Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and Generational Differences

April 29, 2008

Times might have changed, but it seems that some didn’t get the memo. It would be nice if Reverend Jeremiah Wright would trust the next generation, embodied by Senator Barack Obama, to do things its way, instead of clinging to his own experiences and ignoring the great changes that this society has undergone. Why is he trying so hard to wreck the Obama campaign anyway? Maybe he doesn’t believe a black man can get elected and now he is in the business of creating a self-fulfilling prophesy? I dunno.

What I do know is that someone else from his earlier generation is also out of touch with what leaders like Obama are saying. Listen to Bill Moyer’s interview with Wright, and you will see Moyers feeling very much at ease with the man. Moyers (born in 1934) is a little older than Wright (born in 1941), but both experienced the Johnson administration and the Civil Rights Movement as young men. I respect their experiences and enjoy hearing their thoughts on where America is at. I also enjoyed Moyer’s conversation with Fred Harris (born in 1930), the only surviving member of the Kerner Commission, which reported on the racism underlying the social inequality that had helped set off the race riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. The thing about Moyers’ and Harris’ conversation that stood out most for me, however, was that it appeared on the show right after Moyer’s conversation with Mayor Cory Booker of Newark. Booker (born in 1969) did not speak the language of race and anger. Like Obama (born in 1961), he is very much about members of the community doing what they can to move forward. Watch the video and you’ll understand what I mean. (You’ll also maybe want to see him on the national stage at some point.) Watch too how Moyers is almost mystified by Booker’s perspective, one Obama shares. Moyers expects to see righteous anger in Booker. He wants Booker to blame all of Newark’s woes on racism and demand assistance from the federal government, but Booker refuses to follow that path. This conversation made clear to me that a vast gulf separates my generation (I am forty-five) from Moyers’. It also made me glad that leaders such as Obama and Booker are out there.

Obama understands the differences between the experiences of his generation and those of Wright’s. Wright might too, but he seems unwilling to trust the next generation to do the right thing. Instead he is out there doing what he seems to feel is truth-telling, that is, trying to wreck the very real chances that a former member of his congregation has to become the next president. Yet if he has done his job as the pastor of his congregation, he can trust those he helped bring up in his church to do the right thing. Time to let go, Reverend Wright, and give Senator Obama a chance to do it his way.

Yet Wright seems trapped in the experiences of his own generation. He seems unable to acknowledge that Obama’s generation has undergone a different set of experiences. He also thinks in unhistorical terms. As a historian I grew dizzy listening to him jump back and forth across the centuries and millennia, as if injustices here and there were all part of the same unchanging story. Thus I cringed when he called himself a historian of religion at one point in his conversation with Moyers. He knows more than I ever will about the subject, but he was not thinking historically. He could not move across different times and imagine that each period involved different mentalities and experiences. For him it was all one story with one set of values. Thus, he seems to differ from Obama not just in generational terms, but also in terms of the philosophy of history that underlies his worldview. Obama’s major speech on race reflected a keen awareness of the passage of time and its impact on people living in it. Wright, on the other hand, is almost oblivious to it—unless he is just getting carried away by his own intemperate and impolitic rhetoric.

Entry Filed under: 2008 presidential race, history, politics (domestic). Tags: , , , , , , , .

17 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Andrew  |  April 30, 2008 at 3:07 am

    Interesting blog, reminded me of an editorial in the Washington Post a few months back trying to argue that McCain is a better candidate because he was born before 1945, and the remaining candidates (excluding Ralph Nader, but maybe he doesn’t count) are somehow unqualified simply by being born too late in the century. Of course it didn’t explain the two election victories of Clinton and Bush, from different parties and backgrounds, though both baby boomers, but it just seemed to be typical ageism.

    I’m 25, so maybe I’m too young to understand any of it (and fortunately too young to run for president), but this work both ways. Obama could end up being elected anyway (assuming a nomination), regardless of what Rev Wright says, or doesn’t say, or didn’t mean to say, due to a growing youth vote who choose to just ignore him, along with his generation. Or voters could wind up electing McCain despite his age.

