The Other Bold Speech that Obama Needs to Give to Make the Reverend Wright Controversy Go Away

April 29, 2008 
Category: Analyses & Opinions

The cruel irony about Jeremiah Wright is that Reverend Wright is the only person in America who can bring down Barack Obama, and he did. He is also the only person in America who could have “saved” Barack Obama. And he chose not to. In a previous article we published on Mach 16 shortly after the Wright controversy broke out, we had advised the Obama campaign about the urgency of holding a press conference and letting Obama make a historic speech that would ease the controversy and reassert him as the candidate of real change. We were happy to see that the Obama campaign did exactly what we had advocated, both in terms of the content of the sample speech we had provided, but also in terms of the form of it: he read the speech at a place of historic significance in Pennsylvania. While this speech did Obama great good in, indeed, easing the controversy, the ugly head of Wright has surfaced again, but this time with the kind of vengeance that is now threatening to lose Obama the nomination.

And so, here we go again with a new speech advice to Obama at a time when the Wright controversy has now taken the type of proportion that may ultimately prove fatal to the Obama campaign. It may already be too late, but the urgency for Obama, at this crucial time, is to take the initiative again and redirect the nation’s attention to the issues that really matter. 

But before we offer our advice to Obama, together with a sample speech (see below), we need to rant a little bit over ugly Jeremiah Wright.

In all fairness, Reverend Wright did not intentionally set out to become a controversy that was likely to “kill” Barack Obama’s chances for making history as the first black American to become the nominee of a major party, and possibly, the first African American president of the United States. It just happens that, in election years, the media and many ill-intentioned people are bound to dig up the dirt and bring out things that a candidate such as Obama would have preferred to keep under the rug. And so, here we are again, with Reverend Wright having become a controversial issue again, and the issue never wanting to go away.

As bad as the Wright issue may have looked initially, my thinking has always been that only Reverend Wright could have fixed things for Barack Obama. Imagine what great things would have happened for Obama if the pastor, after the controversy initially broke out, and after Obama made his “A More Perfect Union” speech in Philadelphia on March 18, had come out with a repentant tone, and gone on TV to declare the following: 

POSSIBLE REV. WRIGHT REPENTANCE SPEECH
“My fellow Americans, I stand here before you to say I was wrong. This does not mean I repudiate what I said several years ago in the statements that the media have been spinning as if they were made yesterday. My belief is still that, in the absence of contrary evidence at the time, my statements made perfect sense when they were said.What I mean to say is that I am finally, today, acknowledging that I have been proven wrong by the white people of this country. For, as true as my statements may have been back in the context of the America of 2001, 2003 and so on, something has, since then, happened in this country that is both striking and hopeful. In 2001, no one in this country, be it among whites or amongst blacks, believed that white people could vote for a black man in a way that would put that black man in the position of inevitable nominee that Barack Obama is in today.In fact, no one in their right American mind believed in this possibility on the very eve of the stunning Iowa vote back in January of this year. It just has happened that, while we were still thinking, especially amongst the Black people of this country, that whites were so racist that they could never elect a black man to the presidency of the United States, those same whites have given this nation a new kind of hope, as well as a new kind of lesson. While we, black people, seem to have remained stuck on our mistrust, and distrust, of white people, those same whites moved ahead of us and endeavored to show us that a nation such as ours can indeed change. As a result of this extraordinary occurrence, I have decided to heed the call of Senator Obama for a new dialogue on race that will ensure that the grudges of the past are once and for all put to rest, and this nation can begin to march forward towards finalizing the more perfect America that Senator Obama talked about in his speech in Philadelphia.A conversation on race does not mean that the past is forgotten. It simply means reeducating all of our society to the reality of our shared history, so that we can have the same reading of it, and then move forward with the understanding that progress can be made and we can move America to a more inclusive, forgiving and less racially-polarized society. What the whites of this country did, when they made Barack Obama the prohibitive frontrunner of the Democratic race, was to show us that they can change. As a result, I am going to make it a point for myself to be, alongside Senator Obama, the messenger of hope in black communities to ensure that this message and lesson of hope, which white voters have taught us, is used as the engine that will allow us to move beyond race and begin to build America as the America of all of us.”

Imagine a speech like that for a second. Indeed, a speech such as that one could have gone a long way rehabilitating Reverend Wright in the eyes of America, and could have salvaged the chances of Barack Obama as a potential winner of the 2008 presidential contest in November. Obama would have become prohibitively unbeatable.

