Equal Time for Equal Divisiveness

If you think this racism debate is just an orchestrated distraction, I beg to differ.  I was watching Bill Maher Friday night (love that show!!!)  During this particular episode, Maher and the panelists talked about the Rev. Wright fall-out, and the media's castigation of both Wright and Obama.  Maher read an excerpt from an MSNBC interview with Pat Buchanan.  If you don't already know, Buchanan is a regular on the MSNBC morning news programs and a former 3-time presidential candidate (1992, 1996, 2000).

Here is his quote:

"America has been the best country on earth for Black Folks. No people anywhere has done more to lift up Blacks than White Americans....  welfare, foodstamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing...."   Check the transcript for the 3/28 show on www.billmaher.com

The reason why I think the race debate is not just a ratings grab by the conservative news programs - but continues to be a real American struggle - is because of the subjective use of the "fair and balanced" approach they've taken.  They proclaim to cover news stories (like the Rev. Wright coverage) because the public has a right to know.  Their position:  when somebody makes blanket, divisive, and racially charged statements, they should be demanded to give a thorough explanation of their intent.  They need to be exposed.  The people who listen to them and don't immediately disavow and repudiate the language should be held to the same scrutiny.  Right?  I mean, Americans need to know when there are dissenters among us.

Where is the news media's coverage of Buchanan?  Why aren't the same journalists who so skillfully found and outed the rants of Wright not pursuing this with the same tenacity?  Is it because Buchanan is one of their regular guests?  Is it because he kinda' like a friend (or an old uncle) of the show who sometimes will say things that they don't necessarily agree with?  Certainly, it would be over-blown to intimate that Joe Scarborough or Dan Abrams co-sign everything Buchanan says?  After all, these responsible men deliver the news and help shape the understanding of things for MILLIONS of viewers DAILY - just look at their ratings.  Surely they know the importance of being objective, covering all angles, and exposing doctrines and thoughts that could be corrosive to the American ideology.  Then again, maybe not.  Maybe, this is the fair and balanced answer to Wright's snippets, and Obama's speech, and Rice's interview.

I'm not sure of the forum in which Buchanan provided these insights.  It might have been on TV, maybe in an interview for a publication, maybe in a small gathering of people who were infiltrated by an outsider/whistleblower.  Regardless, given Buchanan's national platform and access to public airwaves - doesn't there need to be some coverage for this?  I dare say that Buchanan has much more political sway with a broader swath of the American populace than Rev. Wright.

Now - Buchanan is entitled to his opinion that Black folks should thank White folks for the fine and generous public assistance and social programs of the American government.  Buchanan has First Amendment rights like every other American.  Furthermore, I agree with the idea that far too often people (all races) in America lean on the government  for assistance instead taking responsibility for making their own way in the world.  But that wasn't even the point of his comment - not even close.  Buchanan was responding to Obama's statement (in his March 18 speech) where he said that the problems that Blacks face in America are real, and not just in their own minds. Again, context is everything.

So this brings me back to my original point.  In my opinion, the reason why this doesn't get the same coverage as Wright's comments is because (like Wright said) it DOES fit the model.  White supremacy, intolerance, segregation, and a European countenance to the world (especially for this country's leadership) is what this country has known for most of it's existence.  

Is America still the greatest country on earth?  Far and away by virtually all measuring sticks.  But do we have one of the most troubling origins and histories? Depends on who you ask.  Those who leverage power most likely feel different about it than those are under it.  That goes for political, economic, class, educational, and communicative powers.

Just my opinion.

Nothing like an inconvenient truth....

Condelezza Rice is finally seeing the light at the end of the Bush tunnel!  The lame duck months to come might produce some fireworks and raise the race debate to a new level.  I applaud the comments she had for The Washington Times (published on Friday March 28).  She was asked to comment on the Barack Obama speech that he gave on March 18.  Hopefully she will continue to feel like she can speak freely, and hopefully Colin Powell will add to the dialog.  Maybe their perspectives, which undoubtedly will support the conversation that Barack started, will give credence to the comments that the majority has tried to dismiss over these last 2 weeks.  I'd like to see the establishment try to tear down Powell or Rice like they have done to other Black leaders who challenge the glossing-over of our history in the United States. 

In this interview she pointed out that the US has a hard time dealing with race because of a "national birth defect....Blacks and Whites founded the country together....but Europeans by choice, and Africans in chains.....and Blacks, because of race, never had the same opportunities, which makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today."  

I love the metaphor of the "birth defect".  Our nation was born with the DNA of slavery and intolerance.  Just like a family that loves the baby in spite of it's defect, we as citizens love our country.  But when the caregivers for the baby choose to ignore the defect, or act like it doesn't exist, they do more harm than good.  The healthy thing to do is acknowledge the defect, work with the baby to overcome the defect, and refuse to let that defect define who that baby is. Institutions, state hospitals, and the nation's streets are full of lost souls whose defects went ignored.  The baby who is nurtured and given the right love and motivation will grow up and matriculate into the mainstream, and become productive.  Rice's analogy was right on the mark.

I've got to confess that I never expected this from Conde Rice, but I am so very happy to know she's sensitive to the struggle.  She has suffered through a very tough 7 years of ignorance, betrayal, and deception, while trying to keep the world image of the United States in tact.  An extremely difficult job I'm sure, given the boss she has had to represent.  Can't wait to read her memoirs once this administration leaves office.

Here's the other side of the race debate:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell - "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." - Feb. 6th.   His defense - "I was trying to handicap the race..  It's like trying to say that North Carolina beat Duke because they have taller players.  Taller players generally get more rebounds than shorter players.  I was 'talking' in a private room, I didn't think that my comments would get into the public domain....I don't regret my comments, I told the truth....and we've got to be able to speak the truth about race without someone pointing a finger and saying you're racist."   