    It’d be nice if our age differences didn’t make much difference, but they seem to. There’s no “Greatest Generation,” or even worst for that matter, but it seems difficult to think outside one’s own age group.

    Regardless, I just wish Wright didn’t have so much opportunity to voice his anger. The U.S. isn’t a theocracy (I hope), and a candidate’s pastor shouldn’t be given so much air time or print space. There’s a war with 4000+ Americans dead, the economy, the environment, plus numerous other issues to think about instead.

  • 2. Mark Stoneman  |  April 30, 2008 at 6:16 am

    Thank you for adding yet another generational perspective to the mix, Andrew. :)

  • 3. techfun  |  April 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

    I agree that age/generational differences play a role in the differences we are seeing in attitudes and behavior in addressing issues of civil rights in general and race in particular.

    However, I think there is another big factor that doesn’t get the attention and analysis that it deserves. That factor is local environment and regionalism in the United States. If you watch TV you get the impression that the US is one big homogeneous culture. If you look at the growth of pods of big box stores and strip malls with the same retailers in suburban communities coast to coast its easy to see why that belief seems to prevail.

    You do hear the occasional stereotype expressed by political watchers in the form of something like: “The south won’t vote for a black man in the general election.” or “Senior citizens won’t elect a woman.” These assertions may have a kernel of truth to them but they are glossed over and ignored instead of confronted head on and addressed in an open forum. This does a disservice to both the candidates and the individuals being stereotyped. (The same problem exists when us “East Coast Liberals” are lumped together but the right wing punditry has gotten away with that for so long it’s not even noteworthy anymore.)

    As more and more people get their idea of “American culture” from the Internet and television it gets harder and harder to see and understand the very real regional, cultural, societal, and economic differences among Americans.

    TV would lead us to believe that the country is made up two kinds of people. First we have young, amazingly affluent city dwelling young adults who can afford the rent on apartments in Manhattan that would cost most American’s their entire salary. These young folks are all cool and they have plenty of gay friends and racially diverse workplaces and would never judge a person based on their race or sexual preference.

    Secondly, we have affluent suburbanites raising kids where both parent’s usually have a college degree and one or both may well have a post graduate degree. Lawyers, doctors, educators, and business executives are thick on the ground in this world. In this world nobody is underemployed and everyone’s job includes a full set of benefits including a retirement plan and health coverage. If a wife in this world decides to work its because she is bored and unfulfilled after putting her career on hold to bear and raise a few kids and NEVER because the family really and truly needs the money to make the mortgage payment or put food on the table.

    Both of these highly represented groups on TV are actually minorities in the real world. There are plenty of urban young but they are not living in buildings with doormen and elevators and there are plenty of suburban families but many are only a couple missed pay checks from seeing their world crumble around them.

    In the real world most people flow into smaller groups and communities that are as at least as homogeneous as those shown on TV. An older black urban minister like Rev. Wright is not going to be surrounded by the same kinds of people as a younger Harvard educated lawyer in the United States Senate. The two may share an hour or two on Sunday morning but thats gonna be about it.

    Senator Obama probably has more in common, day in and day out, with fellow Harvard Law School graduate Ralph Nader than he has with Rev. Wright.

    Rev. Wright grew up in an era of “firsts” for black Americans. This was very close to home for him. His mother, Mary Elizabeth Henderson Wright, was the first black school teacher to teach an academic subject at Roosevelt Junior High in Philadelphia. She went on to be the first black person to teach at Germantown High School and at Philadelphia High School, she became the school’s first black vice principal for girls.

    After his time in the military (he graduated as valedictorian of his class from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and as salutatorian from the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda) he went to work at a small urban church in Chicago that grew from 87 members to become the largest church in the mostly white United Church of Christ denomination.