But Reverend Wright chose to sink Obama, taking refuge behind the platitude that if God wants Obama to become president, Obama will become president. He forgot to mention that God may not have wanted him to be so self-absorbed that he could not understand the terrible consequences of his actions for the many other Americans who could have benefited from an Obama presidency. And so, the latest outburst by Reverend Wright has been a political disaster for Barack Obama. As things stand today, Reverend Wright will probably be remembered in American history as the pastor who sunk the once-in-a-lifetime chance of a black candidate ever becoming president of the United States of America. Secondly, his controversy is sure to reignite racism in this country big time. In some way, Reverend Wright’s reckless behavior in this electoral season is bound to set this nation back 20 years in terms of race relations.  

This does not mean there was no racism left in America. On the contrary. But racism in America is not what it was 30 years ago, and we must be willing to acknowledge that a lot has also changed for the better. At a time when the whites of this country were showing willingness to move forward and turn the page by emphatically supporting a black man for president, is it not ironic that it took another black man to not only sink the black candidate, but also to resurrect the ugly head of racism in America? If Reverend Wright did not know it, black people can also be racist, and Wright is certainly among the most racist black people in America today. In fact, I believe him to be worse than Louis Farrakhan who, in spite of his rhetoric, has arguments that are much more intellectually-grounded than those of Reverend Wright, who is not only raw and unpolished about his racism, but also thuggish in his approach of the sensitive issue of race in America. Wright is obviously fighting for the unique and egotistical sake of Wright.

While supporters of Reverend Wright might argue that the pastor is simply telling the hard truth, one may ask the following question: is Reverend Wright’s method the only way of telling that truth? Is racism the only answer to racism, and is cynicism the only answer to cynicisms? For someone who is a pastor, is there no notion in his biblical repertoire of any sort of belief in the ability of people to change and repent for their sins? Does he even believe in forgiveness?

Reverend Wright seems to believe only in eternal damnation for white people for what they did to black people (slavery, discrimination, racism). Even as the current election unfolded, Reverend Wright remained so prisoner of the past, and so closed to all possibility of redemption for white people, that he was unable to read the lines of history that were being written under his very eyes. He was unable to see that white people may, perhaps, not have directly and verbally apologized and repented for their past sins, but they may have, in fact, been trying to find a way to speak to black America without being hit back with recriminations and accusations that were likely to conjure up a sense of guilt, and in the end, racism. When those whites, from Iowa to Kansas, and from Idaho to Wisconsin, decided to give the nomination of the Democratic Party to Barack Obama, how the hell did Reverend Wright miss the call for forgiveness that was emanating from the voting booths of white America? How could he possibly have missed the silent, yet thunderous, message of hope of those whites who, all over the country, were trying to redeem themselves by showing that they had been trying to change? And that they were now ready to try to begin the healing process in the most speaking way, that is, by electing the first black man to the presidency of the United States?

And as Reverend Wright made a fool of himself in front of the press corps on Monday, he finally revealed himself to America as what most people suspected he was: He is a man of no real consequence, a man without a vision. He showed an incredible inability to connect the dots as they related to the Obama phenomenon. He failed to realize that blacks alone cannot elect anyone to the presidency of the United States, and that the only reason why Obama is ahead today, and likely to become the Democratic nominee, is because millions of white people in this country decided to redeem themselves through Obama.

Redemption is not just about speaking words of redemption or apologizing for past crimes against black people. Apologies can be simple words with no meaning, or actions with inescapable significance. Actions speaking louder than words, what better unspoken apology could the whites in this country have offered black people than elect Obama to the presidency of the United States?

Clearly, Reverend Wright has grown from being an obscure and mysterious, almost fascinating, pastor from Chicago to revealing himself to all as a real buffoon with negativity as his only message. His performance in front of the press on Monday, and in front of the NAACP audience the night before, was a real circus. Instead of positioning himself as a man with the capacity to truly educate America to the often ignored realities of race in this country, the Reverend offered himself in spectacle. He came out as utterly self-centered and egotistical.

What this performance by Pastor Wright did was, in fact, reveal to the world how shallow and how unintellectual, and perhaps deranged, this man really was. Wright’s performance also showed how disingenuous he was when he attempted to portray himself in front of the nation as the embodiment of a Black Church that does not exist, and a representative of a theology of liberation whose core principles he did not seem to understand nor implement in his own teachings. Rather, he remained stuck somewhere in the struggles of the past, and did not seem to realize that his own implementation of the theology of liberation was flawed, especially because of his inability to see that those who had best implemented this theology understood that, in order to win a war, one had to be willing, at times, to lose a battle.  

