Obama's Radical-Left Ties Broad And Deep

National Review Online: Senator Approves Of The Political-Theological Outlooks Of Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Stanley Kurtz.

---

Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can Barack Obama escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama’s connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks.

Obama shared Wright’s rejection of black “assimilation.” Obama also shared Wright’s suspicion of the traditional American ethos of individual self-improvement and the pursuit of “middle-classness.” In common with Wright, Obama had deep misgivings about America’s criminal justice system. And with the exception of their direct attacks on whites, Obama largely approved of his preacher-friends’ fiery rhetoric. Obama’s goal was not to repudiate religious radicalism but to channel its fervor into an effective and permanent activist organization. How do we know all this? We know it because Obama himself has told us.

A REVEALING PROFILE
Although it’s been discussed before (because it confirms that Obama attended Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March), a 1995 background piece on Obama from the Chicago Reader has received far too little attention. Careful consideration of this important profile makes it clear that Obama’s long-standing ties to Chicago’s most rabidly radical preachers call into question far more than Obama’s judgment and character (although they certainly do that, as well). Obama’s two-decades at Trinity open a critically important window onto his radical-left political leanings. No mere change of church membership can erase that truth.

By providing us with an in-depth picture of Obama’s political worldview on the eve of his elective career, Hank De Zutter’s, “What Makes Obama Run?” lives up to its title. The first thing to note here is that Obama presents his political hopes for the black community as a third way between two inadequate alternatives. First, Obama rejects, “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation - which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to ‘move up, get rich, and move out. . . . ’ ” This statement might surprise many Obama supporters, who seem to think of him as the epitome of integrationism. Yet Obama’s repudiation of integrationist upward mobility is fully consistent with his career as a community organizer, his general sympathy for leftist critics of the American “system,” and of course his membership at Trinity. Obama, we are told, “quickly learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground.” Compare these statements by Obama with some of the remarks in Jeremiah Wright’s Trumpet, and the resemblance is clear.

Having disposed of assimilation, Obama goes on to criticize “the politics of black rage and black nationalism” - although less on substance than on tactics. Obama upbraids the politics of black power for lacking a practical strategy. Instead of diffusing black rage by diverting it to the traditional American path of assimilation and middle-class achievement, Obama wants to capture the intensity of black anger and use it to power an effective political organization. Obama says, “he’s tired of seeing the moral fervor of black folks whipped up - at the speaker’s rostrum and from the pulpit - and then allowed to dissipate because there’s no agenda, no concrete program for change.” The problem is not fiery rhetoric from the pulpit, but merely the wasted anger it so usefully stirs.

OBAMA’S NETWORK
De Zutter gives us a clear glimpse of Obama’s radicalism. Obama is called “progressive,” of course, and is said to yearn for “massive economic change.” That could simply mean an end to widespread poverty, rather than social restructuring. Yet Obama is also described as holding “a worldview well beyond” his mother’s “New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism.” De Zutter lays out Obama’s ties to radical groups like Chicago Acorn, as Acorn’s lead organizer, Madeleine Talbott, is quoted affirming that: “Barack has proven himself among our members . . . we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.” In “Inside Obama’s Acorn” I explore Obama’s links to this radical group, and to Talbott, who practices the sort of intimidating and often illegal “direct action” Acorn is famous for. (For more on Talbott’s affinity for “direct action,” see “Where Do We Begin?”)

De Zutter also touches on some other key elements of Obama’s network. Obama’s early organizing work for the Developing Communities Project was “funded by south-side Catholic churches.” Clearly, this early work cemented Obama’s close ties to Father Pfleger, whose support formed a critical component of Obama’s grassroots network. Precisely because of this early link, Pfleger threw his considerable support behind Obama’s failed 2000 bid for Congress. By the way, Pfleger’s political influence in Chicago is such that Mayor Richard Daley actually declared his 2002 candidacy for a fourth full term as mayor at Pfleger’s St. Sabina church. In “Inside Obama’s Acorn” I explore the possibility that Obama’s seat on the boards of a couple liberal Chicago foundations may have allowed him to direct funds to groups that served as his de facto political base. De Zutter quotes Woods Fund executive director, Jean Rudd, praising Obama for “being among the most hard-nosed board members in wanting to see results. He wants to see our grants make change happen - not just pay salaries.” No doubt, Obama was sincerely supportive of the sort of leftist organizations favored by the Woods Fund. However, if Obama was in fact looking to some of the groups supported by the Woods Fund as a personal political base, his unusually active board service would make all the more sense.