    I can’t presume to know what Rev. Wright’s life has been like. This man has spent the last 35 years trying – daily – to improve and change the lives of black Americans in general and black American men in particular. He’s seen discrimination and injustice up close and in person in ways that I have not, and quite frankly, in ways Sen. Obama probably has not either. This IS a generational thing. By the time Sen. Obama and I were growing up a huge amount of work had been done by Rev. Wright’s generation.

    That work deserves respect and acknowledgment. However, times have changed and the work now is of a different sort. Many new paths have been created for the members of generations born after the 1960’s and its our job to move forward on those paths as far as we can and start clearing our obstacles and making room on the path for people coming later. If Rev. Wright, and others of his generation do not want to be part of that process they should sit back and rest and let us take over.

    On a broader note, seeing someone with a life like Rev. Jeremiah Wright have to watch his life’s work get distilled down to a few sound bites is one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

  • 4. Mark Stoneman  |  April 30, 2008 at 11:04 am

    I agree, JD, class and region also matter. The reporting I hear on NPR and PBS uses the word “demographic” to try to do justice to these and other factors, but they end up dealing in pretty simplistic, often binary categories. It gets worse in other media outlets.

    Part of the reporting problem to which you refer goes back to the common educational background of the top reporters, and this educational background is strongly influenced by social background.

    The thing that made me point to generation here, though, was its absence from what I have heard in the press, except when referring to young people who like Obama and older women who like Clinton. (There we are with the simplistic categories again.) Also, I was struck by how Moyers and Wright could understand each other, despite their rather different biographies and social positions during the Johnson administration. They have the same church going for them, but generation really struck me as important.

  • 5. Anok  |  April 30, 2008 at 11:25 am

    Mark, I think you’ve hit an essential point about generational gaps making a difference. I can see that just in my own family – which has several different generations running at the same time.

    At the same time, with regards to Rev Wright, I think that on one hand he is stuck in his ways and that is why he won’t shut up. On the other hand, I do believe that a lot of what he said has been taken way out of context. I watched a question answer bit during a faith and something forum he was participating in – and I will say this much, he said it several times – he was taken out of context. When he filled in the gaps and blanks, what he said didn’t translate nearly as badly as what people were making it out to be.

    Where I think he is doing damage:

    He keeps saying that Obama distanced himself from the Reverend because he is a politician, and it comes across as him saying “He’s feeding you rhetoric and bunk to appease the masses, but he really hasn’t distanced himself at all”. That is damaging to his campaign, because it paints Obama as the same kind of politician as all others.

  • 6. Mark Stoneman  |  April 30, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Yeah, Anok, I did not like him saying that Obama is just saying what he has to. Obama might be publicly distancing himself because he has to, but he’s not saying anything he doesn’t believe.

  • 7. timethief  |  April 30, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Thanks for letting this Canadian eavesdrop. :)

  • 8. Anok  |  April 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I’ll tell you what, Mark. If Obama wins, it’ll be the toughest victory ever. He has so many obstacles in his way – things that shouldn’t even matter but do….race, religion, religious influences, never mind policy, voting history, and one wickedly divisive opponent.

    The rumor on the mill is that Clinton is pushing for Obama’s failure in a way so that McCain will win, giving her a major crack at the presidency next term. As if she’s playing now, to win four years from now.

    Sounds about right to me, but I don’t know that it will work.

  • 9. Mark Stoneman  |  April 30, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    The human species enjoys a good conspiracy theory, but I wouldn’t pay much attention to the rumor you’re hearing.

  • 10. Bobbie  |  April 30, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Excellent article, Mark. Your take rings true for me, to a large extent. Like you, I believe that many ‘older’ people are rather stuck in place, either unwilling or unable to take a longer, more forward-looking view.

    But, speaking as the psychologist that I am, I have a gnawing feeling that Rev. Wright’s speech the other day had much more to do with Rev. Wright himself than it had to do with Obama, per se. I happened to tune in to CNN midway through his speech. What I saw was a self-aggrandizing performance by a practiced showman. He obviously loved having center stage and a national platform. Mostly, he looked to be having a wonderful time as all the attention was focused on him, for hours.

