[Nyclocal] Rev. Wright: ridiculed for telling the truth

[SocialistAlliances]

Rev. Wright: ridiculed for telling the truth
  Wednesday, April 30, 2008    
By: Eugene  Puryear    
        Racist ruling class decides whether a candidate is 'electable'
                          One of the features of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign that has  attracted widespread enthusiasm is the implicit hopeful message that he  personifies a new era of reconciliation and unity between Black and  white people. But he has decidedly avoided the history and substance of  Black national oppression. This dialogue—the real path to unity—would  in itself indict the ruling establishment when articulated in full.  Obama’s scripted message, on the other hand, in no way offends the  racist corporate media and the ruling class that stands behind it. 

To  be deemed “electable,” Obama must convince this ruling class that he  will support their interests, and he must show himself unsusceptible to  the anti-imperialist voices of the Black community. 

Jeremiah  Wright has now become a spokesperson for such voices and he has been  the target of relentless vilification and ridicule in the  capitalist-owned media. His presentation at the National Press Club in  particular represented a stinging indictment of the ruling class for  its role in slavery, Jim Crow racism and of imperialism. He identified  himself with a theological tradition that represented the viewpoint of  those “whose lives were ground under, mangled and destroyed by the  ruling classes.”

Wright also spoke out about September 11th,  Iraq, Palestine, and the overall agenda of U.S. foreign policy. He  defended his prior claim that U.S. imperialism abroad, which has always  included ample use of terror, laid the basis for the September 11th  attacks. When questioned about his patriotism, Wright noted he had  served six years in the armed forces, and asked, “How many years did  [Vice President Dick] Cheney serve?”

He continued, “My  goddaughter’s unit just arrived in Iraq this week, while those who call  me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to avoid military  service, while sending over 4,000 American boys and girls of every race  to die over a lie.”

His comments on these issues would be right  at home in an anti-war demonstration or teach-in. As such, it was a  speech that under normal circumstances the corporate media would never  play. While criticisms of the tactics of the Iraq war have become  fashionable in the corporate media, they consider such vibrant  anti-imperialism to be practically illegal on their airwaves. 

But  because of the controversy revolving around Wright, this time they  broadcast it in full to millions of viewers. Wright’s presentation was  charismatic and persuasive. It could not be in the least characterized  as “anti-white.” In fact, Wright would strike many as a voice of  moderation. Wright proclaimed that the “Black church’s role in the  fight for equality and justice, from the 1700s up until 2008, has  always had as its core the nonnegotiable doctrine of reconciliation.”  Wright continued, “Reconciliation does not mean that blacks become  whites or whites become blacks.” He emphasized that in liberation  theology, “We root out any teaching of superiority, inferiority,  hatred, or prejudice.” “Only then,” Wright concluded his speech, “will  liberation, transformation, and reconciliation become realities and  cease being ever elusive ideals.”

Wright’s presentation alone  may have altered the consciousness of many viewers, including many  white viewers, about the meaning of Black self-determination. His  message, far from being “divisive,” described a unity far more profound  than that prescribed by the politicians.

The corporate media springs into action

The  corporate media—whether liberal or conservative—could not let this  stand. Instead of dealing with the substance of Wright’s presentation,  they again reduced it to sound bite snippets. This was not just a case  of bad journalism. They had to conceal the nature of his presentation  because he was indicting them. 

Wright has been viciously  attacked on two accounts. One, he has refused to condemn Louis  Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. Wright made clear, "Louis  Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put  me in slavery." Secondly, citing the record of medical mistreatment of  the Black community, Wright defended his assertion that HIV/AIDS could  possibly have been a creation of the U.S. government. “Based on this  Tuskegee experiment
 I believe our government is capable of doing  anything.” Tuskegee was a “scientific experiment," in which the  government left African American men infected with syphilis to die. 
    The ruling establishment has focused on these perfectly justifiable  positions as a way to demonize Wright personally, and obscure his  overall political message. 
  
  In wall-to-wall media coverage, we  hear that the message of Rev. Wright has jeopardized the future of  Obama’s campaign because it is unpalatable to white working-class  voters. The same corporate media that never countenances the language  of “working class”—before there was only one big happy America—have now  become experts in class politics. The carefully primped talking heads  on Fox News and CNN have suddenly become the spokespeople for the  blue-collar white worker.
  
  But the corporate media has left out  the most important fact: it is they who decide what is palatable.  Wright has not come under attack because his message is unacceptable to  white workers. Wright’s crime was that he put out a message  unacceptable to the white racist bourgeoisie. There are no white  workers scripting the text for Anderson Cooper or Sean Hannity. The  multinational working class—Black, Latino, Arab, Asian and white—has  nothing to do with it. The working class, regardless of nationality, is  a subject class, subjected to the media that molds public opinion. It  is this ruling class that formulated Obama’s “electability” crisis.
  