BLACK CHURCHES
The threads of this political network are pulled tighter as Obama turns to a “favorite topic,” “the lack of collective action among black churches.” Obama is sharply critical of churches that try to help their communities merely through “food pantries and community service programs.” Today, Obama rationalizes his ties to Wright’s Trinity Church by citing its community service programs. Yet in 1995, Obama was highly critical of churches that focused exclusively on such services, while neglecting the sort of politically visionary sermons, local king-making, and political alliance-building favored by Pfleger and Wright. Obama rejects the strictly community-service approach of apolitical churches as part of America’s unfortunate “bias” toward “individual action.” Obama believes that what he derogates as “John Wayne” thinking and the old, “right wing...individualistic bootstrap myth” needs to be replaced: “We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

Obama sees the black church as the key to his plan for collective social and political action: “Obama . . . spoke of the need to mobilize and organize the economic power and moral fervor of black churches. He also argued that as a state senator he might help bring this about faster than as a community organizer or civil rights lawyer.” Says Obama, “We have some wonderful preachers in town - preachers who continue to inspire me - preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be.” Obama continues, “But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building.” Obama seems to be holding up people like Wright, Pfleger, and James Meeks (who he has listed as his key religious allies) as positive models for the wider black church - in both their rhetoric, and in their willingness to play a direct political role. If anything, Obama would like to see the political visions of Wright and Pfleger given greater weight and substance by connecting them to secular leftist political networks like Acorn.

END RUN
By the end of De Zutter’s piece, Obama’s distinctive vision comes clear. While in his years as a Chicago organizer and attorney, Obama took care to maintain friendly ties to the Daley administration, in Obama’s campaign for state senate, he specifically avoided asking the mayor or the mayor’s closest allies for support. Obama’s plan was to make an end-run around Chicago’s governing Democratic political network, by building a coalition of left-leaning black churches and radical secular organizations like Acorn (perhaps with de facto help from liberal foundation money as well). This coalition would provide Obama with the flexibility to play out a political career some distance to the left of conventional Illinois democratic politics. And sure enough, Obama’s extremely liberal record in Illinois vindicated his strategy.

The De Zutter story sheds considerable light on the debate over the significance of Obama’s ties to Pfleger and Wright. For the most part, that debate plays out with a relatively apolitical notion of church membership in mind. Obama’s defenders say that he should not be held responsible for the occasional political excesses of his preacher. Critics point out that the extremism of Wright and Pfleger is long-standing and well known. At some point, this line of thinking goes, the radicalism of such preachers ought to become intolerable. And what does it say about Obama’s judgement that he actually built his own national reputation by pointing to his appreciation of Wright’s sermons? Obama’s critics also see his decision to join Wright’s church as an opportunistic move by a politically ambitious secular humanist in search of a respectable religious home.

I agree with all of these criticisms of Obama. Yet De Zutter’s article shows us that the full story of Obama’s ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we’ve realized up to now. On Obama’s own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago’s most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn’t want Trinity’s political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

So Obama’s political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama’s ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama’s religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism.

SENSE OF MISSION
It could be argued that the new and supposedly moderate, “bipartisan” Obama of 2008 is the real Obama. Unfortunately, that argument is unconvincing. Again and again, De Zutter reports that Obama’s true passion, deepest calling, and most authentic sense of mission is to be found in his early community organizing work. Obama’s own vision for himself as a legislator is as a kind of super-organizer/activist, extending the “progressive” quest for “social justice” to society as a whole.

I see no reason to doubt Obama’s self-account, and many reasons to accept it. As De Zutter notes, Obama gave up a near-certain Supreme Court clerkship to come to Chicago and do community organizing. It’s also easy to imagine Obama joining one of the many other less radical black churches on the south side of Chicago, if that was all he needed to launch a political career. Clearly, given his good relations with the Daley administration, Obama could have asked for its support in his bid for the Illinois State Senate. Yet at every turn, Obama took a riskier path. That suggests he was operating from conviction. Trouble is, the conviction in question was apparently Obama’s belief in the sort of radical social and economic views held by groups like Acorn and preachers like Wright and Pfleger.

