members of Trinity United Church of Christ clinging to religion as they dealt with the frustrations Reverend Wright prattled on about from the pulpit?
Campaigning in South Carolina last fall, Obama trumpeted the power and salvation of faith and asked a church audience to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth.” Would that be the Kingdom of Bitterland, Senator?
After his highly regarded speech on race in America, he was discussing his grandmother. He allowed as how she didn’t believe when she was alive, as he does, that Jesus was God and died for our sins. And yet he asserted his confidence that she is in heaven. I’m sorry, Senator. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot speak of the power of salvation through Jesus Christ and then say Grammy’s in heaven even though she didn’t believe. There are many who might agree that a life well lived is sufficient and God will judge accordingly. But they do not also speak of salvation through Jesus. I would be happy to overlook religious views different than my own—I do it every election. What I can’t do is ignore the hypocrisy of a man whose core values seem to change depending on his audience. Either, Senator Obama, you believe Jesus saves or you don’t.
Either, Senator Obama, you believe religion provides freedom, survival and hope or you believe religion is a bad drug.
Make up your mind, Senator. Make a decision. Take a stand.
Senator Obama believes in the power of his own palaver. He has created a platform of hope that many Americans are desperate to hear and believe. He has sought to tempt conservative Americans with talk of personal responsibility and with stories of his life of faith. He sketched out a plan for the presidency and it looked like genius. Leonardo da Vinci sketched a helicopter in 1483. When a prototype was built from the diagrams a few years ago, it never flew. Like Barack Obama’s oratory, it all looks good on paper, but it will never fly.
Elitism? Absolutely. But we can live with elitism. I don’t believe Senators Clinton or McCain to be any less elitist. But we must begin to see Obama for who he is. We must look beyond our own desire for a message of hope and seek real leadership from a candidate with a plan for America’s continued preeminence that consists of something more than just an artist’s rendering of the future.
-
1
Pingback on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
[...] 19, 2008 Click here for a new blog from Drexel Kleber, host of Kicking the [...]
Leave a Comment
Columbus Day
How did you spend your Columbus Day? I had no luck talking my family into caroling through the neighborhood singing traditional Italian sailing songs of Indian oppression. Sigh.
MNF: Jon Gruden
I like what Jon Gruden is doing on Monday Night Football tonight. Sure it's only the first night, but I like his perspective, his input and his delivery. Let's see if it lasts.
House Resolution 204
Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.
Just when you thought your Congress wasn't doing anything. When you thought them inept, embroiled in bureaucracy and piddly partisan politics, they came together--424 to nothing. That's right. Zip. Nada. Nothing. No dissents. No food for thought. Just unanimity.
What, pray tell, could bring about such consensus? What could cause bitter enemies to set aside their rancor and think of the country first and not their own selfish interests?
I give you House Resolution 204. Introduced March 3. Passed May 13. Sponsored by Republican Michael Simpson from Idaho.
Doesn't he have a lovely smile?
The full text is here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-204.
But let me summarize. Our Congress is, Congratulating the American Dental Association for its 150th year of working to improve the public's oral health and promoting dentistry, supporting initiatives to improve access to oral health care services for all Americans, and emphasizing the benefits of prevention of disease through support of community prevention initiatives and promotion of good oral hygiene."
Isn't change good?
The Lasting Effect of Sarah Palin
I, for one, have been wondering about the LASTING effect of Sarah Palin.
Would she have any lasting effect on the American political landscape or would she just be the political equivalent of Max Headroom?
Ms. Palin was probably beginning to think, based on her speaking slot at CPAC, that she was losing all her momentum. Au contraire. I have noticed a new trend in men's fashion eye wear that I hope Ms. Palin will be happy about.
Given the fickle nature of fashion, I seriously doubt that this is the kind of thing the GOP can turn into increased voter turnout or use to create crossover appeal with democrats. But given the state of the GOP today, they should be happy with any influence on American lives, no matter how trivial.
DUPLICITY
Just a fun thing to look for. I recently went to see Duplicity starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. I enjoyed the movie but what I enjoyed most was the portrayal of two rival CEOs, the heads of Companies Burkett and Randall and Equikrom being fashioned in the likeness of Cosmo Spacely—Spacely Sprockets
and Henry Cogswell—Cogswell Cogs.
The Duplicity CEOs were played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson.
As for the movie, let the memory of your childhood guide your prognostications.
Joe Biden: Oh Dear, What a Mess
For thinking people, I can't imagine any favorable response to Joe Biden's acceptance speech Wednesday night. First off, compared with the quality of speech making skills, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton are clearly the cream of the crop. President Clinton's speech, like his wife's, was a flawlessly delivered effort and deserves much praise in that regard. If you make public appearances, tape and dissect these efforts. Joe Biden stumbled through his speech like an amputee in quicksand by comparison.
