Recently there has been a lot of controversy over Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright who was the former pastor of presidential candidate Barack Obama. Having been criticized earlier in the year for some of his comments about the United States, 9/11, and AIDS, Rev. Wright has recently gone on a multiple day publicity tour defending his views.
While Obama initially tried to reject Wright's views without rejecting the man, he is now strongly distancing himself from the pastor altogether saying, "“I’m outraged by the comments that were made [by Wright] and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “I find these comments appalling. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.”"
While Obama may consider his relationship with Wright to be changing unexpectedly, Wright told Obama last year, “If you get elected, November the 5th I’m coming after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.”
The story of two great men trying to improve a country, one through politics, one through religion, who started off as good friends and then become bitter enemies reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s novel "Cat's Cradle," in which Lionel Boyd Johnson and Corporal Earl McCabe shipwreck on the fictional Caribbean island of San Lorenzo. The island lacks any natural resources, value, or political organization and is inhabited by an impoverished and demoralized population. In an attempt to improve the lives of the islanders, Corporal McCabe becomes the island's political leader and overhauls the legal and economic systems, and Lionel Johnson creates a new religion called Bokononism, to which the whole island converts. However, Johnson asks McCabe to outlaw Bokononism and Bokononists (everyone on the island) on pain of death. The islanders' existence, which materially never really improves due to the island's lack of resources, becomes spiritually fulfilled as they live out the constant drama of the harsh dictator's brutal oppression and the Bokononists' noble struggle and miraculous near escapes.
The implication is that religion works best when it is actively pitted against the loyal opposition of a "hostile" government. Or in the words of the Books of Bokonon:
"So I said good-bye to government,
And I gave my reason:
That a really good religion
Is a form of treason."
A conspiracy theorist might claim that the tension between Obama and Wright is actually intentional on the part of the two men. But even if it's not, it might be a good thing.
Thoughts?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Well, Obama isn't the goverment yet...
Since SOME people (cough cough) don't find my comment to be sufficient, I'll elaborate...
I agree that having two institutions (or leaders) actively pitted against one another can have positive consequences (in this case, causing bystanders to question their perceived notions of government or religion and the goals and norms of the two). Heck, even one "outsider" within the political realm can significantly influence and refine the issues and dialogue of the debate (look at how Edward's positions have influenced Obama's and Hillary's).
At this point in the election, though, I don't really see much potential for the two to play off one another in a way that will actually be positive for Obama. Obama hasn't won the election, and though he's handled the situation pretty well up until now (his race speech, for example), I tend to think that the press from the continued tension between the two men will hurt Obama more than help him.
It is true that since Obama isn't yet in office the conflict may end up hurting him. However, if he can set the stage now and survive, he is in a position to tackle the tough questions that leaders like Jeremiah Wright will throw at him.
I had written a response to this a week ago that I thought had been posted, but I guess blogger lost it. First time that's happened to me, but I hear it happens often. I'll have to be more careful.
Anyways, the gist was that I disagree with the analogy between the Bokononists and African-Americans. The main reason is that while everyone was united against the government in Cat's Cradle, African-Americans are a minority pitted against the government as well as other parts of society. While I can see how a common enemy might bring purpose to life in some instances, I think that it depends on the historical time-frame.
One reason I like Obama is that he sees that this "us vs. them" mentality is only destructive. Its the same mentality that Wright brings to the table, one that I don't think is helpful to anyone except perhaps Wright's ego.
I only wish that this division between Wright and Obama was some intentionally staged "happening" in order to draw attention to important questions that are constantly being left ignored by the government and the general public; however, I fear that it is anything but something that clever. I am disturbed by Obama's distancing himself from his former pastor because to me it implies that he is moving away from ideas and concerns expressed by Wright that may have been important to him in the past and truly ought to gain attention on a national stage. Furthermore, I think that Wright's character will cause these concerns to be overlooked as the babblings of an extremist and kook and then forgotten as he rapidly falls off the media's radar as his political value diminishes. Regardless of whether or not the publicity that Obama receives from the Wright controversy proves ultimately to hurt or help his campaign, I think that it will inevitably hurt the cause of many issues that deserve to be considered more deeply and fully and will, in the end, leave our country in the same place rather than forcing us to consider these issues and evolve into something better.
Dan - I agree that its not a coordinated act. However, I think that what Obama moved away from was not necessarily the content of Wright's statements but the way in which he presented them. From Obama's perspective (and I'm inclined to agree with him on this), Wright's recent approach is not constructive. Even when his positions are legitimate and correct, Wright presents them in a partisan, dualistic, combative, and accusatory manner. This is antithetical to the type of campaign Obama is trying to run.
In the end, I agree with your point that this controversy will distract from the substance of the issues.
Well, the verdict seems to be that no good will come of this. Pity, I was hoping for some old-fashion prophet vs. ruler action. Guess I'll have to look elsewhere...
Or create some of your own!
Yeah, Ben. Let's create some of our own.
Post a Comment