Barack, Alinsky and Rev. Wright

A few days ago my Sis emailed me reminding me that Barack Obama was something of a follower of Saul Alinsky's teaching.( You will recall, also, that Hillary Rodham wrote her Master's thesis about Alinsky as well.) A light went off, and it occurred to me why Obama picked Reverend Wright's church when he came to Chicago to organize after his graduation from Columbia.

Alinsky, you may recall, was a radical organizer during the Depression and afterward. He was broadly associated with Marxists and Communists in organizing communities around the country and particularly in Chicago. He was active in organizing the old CIO. He denies that he was ever a Communist, but admitted freely to working with them. He was probably the most effective radical organizer in the US through the 1960s, and a devout leftist.

There is an old interview with Alinsky that was in Playboy magazine done a few months before he died, and what he said is informative on this issue:

"ALINSKY: Well, the first thing I did, the first thing I always do, is to move into the community as an observer, to talk with people and listen and learn their grievances and their attitudes. Then I look around at what I've got to work with, what levers I can use to pry closed doors open, what institutions or organizations already exist that can be useful. In the case of Back of the Yards, the area was 95 percent Roman Catholic, and I recognized that if I could win the support of the Church, we'd be off and running. Conversely, without the Church, or at least some elements of it, it was unlikely that we'd be able to make much of a dent in the community....."( Read the whole thing, it is very interesting)

This Back of the Yards community was in Chicago. What Alinsky describes here is the same situation that faced Obama when he first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, and one could speculate that Obam's approach was the same as Alinsky's.

Obama found a very large black church with a very popular pastor in the community, became a part of it, and legitimized himself within the community he was organizing. The pastor, Reverend Wright, took him in, helped and encouraged him. Perhaps the fact that the pastor and the church followed the black liberation theology that was described by James Cone, a black liberation theologian had little to do with his choice.

A church becomes one's family. Obama was apparently very comfortable there and developed a strong personal relationship with Wright, as anyone would with one's own pastor. If there was such a relationship, it would be a very difficult one to break. Having heard some of Mrs. Obama's statements, it occurs to me that she might be much more in tune with the theology than he is. Again, that would be pure speculation.

So, what is black liberation theology? Simplistically, it is a Christian theology that worships Christ and blames many of the world's problems on white racists. According to a Wake Forest University website:

"..Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.

"There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans....."

There is, of course, much more to it. There are other sites here, and here. In relation to Obama's church and the Reverend Wright, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers says:

"...Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

"Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....."

There is more, much more. The few cites I have made aren't the whole story. The real question is what does this type of thinking contribute to either the church or to African-American members of the church?

One of the ministeries of Trinity United Church of Christ is HIV/Aids outreach as mentioned by Obama in his speech. Mark Steyn points out:

"...But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community....."

So, what does this all tell us about Obama? He said in his Philadelphia speech:

"...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...."

So he disagrees with all that Jeremiah Wright says that might reflect upon his chances at election. He continues to expose his children to the hate and just plain lies that is a part of the church philosophy. And he wants everyone to feel guilty that a church and theology like that are necessary because of white racism, particularly in the past.

Perhaps Mark Steyn's conclusion says it best:

"...Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama's choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that – what's the word? – racist?..."

Read all the citations, and then:

You decide.

UPDATE:

Some new sites I recommend are here and here. Both are good, much more in depth, discussions of the issue.

Who is Barack Obama? an Update

As the Democratic race for the nomination heads toward a climax of sorts, I thought I would revisit the question that I asked in a previous post. I have written and rewritten a short bio of Obama the last several days, and just cannot make myself happy with it, so I will abandon the same, and provide some good links to materials I have found so that a reader can go to far better written and researched articles.

Obama's current home town newspaper provides the best and most detailed investigation, although it is not as in depth as it could be. The Chicago Tribune series can be found here. I encourage everyone to go there and read to your heart's desire.

Other materials can be found here, and here, and here. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list.

Having spent numerous hours poring over stories about Obama, I have come to some conclusions about him that I will list below. Naturally, if new evidence comes out, my conclusions are subject to change.

1. Obama is a superbly intelligent man with a great deal of talent for politics. His wife, Michelle, is also very intelligent, but not so politically gifted. Both are leftist Ivy League "social activists." The campaign that the Obamas have run has been one of the best I have ever seen in my 50 years of politics. At least until now.

2. Obama is not a messiah or a harbinger of change, but a very bright and ambitious politician who rapidly worked himself up within the Chicago Democratic machine. His connections to Tony Rezko, now on trial for political corruption, will need much deeper investigation. Rezko has been described as a "fund raiser" by the press in connection with Obama, but my opinion is that Rezko is nothing more than what we used to call a "bag man" for the Cook County organization. The house deal, as well as other dealings, bear much more scrutiny than has been apparent to date. I am sure we will hear more about that later, if our press does an honest job.

3. The Obama campaign is like a box, all dressed up like a Christmas present with all of the glitter and pretty ribbons one would like. On the box, there appears to be something for everyone...peace, harmony, hope, change, bi-partisanship...everything all the polls say that most American voters desire in a candidate.

4. The box is empty. If one looks at his record, there is nothing to suggest that he will be able, or even try, to accomplish all of that. He has never said what he would do that would make any of this happen. As Walter Mondale would say: "Where's the beef?"

5. What he really offers is the sad old left wing platitudes and programs. See his booklet, The Blueprint for Change, in PDF form here. Some of it sounds good, but.........promises made by politicians are seldom kept, and most of them cannot be.

6. The likelihood that Obama will be our next President is better than 50% right now.

Read it and weep, or celebrate, depending upon your preference.

Hillary Down? NOT!!

The day after New Hampshire sees Hillary not down, but a winner, if only barely. What a surprise to all the pundits that were speculating she might be on her way out. There is not a chance of that. The closeness will almost certainly put the Clinton machine is in a full court press mode, however. Will they really take the gloves off? It will be interesting. This could be a long, drawn out process for the Democrats.

McCain's comeback is kind of refreshing. After the disaster with the immigration bill this summer, McCain hit rock bottom, losing suport and out of money. That he could come back as well as he has is a real compliment to him. Beating Romney in his neighborhood also put a brake on Romney's campaign. If McCain beats Romney in Michigan, Romney will really be in a struggle.

Huck came in third and remains viable heading into states where he should be stronger. He is so weak on policy, it must be the religious folks that are keeping him in it. I have said it before, but he seems like Bill Clinton without the sleaze. We know what happened to Bill.

Giulani, of course, has not yet begun to fight. How he will fare is a real question. Thompson is barely hanging on. A good showing in S. Carolina is imperative for him.

The big losers in New Hampshire: the Pollsters. They totally and badly missed on the Hillary/Obama race. The polling situation might be very interesting to follow throughout the campaign. Maybe more on that some other time.

The final analysis post-New Hampshire: this is going to be a long slog to the nomination for candidates in both parties, and for us poor watchers. Stay tuned.