In Barak Obama’s most recent speech, entitled “A More Perfect Union,” America’s clear choice for change in presidential election stepped up to the oratory plate and knocked it out of the park. Perhaps it was inevitable that the nation’s attention was diverted from political issues to focusing on our lifelong struggle with the issue of race relations, during the current presidential campaign. The greatest facade of all, in America, is the face we try to put on the residual damages and injuries our citizens bear resulting from our long history of African slavery. However, slavery is not the only wound that we regularly dress in our society of neighbors. The Trail of Tears still stings the hearts of Native Americans. Being ostracized as new immigrants still lingers in the hearts of Irish, Italian and Jewish Americans. Being forced into World War II concentration camps still resonates in the hearts of Japanese Americans. And, those are only a few of the loyal, patriotic American communities that have been hurt and still hold some anger for the country that they love. But even those who solely claim to belong the cultural heritage called, “American” can lash out in anger, as did two, named Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, when they were arrested for bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in 1995.
Senator Obama’s speech of March 18, 2008 echoed the words of the Preamble of the United States Constitution, “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union …” and he went on to shine a light on the many ways that a loyal, patriotic, former U.S. Marine and his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, could voice such a statement as “God, damn America …” from the pulpit and it not result in Senator Obama storming away from the church and disavowing any relationship between himself and the renowned preacher and theologian. If Senator Obama did not make it clear enough in his speech, allow me to restate the point I believe that he made. In spite of the multitude of sins perpetrated by our beloved country, starting with the sin of slavery, and the way that it might often be expressed in fiery orations (in barbershops, around kitchen tables and even in pulpits) we are a stronger nation because we are free to love those neighbors who are free to speak their minds and we are free to love our country even when we disagree, or are even injured, by her.
Therefore, when those wealthy American corporate moguls are asked to keep jobs in our country for American working families and to accept a fair distribution of all of our tax burden, they might be angry and feel injured when they lose a few percentages from their healthy profit margins. However, I hope they will still love America. And, when healthcare and pharmaceutical companies are asked to adjust their business practices in a way that affords the worlds best health coverage to all Americans, an not just those who are blessed with jobs good enough to provide it, they might not be able to offset the discount on the drugs and medical technology that they provide to the rest of the world by charging our citizens much higher prices. Nonetheless, I hope that they will still love America. Also, when the few major companies that make outrageous profits on America’s dependence on petroleum, coal and radioactive isotopes to feed her unyielding energy needs are asked to build a new economy based on “green” or ecologically responsible and abundantly replenishable sources of energy, they may be injured by having to completely recreate their core business strategies and infrastructure by curtailing executive salary increases for a short period of time. Yet, I hope that they will still love America.
I could go on and on and touch on America’s public school systems or the military-industrial complex or the failing U.S. monetary policy or the special interest lobbyist’s influence over government officials. As a pastor, I might even touch on organized religions failure in providing for relevancy in the spirituality in the lives of today’s generation of America’s youths and young families. The bottom line is that America may stand united, but as we strive to build a more perfect union, we could be more successful in achieving our constitutional goal of insuring “domestic tranquility.”
When, in this year’s presidential campaign, one considers which candidate has the social location, professional experience and popular support to help us to build a nation that represents a “more perfect union” described in the U.S. Constitution, the speech of March 18, 2008 sets Senator Barak Obama head and shoulders about the other presidential candidates. Indeed, the entire constitutional laundry list of what “we, the people” have set as national goals by establishing this democratic republic that we love would be better served by electing Senator Obama as the 44th President of the United States. That list includes, “establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and promote the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity.” Can we, the people of the United States of America, work together to achieve these national goals better under the presidential leadership of Barak Obama than we could under those of his campaign competitors, Senators Clinton and McClain? Yes, we can!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Far Left, Far Right or Center?
There once was a man who stood for change. And, shortly after Palm Sunday the opinion of the establishment turned violently against Him. They were wrong to do so, but unless they did, He would not have been able to convert His nation and the world to His message of love, tolerance and unity. The recent “scandal” concerning Barak Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and video clip catalogues of his sermons may just be the catalyst needed to center this country’s collective political consciousness from either the far left or the far right.
I almost had to fall on my knees as I watched former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, explain to a cable news show host how Rev. Wright’s comments were not based as much on race as they were representative of the “Far Left” political rhetoric. He went on to say that the views of the reverend were not dissimilar from those of liberal ideologues of all races. I almost fell to my knees because I realized the power of this year's presidential campaign and its issues caused me to agree with the politically conservative icon, Gingrich, for the first time in my life. If the Obama campaign could bring Newt and I together, their must be the hand of God in it!
As a pastor myself, my opinion is that Jesus represented a radical change agent to the status quo in ancient Jerusalem. “Radical change” might be considered, as I consider it, another term for the modern political label “Liberal.” Political “Conservatives” might be described as those who long for the “good old days” and the values of their fathers and grandfathers. Many of those who gather under that political label, like former Speaker Gingrich, President Bush and Rush Limbaugh, might argue that they are indeed agents of change, but the fact is that our country has been under the reign of conservative government leaders and their policies for quite some time now. If Gingrich is right and Jeremiah Wright is not a hate monger, as many in the news media (and Clinton campaign operatives) would have you think. Rather, if he just speaks from a very “Liberal” socio-political perspective, it stands to reason that a large number of African Americans agree with that perspective. Duh!!! Who didn’t already know that!
