E-mailing my Dad about Obama

[femmedem]

My Dad liked Obama. Maybe he would still vote for him. But he remains deeply bothered that Obama didn't leave Wright's church and by Michelle's statement that she's never been proud of America. We've been e-mailing each other all week about it.

Tonight I wrote

I wonder if pride in America is to some degree generational? You and Mom grew up in the aftermath of WWII. America had just stopped Hitler and climbed out of the Depression. I think people were feeling proud about overcoming some big obstacles.

But (Mr. Femmedem) says he's never felt proud of America since he found out about the Gulf of Tonkin, and I can't say I've ever felt proud about America. I grew up watching Vietnam on the nightly news, seguing right into Watergate. Intellectually I'm aware of our advantages and our freedoms, but it's never translated into a heart-swelling emotion. I wonder if (my sister) feels the same?

However, there is a difference between "not feeling proud of" and "not loving" our country. Despite not feeling proud of our country, I--and Michelle Obama, I think-- love it enough to work towards its betterment. I think this was the heart of Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech. He spoke about imperfections in our country and in people very dear to him. But rather than condemning them or us, he spoke about what lay behind people's fears and prejudices, and voiced his belief that despite our faults, we have moved toward and continue to move toward the ideals imbedded in our country's earliest documents. And Dad, I have always thought of patriotism as a bad thing, just another word for nationalism, whose dark shadow is xenophobia. But Obama's speech caused me to rethink my definition of patriotism, so that for the first time I can perhaps consider myself patriotic.

My Dad said in a previous e-mail that Wright violated the First Amendment when he got political in church. I responded:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So on the State's side, the separation must be absolute. But on the Church's side, the First Amendment places no such restrictions. Churches must refrain from advocating for individual political candidates or parties in order to retain their tax exempt status. But when it comes to foreign affairs or domestic policies, neither law nor ethics demands that preachers remain neutral.

A local example: many of New London's elected officials would like our poor to relocate. In a city where 30% of the children live below the poverty line, they eliminated our social services department. And they tried their damndest (oops, that word) to prevent a year-round homeless shelter from opening. However, the First Congregational Church opened a shelter inside the church, arguing successfully that ministering to the poor was part of their religion and the city couldn't stop them. Very political! And another example: during the sanctions against Iraq, several local pastors organized a protest against the sanctions and attempted to mail packages of humanitarian aid to Iraq. Connecticut pastors also collected funds for several billboards voicing opposition to torture. Again, very political, not secret, and in keeping with their faith as they interpret it. You know I don't believe in any Supreme Deity watching over us, caring, intervening, or even indifferently existing. But nonetheless, I could enjoy sermons which are essentially lectures on ethics, and exhortations to be our best selves.

I like Wrights' sermons! Not every minute of them. He makes some serious mistakes. But the media is not portraying him accurately. For example, in the sermon everyone quotes as evidence he thinks America deserved 9-11, he refers to the people inside the World Trade Towers as innocents, and references the biblical slaughter of the innocents. He says violence begets violence, and begs for self-reflection rather than vengeance. And then he talks about the people in the trade towers again, people who died without perhaps having the chance to make things right in their families, and he ends the sermon asking the congregation if everything is right in their families, and urging them to tell their families that they love them.

I wonder how many families in America are having these types of discussions this week?

And I'm posting this because a few days ago OperationMindCrime asked that on Saturday we post something thoughtful and personal in GDP. This is my contribution.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Thanks femmedem

I hope the discussion brings your family closer. Lovely writing, BTW. :thumbsup:

[peace13]

2. Thanks for this. n/t

[NoBushSpokenHere]

3. Very nice OP nt

[LordJFT]

4. issues, issues, issues

That's what my Obama e-mails to my relatives were about and they were all pretty successful. It seems like you did a pretty good job to assuage his concerns about the patriotism thing though.

[femmedem]

5. I'm glad you're having some success!

I think if we all try to persuade people with the same care we use when we try to persuade our family members, we'll do well.

My family follows the issues closely, so that's an area where we're all on the same page. I was surprised that the patriotism thing would disturb him this much. However, he didn't watch Obama's full speech, just clips on the news. I'm not sure exactly which parts he saw.

[bellasgrams]

6. Glad to see your Dad attempting to guide you in the right

direction lovingly and not hatefully. Patriotism is important. We're not perfect but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else and anyone that doesn't like it should find their 'fit' in the country of their choice.

[noamnety]

7. I have it on good authority

that your sister does not have heart swelling moments of pride in America.

And I will add that the people I know who do the most volunteering/social justice work, those seem to be the ones who do the least flag waving and are quickest to condemn US policies, perhaps because they see and live the effects of our country's policies in personal ways.

I don't really care about feeling proud of "the country," or loving "the country" because that's a meaningless phrase to me. It's more important to love humanity. I view patriotism as a bunch of empty symbolic gestures and slogans, the stuff of giant foam hands at football games.

The criticism of the Wright incident that resonated most with me was from a white woman, who summed it up basically this way: a bunch of white people standing in judgment over an uppity black man because he refused to condemn other even more uppity black men.

I believe your dad may have enough of a bias against religion that he has a hard time accepting the role of the church in the black community, and appreciating that for most of our history, the government wasn't providing any services to that community, and their very survival depended on the church as an alternative structure of government. And I saw that along the gulf coast as well, still going on today, where people were abandoned by FEMA to die of thirst in their homes, and it was the church leaders who saved many of the people in their communities. It was really driven into me on that first trip that it's a neutral position to be atheist, but it's a particularly white privileged position to be a white atheist condemning the black church.

