Mike Murray essay -- Pretty Prose

21 March 2008

Pretty Prose

-- by Mike Murray

Barack Obama gave a compelling speech the other day – an impressive overview of race relations in America. Employing soaring rhetoric, he related events from his own experience. And he invoked the inspirational words of Abraham Lincoln. Moving stuff, that.

But rather than illuminate his reasons for sometimes abandoning the lofty ideals of race transcendence that he routinely advocates on the campaign trail, Obama used pretty prose to obfuscate and distract. He changed the subject.

I recall a story told by an old college accounting professor of mine. He said that while an undergraduate, he and a frat brother were less than studious. As a religion-class final exam approached, they fretted. Neither had properly prepared.

And so they conspired to surreptitiously discover the subject of the essay question that would entirely comprise the upcoming test. Thus informed, they were relieved of the burden of having to comprehensively study the course’s content. They had only to prep for one question.

When the big day arrived, they were confident. But they were soon discomforted. Expecting to be directed to “Discuss the travels of the Apostle Paul,” they were instead confronted by this exam question: “Critique the Sermon on the Mount.”

Both students panicked. As the teller of the story sat forlornly for long minutes, he noticed that his friend eventually began to write – furiously. But he, realizing the futility of it all, turned in a blank Blue Book and exited the room. Some time later, grades were posted. He was not surprised to learn that he had flunked.

His buddy, however, received an “A.” And on his test booklet the instructor had written this: “My son, you appear to have the calling. I suggest that you consider a career in theology.”

Stunned, the failed student demanded to know: What gives? How in the world had his friend aced a test question for which he hadn’t prepared? A closer look at the winning essay answer revealed all: “While there are some who would criticize the word of the Lord our God, I am not among them. I shall instead discuss the travels of the Apostle Paul.”

Barack Obama surely would have admired the ingenuity. Like the student in the story, he, too, is a master manipulator. He is similarly clever. Unlike the student in the story, however, Obama is truly special. He is intelligent and thoughtful. He is possessed of many gifts.

Which makes his performance in “the speech” all the more troubling to listeners like me. Obama could have been forthright. He could have been contrite. He could have been completely candid -- and still managed to win over his audience.

Instead, he bobbed. He weaved. Obama wrapped lofty rhetoric around nonsense. Figuratively speaking, he opted to discuss the travels of the Apostle Paul.

Forced by Internet and cable-television video to address the inflammatory rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his “spiritual advisor” and pastor of 20 years, Obama punted. He changed the subject. Instead of explaining why he – a person who promotes racial unity and healing, would for so long condone the preachings of a person whose words divide and wound – Obama steered the conversation elsewhere. Rather than explain his own actions, he lectured others about theirs.

He spoke of slavery, of segregation, of discrimination. He made reference to black “grievances” and to white “resentments.” He characterized Wright’s comments as being potentially “controversial.” By contrast, he said that his white grandmother’s racial and ethnic slurs made him “cringe.”

The not-so-subtle differences in stated degrees of offensiveness communicate much. Rhetorically speaking, it is far worse to be someone who “resents” others than it is to be a genuinely “aggrieved” party. It is likewise more damning to be someone who makes others “cringe” than it is to be merely “controversial.”

Because Obama chooses his words carefully, those disparate characterizations are pregnant with meaning – and intent. They reveal much about Barack’s true feelings. In his primer on race relations (which is what his speech was intended to be), he was far more critical of whites than of blacks.

For many listeners, Obama’s lumping together of Rev. Wright with Geraldine Ferraro also was troubling. Wright for decades spewed venom and untruths from the privileged platform of his church pulpit. Ferraro merely pointed out that there is some advantage to being an “acceptable black male” (my characterization, not hers) in a presidential race.

Much of America, it seems to me, hungers for the chance to elevate people other than white males to positions of authority. It is not so much a repudiation of people of my gender and race; it is instead a desire to extend political opportunities to all.

In that context, an “acceptable” black male candidate is simply this: an office-seeker who happens to be black. A person who trades not on his race, but instead on his qualifications. A person who wishes to be judged (in the words of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) “on the content of his character” – not the color of his skin.

Given the evolved national mindset – and Obama’s obvious abilities – Ferraro’s message was relatively benign: that America has been waiting for a candidate like Barack. Sure, she was also emphasizing Obama’s relative lack of experience. By way of putting that view into perspective, however, Ferraro admitted that she, too, benefited (by her gender) when she ran for vice president. She allowed that, were she a white male, she would probably have been deemed too inexperienced.

Is it probable that – as a supporter of Hillary Clinton – there was also a whiff of partisanship in Ferraro’s comments? Of course. Perhaps there was even an attempt to remind voters that, you know, Obama is black (something the Clinton camp seems obsessed with).

But whatever her intent, Ferraro’s comments are infinitely less offensive than are the hateful pronouncements that have long emanated from Rev. Wright. When Obama mentioned Wright and Ferraro in the same breath (as he similarly did with Wright and his grandmother), Barack fell from his lofty perch. Implying a moral equivalence (or in this case, an immoral one) between Wright and Ferraro, and Wright and his grandmother was – there is no nice way to say it – despicable.

Many listeners “cringed” at that comparison. We expected so much more from Obama.

For starters, we wanted him to explain how his long and deep association with Jeremiah Wright comports with his stump message – a message that is more in line with the uplifting teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. than it is with the angry rants of Malcolm X. But even that seems an unfair comparison. Because Malcolm X moderated as he matured; Wright seems never to have softened his views – or his heart.

If Obama had said that he was himself imperfect, and that – yes – he should have confronted Wright over his hateful and hurtful preachings, we would have understood.

If Obama had owned up to even a small degree of misjudgment and asked for understanding, millions would gladly have extended it. We voters are ourselves flawed; we don’t expect perfection in our representatives. By the same token, we do not easily tolerate denials in cases of obvious wrongdoing. And Obama’s acceptance of Wright, and of his awful words, is clearly wrong in the eyes of many. If he had said so in his speech, we would have been forgiving.

We would have understood, too, if Obama had tried to explain the complexities of running for national office as a black man: that to some, he would always be perceived as being “too black”; to others, never “black enough.” And that, because of the latter, he succumbed to political expediency.

If only Obama had leveled with us. If only he had said, “Look, I grew up in nice houses in nice places. I graduated from Columbia University and from Harvard Law. As an Ivy Leaguer entering political life, I anticipated difficulty connecting with black voters. Joining a church headed by Rev. Wright helped convince many African-Americans that I was legitimate.”

If only Obama had added that, sure, he should have either confronted Wright or changed churches (or both) over the outrageous sermons. If only he had owned up to some small degree of misconduct.

But he didn’t. Instead, Obama lectured. Although critical of some of Wright’s words, he largely defended the demagogic reverend. He also threw his grandmother, in the words of many observers, “under the bus” in his attempt to save his political skin.

Obama wrapped it all up in flowery oratory. No doubt about it, Obama gives a great speech. But that’s the knock on him: that he is little more than words. Up until recently, that criticism has referred only to his modest degree of experience.

Now it includes another, more potent charge: that Obama’s words do not reflect his true beliefs. It has become a question of character. He says he is uniquely qualified to help America bridge its racial divide. He says, as did the iconic Martin Luther King Jr., that he opposes hate. But he has for two decades embraced it -- in the person of Jeremiah Wright.

Obama is a man of considerable eloquence. He is a master of words. He used some mighty fine ones – his own and other people’s – in his effort to get out from under this current scandal. Time will tell if they were sufficient to extricate him from the political hole that he has dug for himself.

< Back to Berea Bits