    Speaking of race/gender/age demographics, I guess I am an anomaly: an older white woman who prefers Obama to Clinton, although I would vote for the latter over McCain.

  • 11. Mark Stoneman  |  May 1, 2008 at 12:00 am

    Ah. I guess I should see that speech too, if I can make myself. That tendency was less obvious on Moyers’, since there was just a one-on-one conversation.

  • 12. citrine  |  May 2, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Don’t watch it; too depressing/infuriating. The one before the National Press Club, especially.

  • 13. Jane Turley  |  May 3, 2008 at 11:27 pm

    This was a very interesting article for me (and all the comments too); I’m afraid I’ve been somewhat lacking in following the presidential campaigns which considering how influential that person will be in all our lives is perhaps remiss of me. I was surprised then that that appears to be generational issues; I assumed naively that Obama’s problems would be mainly racial ones. It does seems strange that Wright does not appear as supportive as one would expect but, as has been suggested, maybe there has been more than just a little of media manipulation of someone who (I’m hypothesising here as I have no background knowledge) is not as wise as he once was.

    It was interesting too to read the implication in your comment section that a generation gap is evident across the whole political scene. Strangely enough this is not so apparent in our politics in the UK. Of course in recent years we have had Major and Blair, both very young PMs, and of course we have already had a female PM. In fact that is a distinct lack of “elder” statesmen and there has been for a long time emphasis on “change” and youth; Blair’s “New Labour” was the culmination of this. Things are changing again in the UK what was once seen as “New” is now seen as old and damaged. A controversial Tory has just been voted in as the new Mayor of London and my guess is the fresh faced David Cameron will be the next PM.

    Are Americans inherently afraid of change? It looks like this Presendential campaign could mark a real turning point if it ends up as black man vs a white woman! I’ve no real knowledge of either’s policies but either way it could herald some very interesting times indeed.

  • 14. Phil  |  May 8, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Andrew:

    As someone born about the same time as Obama (1962 v. 1961), I have found the whole campaign interesting, and as someone who does not support Obama, not because of his race, but because of his politics, the point of difference among generations is an interesting one. When I went to elementary through High School, there was an incredible emphasis on removing color from the conversation, and that race was quite beside the point. So Obama’s speech, to me, was simply an outgrowth of that thinking. Interestingly enough, not long after I left school, there was a reemphasis on Race (although for purposes of establishing an identity, and not inferiority). The individuals of Mr. Wright’s generation, faught for the ideals of MLK, and that I think is one of the great strenghs/failings of this prior generation; they experienced the triumph and the trauma, and as they have gotten older their responses as individuals seem to vary between these two poles.

    Incidently, I am something of student of German History and happened on this Blog in the course of my looking into General Groener.

    Thanks again.

  • 15. Mark Stoneman  |  May 8, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    From Groener to Obama. Who’d a thought? :)

  • 16. Antman  |  May 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Nice post! Simply put people like Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton will lose their power base should Barak Obama get elected. It goes against their entire platform that institutional racism is the cause of black america’s problems. The election of a black president flies in the face of this antiquated ideology and opens the door for a new message and direction, one not rooted in their personal best interests.

    I for one hope this happens sooner than later. It’s time to turn the page.

  • 17. Mark Stoneman  |  July 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Jesse Jackson might have been “fat-mouthing” when he expressed a wish this week to castrate Obama, but he also revealed another generational divide, one that seems to have spawned more than a little resentment.

Leave a Comment

hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Subscribe

Categories

Archives

My Twitter Feed

RSS Commonplacing

RSS Language for You

RSS Clio and Me

Copyright

© 2007–2008 Mark R. Stoneman

Bulletin Board

The World is Talking, Are You Listening?

MarsEdit: Powerful Blog Authoring Made Simple.

Blog Stats