Contrary to Reverend Wright, real proponents of the theology of liberation were never closed to the possibility of repentance and reconciliation. While Reverend Wright has continued to see the idea of black liberation as an immutable life and death struggle that had to end only with the victory of blacks over whites, his peers, from Martin Luther King to Desmond Tutu (and even Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton), have demonstrated that the only way of winning this struggle is to humanize both blacks and whites. If Tutu and Mandela had been like Reverend Wright, there would never have been any end to the Apartheid system. What Mandela and Tutu understood was that, as bad as the Apartheid system had been for black people in South Africa, the only way for blacks to win was to lose their anger and their grudges over past white inhumanities.

Additionally, what Martin Luther King understood was that reducing black struggle to an ethnic struggle was bound to prove counterproductive, and so he shifted his focus to the need to liberate both blacks and whites from the prison of racism and hatred. In other words, for blacks to win, they had to be willing to lose their grudges about past white inhumanities, and act more constructively towards creating a more just and equitable society in which the principles of the constitution were at last protecting all Americans irrespective of their race, religion, sex, and so on.

Even the often controversial Louis Farrakhan understood the harm he could do to history if he allowed himself to become a factor in this election. His February 24, 2008 Saviour’s Day speech at the McCormick Center, Chicago, IL, was a clear indication that, as controversial as he might be, Louis Farrakhan was a real intellectual with real intelligent insights into the current electoral moment in American history. He understood, and said, in total awe, that Obama was poised to take America where neither he, nor Jessie Jackson, nor Al Sharpton could ever have taken it. He understood, and acknowledged, that something extraordinary was happening in this country that had made white people vote in droves for Barack Obama, and cruise him to a victory that, just four months ago, was still deemed unlikely as far as a black candidate was concerned. In brief, Louis Farrakhan understood he had become irrelevant as a representative of the old methodology, and that Obama was charting a new way with an approach that was fresh and different, and whites were responding positively to this new approach. He understood that the time had come for him and other black elders to pass the baton to the generation of Obama, for only they could take the struggle to the next step, the step that was needed for this country, the step of reconciliation. Even if Louis Farrakhan did not use the term “reconciliation” in the lines that concern us here, this, as far as I can think, was his implicit message. Thus, he scolded the black crowd for the types of rumors he had been hearing, rumors that said that most blacks would not vote for Obama because they believed Obama was not black enough, and that a black man could never be elected president in this country. Farrakhan urged his audience to make a clear choice: be stupid and stay on the sidelines and continue to whine about racism in America, or vote their self-interest: this self-interest basically meant, get your butt off the couch and go to support and vote for Barack Obama alongside those extraordinary white people who had decided to send a historic message of hope for this country.

In sum, Reverend Wright is no Louis Farrakhan. He should not even try to portray himself as the spokesperson of a theology of liberation that only people like Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King have been able to take to a level of pragmatism that has proven more useful to the people than the rants that offer as unique solace only the perpetual complaints about racism that lock society in a permanent fight to death, with no real attempt at listening and reconciling. For Wright, the only way of winning this struggle is to change white people, but he seems to have forgotten to realize that, for a meaningful dialogue about race to take place, blacks also have their part to play in changing their own mindsets.

Now, what should Barack Obama do in order to make the controversy go away, and even turn it to his advantage in the long run?

Obama needs to do three basic things:

1) As we had advised back in March, Obama needs to frontally address the controversy in a speech delivered at a place of historic and symbolic importance for race relations in America. He could conceivably do this in Indiana or North Carolina too as a way of offsetting Hillary’s mounting advantage in these states.

2) Because Obama can no longer, at this late time, disown pastor Wright without seeming politically disingenuous, he can, however, engage in a contradictory intellectual debate with pastor Wright on the issue of race and therefore, show once and for all to the American public that — a) he can take on his pastor and debate him on his misinformed, and misguided understanding of today’s race relations in America, and — b) he can lecture him on those relations.

3) Obama can also use this press conference as a means to once and for all quell the rumors that continue to raise questions about his life experience, especially as they pertain to his 20-year membership in Pastor Wright’s church, his sometimes-mentioned attendance at Louis Farrakhan’s One-Million March rally in 1995, and (possibly) his associations with avowed domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. 