Obama was certainly more rhetorically smooth, and no doubt less personally embittered than some of his mentors. Yet what stands out after a consideration of Obama’s larger personal and political history is the general convergence of political orientation between Wright, Pfleger, Acorn, Chicago’s “progressive” foundations, and Obama himself. Obama in Chicago was a man of the Left, doing his level-best to assemble a coalition free from the constraints of conventional, middle-ground Democratic politics.

OBAMA SPEAKS
If there is any doubt about the accuracy of De Zutter’s detailed account, we get the same message from this too-little discussed but revealing and important piece by Obama himself. The chapter from a 1990 book called “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois” was originally published in 1988, just after Obama joined Trinity. The piece is called, “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,” and it shows exactly what Obama hoped to make of his association with Pfleger and Wright.

Obama begins by rejecting the false dichotomy between radicalism and moderation:

The debate as to how black and other dispossessed people can forward their lot in America is not new. From W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, this internal debate has raged between integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy, between sit-down strikes and boardroom negotiations. The lines between these strategies have never been simply drawn, and the most successful black leadership has recognized the need to bridge these seemingly divergent approaches.

Of course, even James Cone, the radical founder of black-liberation theology, sees himself as synthesizing the moderation of Martin Luther King Jr. with the radicalism of Malcolm X. Obama here seems to be calling for an inside/outside strategy like the one he would have learned working with Chicago Acorn. Note Obama’s reference to the controversial tradition of “direct action” favored by Acorn (and earlier by Saul Alinsky, whose tradition of radicalism the book is meant to carry on). Obama offers radicalism with a moderate face.

Obama sketches out a vision in which a politically awakened black church would ally with “community organizers” (like Obama and his friends from Acorn), thereby radicalizing the politics of America’s cities:

Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and - most importantly - values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago.

After expressing disappointment with apolitical black churches focused only on traditional community services, Obama goes on to point in a more activist direction:

Over the past few years, however, more and more young and forward-thinking pastors have begun to look at community organizations such as the Developing Communities Project in the far south side [where Obama himself worked, and first encountered Pfleger, SK]...as a powerful tool for living the social gospel, one which can educate and empower entire congregations and not just serve as a platform for a few prophetic leaders. Should a mere 50 prominent black churches, out of thousands that exist in cities like Chicago, decide to collaborate with a trained and organized staff, enormous positive changes could be wrought....

Give me 50 Pflegers or 50 Wrights, Obama is saying, tie them to a network of grassroots activists like my companions from Acorn, and we can revolutionize urban politics.

MYSTERY SOLVED
So it would appear that Obama’s own writings solve the mystery of why he stayed at Trinity for 20 years. Obama’s long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright’s radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama’s grand political strategy.

Lucky for Obama, this political background is unfamiliar to most Americans. There are others who share Obama’s approach, however. Take a look at this piece by Manhattan Institute scholar Steven Malanga on “The Rise Of The Religious Left” and you will see exactly where Obama is coming from. Malanga ends his account by noting that religious-left activists often partner with groups like MoveOn.org and attend gatherings featuring speakers like Michael Moore. After the 2004 election, there was some talk of the Democratic party “purging” MoveOn and Moore. Far from purging its radical Left, however, the Democratic party is now just inches away from placing it in the driver’s seat. That is the real meaning of the fiasco at Trinity Church.

[joyous88]

becket03,

you come off as just one more lying propagandist,

intelligence is more than simple wordsmithing,

Please keep in mind the simple fact that,

"conservatives are not ncessarily ignorant,

but most ignorant people are conservative"

[joyous88]

here it is folks!!

Some more lying propaganda from the right wing wackos

that have looted the american treasury, borrowed and spent america into trillions of dollars of foreign debt,

ruined the american education system, the infastructure, the military, health care, name something that your right wing nut, republicon nut, has

done correctly for you? They have destroyed america,

It is not that government does not work, the simple truth is that republicon government does not work.

other governments have worked fine, check out clintons government, thay could handle a hurricane

bush, McSame, and the neocons belong in prison for

treason, we have had the first UN American president

[tiredofobama]

Why doesn''''t the NRO write about the radical right wing ties of McSame. Obama is actually a moderate and a populist whose views correspond to the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of (corporate) business as usual.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by noloyalisti at 04:54 PM : Jun 04, 2008

Obama is no more a moderate than a flaming chili pepper! He is so far left, you may as well get your reparation check written out, because he hates you for a bunch of DEAD people having slaves over a hundred years ago! And God help you if you happen to have worked hard and gained wealth! He thinks your money should be redistributed to those who didn''t have the opportunities you did...or just didn''t make their opportunities!

