A Comment On Barak Obama’s Philadelphia Speech

A Comment on Barak Obama’s Philadelphia Election Speech Santhosh T Varghese Lecturer in Economics PM Govt. College, Chalakudy, Kerala, India. (Affiliated to Calicut University) http://www.santhoshtv.in http://www.alwayseconomics.blogspot.com http://www.facts-unmasked.blogspot.com

It is true to say that Barak Hussein Obama’s Philadelphia (as it is delivered at Philadelphia's National Constitution Centre) speech may be considered as a sequestered one among the speeches that reflect the social and economic reality of the present day world in general and US in particular. To some it is one among the greatest speeches ever delivered. It may be considered as a sequestered one because it clearly shows that the “predicament of politicians”—especially during the run-up to power when confronting the barrage of criticisms—is ‘exactly same’, which side of the equator you are notwithstanding. In short, Obama is confronting multifaceted criticisms and even abuses from the campaign side of Hilary Clinton ever since he proved that he is a real challenger to the once-thought-the-solitary contender for the democratic candidature for the Presidential election. Mrs Clinton became so nervous that she used all the dirty tactics against him and tried to manipulate the general sentiment among public by simply but cannily spreading rumours that Obama is a Muslim. It is true that his Kenyan father is a Muslim but his mother is a white US Christian and he is also a Christian. To prove that Obama supporters even produced evidence that it was none other than Pastor Jeremiah Wright who inculcated Obama into the faith of Christianity etc. Mrs. Clinton failed miserably, then but not for all. She opened then the next obvious flood gate to Obama. Suddenly the Sunday sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright were made readily

1

available with the media including youtube. The noteworthy fact about all these sermons is that they all were delivered in the past period. But they were made available as if they are delivered very recently! The common thread of all these sermons (the main three charges against Pastor Wright) is the references to racial discrimination of America, severe criticisms against US foreign policy, the view of terrorist attack on US as a natural backlash of its own policies etc. The purport is obvious. Plainly speaking, they have nothing to do either with the Presidential elections or with Obama. But conclusions are swiftly drawn and they are invariably linked with the credentials of Obama to lead USA. Just because of the reason that Obama’s marriage was solemnised by Wright or his daughters were baptised by him or he was brought into the faith by Wright or Wright was in the support committee of Obama, one cannot blame Obama for whatever speeches made by Wright. It all again proved that human beings respond in the same manner, that is, they let ‘passion to rule over reason’. Other wise this new controversy would not have happened. Now, given this situation, what Obama must do, as just like any other politician who face a do or die battle? On April 22nd Obama is facing the vote at Pennsylvania state primary. Naturally he chose the Philadelphia's National Constitution Center of Pennsylvania state to make a reply to this virulent and nasty vilification campaign against him. In such a situation what would be the natural response of any politician? The simple and straight response would be to take a distance from the alleged three charges against Wright. Obama also did the same thing, nothing else!! Thus came the Obama speech at Philadelphia. Many commentators thought that Obama in his speech pushed aside the issues of racial discrimination and rose above the sectarian views and made a clarion call for the discussion of issues which touch the USA as a whole. But BBC news story clearly showed that this is only a fiction and they aptly titled one story covering the Philadelphia speech as “Obama says US cannot ignore race” on 19th Wednesday of March 2008. But it is true that Obama wanted to discuss that issues which touch USA as whole also.

2

Thus the predicament of politicians is same regardless of the nation where the election battle is fought. Since he is a half-black, to win the election he need to win the white votes in a decisive manner. But now he has been painted as a person who still nurtures the issue of racial discrimination. So he wanted to convey the message that he has sympathy to the issues and problems of Whites also. Hence he made a call to conduct a joint effort by blacks and whites to overcome the problems of US in general rather than problems of black or white alone. What else Obama could do in such a situation? His political predicament is understandable, but the grounds cited by Obama for a joint effort for the larger interests of America were so flimsy that it is very visible that he trips frequently thought out that speech if one makes a closer scrutiny. Thus it gives the impression that the Philadelphia speech was a clever smokescreen meticulously crafted by Obama to ward off the vilification campaign supposedly piloted by Mrs Clinton. Let us first see what the commentators have to say: David R. Henderson, research fellow with the Hoover Institution and associate professor in Economics argued that there are three faults with the Obama speech. First, Obama argued that Wright’s speech was full of hatred. But Henderson argued that Wright’s speech has only anger and have no hatred. Obama instead argued that Wright’s sermons were full of hatred and hence need to be brushed aside and condemned. But if anger when expressed with explanation cannot contain hatred, says Henderson. If that is the case, Obama’s speech looses one of its grounds. Secondly Obama distorted the speech of Wright just to make mileage and strike a chord with the conservative whites who denounces Palestinian cause and blindly supports Israel. Wright only said that "We (US) supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic." But Henderson pointed out that, in his speech, 3

Obama referred to Wright's view as: "...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." Henderson said that, that may be what Wright believes – Obama would know better than I – but that's certainly not what Wright said in the passage which Obama cited. Third, Obama asks us to get past the race issue and look at the other issues in the campaign. But Henderson said that, in doing so, he stired up resentment against people (ie. The business managers) who are just as innocent as the struggling black man and the struggling white man displaced by affirmative action. Obama states: "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed. Henderson pointed out that this is only a standard Democratic riff about how nasty corporations have caused a middle class squeeze and there have been Enrons (the notorious US company for shady accounting practises), but is Obama seriously saying that these have been so widespread as to make the middle class worse off? Charles Krauthammer the columnist of Washington Post with the title, “The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud” (Friday, March 21, 2008; Page A17) argued that Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. Charles said that by context, Obama meant history. And by history, he meant the history of white racism. He underlined that even though Obama in the speech said that "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," but proceeded to do precisely that. Charles asked what lied at the end of— Obama’s recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination and said that it was nothing else other than Jeremiah Wright itself!! Charles at last asked a question to Obama that if Wright is a man of the past (as Obama played down Wright by saying that he is a man past), then why 4

would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness and why did you gave $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infected the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

The essence of these comments is that Obama’s speech is only a smokescreen to avoid the white backlash in the upcoming primary votes. Read with this the polls findings that even though 90 % of the blacks support Obama his support base among whites is still low. I want to write more as to the ‘smokescreen’ argument but I feel that I wrote too much. If any body writes back I will get a chance. To conclude, indeed, Obama clearly accentuated the adverse impact of white atrocities upon the blacks and clearly underscored that this issue cannot be wished away. But at the same time, he wanted to show that he understand the problems and hardships of whites also, otherwise how he could remain as a Presidential aspirant! And ironically, Obama’s “hope” that he could give better results for the whole USA clearly stems from the teachings of Wright especially from the sermon of “Audacity to Hope”!!!

5