So I find the American political process completely mystifying. At this stage it seems apparent that you guys have reached the baroque stage of elections – a complicated, expensive edifice that references nothing but itself.1 Both the Democrat candidates would probably be on the right of the National party (our right wing). I read blogs of people who seem to see similar problems with the world than I do, even if they generally have less radical solutions, and I don’t understand the way they view this electoral process. So I’m going to ask a question of liberal/left-wing/progressive commentators, because I really want to know.
Who has said more that you agree with and less you disagree with Obama or Reverend Wright?
PS – the other thing I’ve been wondering is for Americans who are anti-war which is the more pertient question:
“What’s Obama doing meeting with Bill Ayers”
or
“What’s Bill Ayers doing meeting with Obama”
- unless I’ve got what baroque means wrong, in which case it’s something else [↩]
Both Ayers and Wright are millionaire asswipes, who for all their phony anti-racism have managed to torpedo the first viable black US presidential candidate.
Well, since Wright’s not running for office and his opinions don’t effing matter, especially given that Obama repudiated him, I’m gonna have to go with Obama.
I’m surprised to see you perpetuating this crap. Couldn’t you at least appear to be evenhanded and also ask: “Clinton or the Family”?
I assume Maia was thinking that she finds herself strongly agreeing with some of the things Wright says that are repudiated by the media, and that she dislikes the way he’s considered radically unacceptable.
I feel that way for a lot of what I’ve heard or read that he said, with one or two exceptions.
But I confess to not caring about him too much, except in that he reveals A) the MSM’s ability to spin justified anger from black people into a great amount of Oh no!, and B) the MSM’s hypocrisy in pretending we actually give a fuck what candidate’s preachers say as opposed to what candidate’s black preachers say.
I think there is nothing confusing about this post that requires us to parse what maia actually means; personally i agree more with Wright than Obama. But as for “whats Ayers doing meeting with Obama,’ the answer is “getting attention.” Hes not selling out the left, as he doesnt really have any organization or credibility to sell.
The fact that i find nothing odd about Maia’s question probably partially explains why I’m probably going to be a Cynthia McKinney supporter in the general election. I am very lonely in this position, this electoral cycle as most left-liberal types take the less on of the Bush years as a big reinforcement of the necessity of lesser-evilism. Given the structure f our electoral system, there are many understandable reasons to take that position. Its just that, personally, I can’t vote for someone who supported the Iraq war or further interventions in the Middle East.
Wright says things that are demonstrably true and voices the opinions, worries and oppressions of a minority community. As such, he’s a terrible embarrassment. Telling the truth? Showing that racism still exists? qu’elle horror!
The attacks against Wright are racially motivated. Outright racism against Obama isn’t polling well, so they’re testing racist attacks on a surrogate.
I feel bad for Wright in that he seems to think there’s some sort of value in speaking the truth, while he gets swiftboated, left right and center. Nobody is going to speak up for him. Obama runs away. The white media would rather further racism than combat it. The best thing Wright can do right now is keep his head down. He could fight back, and do something good for race in America, but Obama would have to fight with him, and that’s not going to happen. Too risky for Obama.
Frankly, I wish this topic would go away. The attacks against Wright have been so completely (but covertly) racist, that I’m freshly horrified every time somebody says something against him. I want to have some illusions intact at the end of this. Can we just elect Obama and work the rest of this out later?
Les, the attacks on Rev. Wright don’t strike me as being especially covert in their racism. They’ve been about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
Nan, I should mention that I’m living overseas and so haven’t been as inundated with this as you folks at home. I’ve been getting it largely second hand.
Obama’s problem is that he will omit or understate things, which leads to inaccuracy; it’s sort of a “partial truth” problem. His upside is that he seems to be making few gross misstatements.
Wright’s problem is that he will occasionally make a gross misstatement (AIDS being an excellent example.) His upside is that he seems to strive to tell the “whole truth” about other issues.
In my mind, I prefer Obama over Wright. That’s because I prioritize accuracy over completeness: I feel like I’d need to fill in the gaps for Obama, but I feel like I’d need to fact-check Wright.
I can easily see how someone would have the exact opposite opinion. However, I think it’s safe to say that the U.S. population generally regards the sin of omission as far less problematic than the sin of commission. We hold people liable for what they said more than we hold them liable for what they failed to say. I think many of the attacks on Wright are coming from that basis.
[Comment deleted by Amp. If you really want to pursue this line of discussion, Petar, please take it to an open thread; my impression is that Maia was directing this thread to, and seeking responses from, leftists.]
Maia, did you want this to be a left-wing/liberal only thread?