The idea is, once again, to get it all out now, force the media to debate his speech and not Wright’s, and allow himself to refocus his campaign’s message ahead of the North Carolina and Indiana voting.

This simple move will go a long way positioning Obama, once and for all, as someone who was never influenced by his pastor’s ideas, who is opposed to such ideas, and who actually has a vision for a reconciliation of America that goes beyond ethnic politics and positions the racial divide of today as deeply rooted in the economic imbalances that continue to destroy the fabric of American society.

In other words, Obama needs to show America how one can, without taking anything away from those who have been historically advantaged (the whites), resolve the issue of racism in America by reducing the economic imbalances and opening access to economic opportunity for those who have been historically deprived (the blacks, the Hispanics and all others). In other words, by offering economic solutions in the form of enhanced education, job opportunity and social and economic justice for all Americans, the benefits will immediately translate into better race relations, less crime due to less school drop-outs, more employment for all, and a society of real equal opportunity for all. Obama needs to show America why education matters, and how, by investing heavily in education, and by educating all children equally, there is bound to remain very few disparities between black and white children when it comes to education and employment opportunities down the road.

Here is, therefore, the sample speech which Obama needs to read in the next few days, preferably four to five days before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries.

RECOMMENDED SPEECH FOR OBAMA
My fellow Americans, on March 18, 2008 in Philadelphia, I gave a speech on race relations in America in which I invited this nation to a conversation that would begin the process of healing this country from the wounds of the past. I gave this speech with the clear understanding that race issues were still with us, and that the ugly head of racism and of those who use race as a weapon of fear would from time to time rise in an attempt to take this nation back to the years of racial acrimony and division. I said many things then which you can find in my “More Perfect Union” speech, and I will say a few more today.Many people have continued to ask me why I remained a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ for 20-years while Reverend Wright made the controversial comments and statements which have surfaced in several of the YouTube sound bites that have been circulating on TV and on the Internet. Others have asked me why I attended the Million Man March organized by Louis Farrakhan in 1995 (13 years ago). Many have likened my decisions to a lack of judgment.My response, again, is that because of my background, black America is a part of who I am as much as white America is a part of who I am. And, as a result, I can disown neither. I also understand that no mater what I say, and no matter what I have said in the past, there will always be those who will be unwilling to accept my explanations. And while the politically-savvy, and safe, thing here would be to do as politicians do, that is, take the easy way out, I will not do so.20 years ago, I had no idea I would be running for president, even though some seem to be confusing the decisions I made as a young man 20 years ago with those of someone who was already running for president or knew he was, some day, going to be running for president. Somehow, people expect me to have behaved carefully 20-years ago as if I had been running for president all along every single year for the past 20 years, which would have required me to show the care and calculation of a politician at a time I had no idea I would even be entering public life. And because of this confusion, some have concluded that I lack judgment as I stand in front of you today, 20 years later.But life is not something that one plans in advance, and sometimes, the decisions we make are less about judgment than about life choices. I made a choice then that I do not regret today. The real issue is: knowing what I know now, would I still have made the exact same choice, that is, join the Trinity United Church of Christ? The answer is “Yes”. And knowing what I know now about Jeremiah Wright, would I have remained a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ? The answer, here too, is “yes”. Why?

A church, to me, is much more than its pastor. When I first entered public life with a law degree after graduating from college, I found myself confronted to a crucial decision: go into corporate America and make money dealing with big corporate law contracts, or join the community of disadvantage people with whom I came to be acquainted in the course of my life after college. I made the conscious decision to work for the community as a community organizer. This decision is not one based on lack of judgment or abstract considerations. One cannot be of real service to the community if one is not a part of the community that one is seeking to serve. In black communities across America, the church is the center of the community.

And so, when I joined the Trinity United Church of Christ, I did not join it because of the pastor, I joined it because of the church precisely because I saw this church as one that was an important component of the community in which I was planning to serve those who needed the type of service that I thought I could provide. And so, when I became acquainted with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, it was not because I was attracted by his rhetoric, but because he was a pillar of the community in which I sought to work.  Did I become aware of his inflammatory style over the years? Of course yes. As I have already said, while I did not myself hear the particular statements that circulated in some of the sound bites that have circulated, I know Reverend Wright to be controversial, not only for some of his political stances, but also for other aspects that pertain to his blunt style and sermons on family issues and infidelity, where he would bluntly mention things that may not always be good for the ears of children, especially when they came to sexuality. But while I saw some of these as a matter of style pertaining to the way blacks live their experience through sermons, biblical and religious metaphors, I have said in no equivocal terms that I denounce some of the statements made by Revered Wright in some of the videos that had circulated when these controversies began.

