Wright Here, Wright Now (or, Everything Wright is Wrong Again)

As we’ve noted before, the problem with a weekly blog is that it’s always difficult to decide when to write in the midst of particularly relevant events. We’re not designed to be “breaking news” (or news at all, actually); our goal is to apply political science, communication and political psychology scholarly principles to the news so that our readers get a perspective that differs from that of the media and most other blogs.

We started to write after Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave an interview to Bill Moyers for PBS on Friday.

Then again when he delivered an address Sunday night at the NAACP dinner in Detroit.

Then again when he spoke to the National Press Club on Monday.

But then Barack Obama gave a press conference on Tuesday that referred to Wright’s remarks at those events.

Assuming that neither of them will speak today, here we go.

Barack Obama is still in a pickle. Many progressives (of all races) and African Americans will be upset that he distanced himself further from Wright, while conservatives will not be satisfied because the more forceful denouncement yesterday will be seen as too late (and seen as disingenuous). After all, what did Wright say this weekend that he hadn’t said before? Was it Wright’s antics at the Press Club that offended Obama so? That’s not what Obama said was the reason. There seems to be very little justification, in fact, for the line in the sand to be drawn over the weekend, other than that Wright seemed to attack Obama personally. To Obama, who defended Wright more than he criticized him in his March 18 speech in Philadelphia, this sort of personal betrayal may be intolerable in a way that Wright’s sometimes zany assertions are not.

Roland Martin called the exchange between Obama and Wright “black on black violence” on his radio show this morning, noting that Wright needs to stand down at this point because it’s not doing Obama any good. Whether Wright is concerned about that at this point is arguable.

The fact is that Wright is very insightful in much of what he says – even the most controversial remarks (leave aside his very conservative positions regarding personal responsibility and “family values”). If he put it another way, much of what he says might very well be agreeable to a significant portion of the population who is “offended” by his remarks. But why should he have to put it another way? He is a preacher in a black church. He is not running for office, and he did not ask to be in the national spotlight, much less in the middle of an historic presidential campaign. It’s very plausible that moderate and even progressive whites are more upset by how these assertions are delivered and by whom than they are about the statements themselves.

Is it “deplorable,” for instance, to suggest that 9/11 resulted from a history of American foreign policy that the attackers and their supporters found to be oppressive? Certainly not. For one, even if it is true that American foreign policy has been oppressive, that’s an explanation, not an excuse, for the attacks. Saying that the “chickens are coming home to roost” (even if it is a quote from an Iranian official rather than Wright’s words) is not necessarily a celebration of the roost. As Wright noted in Detroit, he is being descriptive. His claim that the descriptiveness is mutually exclusive with divisiveness is off base, but that is really beside the point. And secondly, if one does not believe that American foreign policy has been oppressive, it is still rational to conclude that the 9/11 attackers perceived it to be that way, which is why they attacked. The explanation is much more understandable than “they hate our freedom.”

Is it “deplorable” to suggest that he and others would not be surprised if the U.S. government was involved in systematically infecting the black population with AIDS? Certainly not. It’s not a particularly bright or seemingly valid accusation, but one ought to be able to understand his suspicion of government involvement in biological agents generally, particularly after the Tuskegee experiments. Wright was mistaken when he claimed that African American men were injected with syphilis in those studies, but it is factual that the government used those who had the disease as a control group in an experiment for 40 years, telling some 400 black men that they had “bad blood” and were being treated when they were not. (They weren’t even told that they had syphilis.) We’ve heard folks argue that because Wright lied (misspoke, exaggerated, etc.) about the “injections,” his argument falls apart. Do we really want to take the position that what the government did wasn’t “that bad” since it intentionally and misleadingly withheld treatment as opposed to directly infecting? In this context, some level of suspicion is tolerable at least, and understandable in many ways.

Empathy is not the same as sympathy. The false binary political culture in which we find ourselves leaves little room for understanding yet still disagreeing with an opponent’s point. What passes for “dialogue” is little more than argument. When a listener calls in to Sean Hannity’s radio show, for instance, he “listens” to their ideas and responds with his own. At some point, he invariably says, “Well, I’m not going to convince you. . .,” as if that is the only reason to engage someone in dialogue. If he can’t convince them, then he’s not interested in the discussion any longer. But we grow intellectually through the thoughtful and meaningful exchange of ideas. It is this exchange that has led to progress in social movements throughout history, and it is this exchange that is sorely needed with respect to modern race relations in America.

If this were not in a presidential race (and tied to a presidential candidate), it would be a wonderful time to open dialogue about different perceptions of America between whites and people of color. That’s what Obama tried to explain in his March 18 address. Unfortunately, though, a discussion that should be about race is conflated with a discussion of whether one particular black American is fit to be president. It’s too bad, too, because while we are still technically having the discussion as a nation, we are not having it in the way we should be. Rev. Wright’s position deserves scrutiny and attention, but it has very little to do with Barack Obama’s suitability for the presidency or the Democratic nomination for the presidency. His opponents understand this, but choose to use Wright as a wedge to play on racial resentments. Wright claimed that the attack from the mainstream media was against black theology in general; he is on point with this. While that might not be the conscious intent of the attacks, such vitriol is much less tolerable by whites when it comes from an African American, particularly one who does not fit the white model of what a church leaders should be (and should be talking about). Indeed, it becomes just another example of “uppity” blacks not knowing their place in society (or in the pecking order for a Democratic presidential nomination).