Saturday, March 15, 2008
Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright Say the Same Thing Differently
Sen. Obama speaks to enraptured voters of hope and change for a better future and offers the promise of a post-racial America. Rev. Wright speaks to enraptured churchgoers or hate and past wrongs and an America where white people always work to keep the blacks down. Sen. Obama claims that Rev. Wright is his pastor and spiritual advisor, and it is obvious that Rev. Wright has been a large influence in Sen. Obama's life. This has lead to a great deal of confusion by some people who look at the huge difference between the tone and meaning of their speeches and wonder how to reconcile that Obama, the student, seems to say the polar opposite of what Wright, his teacher, does... and yet Sen. Obama has not denounced or even distanced himself from Rev. Wright.
If you view them from a different perspective, looking at the audience instead of the orator, then perhaps Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright are saying the same thing after all. They are both saying what the crowd needs to hear. Sen. Obama is saying what will get him votes in the Democratic Primary. Rev. Wright is saying what will put butts in the pews and dollars in the collection plate.
If you assume that the most important thing about what someone says is its meaning then the disparity between what Obama and Wright say is mysterious. But if you think that the most important thing about what someone says is how it motivates the listener to do what the speaker wants them to, then the similarity in their ability as orators is obvious. If you assume that the most important things to learn from a spiritual advisor is theology and ideology, then it would seem that Sen. Obama has learned nothing from Rev. Wright. But if you think that the most important things to learn from a 'spiritual advisor' are how to read a crowd, then craft and deliver a message that will bend them to your will... then it appears Sen. Obama has learned a great deal from Rev. Wright.
The confusion amoung Obama's followers about why he has continuted to associate with Rev. Wright is understandable. Most of them probably believe, like normal people generally do, that what a man says is more important than how he says it and that the value in a pastor's sermon is measured in the truth that it illuminates instead of the dollars it puts in the collection plate. When normal people "get on their soapbox" they say what they believe. They naturally expect that others do as well, and that you can tell what a politician's or reverand's beliefs are by listening to what they say. But I think that Wrechard is right to say that Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright are not normal people. They both make their living by manipulating people with oratory and promises. Such people do not say what they believe, they say what they need to to get what they want. I think the differences between Sen. Obama's and Rev. Wright's speeches is not indicitive of large ideological differences between the two men... it is because of the differences in the audience they are seeking to motivate.
tags: obama wright
If you view them from a different perspective, looking at the audience instead of the orator, then perhaps Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright are saying the same thing after all. They are both saying what the crowd needs to hear. Sen. Obama is saying what will get him votes in the Democratic Primary. Rev. Wright is saying what will put butts in the pews and dollars in the collection plate.
If you assume that the most important thing about what someone says is its meaning then the disparity between what Obama and Wright say is mysterious. But if you think that the most important thing about what someone says is how it motivates the listener to do what the speaker wants them to, then the similarity in their ability as orators is obvious. If you assume that the most important things to learn from a spiritual advisor is theology and ideology, then it would seem that Sen. Obama has learned nothing from Rev. Wright. But if you think that the most important things to learn from a 'spiritual advisor' are how to read a crowd, then craft and deliver a message that will bend them to your will... then it appears Sen. Obama has learned a great deal from Rev. Wright.
The confusion amoung Obama's followers about why he has continuted to associate with Rev. Wright is understandable. Most of them probably believe, like normal people generally do, that what a man says is more important than how he says it and that the value in a pastor's sermon is measured in the truth that it illuminates instead of the dollars it puts in the collection plate. When normal people "get on their soapbox" they say what they believe. They naturally expect that others do as well, and that you can tell what a politician's or reverand's beliefs are by listening to what they say. But I think that Wrechard is right to say that Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright are not normal people. They both make their living by manipulating people with oratory and promises. Such people do not say what they believe, they say what they need to to get what they want. I think the differences between Sen. Obama's and Rev. Wright's speeches is not indicitive of large ideological differences between the two men... it is because of the differences in the audience they are seeking to motivate.
tags: obama wright
Comments:
<< Home
April 30, 2007
A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith - New York Times
Still, Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Obama had never met a minister who made pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed women leaders and gay members and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit. Mr. Wright was making Trinity a social force, initiating day care, drug counseling, legal aid and tutoring. He was also interested in the world beyond his own; in 1984, he traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Wright said his visits implied no endorsement of their views.