But, while a number of blunt statements by Rev. Wright were somewhat harsh in style, they did not amount to something that could make me leave the church, nor was this ever a consideration for me. In other words, there is more to a church than its pastor and the Trinity United Church of Christ is a church, which, under the leadership of Pastor Wright, has accomplished so many things of importance to the community that no confusion can be made as to where my loyalties are. While I have disagreed with the pastor on some of his most controversial statements, there was no confusion in my mind as to why I was in the Church.

Yes, Pastor Wright baptized my children and married me and my wife, but I chose to stay in the church not because of what pastor Wright represented, but because of what the Church represented: a community of people trying to do good for themselves and trying to lift themselves up. This was the very reason why I decided to settle in this community in the first place, as I looked to do the job that inspired me the most: that of community organizer. Abandoning my life calling of community service because of the controversy and rhetoric of one single individual did not appear to me as a very reasonable decision.

To use Pastor Wright’s own argument as made in front of the media on Monday, when he said that after this election, he will continue to be a pastor no mater what the outcome, I can, in turn, say that after Reverend Wright, there will always be a Trinity United Church of Christ and a community in need of people and members dedicated to the cause of the community. It was not up to Barack Obama to get out of the Church because of another member, it was up to the community to remove Pastor Wright if they thought his views were not in line with their aspirations. Now, some will disagree with my reasons, and would have chosen a different course of action. As for me, this is what I chose to do, and it was a very conscious decision, not a lapse in judgment.

Ironically, I still have only one person to thank today for who I am, and that person is Jeremiah Wright. If I learned one important lesson out of my experience at the Trinity United Church of Christ, that lesson was that one does not resolve any issue by running away from it. The same logic that made me go to the Million-Man March in 1995 is exactly the same which made me stay in the Trinity United Church of Christ. While I agreed with the premises of Reverend Wright and Minister Louis Farrakhan’s desire to lift black communities across this country up, and instill in them the principles of family, self-reliance and responsibility, I did not agree with the style and methods they used to achieve these objectives. Where they saw the race issue as basically insoluble and a life and death struggle, I saw new possibilities. Where they saw a static society with no ability to change for the better, I saw hope. Where they saw white bashing as the only way they could get their messages across, I saw only possibilities for racial reconciliation in America. Yes, you can be a member of a church and disagree with some of the opinions of your pastor. Being a member of a church does not mean one has to agree with everything the pastor says. Pastors are still humans just like the rest of us, with their own limitations and shortcomings. And Pastor Wright has his own.

But what we must understand here is that there has been a political fallacy going on in this country that has made us believe that the only way to be a good politician is to run away from the issues that appear to be controversial, or that may compromise one’s political career. And so, many in this country have looked for signs of judgment in my decision by expecting me to behave as a typical politician, that is, to denounce and run away.

I happen to believe that you resolve issues of importance only if you are willing to confront them, talk about tem, understand them, and offer the best solutions you can for them. My opponents in this campaign have all said that, had this been them, they would have left the church. Well, I wonder if Jeremiah Wright would have stopped being who he is simply because Barack Obama left the church? The notion that any issue would have been resolved by virtue of me leaving the church is certainly problematic and is a sign that we sometimes want to avoid the harsh questions and the harsh issues for political benefit.

No, my friends. I happen to believe in three very important principles of life:

1) Whether you are facing family issues such as Hillary Clinton faced during the sex scandals of the Clinton years, or community issues such as I faced with the inflammatory comments by Jeremiah Wright, the issues do not get resolved by themselves or go away simply because one ran away. And so, today, I salute the fact that Hillary Clinton made the decision to stay with her husband at a time when many people questioned her motives for staying with him. It was the right decision, and the right thing to do.

2) Just like Senator Clinton, I also happen to believe in the power of repentance and reconciliation. I believe that no matter their failings, people are fundamentally good and generous. Experiences and harshness of life may, from time to time, lead them astray, but, as a firm believer in Jesus Christ, I deeply believe that people can be forgiven their mistakes and people, in the right kinds of circumstances, can repent and be transformed into better people.