  The  pro-establishment pundits pose everything in terms of white and Black.  This may on its face seem valid because racism is still the dominant  reality in the United States.  But in the context of the unremitting  attacks on Wright it obscures their class hatred of Wright’s vision—a  vision of a multinational social justice movement. And it is not just  the pundits talking. The New York Times, the most important anchor of  the capitalist class media, could not be more vicious. They instantly  applauded Obama for rejecting the “racism and paranoia of his former  pastor.” All reality has been turned upside down. Rev. Wright and those  who protest slavery, racism and imperialism are labeled as “insane” and  “racist” by the system that has accumulated its wealth through slavery,  racism and imperialism.
  
  The attacks on Rev. Wright have also  been pumped up by Hillary Clinton and her chief campaigner, former  president Bill Clinton. Appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show of Fox News,  Clinton stumped for right-wing and racist votes. She declared that she  was "offended and outraged" by Wright. She was not outraged when the  Clinton White House eliminated 7 million children from welfare benefits  in 1996, dropped 23,000 bombs on Yugoslavia in 1999 or took the lives  of 5,000 Iraqi babies every month as a consequence of the severe  economic sanctions that deprived Iraqis of food and medicine. Nothing  to be offended about there. 
  
  Obama’s dilemma
  
  The  new furor surrounding Wright has created a dilemma for Obama. Since the  press conference, Wright has been called every name in the book. Obama  himself joined in, angrily calling Wright “disrespectful” in a speech  that amounted to a full break with his former pastor.
   
  This is  yet another example of what Wright meant when he explained that Obama  “says what he has to say to get elected.” But Obama was not forced to  denounce Wright to remain acceptable to white voters. He denounced  Wright to remain acceptable to the capitalist class; this is an  essential precondition for any candidate who wants to get elected.
  
  Nonetheless,  Obama’s forceful denunciation of Jeremiah Wright amounts to a  denunciation of a large section of African Americans. His accusation  that Wright was “self-centered” by speaking the truth publicly, means  that it is selfish for African Americans to make demands of Obama that  hurt him with the racist ruling class and racist white voters.  According to this logic, we should just be happy he is running. A  recent Los Angeles Wave article revealed that Obama has given virtually  no interviews or advertising dollars to Black publishers. This is yet  another sign that he takes the Black vote entirely for granted.
  
  In  his highly publicized March 18 speech, Obama had said he “could no more  disown Reverend Wright than [he] could disown the entire black  community.” A month later he has effectively disowned Wright, and the  Black community is left to wonder where—or if—it stands inside the  Obama campaign. While the first denunciation of Wright could be  explained away as political posturing, the second will not be so easily  forgiven. 
  
  Obama’s appeal up until now has been based on the  historical symbolism and promise of being the first Black president as  well as his inspirational but vague program for “change.” Obama’s  rank-and-file supporters are yearning for change. They are fed up with  the war, racism and injustice. But his program has been carefully  crafted to satisfy the needs and interests of US corporate capitalism.  He has insisted that if he is elected he will adopt a foreign policy  similar to that of George H.W. Bush. He praises Bush senior for his  handling of the 1991 Iraq war. Over 100,000 Iraqis were killed while US  casualties were under two hundred in that high tech massacre. Bush  senior’s assault on Iraq came 13 months after he ordered the invasion  of Panama in 1989.
  
  On the current Iraq war, Obama has committed  to leaving some unspecified number of troops in the country. He has  refused to commit to getting troops out by the end of his first term.  He supports “over-the-horizon” forces, which will position tens of  thousands of U.S. soldiers in strategic locations to project U.S.  dominance against the peoples of the Middle East. He promises to work  to end the “mentality that took us to war.” But it was the Pentagon war  machine—not a mentality—that took us to war, and that war machine he  intends to leave in place. If that is not enough, Obama recently  pledged to support Gen. David Petraeus, chief architect of the Bush  strategy in Iraq. 
  
  Obama has offered full-throated support for  Israel, and pledged to continue to send billions of dollars in money  and arms there every year. He supports the war in Afghanistan, and has  proposed waging war against both Iran and Pakistan. He makes a great  deal of his willingness to meet with enemy leaders, but on Cuba, for  instance, he refuses to enter into unconditional negotiations. His  condition: that the Cuban revolution be dismantled and overthrown.
  
  Rev.  Wright should keep saying what he is saying. He’s speaking for millions  of people in this country who oppose the policies of imperialism. His  intervention has again exposed the character of the mainstream media,  and it gives us a chance to engage with larger numbers of people on the  issues of racism and national oppression. On all the key points, Rev.  Wright is right, and he deserves the support of all progressive and  revolutionary people. 




http://www.girights.org/

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://spnyc.org/pipermail/nyclocal_spnyc.org/attachments/20080430/8226719d/attachment.html