Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. Or is it possible that he does know the background of racism and superstition and sectarianism but thinks (as with Wright) that it might be politically useful in attracting a certain constituency? Either of these choices is pretty awful to contemplate.
It may be awful, but it's exactly correct. I seriously doubt if Obama gives a shit one way or the other about gay marriage, and he almost certainly doesn't buy into the fermented whimsies of the premillennial dispensationalist goofballs. For that matter, George W. Bush probably doesn't care about those things, no matter how much he pretends he does. It's just this same careful hypocrisy, catering to the emotionally unstable demographic that apparently cannot survive if their invisible friend and pet superstitions are not formally acknowledged at every public function.
It would be nice if Obama felt comfortable enough to just say "fuck 'em", and do whatever he needs to do -- or better yet, do nothing at all. There is serious work to get to right away, and time spent worrying about this puling nonsense is time better spent productively. I'm sure that Obama thinks it buys him some brownie points with the oppo party, but since it's just something they pay lip service to anyway, that's all it's really gonna get him.
6 comments:
Imaginary brownie points, and a couple of puff pieces in this country's Pravda and Izvestyia about how Obama's choices show early "pragmatism."
Hitchens is calling someone else odious. Hitchens is calling someone else odious.
Blink. Blink.
Anyway, I've never heard it explained exactly - what was it Wright said that was so shockingly disgusting? It sounded like pretty much what you'd hear anybody else in the world who wasn't under the spell of American exceptionalism say, and other than (admittedly tired and worn-out) jokes about white people having no rhythm, I didn't hear any racism in his comments either. No, I'm not down with the conspiratorial thinking, but I at least understand why blacks would feel that way.
Anyway, that's still funny. Hitchens, for fuck's sake.
Hitchens is an asshole, and since he had his "goodbye to all that" moment post-9/11 he's become even more insufferable. But he is also the rare talking head who, even when belligerently wrong, can think and speak clearly and extemporaneously.
He popped the ridiculous bubble around the Mother Teresa cult, and he's been one of the few "mainstream" voices to consistently poke the god-squad assholes who run this country. He's a smug prick, but once in a while he finds an acorn, which is more than you can say for most of 'em.
As for Wright, his problem is that he's a liberal black who, as you said, specifically challenged the excesses and consequences of mindless American exceptionalism. A megalomaniacal cocksucker like Sun Myung Moon -- who has had a demonstrable and unseemly influence on American policy over the years -- can get away with it. He can stand there and refer to America as the spawn of Satan, and get a former president and his greasy offspring to shill for him, because he speaks the tropes of "social conservatives", who genuinely despise Americans anyway. But Wright is the bad guy. Hokay.
You're right, it makes no sense. Too bad Wright didn't have quite enough initiative to start a lucrative cult in order to fund everything from propaganda arms to arms-smuggling operations.
And I liked Wright's jokes about white-people rhythm. Every time you see a clip of megachurch music, it's rows of doughy white people, plastered with doofy grins, clapping on ones and threes. It's never not going to be funny.
You're right, I myself appreciate Hitch's outspoken atheism, so there is that. I guess I'm just amazed at seeing him take such a cheap shot at someone as relatively inoffensive as Wright, especially by putting him on some kind of level with Warren.
And Wright was admittedly an entertaining guy, I just mean the general theme of clumsy, uptight whiteys has pretty much been done to death. Not that it's not true, but in fact, that it's so true and obvious it hardly bears repeating.
Point taken. And it's true -- Wright has received far worse treatment for his "controversial" statements, while Warren has, if anything, been rewarded for his bluster.
Hitchens may have been trying to rhetorically split the difference, by pre-emptively mentioning Wright as he's excoriating Warren's more notorious statements. But Hitchens should know better, given his own catalog of anti-imperialist sentiments.
Again, I think a great deal of it boils down to reg'lar 'murkins' being fearful and mistrustful of a black man's anger. (Maybe they should watch some of Fred Williamson's early-'70s work.)
They know what Rick Warren's about, and like cafeteria Catholics, are content to sift through his bullshit for the porpoise-driven affirmations they want to hear. Wright just scares the hell out of them, because they subconsciously divide blacks into "good ones" and....well, you know.
Rick Warren gets the right to make a goddamned fool out of himself, but Wright gets held accountable for every raised eyebrow and offhand gesture he makes. It's bullshit, like the invocation itself.
Post a Comment