3) When one runs for president, one does not run as the president of one group or one state, one runs for president of the United States. A presidential candidate is not perfect because he avoids controversy or is engaged in political calculation. Someone who wishes to preside over the destiny of this country must b willing to embrace the good and the bad that comes with job, face the issues that confront the nation and seek solutions to them. The notion that the only way a presidential candidate can show good judgment is to avoid facing the issues that face one portion of American society because it is too controversial is precisely why I am running. We need a different kind of politics in this country.

But much more than that, I do not believe I would have become who I am today if I had not been a part of a community whose issues and concerns I came to understand with a deeper degree of poignancy. The sermons I heard at church, the relationships I developed in the community, and the very nature of the perceptions on racial relations that I was able to encounter, not only in the black communities, but also across this country, are precisely what convinced me that America needed to move away from the politics and beliefs that divide us, and engage in a frank dialogue of reconciliation.

I am running for president today not because I agree with the things that Jeremiah Wright has said, but because I disagree with them, especially with the hopelessness and hatred in his statements. I am running, not because I agree with the way Jeremiah Wright depicts America, but because I disagree with it. I am running because I want to change the state of mind that imprisons our minds, both blacks and whites, in the prisons of the past, and begin the transformation and reconciliation that will make us look at ourselves not as a collection of ethnicities, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, native Americans, not as a collection of blue states, red states opposed in a life and death struggle, but as a nation united in purpose and respectful of the particular experiences that brought us together. I deeply believe that there is the possibility of a better America.

And so, as I have already said, I will no more disown Reverend Wright today than I did in my last speech. That’s not where the real issue is. The real issue is: do I agree with his statements and do I shy away from confronting him? The answer is: “No”.

I have to say with the utmost clarity that I fundamentally disagree with Reverend Wright in his understanding not only of what he calls the theology of liberation, but also of his interpretation of this country as a static country incapable of positive change.

The very fact that I stand here today in front of America as a black candidate who has been propelled by white voters to the status of likely Democratic nominee is a testimony to the fact that America can change. I am here not because of black voters alone, but because of the coalition of blacks, whites, Hispanics, red states and blue states who put me here, convinced as they are that this nation needs to move away from the divisions of the past. They looked beyond the color of my skin and embraced my message of change, transformation and reconciliation. They understand that now is the time. Now is the time to begin the process of healing this nation from the wounds of the past that have antagonized its children for too long. I am here today because America wants change from the ugly head of the politics of fear and bigotry, change from the principles of politics at any cost that have divided this nation for too long.

I stand today before you as proof and contradiction to reverend Wright and those who still think like him, I stand here as a testimony to the fact that this nation can change, and demands change.

In the past, solving America’s race problems often meant counterproductive racial antagonisms. While the Civil Rights movement was successful in bringing us where we stand today thanks to the sacrifices of those who struggled before us, the valuable legacy of Martin Luther King to America taught us that the only way out of such antagonisms was through national reconciliation. In other words, the tools for fighting discrimination and social injustice in America that were effective 30 years ago are not the same tools we need today. While the theology of liberation, in its crudest form, made sense 20 years ago, today different tools are needed. And so, the issue of racial inequality in America, in my opinion, must be seen as an American problem rather than a black problem.

This problem, which is still a reality today, will not be resolved through rhetoric, damnation, and lack of forgiveness. The issue will be resolved by looking at how, as a nation, we can develop policies that are not ethnic policies, but policies that are American for the good of America. One way to resolve issues of poverty in black or Hispanic communities, for example, could be to distribute food stamps to blacks. But such policies will not solve their problems in the long run. What they do is encourage pauperization and destroy the dignity of whole communities. Yet, there are more durable ways of tackling the issue of poverty in America.

One of them is to level the plain field of education where it matters the most, so that all American children can go to the same quality schools, succeed with the same levels of excellence, and have equal chances of access to higher education, jobs and opportunity. In other words, by addressing the issues of poverty in America, not as black issues, Hispanic issues or white issues, we may be able to formulate policies that seek to simply provide the same opportunities for all, from kindergarten to adult life, as a way of resolving the past inequalities through policies that simply seek to eradicate poverty, education problems and access to the various opportunities that this nation can provide.

