Anti-American Sentiments

The phrase "anti-American sentiments" is and has been ubiquitous in the mainstream media ever since clips of Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright have surfaced and been circulated on cable news and the internet. His statements have been branded as anti-American. It seems to me that the phrase is very loaded and complex, but not entirely clear. It deserves dissection and reflection.

What does it mean exactly? Is it an objective or a subjective idea? America is not only a place, but a conceptual being, ever-changing and dynamic. It represents many ideas and people. It would be nice if the media discussed its meaning, but that may be too much to ask of them. Think about what it means to you. For the purposes of this article, it means simply what the words say (and the negative connotations inherent in them): opposed or against America.

Is that what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is? Opposed to America? Why doesn't he get the hell out of here then? Maybe, he is not actually "anti-American." Who can be sure? However, he is certainly critical of the American government's actions and has made it known in a very inflammatory way that has made it very easy to make the leap to the label anti-American. In spite of this swift mental transition, if one considers the greatness of our constitution, they will remember that it is the right to denounce and disagree with the actions carried out by our government that helps form the foundation of our democracy. If we could not or did not, then we would probably have a monarchy. Yet, thankfully we get to recognize, speak about, and attempt to fix past mistakes and injustices. 

Despite the fact Wright has the right to voice criticisms of former and present U.S. actions--no matter how rabble-rousing they may seem--we should also discuss the huge response that he has elicited. It seems that people are afraid of him and feel a strong responsibility to denounce his words. What is behind this fear?

Could it be that people fear a revolution in America's African-American community? Are people afraid that Wright, an influential pastor in the United Church of Christ, is spewing anti-American sermons to countless congregations, inciting impassioned rhetoric that eventually will rally the masses of African-American parishioners to fight against America?

Could it be? Does he have such power? Is he dangerous? The media, the GOP, and Hillary all have an interest in having you (or in Hillary's case, the superdelegates) consider the idea (tune in!), but this notion is completely ridiculous. All the same, he is anti-American so he is opposed to America.

However, fearing Wright is irrational. Alas, it is very easy and many people disturbed, angry, afraid, or outraged.

Be that as it may, we should not fear Wright, because, first of all, he is extreme and paranoid, stating that the U.S. government had a plan to spread HIV among African-Americans. Most people in America find this absurd and therefore he will discredit himself. Second of all, U.S. foreign policy should be criticized. If it weren't we'd be lacking a major characteristic of a free and open society and we wouldn't have constructive discussions about the decisions we make abroad (discussions that are sorely needed).

People might say that I am giving the incendiary pastor a free pass. Maybe I am. But in all fairness, we are paying increasingly more attention to what a Christian pastor is saying about America than what our lame duck president does with the remainder of his time in office, or perhaps more importantly, what our megalomaniacal vice president is doing.

Therefore, yes, I am saying that what Wright has said is not a relatively huge deal. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, still not getting anywhere with Iran, still in a recession, and we are in the midst of electing our next president. The words of one ex-Marine former pastor are not in the forefront of my mind.

These comments are not meant to endorse either of the two candidates for the Democratic nomination. They simply point out my thoughts on the recent uproar over Jeremiah Wright and the Clinton campaign's response.

"Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination" -- New York Times

A couple of days ago, the New York Times put out a Political Memo titled "Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination." The article analyzes the waning chance of Mrs. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination for President. With the popular vote and delegate count in Mr. Obama's advantage, only around ten contests to go, and a growing concern for weakened party unity if the contest were to last up to the Democratic National Convention, there is little room for error on behalf of the Clinton campaign. 

Recognizing this, Clinton's campaign has shifted the focus onto Obama's relationship with his pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has made racially charged criticisms and harsh condemnations of U.S. behavior. NYT reports that Clinton's campaign hopes that in the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, scrutiny of Obama's past will uncover more doubts "that would underscore Mrs. Clinton's warning to Democrats that they were rallying around someone who was untested and unvetted," (NYT).  

Therefore, the Clinton campaign is not going to emphasize her superior policies or her thirty-five years of experience. They surely will not make the argument that she is the more effective leader of one of the most participative and scrutinized elections in U.S. history. Rather, the Clinton machine will focus on what is truly important: Obama's relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. 

"Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election," (New York Times). 

Unfortunately for Clinton, framing Obama as unreliable due to his relationship with his outspoken pastor is weak at best. This reality, to which the Clinton campaign is trying hard not to give any credence, can easily be seen by asking a few questions. 

First, is Obama's association with a pastor who made anti-American comments worse than Clinton's vote for the resolution to use force in Iraq (a concrete vote enabling us to get where we are in Iraq today? Or, association with pastor critical of U.S. policies?)? 

Secondly, does the fact that Pastor Wright has made inflammatory anti-American remarks mean that Obama holds the views expressed in those remarks? Unless there exists a proven, omnipotent process of pastor-to-layperson osmosis of views, this writer would have to say no. After all, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other government officials sat through each one of George W. Bush's State of the Union Addresses. Does it follow that they all agreed that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq should have been defined as an axis of evil?

A third question to ask in order to vet the Clinton campaign's logic: does Clinton have associations with shady or controversial persons, and if so, does that mean she is "untested and unvetted" as well? If Clinton's argument that Obama is "untested and unvetted" due to his association with Pastor Wright is capable of holding water, then in order for her to be tested and vetted, which Mark Penn deems a process that "will make a big defference," Clinton cannot have associations with controversial figures. Unfortunately, she does, but perhaps friends convicted in the Whitewater scandal don't count because they are associations that have passed the "controversial threshold," which means--as everyone knows--they have been known for at least seven years. 

Despite the characteristically hollow nature of the argument that is to form the foundation of the Clinton campaign's new strategy, you can be sure that they will advance it anyway.  

The Clinton campaign should stick to making the argument the Hillary is ready to be president. Focusing on Obama's pastor's incendiary sermons does not create a dialogue with the American people that can create the ideas and motivation needed to accomplish the goals we should  be setting for ourselves.