So here is my question...

If this happened back on February 6th, why is it only being brought out now?  Typically, inflammatory comments like this make the headlines and cable news networks within 24 hours.  Why does this get excused?  Not trying to pick a fight, or drag Gov. Rendell over the coals, but don't his comments deserve the same scrutiny, context truncation, and over-reaction that other racially-based comments have gotten?  Oh yeah, he's not running for President, so what he says isn't that important.  He's just the 2-time governor of a state with 158 democratic delegates to be apportioned, and holds the highest political and public office over a state of 12 million citizens (10.7% of them are Black).   Besides, he was just talking amongst friends about his true feelings, and would have said something much more "acceptable" if he thought the world would hear his words and twist them.  Sound ironic?  

Don't worry Ed, you'll get the "establishment" pass for these gaffes,  just like Hillary has gotten for her "mis-speak" about her 1996 trip to Bosnia when she was ducking and running from gunfire.

Obama's speech - my perspective

A few observations about Obama's speech and the controversy swirling about Rev. Wright's very damaging comments during one of his sermon's...

1 - Obama has clearly stated that he totally condemns and rejects the expressions in the 30 sec snippet that has been playing continuously in the news media. Pundits keep asking "where does he stand on this issue?" I think if they listen to his words, it's pretty clear. He totally rejects the statements. This "gotcha" campaign that says he's flip-flopping is absurd. Did he hear controversial comments while in the pews? - Of course - who doesn't? Did he hear the specific tirade being referenced in the media - probably not. It's easy to verify. I think the media sleuths can confirm if a presidential candidate with a security detail was in a specific church on Christmas morning 2007.

2- The sermon that this inflamatory excerpt was extracted from was probably 30-45 minutes in its entirety. In the spirit of being fair and just, why won't the news media post to their websites footage of 1-2 minutes before and 1-2 minutes after this snippet to get more of the context? Maybe it's no coincidence that they fail to include the part of the sermon where Wright talks about Jesus being Black. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcOOSpvC2JI)

3 - I agree 100% that the words and manner in which Wright expressed these ideas were in poor taste, divisive, and ignorant. But remember, he was drawing a contrast between Clinton and Obama in their candidacies for president and how each identifies with the African American experience. As an Obama supporter, it was his intention to make a strong argument for Obama over Clinton. Admittedly, it got lost in the inflamatory and harsh words he used, but the intent was clear. Conversative detractors won't acknowledge or give the full context any airtime because it doesn't support their objective.

4 - Rev. Wright has been a pastor for over 30 years, and Obama's pastor for over 20 years. If this kind of rhetoric is all he offered to his congregation, someone as smart and ambitious as Obama would not be associated with it. I think a congregation of over 8,000 Christians would be hard to maintain for 20 years if all you did was spew hatred. It is equally absurd to discredit Obama's faith or devotion to Christianity by suggesting he simply joined Trinity 20 years ago for the political boost that comes with belonging to a "mega church." I heard that one this morning. Do we sum up Geraldine Ferraro's accomplishments and contributions to America with her latest commentary that ignorantly attributes Obama's success to his race? I don't think so. As the vast majority of the American political machine has demonstrated, "throwing someone under the bus" is an easy fix to get the monkey off your back. Fortunately, and to Obama's credit, character, and Christian values, he can still love the person, but be firm and deliberate in rejecting the person's transgressions. WWJD?

5 - Now that Obama diffused the argument that Wright is racist, the media has switched the attack and is now beating the "Anti-American" drum in describing Wright's comments. I think Obama has diffused this as well. When you think of the backdrop of Rev. Wright's generation's experience, parallelisms are easy to draw. Has anybody ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment (1932-1972!), Jim Crow, Iran-Contra Affair, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Abu-Ghraid? Not America's best examples of how we've treated people around the world, and so maybe the AIDS accusation (as stupid as it is to suggest) is not so far-fetched to some. Ron Paul has chosen different words to suggest equally damaging anti-American ideas - and he raised record amounts of campaign contributions as a result. Not trying to indict Ron Paul, but are anti-American comments more acceptable in a presidential debate than in a church? How many sitting members of Congress (both the House and Senate) come out of a southern heritage steeped in segregation? How many of them are old enough to have taken a definitive stand at the height of the civil rights movement? How many did?

6- Is the media going to jump on McCain's unconscionable mistake at a press conference while in Jordan? Are they gonna run it on an endless loop and caption it with some remarks that suggest incompetence or disconnect with the issues? Or will they just chalk it up to senility? If he said it once, then I think it could be dismissed as a simple mis-speak. Three times indicates to me he doesn't have a clue. Or maybe they (the people in the region) all look alike to him, so maybe he thinks they're all the same. Hmmm, seems like I've heard that before. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_jordan)

So, where does it go from here? Those of us who are stuck in our own small-minded insecurities of race will continue to focus on the words of a retired Black preacher who is not running for president, and who would be dismissed as a kook were it not for one particular church member. They are hung up on a pastor who never even officially endorsed Obama for president. Unlike John Hagee's, Trent Lott's, Tom Delay's, Jeb's, or Dubya's endorsements - are these elected officials and policy makers controversy-free? Where is the equal time?

Those of us who are un-affected by the moment will probably sway in whichever direction the winds blow. (You know, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...") They will abdicate social responsibility and independent thought to a bunch of self-declared experts who get paid handsomely to truncate the facts to promote sensationalized opinions and keep ratings high.

Then there are the people who care enough to jump into the fray, deal with the uncomfortable truths about our history, our prejudices (we've all got them), our frustrations, and get it all out on the table. Hopefully the people of this temperment will be the majority in a time where the stakes for America have never been higher.

Just one man's opinion....