I believe we can do this. For example, instead of investing hundreds of billions of dollars in a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, those billions could be used in America right here to build better schools for all, create job opportunities, provide scholarships to our students and invest in resolving the health, social security and mortgage issues that this country is facing now.

That’s how we will resolve the issues of Americans, all Americans. And we can do so only with a candidate who did not run away from the issues even as such issues risked sinking his campaign. Too often, politicians tell voters what they think voters want to hear. And so, they run away from the harsh issues that America faces. And by so doing, they encourage the divisions because they become the candidates of one ideology, one group, one state, one segment of the population, forgetting that when one runs for president, he or she runs for all Americans, even when he or she may not agree in politics, ideology or discourse with some Americans. I do not run to please those who simply want me to say the words that would please them. I am running to face the issues that Americans are facing as a nation, and confront these issues with real solutions.

A good president is one that is willing to listen, and learn from direct observation. Not one who avoids the harsh issues because they might be too controversial for his or her political career. A good president is not one who runs just to win at all costs, but one who runs to change things and make lives better for all. A good president cannot make life better if he does not know the issues that the nation is facing, and if he or she has always run away from the issues instead of confronting them. No issue is less an American issue than another. A candidate must embrace the good and the bad of America, because only then will he or she be able to reconcile the two Americas.

And so, my fellow Americans, while it may be politically convenient to run away from the Jeremiah controversy, I suggest we do the unexpected. I suggest we face it and engage in the dialogue that will allow us, once and for all, to understand why it is that there are still people in America who, for whatever reason, are feeling the way Jeremiah Wright is feeling, and how we can make sure that such feelings are addressed in a way that can bring durable healing to this nation.

The very fact that there is a controversy such as this one in today’s America, is proof that we still have some work to do. And while it may appear to some that there is no possible redemption for past inhumanities in America, or no solution for current mistakes made by those who were broken by their pasts, I firmly believe we can change all that, not because it will be easy or happen overnight, but because it is better to do something about it now than run away from it just to deal with the same issue at the next election, and the next, and the next, and divide ourselves over the same sound bites and video bites over and over again, again, and again, and again. While this may make good fodder for the pundits who feed off of it in the media, it does not make good culture for a society in need of healing

Let me, therefore, renew the call I made to you on March 18 in Pennsylvania. I challenged you to the courage that will allow us to surmount and defeat the forces of status quo which, as embodied in Reverend Wright and others, are constantly trying to hold us back and tear this nation down, constantly trying to create counterproductive antagonisms, and ultimately, constantly trying to take us back to the years of controversy and division. We are better than that and I believe in the generosity and good sense of the America people.

The forces that seek to tear us apart want us to believe in the incapacity of this nation to move forward. They want to convince us that electing a black candidate or a woman to the presidency of the United States is, somehow, a roll of the dice, they want to make us guilty by association, and condemn us for what others say. Those are the same forces who believe that it is a sign of weakness not to fight back even as people are using any means to win. While I understand the need to secure this nation and protect it against all of its enemies, I do not believe an election should be a place for fighting one’s countrymen and countrywomen at all costs, as if we were enemies. An election should be about a civil debate on issues. It should be about convincing the electorate, not on what your opponent is incapable of doing for his or her country, but on what you, as a candidate, you can do for your country. An election is not about who is tougher at throwing the kitchen sink, but about who is ready to fight for the education of our children, the jobs that the nation needs and the solution to the high cost of living.

This is precisely why I decided to run for president. I wanted to propose a vision of America that was inclusive, not exclusive, honest not dishonest, compassionate not dispassionate, conciliatory not divisive.

And so, my friends, we continue to face the same choices I talked about last time I spoke.  For we continue to have a clear choice in this election. We can choose to let the forces of status quo continue to divide us and hold us back by using the weapons of fear and personal destruction. Or we can rise above that negativity and say to those forces: “Not this year, not this time”. 

Thank you.

Dr. Daniel Mengara
The author is an Associate Professor of French and Francophone Studies at Montclair State University (New Jersey). He is also the leader of Bongo Doit Partir (Bongo Must Go), a movement of expatriated Gabonese citizens opposed and seeking an end to the 40-year-old dictatorial regime of Omar Bongo in Gabon.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Leave a comment or send a note
  1. (required)
  2. (valid email required)
  4. (required)
  5. Answering the security question below
    Examples:
    What color is a could? Answer = white
    1 plus 1 equals what? Answer = 2
  6. Captcha
 

cforms contact form by delicious:days