Probably on most of the issues he speaks about, I agree with what Wright says more than I agree with what Obama says. There are a couple of issues — such as AIDS , obviously, but also Wright’s implicit dismissal of sexism when he was contrasting the barriers faced by Obama vs. those faced by Clinton — in which he’s terribly wrong.
As for Ayers, they met with each other because they were both on the board of the same, seemingly decent charity foundation. I wouldn’t have admired either of them for refusing to meet with the other, in that context.
Ok, his comments about AIDS are not factually correct, however, they have a context. The US government has experimented on black people to the detriment of their health. The Tuskegee (sp?) experiments are only the best known example, but by no means the only example. Furthermore, the actions of the government are greatly promoting AIDS rates in black communities.
Great numbers of black men go to jail. HIV rates in jail are very high. Rape rates are very high. Only 1 US state allows prisoners access to condoms (because they don’t want the prisoners to turn gay. isn’t that special.). So we take a huge percentage of young black men and throw them in a risky environment where there is no way to have safe sex, consensual or not. Most former inmates are straight. Women can contract AIDS pretty easily if they’re not using a latex barrier. Most straight relationships don’t last that long. It’s a perfect storm of disaster. Are public officials trying to devastate the black community with AIDS when they instituted these programs? No, they were trying to devastate that black community with incarceration. They’re certainly aware of the rates of prison rape and don’t care. And they’re aware of the HIV rate and don’t care. And they know about the condom thing and don’t care. “Genocide” isn’t a word that should be thrown around lightly. I wouldn’t argue if somebody wanted to apply it to this case.
Did the US government create AIDS to hurt black people? no. Did they create a situation in which black communities are being systematically harmed and infected with HIV in the process? yes. Is there a moral difference between these two questions? barely.
Wright’s said a lot I disagree with, because I’m not Christian. I do think his words fit the spirit of the Bible pretty well. (John Hagee’s statements about Catholicism likewise make perfect sense within his crazy, convoluted interpretation of the Bible.)
Les, that is the first time I have heard that position explained and had it make sense to me. Thank you. It makes perfect sense now.
“the MSM’s ability to spin justified anger from black people into a great amount of Oh no!”
Mandolin, it is quite true that the MSM is masterful at spinning negative stereotypes and annratives about black people, but in the case of Wright, it was Youtube and his very own words that exposed him. And what got him was the formulation he used, not the substance. The substance was in no way any different from what Hagee and his ilk have been saying in general – prophetic histrionics for mass consumption in increased donations. Props to Wright for standing pat, and more to the point, props to him for his positions across.
the board.
Personally, I think the Rev., like 90% of other religious leaders, is a fraud (and a rich one). I doubt the well-educated Rev. even believes his own AIDS conspiracy theory. Also his comment about black and white children learning differently, smacked of pseudo-scientific racism a la James Watson. My main problem with the media is that they gave McCain’s religious supporters a pass, which I do think is a racial double standard.
When Rev. Wright’s friend and former college buddy, preacher Amos Brown, who talks a similar game, got appointed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, he spent about 90% of his time pandering to anti-homeless sentiments, sponsoring important legislation like taking away the homeless’s shopping carts. Brown was a complete shill for SF business interests. Maybe that’s unfair guilt by association, but i just want to illustrate that these Rev.’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken at face value.
As far as Ayers goes, every self-identified anti-racist, should use this guy as a case study when upper class white “allies” go beserk with their white guilt. The guy along with his weathermen comrades go around setting off bombs and doing robberies for more then a decade, he never spends any serious time in jail, and ends up as an upper middle class professor and on the board of various non-profits. Talk about privilege.
Yes. We know. It’s a problem.
I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at when you ask which one we agree with more. I also find it hard to answer — I suppose I would agree with Wright more, at least on political issues, but both men have said things that I disagree with.
FWIW, I suspect that Obama’s actual views are somewhat to the Left of his professed views. Any Democrat has to pay homage to the status quo in order to stand a chance of getting elected, so I don’t begrudge him doing so.
Oh, and What Les Said.