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. Hillary’s DNC Speech
You've got to give credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton is an excellent orator. She DELIVERED that speech extremely well. James Carville seemed ready to serve papers on his wife Mary and propose immediately to the NY Senator. Gushing though he was, Mr. Carville was dead on. Hillary Clinton can give a speech and she made those who preceded her look amateurish.
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.FREEDOM and LIBERTY
Bert Hornbeck had an interesting blog recently. In it he noted that, “Free” is a very important word, and “freedom” is very different from “liberty.” The immediate root of “liberty” is the Latin LIBER—which also gives us “libido” and “libation.” “Libido” has to do with desire; “libations” are outpourings, from the Greek.[ii] “Liberty” is a do-my-own-thing word; it has nothing to do with the idea of society. “Free,” however, is a friendly word—literally, historically. “Friend” comes into English from the Germanic FREI, which means dear, or beloved. “Free,” remarkably enough, comes into English at about the same time—in perhaps the eighth century—from exactly the same root. The understanding in both “friend” and “free” is what we call love: the relation of self with what self holds dear. As “friend” becomes “free,” it makes the idea of freedom social. It says that you can’t be free by yourself.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.National Democratic Do-over
If the Democrats were acting rationally as Democrats, the super delegates would quit dancing for the man and look seriously at Hillary Clinton at this point.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.Obama’s Global Poverty Act
It might be too strong to say "All things" global bother me, but it's not far from the truth. Obama's support of this bill is indicative of my major concern of his candidacy.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.Talk of a Declining Obama Campaign
For all the talk of the demise of the GOP, this campaign seems more and more to foretell the demise of the Democrats.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.Cynical on Cyrus
Miley Cyrus is apparently now "embarrassed" about her Annie Liebovitz. photo in the upcoming Vanity Fair.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.The Democrats Jimmy Carter Problem
To extrapolate from Carter's experience, an intelligent Democratic candidate might surmise that meetings with despots around the world is a bad idea, at home and abroad.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?Faustian Economics by Wendell Berry
If you are not a subscriber to Haper's Magazine, I highly recommend you venture out to the book store of your choice and pick up a copy of the May issue so you can read Wendell Berry's excellent article "Faustian Economics" which is no where near as boring as the title would imply (sorry WB).
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
Drexel Kleber
-
-
April 22, 2008 at 2:18 am
Wow…I don’t get to read “great” articles very often in a blog, but this is one of them. Superb! Not one point did I disagree!
April 28, 2008 at 8:19 am
I believe in a higher being, but I’m not a religious person. I also believe that Sen. Obama’s Grandmother is indeed in heaven. She lived a good life, raised a fine young black man who just might be the next President of the United States. I also believe that if I follow a higher road during my time on earth, that I too will know heaven.
I am a white woman of 59 with two well educated daughters. We, along with my republican Mom, have voted for Sen. Obama in our primaries and will vote for him should he be the nominee.
As far as your comments “Barack Obama’s comments this week about American values reveal not just elitism and a lack of understanding about the values most Americans hold dear, but they also expose him as using religion for political gain.” Poppy Cock!
Sen. Obama was telling the truth and his remarks were totally misunderstood. As we all know, Politicians are very slick at changing the subject. Pennsylvania has lost most of its manufacturing jobs and what have the state politicians done to help these people? Do they fight for programs to develop new jobs, do they take hard stands to correct the problem, do they buck the system and fight to make NAFTA and other programs fair to the American worker, do they buck the system and propose programs specifically aimed at correcting the vast space between those who have and those who don’t…..? NO, THEY TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT AND INSTEAD THEY BACK ISSUES SUCH AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT, RELIGION IN SCHOOLS…..ETC.
If you check the voting records of local and state politicians, you would find that Sen. Obama is indeed correct. Now I agree his choice of words left a bit to be desired, but if one really investigates his career actions, I think we can all agree he is a regular Joe. The media, the McCain Campaign and the Clinton campaign made a big issue of this because I believe they are quietly playing the race card. Who is really of the elite crowd here, Obama or Clinton and McCain? Give me a break, Sen. Obama just finished paying off his student loans!
I was not replying to your interview, I just sent my comments to Scott. However, I appreciate your reply and accept that you believe what you have written. I believe that Sen. Obama, if elected President, will indeed have an administration that is BY THE PEOPLE, not by lobbyists, elitists and those to whom favors are owed.