Bill Ayers speaks out! An In These Times exclusive.

In These Times

PrintDiscuss
Views » March 28, 2008 » Web Only

Is Wright Right About Racism?

By David Sirota

Since the 1960s, bigotry has undergone an aesthetic makeover. Today, the most pernicious racists do not wear pointy hoods, scream epithets and anonymously burn crosses from behind masks. They don starched suits, recite sententious bromides and stage political lynchings before television cameras. For proof, behold the mob stalking Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Wright has long delivered fiery (and occasionally outrageous) sermons, to little fanfare. Now, though, a gang of thugs is inflicting a guilt-by-association blow to Obama by excoriating his spiritual adviser for three specific declarations.

Sean Hannity, Fox News’ own George Wallace, turned a fire hose on Wright for his church’s focus. “[The church] is all about the black community,” Hannity thundered, claiming that means Wright supports “a black-separatist agenda.”

Pat Buchanan billy-clubbed Wright for saying, “God damn America.” The MSNBC commentator, who avoided the draft, implied that Wright, a former Marine, lacks sufficient loyalty to country. Out of context, Wright’s exclamation was admittedly offensive. But remember: It punctuated a speech about segregation. Buchanan, nonetheless, unleashed, deriding “black hustlers” and insisting descendants of those “brought from Africa in slave ships” owe whites a thank you. “Where is the gratitude?” he asked.

Fox’s Charles Krauthammer berated Wright for saying the 9/11 attacks were “chickens coming home to roost.” Krauthammer labeled the pronouncement “vitriolic divisiveness” despite our government acknowledging the concept of “blowback” — or retaliation — Wright was referencing. The CIA knows that when it supports foreign dictatorships, there can be blowback from radicals. While blowback is often immoral and undeserved, its existence is undisputed. Yet, Krauthammer alleged that Wright takes “satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents.”

In promoting the Wright “controversy,” most media outlets joined this mob and embraced “colorblind racism,” says Duke University’s Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of Racism Without Racists.

It is polite pinstriped prejudice shrouding bigotry in feigned outrage against extremism — the operative word being “feigned.” After all, John McCain solicited the endorsement of John Hagee — the pastor who called the Catholic Church “a great whore.” Similarly, according to Mother Jones, Hillary Clinton belongs to the “Fellowship” — a secretive group “dedicated to ‘spiritual war’ on behalf of Christ.” She is also friendly with Billy Graham, the reverend caught on tape spewing anti-Semitism. But while Wright’s supposed “extremism” blankets the news, McCain and Clinton’s relationships with real extremists receive scant attention.

Why is it “controversial” for one pastor to address the black community, racism and blowback, but OK for another pastor to slander an entire religion? Why is it news that one candidate knows a sometimes-impolitic clergyman, but not news that his opponent associates with an anti-Semite? Does the double standard prove the dominant culture despises a black man confronting taboos, but accepts whites spewing hate? Does the very reaction to Wright show he’s right about racism?

Clinton seems to think so. Her aides have been calling the states they believe Obama will lose their political “firewall.” That’s campaign-speak for “race wall” — one built with bricks like Pennsylvania and Indiana. These aren’t the near-purely white states where racial politics is often muted (and Obama won). They are the slightly diverse states where racial politics simmers and where the black vote is too small to offset a motivated racist vote. This race wall is now being fortified.

ABC News reports that Clinton’s campaign is “pushing the Wright story” ahead of the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. The crass tactic is designed to motivate the racist vote by reminding whites of Obama’s connection to the African-American community. Put another way, Clinton’s message has become simply: Obama Is Black.

Wright probably expected this brouhaha. He says our government is “controlled by rich white people” and our culture afflicted by racism. Though these statements are also deemed distasteful by the Establishment, they are truisms. You can see their veracity in the collected portraits of white millionaires commonly called the congressional photo directory. Or, just turn on your television and watch the mob continue stoking the Wright “controversy.”

David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was released in May 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations.

More information about David Sirota

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    You asked, “Is Wright Right About Racism?”

    Check out the church’s website. It looks like Hannity is right on when he says, “[The church] is all about the black community,” Hannity thundered, claiming that means Wright supports “a black-separatist agenda.”

    Posted by whattheheck on Mar 28, 2008 at 7:30 AM

    Wright is nutty, but he is not running for anything (i fact, i believe he just retired). He lived through bad times that most blacks under 40 can barely imagine. So what? He’s just a kook, like Falwell, Robertson, et al. Let him fade to obscurity with little fanfare as did the KKK and other racist organizations.

    (In this country, playing with religion can burn you. Anyone remember Sinéad O’Connor tearing up a photo of the Pope on Saturday Night Live? Never saw her again. . . )

    Posted by wolf on Mar 28, 2008 at 8:16 AM

    Actually, I agree with almost everything Jeremiah Wright said, and I’m white. And if anyone, including Sirota, were to write about this controversy with a bit of honesty, they would admit that what really brought all this to a boil was Wright’s temerity in suggesting that Israel might be in the wrong in its criminal treatment of the Palestinians. The rest is a smokescreen.

    Posted by opeluboy on Mar 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM

    opeluboy - Just out of curiosity, are you for are against Obama? Even he found much of what Wright said despicable (as did i). I give him a pass for the same reason i might give any racist a pass. Times have changed and their experiences differ from mine in a huge variety of ways. But i hope each generation improves on the last. . ..

    Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2008 at 8:56 AM

    Although Obama wants to change the focus to racial problems ( and has largely suceeded), the issue is not what Wright thinks or why he thinks it. The issue is to what degree Obama is conciously or unconsiously influenced by twenty years of associating with Wright.

    What if a candidate had a Clansman as his “mentor” and friend for two decades — wouldn’t that give cause for concern? Would we simply say, Well he had bad experiences with black people and it has influenced his attitude?

    Read the stuff at the church’s website and substitute white supremist each time it says black or African.

    I voted for Obama here in Illlinois, but am far less impressed with his governmental ideas and proposals than I had expected to be. He is a good speaker and a great campaigner, but is either totally naive (I doubt that.) or just making the usual political promises knowing full well there is no way to fund them.

    Israel is mostly about having a “friend” in the oil patch. If Wright’s influence comes through will we drop them in favor of some African country.

    Sure, if they have oil.

    Posted by whattheheck on Mar 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 66 posts.

Also by David Sirota
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS

Popularity

In These Times is published in Chicago. We’ve been around since 1976, fighting for workers’ rights, corporate accountability and progressive government. In other words, a better world. more

Copyright © 2008 In These Times