From what Ive read, Wight supports the explanation of the origin of AIDS expounded by Ed Hooper in The River. It may be incorrect, but to my lights, no crazier than the mainstream explanations that revolve around bushmeat.
http://www.aidsorigins.com/
I agree with a lot of what Wright says (and even though I am very much not a Christian, I find his sermons inspiring) and I agree with a lot of what Obama says (and Obama is open about his policy positions being what he thinks can be achieved, not what he’d like, e.g. he personally supports single payer, but doesn’t believe it is politically viable at this point). I have a faint hope that Obama’s efforts to create a mass movement, and his strong advocacy for open government and direct citizen involvement in government may actually do some good to push the politics in this country further to the left.
aroundthebend, I have find Wright’s statements on AIDS somewhat confusing. Agreeing with Hooper’s claim that AIDS is iatrogenic is unconnected to thinking that the US government would be willing to create AIDS intentionally. Certainly, if Hooper’s theory is correct (I doubt it, but I don’t think it is a crazy theory) then US physicians created AIDS while conducting (beneficial) medical research on black people (polio vaccine research in West Africa), but that seems to me to be research that is a fairly large distance from the Tuskegee atrocity.
Do most HIV infections among black people originate in prisons? I’d appreciate some numbers and citations, please; otherwise, this is just idle speculation.
The moral difference between these two questions is as wide as the gap between the Nazis and the French during World War II.
If the U.S. government created AIDS, that would be a crime far surpassing anything the Nazis ever succeeded in doing. The only appropriate response can be that of the Warsaw Ghetto to the Nazis – armed insurrection.
If the U.S. government has an unofficial policy of malign neglect of black communities, then, in principle, this can be changed through the political process. Furthermore, could you give an example of a government that you would consider an exemplar of proper conduct in this regard?
Its true that his statements haven’t been consistent, but there is a connection between tuskegee and Hooper’s theory; the polio vaccine was tested in Africa in an indiscriminate uncontrolled way and without informed consent that would be unethical on a white population in the US–thats why Koprowski did the trials in Africa in the first place, not for the benefit of the “participants.” The lack of informed consent and the racist logic of using Black patients in disempowered situations to unknowingly carry the risk of research connects the two examples. Whether or not Hoopers’ theory is valid, that dynamic around black bodies and medical progress for humanity has a long history with a lot of examples that, in my opinion justifies black suspicion and fear toward medical research.
I don’t disagree, and I suppose that is essentially what Wright was saying (I haven’t actually listened to the press conference, just seen bits and pieces).
Wright, in the press conference, referred to the book “Emerging Viruses” by one Dr. Leonard Horowitz. That book argued that HIV was created in a U.S. biological weapons laboratory. Horowitz is also a promoter of so-called “alternative medicine” (a.k.a. quackery). He’s also a dentist, not a physician, and has some rather unusual religious views.
So yes, Wright is saying that someone made a deliberate decision to create and release HIV into the human population.
So yes, Wright is saying that someone made a deliberate decision to create and release HIV into the human population.
At which point I break in to make a purely technical observation. Say what you will about whether it’s at all likely that the Federal government (or people working for it) would have either the desire or will to create something like the HIV virus in order to wipe out a minority. But the fact is that it was – and in fact, is – technically impossible. The ability to develop custom viruses in general and viruses with the unique properties and lifecycle of the HIV virus simply didn’t exist when the HIV virus first starting infecting people.
Doug–I missed that. I was going off of the original quotes from his full length serom-do you have a link?
Doug S, my source was a newspaper article, probably the NYT or the Washington Post. I’m not going to chase it down for you, because the logic is much stronger than idle speculation. If a significant percentage of black men go to prison for at least some time, and the prison HIV rates are astronomical, than it would be illogic to assume this wasn’t a major source of AIDS in the black community.
The competing theory for the high rates is the horribly homo/biphobic narrative of the closeted bisexual black man, who has sex with men on the “down low” and then evilly infects his unsuspecting female partners. I remember the hysteria about evil (white) bisexuals in the 80’s. It was exactly the same theory, but with different racial baggage.
There are many new infections in black women, who are mostly getting it from sex with men. So the question is, are the men getting it more often from shooting up, are they on the down low or are they getting it in prison? Well, the numbers of black men who pass through the prison system are much, much higher than the number of bis or of junkies. Obviously men are also getting HIV from these other means also, I’m not suggesting there’ a single cause. And I support every effort to get people clean needles and to get condoms to men having same sex encounters. However, as far as condoms go, in one case, you need a public awareness campaign and in the other, getting condoms to these men is against the law. It’s not “idle speculation” to say this is an evil situation.
Although it is much more fun to blame the evil queers. You can feel all kinds of good about your own moral superiority and wonder why “those people” are so irresponsible for bringing this down upon themselves. Bad, evil queers! Bad, evil junkies! Bad, evil black people! I don’t need to take any action at all! Hooray!
It’s such a mystery why Wright sounded so angry. . ..
A transcript of Wright’s reference to the conspiracy theorist and quack Leonard Horowitz can be found here, courtesy of the New York Times.