It also helped give him spiritual bona fides and a new assurance. Services at Trinity were a weekly master class in how to move an audience. When Mr. Obama arrived at Harvard Law School later that year, where he fortified himself with recordings of Mr. Wright’s sermons, he was delivering stirring speeches as a student leader in the classic oratorical style of the black church.
But he developed a tone very different from his pastor’s. In contrast with Mr. Wright — the kind of speaker who could make a grocery list sound like a jeremiad — Mr. Obama speaks with cool intellect and on-the-one-hand reasoning. He tends to emphasize the reasonableness of all people; Mr. Wright rallies his parishioners against oppressors.
While Mr. Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Mr. Wright issued a “War on Iraq I.Q. Test,” with questions like, “Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?”
A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith - New York Times
Still, Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Obama had never met a minister who made pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed women leaders and gay members and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit. Mr. Wright was making Trinity a social force, initiating day care, drug counseling, legal aid and tutoring. He was also interested in the world beyond his own; in 1984, he traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Wright said his visits implied no endorsement of their views.
It also helped give him spiritual bona fides and a new assurance. Services at Trinity were a weekly master class in how to move an audience. When Mr. Obama arrived at Harvard Law School later that year, where he fortified himself with recordings of Mr. Wright’s sermons, he was delivering stirring speeches as a student leader in the classic oratorical style of the black church.
But he developed a tone very different from his pastor’s. In contrast with Mr. Wright — the kind of speaker who could make a grocery list sound like a jeremiad — Mr. Obama speaks with cool intellect and on-the-one-hand reasoning. He tends to emphasize the reasonableness of all people; Mr. Wright rallies his parishioners against oppressors.
While Mr. Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Mr. Wright issued a “War on Iraq I.Q. Test,” with questions like, “Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?”
""Services at Trinity were a weekly master class in how to move an audience. When Mr. Obama arrived at Harvard Law School later that year, where he fortified himself with recordings of Mr. Wright’s sermons, he was delivering stirring speeches as a student leader in the classic oratorical style of the black church. ""
what a wreck of a post! I don't even live in the US, so I don't give a damn about this election, but your reasoning about this stuff is totally irrelevant and ignorant!
What Wright and Obama said IS infact similar , which resumes to this: The US of A is STILL racist, is STILL arrogant in the world, MESSES up too much in other country's lifes, it's a "damned" country.
You were never angry at your beloved? You never had an argument with her (or him!)? How is that AAs can never be angry with the country that made them slaves for hundreds of years until so recently in the 20th century? Suddenly they are unpatriotic?
They are saying the same. The INTENT is quite different. Wright doesn't BELIEVE the US has any remedy. He is so disappointed he doesn't hope anymore. Obama, OTOH, embodies that same hope that Wright no more has. Obama believes in a better USA, one in which race signifies less and less to America. That's the difference.
They see the same SHIT of state of affairs that USA is, but draw different futures of it. Ironically, the pastor has less faith than the "student".
What Wright and Obama said IS infact similar , which resumes to this: The US of A is STILL racist, is STILL arrogant in the world, MESSES up too much in other country's lifes, it's a "damned" country.
You were never angry at your beloved? You never had an argument with her (or him!)? How is that AAs can never be angry with the country that made them slaves for hundreds of years until so recently in the 20th century? Suddenly they are unpatriotic?
They are saying the same. The INTENT is quite different. Wright doesn't BELIEVE the US has any remedy. He is so disappointed he doesn't hope anymore. Obama, OTOH, embodies that same hope that Wright no more has. Obama believes in a better USA, one in which race signifies less and less to America. That's the difference.
They see the same SHIT of state of affairs that USA is, but draw different futures of it. Ironically, the pastor has less faith than the "student".
# posted by 
: 3:44 AM
: 3:44 AM
I visit your site read your article fine job great article i really like it.thank,s for great shearing. Pakistan flowers
Post a Comment
<< Home