Conversely, who speaks for the “Far Right?” Why, Christian conservative evangelical pastors who blame the September 11, 2001 attacks on the perversion of God’s law by gay rights activist, or others who would also be considered representatives of the “Far Left” within the American political process, of course. Another voice of ultra-conservative, “Far Right” ideology might be white supremacists, neo-Nazis and former Ku Klux Klansmen, like Louisiana politician David Duke. To string together video clips of their pastors’ sermons might be to create a similarly incendiary set of phrases and thoughts as those created from the sermons of Jeremiah Wright.
Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are running for the highest political office in the land. Each of them would claim to be “Centrist” and not “Far Left” nor “Far Right.” McCain claims to be politically Conservative, running on issues like lowering taxes and a smaller federal government. Obama and Clinton, while refusing to be labeled Liberal, nonetheless represent the political ideology that the federal government should play an active role in improving the lives of marginalized, middle class and poor American citizens. Each of the candidates have been accused by those of either political extreme of not being conservative or liberal enough. However, it is only Senator Barak Obama whose campaign, when it was under attack by disclosed sources (i.e. Clinton campaign supporters with YouTube internet accounts) had the power to bring a liberal African American pastor, like me, and a conservative, “Ronald Reaganite,” former congressman, like Newt Gingrich, into agreement with one another. If the Obama campaign can bring the two of us into agreement with each other, perhaps Barak Obama is the presidential candidate who can best bring the Far Left and the Far Right together for the good of the nation and the political changes that we all desire, when he is elected as the next President of the United States of America.
I almost had to fall on my knees as I watched former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, explain to a cable news show host how Rev. Wright’s comments were not based as much on race as they were representative of the “Far Left” political rhetoric. He went on to say that the views of the reverend were not dissimilar from those of liberal ideologues of all races. I almost fell to my knees because I realized the power of this year's presidential campaign and its issues caused me to agree with the politically conservative icon, Gingrich, for the first time in my life. If the Obama campaign could bring Newt and I together, their must be the hand of God in it!
As a pastor myself, my opinion is that Jesus represented a radical change agent to the status quo in ancient Jerusalem. “Radical change” might be considered, as I consider it, another term for the modern political label “Liberal.” Political “Conservatives” might be described as those who long for the “good old days” and the values of their fathers and grandfathers. Many of those who gather under that political label, like former Speaker Gingrich, President Bush and Rush Limbaugh, might argue that they are indeed agents of change, but the fact is that our country has been under the reign of conservative government leaders and their policies for quite some time now. If Gingrich is right and Jeremiah Wright is not a hate monger, as many in the news media (and Clinton campaign operatives) would have you think. Rather, if he just speaks from a very “Liberal” socio-political perspective, it stands to reason that a large number of African Americans agree with that perspective. Duh!!! Who didn’t already know that!
Conversely, who speaks for the “Far Right?” Why, Christian conservative evangelical pastors who blame the September 11, 2001 attacks on the perversion of God’s law by gay rights activist, or others who would also be considered representatives of the “Far Left” within the American political process, of course. Another voice of ultra-conservative, “Far Right” ideology might be white supremacists, neo-Nazis and former Ku Klux Klansmen, like Louisiana politician David Duke. To string together video clips of their pastors’ sermons might be to create a similarly incendiary set of phrases and thoughts as those created from the sermons of Jeremiah Wright.
Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are running for the highest political office in the land. Each of them would claim to be “Centrist” and not “Far Left” nor “Far Right.” McCain claims to be politically Conservative, running on issues like lowering taxes and a smaller federal government. Obama and Clinton, while refusing to be labeled Liberal, nonetheless represent the political ideology that the federal government should play an active role in improving the lives of marginalized, middle class and poor American citizens. Each of the candidates have been accused by those of either political extreme of not being conservative or liberal enough. However, it is only Senator Barak Obama whose campaign, when it was under attack by disclosed sources (i.e. Clinton campaign supporters with YouTube internet accounts) had the power to bring a liberal African American pastor, like me, and a conservative, “Ronald Reaganite,” former congressman, like Newt Gingrich, into agreement with one another. If the Obama campaign can bring the two of us into agreement with each other, perhaps Barak Obama is the presidential candidate who can best bring the Far Left and the Far Right together for the good of the nation and the political changes that we all desire, when he is elected as the next President of the United States of America.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Political Rhetoric Aside
The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee can be determined using three criteria. That candidate must have either won a majority of the states’ primaries or caucuses, collected more declared delegates to the national convention or have more popular votes that their competitors. Senator Barak Obama has done all three so far. Why then is Senator Clinton publicly calling for voters to support Obama as a Vice-Presidential running mate? Obviously, the second place candidate is not above the same political rhetoric that she accuses the front running Obama of spouting.
