Judging Oratory by Its Fruits

Because I believe in being fair and balanced, let me now focus on (or, one might say, cherry pick) the agreeable parts of what Senator Obama said yesterday. One paragraph stands out and has been responsible, I think, for much of the positive reaction from commentators who don’t ordinarily have much patience with left-wing sloganeering (e. g., John McWhorter, Charles Murray and, to a lesser extent, Ross Douthat [more Douthat]):

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.

Had the text consisted of an elaboration of that paragraph, Senator Obama would not only have been intellectually correct, but he would have done a great deal of good. He would have been saying to the black community, “Stop equating America today with Mississippi half a century ago. Stop being angry about past wrongs, and start remembering how much your white brothers and sisters have done to change racial attitudes and promote equal opportunity. Stop paralyzing yourselves by imagining that you are the victims of vast conspiracies. Stop sympathizing with tyrants who denounce your country, and start showing appreciation for our foreign allies.”

Coming from the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the Presidency, those sentiments might well have undone much of the harm that years of hatemongering by the Rev. Mr. Wright (and others) have wrought. At least, it would have become more difficult to stigmatize pro-Americanism as “middleclassedness” and “thinking white”.

One paragraph, alas, does not make a speech. Surrounding its sharp observations was a mass of soft, cushioning “context”. Tout comprehendre c’est tout pardonner, and many paragraphs were devoted to “understanding” why blacks in general, and Jeremiah Wright in particular, are justified in being angry at America, and why their anger ought to be seen in a forgiving light.

Judging by the audience reactions that Byron York sampled, the speech reinforced, instead of undermining, the attitude that blacks face a malevolent, white-dominated world. If the candidate had the intentions that the optimists attribute to him, he failed as an orator, at least with his immediate hearers. We’ll see whether he has better luck among those who read his remarks or learn about them through second hand reports. Will blacks who were inclined to agree with Pastor Wright begin criticizing the “profoundly distorted” opinions uttered from the Trinity Church pulpit? Or will they declare that white critics have traduced a prophetic truth teller?

To borrow a quotation that Senator Obama must have heard during his two decades of church attendance, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” If his Philadelphia speech bears no good fruit except praise from people who already agree with an anti-racist message, its seed will have been sown in vain.