Informed Speculation

…and I have just finished watching the actual clip.  Here are my thoughts:

First, all credit is due to Obama for mentioning Wright by name, not once, not twice, but numerous times.  He surely didn’t try to hide the reason he felt the need for his remarks. The key passage here:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Obama also addressed those, like me, who questioned his decision to speak on the Wright issue:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

Bonus points for working in an underhanded slam of Ferraro.

I didn’t see the speech as an unqualified success: I could have done without the obligatory conservative bashing (“Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”) True or not, it’s a bit beside the point here.

But I also understand Obama’s desire to place the incident in a wider context, both historically and across the political and racial divides of the country, and his speech has to be rated pretty highly in that regard.  Some critics (Victor Davis Hanson, for one) see this as an exercise in moral equivalence, but that charge rings hollow for me.  Obama was not morally equivalent, he was quite forceful in his condemnation of the comments. 

Instead, he argued, in a very human and humane manner, that flaws, no matter how severe, are not the whole man, and that we can love someone who has done and said very stupid and harmful things.

It’s clear that for some this speech was not enough, but I suspect no speech would have been enough for these people.  As for myself, I looked on the speech beforehand as a mistake, and came away convinced that it was not only the proper thing to do, but also a speech that was well-conceived and largely successful in its intent.

I am aware that Obama is often more flash than substance; I am aware that a substantial number agree with William Kristol that Obama is essentially a flim-flam man.  And I am aware that this speech was more than a little self-serving.  But it was substantive, it was direct, and it has probably succeeded in putting the controversy to rest (after a couple of more news cycles, anyway)…