[noloyalisti]

Why doesn''t the NRO write about the radical right wing ties of McSame. Obama is actually a moderate and a populist whose views correspond to the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of (corporate) business as usual.

[bluestardad]

AMERICA REACH YOUR POTENTIAL NOW!

A NEW LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST POLICY IS COMING WHEN THE DEMOCRATS SWEEP THE ELECTION AND THOSE OF YOU MIDDLE EAST BEGGARS AND THIEVES WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING OFF AMERICAN MONEY FOR THE PAST 65 YEARS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT WITHOUT AMERICAN FUNDING OR INVOLVEMENT OF OUR MILITARY!

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST!

THEY HAVE NOTHING WE NEED!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[dolcette]

becket03,

Thank you for correcting me. For some reason, not knowing enough of the man (Hitchens), something he said led me to believe he was a Black. Thanks for educating me on it.

At least your description of him doesn''t seem to take his any of credibility away, even if mine is now tainted by my exposed ignorance.

Again, thank you.

Dolcette

[becket03]

It''s always disheartening to read these forums and encounter the ignorance and sloppy history that prevails among participants. I invariably think to myself, "Good Lord, these people vote!"

Both left and right have discredited themselves here. A rightwinger thinks Christopher Hitchens is "Black." In fact, the transplanted Englishman has long been a highly visible writer whose journey from hardcore Troskyite to Iraq War supporter is the stuff of journalistic legend.

And on the left, we see words like "stupid" to describe political foes, and a sloppy history claim that the Bush administration has been one of "corruption," as if a simple quantifiable test wouldn''t show easily that the Clinton administration was the most corrupt of the last 30 years. Also a leftist insists CBS "MUST, MUST, MUST" remove speech with which he disagrees, a troubling anti-First Amendment position which finds a very sympathetic hearing more and more often today on college campuses.

So much misinformation is out there, and so few people are willing to suspend their biases and follow with logic, rigor, and research the breadcrumb trail that approaches the truth.

On a huge hill,
Cragged, and steep, Truth stands, and hee that will
Reach her, about must, and about must goe;
And what the hills suddennes resists, winne so;
Yet strive so, that before age, deaths twilight,
Thy Souls rest, for none can worke in that night.

"Even if somehow Mr. Obama doesn''''t make it, this particular time in politics is one of the Most enjoyable I have known in my 50-plus years." Posted by brianbwb ================

Sorry you missed the lions. That was a hoot! And I don''t possibly see how this one is better than the Daley gestapo smashing civilians into plate glass windows! Or establishment thugs teargassing college domitories around the country. Or Richard Nixon "getting hugged," and trying desperately to look comfortable hugging back, Sammy Davis, Jr. Live a little longer; if it doesn''t get better, use TIVO.

[markangeloo]

Touchi
Yes who cares !
We all know this stuff anyway.
Why do U think we all are voting for him
& he is winning anyway.

Viva LA Revolution.

Your just lucky
the manifesto doesn''t
include exterminating use guys.

Long live the CBS news of Walter Cronkite !!

[Razzl]

Obama made these statements a dozen years ago when he was in his thirties and beginning to crystallize his political views. The views he expresses today are his current view; he''s evolved and matured, which is what you expect from a real-life flesh and blood person. The right attempted to tar Hillary with their brush in the same way when they took things she said over 40 years ago as a college undergrad and turn those into her views today.

Black Americans had every right to debate these issues of integration and separation given their history, and reactionaries like Kurtz and NRO have absolutely no moral right to deny them their dialogue or to demand of them unquestioning "patriotism". The right wing have been neverending apologists for slavery, segregation, lynching, and "separate but equal". Whenever they lost one battle to hold blacks down, they defended the next available abomination.

Kurtz and his swift-boat companions aren''t going to get anywhere this time around with the right''s preferred tactic of repeating words with a sneer to somehow turn them into epithets; the Bush era has been so wretched and disgusting that if Obama were labelled a bomb-throwing anarchist I would consider that a useful change from what we have now. It''s time for pathetic propagandists like Kurtz to evolve a little and start asking questions about their own constipated attitudes.