Can we the public tell when a presidential candidate is so desperate that she will say anything in order to catch up to a runaway movement of national change? Yes, we can. However, we can also appreciate how important it is to have all of the democrats who have been energized by the recent campaign to complete the mission of creating real change with a victory in November. Rather that trying to “hoodwink” us into supporting and upside down ticket let’s support the “Dream Team” of an Obama/Clinton ticket. I would even support the inclusion of Universal Healthcare as a plank in the final Party Platform as a compromise.
I want to see an end to the false war in Iraq, healthcare for all Americans, new green jobs for American workers, fair trade policies and America’s image abroad repaired causing fewer foreign radicals to want us all dead. If all I have to pay for all of that is to allow Senator Clinton on the ticket as Vice-President, so be it.
Can we the public tell when a presidential candidate is so desperate that she will say anything in order to catch up to a runaway movement of national change? Yes, we can. However, we can also appreciate how important it is to have all of the democrats who have been energized by the recent campaign to complete the mission of creating real change with a victory in November. Rather that trying to “hoodwink” us into supporting and upside down ticket let’s support the “Dream Team” of an Obama/Clinton ticket. I would even support the inclusion of Universal Healthcare as a plank in the final Party Platform as a compromise.
I want to see an end to the false war in Iraq, healthcare for all Americans, new green jobs for American workers, fair trade policies and America’s image abroad repaired causing fewer foreign radicals to want us all dead. If all I have to pay for all of that is to allow Senator Clinton on the ticket as Vice-President, so be it.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
A Wonderful Thing
The Democratic Process is indeed a wonderful thing. As I watched the junior Super Tuesday primary election returns, I found it amazing that the old adage rang so true … “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” For all the talk of momentum, strategies, come backs, the fact is that the delegate count in the Democratic Party remained unchanged. Barak Obama did not lose any ground toward gaining his party’s nomination, when the dust settled in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The great opportunity represented in this election has been all of the energy generated within the voting public. Young people, African Americans, Latinos and Women have been empowered to a greater degree through the Democratic race than at anytime nearly 50 years. The great challenge will be how to keep the party together after the Democratic National Convention. It seems that Obama will still hold a lead in the delegate count, if the trend remains as it is. And, Clinton will still go into the National Convention with lots of political clout and popular support.
I must conclude that the only way that the Democratic Party can take the same energized voters into a successful White House campaign against the Republicans is to have both remaining candidates on the ticket. Here’s how I see that playing out.
First, Obama will have more delegates and therefore could not be denied the top spot on the ticket. Clinton would appear to have stolen the election from the people if she were to somehow persuade enough “superdelegates” to swing the nomination in her favor. The key policy difference between the two candidates is their Health Care Plan. Then, the obvious solution would be for Obama to accept the Clinton Universal Health Care Coverage plank into the Democratic Party’s platform and to run with her as the Vice-Presidential candidate.
Finally, I am very eager to see how elected officials who have endorsed Clinton, like our own U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, respond to the voice of their districts that have voted overwhelmingly in support of Obama. Can they realistically expect not to pay for their endorsements with the loss of the support of the voters? The Obama campaign represents how people can turn out to vote for a candidate, but they also turn out in record numbers to vote against a candidate who represents a threat to them or faithlessness to their ideals. I would find it hard to support and elected official who does not represent the will of his or her constituents. So keep a watch on those who are elected from the urban centers that have supported Obama but who now endorse Clinton. I would not be surprised to see them rightfully change their endorsements to Obama, rather to commit political suicide.
The great opportunity represented in this election has been all of the energy generated within the voting public. Young people, African Americans, Latinos and Women have been empowered to a greater degree through the Democratic race than at anytime nearly 50 years. The great challenge will be how to keep the party together after the Democratic National Convention. It seems that Obama will still hold a lead in the delegate count, if the trend remains as it is. And, Clinton will still go into the National Convention with lots of political clout and popular support.
I must conclude that the only way that the Democratic Party can take the same energized voters into a successful White House campaign against the Republicans is to have both remaining candidates on the ticket. Here’s how I see that playing out.
First, Obama will have more delegates and therefore could not be denied the top spot on the ticket. Clinton would appear to have stolen the election from the people if she were to somehow persuade enough “superdelegates” to swing the nomination in her favor. The key policy difference between the two candidates is their Health Care Plan. Then, the obvious solution would be for Obama to accept the Clinton Universal Health Care Coverage plank into the Democratic Party’s platform and to run with her as the Vice-Presidential candidate.
Finally, I am very eager to see how elected officials who have endorsed Clinton, like our own U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, respond to the voice of their districts that have voted overwhelmingly in support of Obama. Can they realistically expect not to pay for their endorsements with the loss of the support of the voters? The Obama campaign represents how people can turn out to vote for a candidate, but they also turn out in record numbers to vote against a candidate who represents a threat to them or faithlessness to their ideals. I would find it hard to support and elected official who does not represent the will of his or her constituents. So keep a watch on those who are elected from the urban centers that have supported Obama but who now endorse Clinton. I would not be surprised to see them rightfully change their endorsements to Obama, rather to commit political suicide.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