It's a position of privilege to look at MLK Jr, and say, well, yeah, maybe he was instrumental in the civil rights movement, but people should have strongly condemned him for talking politics in the church.

Historically, we as a nation have been too racist to allow black voices into leadership roles in any meaningful numbers in our own made-by-whites system of government. And now we want to dictate what they are allowed to talk about as leaders in their own communities as well. My feeling is that having excluded them from having a seat at our table, we need to STFU about telling them what they can talk about at their own table, and in particular STFU about condemning them for discussing the fact that we excluded them from our table in the first place.

(It occurs to me that you are probably a more eloquent writer than your sister.)


Having said all that, I will say that I was disgusted at a local meeting today when an Obama supported tried to compare Obama to MLK Jr on the basis of that speech. I am pretty sure that MLK Jr would not have been voting to fund the war all these years if he'd been in a position to do so. So none of this should be construed as me being an Obama supporter, because his lovely speech on overcoming racism doesn't mean a (more noneloquent language here) thing to the Iraqi people who watched their family members die as a result of his votes to fund a war which is, at the end of the day, incredibly racist.

[femmedem]

13. Eloquent or not

if my sister were to type up her own OP with the points you just made:

"white people standing in judgment over an uppity black man because he refused to condemn other even more uppity black men."

and

"Historically, we as a nation have been too racist to allow black voices into leadership roles in any meaningful numbers in our own made-by-whites system of government. And now we want to dictate what they are allowed to talk about as leaders in their own communities as well."

I would do my best to propel it to the Greatest Page. It's also the making of a great essay or op-ed--maybe for Stan's blog? Huffpo?

P.S. I would have bet my house and even my cats that my sister doesn't feel any heart-swelling pride for America. :) :hi:

[noamnety]

14. The first comment is from Stan's blog

It was a comment from De, in a long string of comments: http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/03/14/when-whats-good-gets-ya/

The second is just my rambling:
"Historically, we as a nation have been too racist to allow black voices into leadership roles in any meaningful numbers in our own made-by-whites system of government. And now we want to dictate what they are allowed to talk about as leaders in their own communities as well."

And that's the exact same reaction I have to those who complained that Hillary used her connections with Bill to get where she is. We have never let a woman rise to that level without using connections. And when they do use connections, we condemn them for that.

In both cases, it's a catch-22, a system that excludes entire classes of people from power, and then reinforces that exclusion through whatever means possible - through condemnation of using someone within the system to get a foothold, though condemnation of speaking in blunt terms about the system of exclusion. We are expected to remain excluded, and not discuss it, and not use connections or gender or race even though every previous person has used all three of those conditions to achieve their power. If they use gender, race, or connections within the system, we only approve of it if it's done the "right" way - the way that upholds the existing system.

Also posted on Stan's blog after finding it on another forum, there's a youtube video I recommend. From Gravel, but skip to 1:00 to hear Democracy Now run down who the Clinton and Obama foreign policy advisors are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhZzh83C0iM

[femmedem]

17. You make a good point about connections.

And the level of discourse at Stan's blog is outstanding. Thanks for reminding me--I hadn't been there for a long while.

[better tomorrow]

8. There's an old song from your Dad's generation. Remind him of this one......

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.

Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young....

Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

[ClayZ]

11. I love that song! K and R

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. I hope many if not most families are having these types of discussions this week.

I feel that if nothing else good comes out of this entire election cycle, at least some people are seriously thinking about certain issues which are long over due for some serious thought.

I thank you for sharing your conversations with us. I found them to be extremely eloquent and thoughtful.

[JimGinPA]

10. I Really Enjoy These Kinds Of Topics...

On of my sisters lives in Southern Illinois near St.Louis, and we've had a lot of back and forth over this too. She voted for Hillary in their primary (knowing she didn't stand a chance there) but both of her daughters voted for Obama. Whenever she calls, she always has some "Is this Barack Obama Headquarters in Pennsylvania?" type crack. She says she thinks it's time for a woman president and I tell her, "yeah, just not that woman". She doesn't see a lot of difference between them politically and would be happy with either (she says) and thinks it's funny that I can't stand her.

[ClayZ]

12. Great Post!

Kick

[Eric J in MN]

15. Michelle Obama didn't say she's never been proud of her country, but that as an adult...

...she felt proud of her country for the first time with her husband running.

Also, Rev. Wright's sermons don't violate the First Amendment, but raise questions about whether that church should be tax-exempt.

[LWolf]

16. My mom and I spoke briefly this week.

My mom has been a huge fan of Bill Clinton, and still defends him. I knew she'd be tempted by HRC, until Obama also ran, and then I knew she would be conflicted. She was an activist for civil rights in the 60s, and has always more closely identified to black america than to white, regardless of her german/english ethnicity. It has to do with the abusive environment she grew up in; she takes the underdog's situation personally.

In the beginning, she was Kucinich/Edwards for issues, recognizing that neither HRC nor Obama offered anything of substance on issues of importance to attract her support. When they both dropped out, she was neutral for a long while, and expressed disgust with both campaigns.

This week, though, she called me to tell me about a dream she had, in which she was trying to defend Obama from some vicious attack by Hillary. She says she hasn't made a choice, but it sounds to me like she has, lol.

I'll be talking some more with her as our primary approaches. If it's still undecided by then, I'm voting for whichever candidate is slightly behind, and I'll encourage her to do the same, in support for a draw, a brokered convention, and a nominee who is neither Obama nor HRC. I think she'd go for that, especially if the choice was Gore or Edwards.