[afmca]

I am also liberal and disagree that CBS needs to take these opinions off its web site. Only by exposing these idiotic fears can we defeat them. I am white and I will guarantee that the white author of this article has little to no experience with what it is to be black in America today. That preachers in these setting are more fiery and the rhetoric more pointed should be expected. They see poverty and hopelessness daily. What has been tried in the past has definitely not worked .. maybe it is time to try some new ideas. Time and time again we see the economically powerful using their access to the legislature to retain the status quo. Decades after lead paint was banned it still exists in many inner city homes, how can that be? The NRO is trying so hard to maintain their privileged world.

[dolcette]

Hopeful08,

If you want to read Mrs. Obama''s 1985 thesis at Princeton (which is a laborious experience, I can tell you), click here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community

But I have to say, reading Hitchens'' more concise article is also telling, and a lot easier on the eyes.

[o_nolan1]

CBS, in order to be taken seriously as a news organization, you MUST MUST MUST take this right wing drivel off your website!!! It''''s pure trash and only exposes you as a ''''Faux News'''' wannabe news organization.

Corporate media like this is ruining our democracy. Get rid of this TRASH!!!!

Posted by fairandbal

I am a liberal and I must say, I totally disagree. This is what we need from CBS News. There are other fair and balanced news organisations that would never consider doing this. CBS is always accused of being biased, but this is proof that opposing views are welcome here and that if one wants an intelligent discussion of the issues, then you have found the right place. Let''s try and de-polarise this situation. Kudo''s to CBS News.

[dolcette]

The correct link to Hitchen''s article is:

http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/

[dolcette]

Hopeful08, BrianBWB

Yes, I am quite familiar with Michael Moore & MoveOn. Michael is a dishonest, deceitful individual who twists and misrepresents what others say for his own ends. Unless you have someplace to puke afterwards, you shouldn''t say his name. MoveOn is a confused group of traitors not fit to be called Americans, who haven''t the slightest comprehension of what our founding fathers intended.

You (Hopeful) made mention of some innate and organic fear that a Black man may become president, so whites are upset.

It isn''t that Obama is Black (even though you keep saying that). It is that his long-standing and very close, personal affiliations are nutjobs - paranoid psychos filled with hate - and there is no obvious explanation for it. That''s the issue.

Christopher Hitchens of Slate magazine, a Black, studied the background of the Obama''s as well, trying to answer the same question we all have. Why does Obama associate with these loons?

http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/

If you''ve got the courage, check it out. Make sure you understand what he is saying from a Black''s perspective.

[fairandbal]

CBS, in order to be taken seriously as a news organization, you MUST MUST MUST take this right wing drivel off your website!!! It''s pure trash and only exposes you as a ''Faux News'' wannabe news organization.

Corporate media like this is ruining our democracy. Get rid of this TRASH!!!!

[biorsghost]

More pointless and laughable "guilt by association" conservative idiot AM hate-jock radio Right Wing garbage that the entire country - except the true idiots, are sick to death of. Tell it to "Rush"... If this is the disgusting RW''s tactic - a variation of their slimeball "Manchurian Candidate" approach they used against McCain, forget it. Desperate, pathetic, stupid. Talk about the "positive direction" McCain will take the country after 8 years of corruption and incompetence. Oh, sorry, forgot - you can''t.

[biorsghost]

More pointless and laughable "guilt by association" conservative idiot AM hate-jock radio Right Wing garbage that the entire country - except the true idiots, are sick to death of. Tell it to "Rush"... If this is the disgusting RW''s tactic - a variation of their slimeball "Manchurian Candidate" approach they used against McCain, forget it. Desperate, pathetic, stupid. Talk about the "positive direction" McCain will take the country after 8 years of corruption and incompetence. Oh, sorry, forgot - you can''t.

[brianbwb-2009]

"He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job, to walk the battle
To bad men near and far"... Mel Brooks

[brianbwb-2009]

"These delusions shows the extent of the far Right''''s fear about Obama. I have news for you all. I am neither a loyal democrat, nor young, nor black, nor disposssed. But Obama has already marshalled hundreds of thousands like me toward a singular goal of taking back this country from Corporate control of our government and the media." Posted by hopeful08

It is a joy I thought I wouldn''t see in my lifetime, the neo Nazis and the kkk types quaking in their booth on the prospect of having to say "president n-word".

Even if somehow Mr. Obama doesn''t make it, this particular time in politics is one of the Most enjoyable I have known in my 50-plus years.