When I read yesterday the Online Journal's James Taranto (See "Obama: A Love Story"), or ABC News' Jake Tapper (see "And Obama Wept"), or the comments of sundry analysts (not my analyst, of course), I shook my head in incredulity. "Where have you all been?" I asked.
The question, as you may know, refers to the religious, messianic dimensions of the Barack Obama phenomenon, and why so few have noted it until rather recently. Surely there is a blatant messianism playing out before our very eyes.
Needless to say, I noted this as far back as October 2006, long before Mr. Obama entered the race for the presidency. See my "A New Magnificat."
In December 2006, in "Blazing To The Top Of Charts," I wrote:
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
In January 2007, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's newness, and his positioning himself as a deliverer; the piece was called "A Newbie Attitude." The play on words should be evident to anyone familiar with Christ's beatitudes. A month later, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's imminent pronouncement of his candidacy called "Two Annunciations." The same February day, right as Mr. Obama made his candidacy official, I wrote this piece, "And Now The Presentation."
Any attentive Christian will know that these titles all refer to events around the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ; any attentive American will know that these essays point out the messianism of the Obama movement -- that it almost seems to plagiarize real religious events (and even American historical symbols, e.g., the steps of the Illinois legislature -- Lincoln's house). And I drafted these essays not for mere color or entertainment. I drafted them as warnings.
A few months ago, I attended an Obama event in which Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, spoke with great passion and fervor. In her talk she said this:
"We are all broken. Every one of us is broken. ... And we all have a hole in our hearts, a hole that needs to be filled."
It would be imprudent of me to expect you not to notice the religious language here; I know you do. But I wonder how many of us hear what she is saying: that her husband can help fill the void. Millions of evangelicals have heard similar language describing the "God-shaped hole in the human heart." Does Ms. Obama mean to suggest that we have a Barack-shaped hole in our hearts, too?
Not long ago, Mr. Obama told the congregation in a South Carolina evangelical church, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." Surely this sort of language is richly religious. One would expect to hear some outcry from those on the left, particularly since the left generally berates such language when uttered by those on the right. Even weirder, perhaps, is that no one can name a viable Republican candidate who has ever said such a thing. At the very least, hoping that a democratic republic can establish a "kingdom on earth" sounds sufficiently Tory enough to launch an investigation into whether a rebellion to reestablish a monarchy is afoot.
So, all this to say that Hosanna Politics, as I have dubbed them, are at full force ... and that in the Obama campaign. Right-wingers are perennially chided for pushing theocratic ideas, with hardly any evidence that they push them at all. And yet today we have a candidate for president -- whose name means "Blessed" -- using biblical language and establishing religious parallels that hardly raises an eyebrow.
Mr. Obama's great promise from last February's Annunciation? "WE shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth." And you thought Bush and Co. were all about expansionism and American hegemony. Where Mr. Obama gets the idea that Americans need a leader to save the earth is a puzzle. That his supporters seemingly have no problem with his ambitions is really quite scary. He -- and they along with him -- shall heal the land.
Who, really, does not want to be known as a healer?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Hosanna politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hosanna politics. Show all posts
Friday, February 08, 2008
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
On Christianity And Politics: Palms At His Feet, At His Throat
Jesus' Silence About Political Oppression
This past Sunday was Palm Sunday, the Christian celebration of Christ's entry into Jerusalem; He entered that great city with a donkey as His steed. Palm branches were laid before Him as a sign of welcome and of His high place in the hearts of those who gathered to see Him. Shouts of "Hosanna!" were heard everywhere. "Save us!"
The irony and sorrow of the scene are well-known: Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, described by some as triumphal, is profoundly misunderstood by everyone around Him. He is not coming to Jerusalem for a political fight; He is not mounting a coup. He is merely mounting a stubborn donkey that will take Him toward the temple mount; He will pray with blood pouring from his brow in the shadow of the Mount of Olives; He will mount a cross that will be set upon a mount of trash. The one thing He will not mount is a protest of the government, nor will He mount an overthrow. His goal is different.
Jesus was born in a captive nation. He was born in the southern reaches of the Roman Empire, in a tiny territory over which a god, a Caesar, a kaiser, presided. The Roman emperor was supreme; and while Rome appears to have tolerated the Jewish love of their one true God, there is no doubt that many Jews did not tolerate the one true god of Rome.
Think about it all for a moment. Here we have -- in Rome -- the seat of the great man/god in the person of Caesar Augustus. Rome had been a Republic, but as Christ came into the world, Rome was becoming an Empire, where the Caesar, the Kaiser, the Tsar, reigned supreme. A man/god sits on the throne in Rome; a God-Man nurses at His Mother's breast in a tiny manger somewhere far away. Israel, the nation of the Chosen People of God, is held captive. The true King is hidden in a cave.
How is it that throughout Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels He says virtually nothing, nothing at all, about living as a captive to the Romans? How is it He never mentions this injustice; how is it that He never talks about the government at all? Once He mentions Caesar: He holds up a coin and asks, "Whose image is on this?" But He never rails against what was clearly the anti-Christ on that coin; He never mentions Him again. There is no talk in Jesus' ministry about this captivity. He is only focused on the captivity of sin, guilt and the fear of death. There is no mention of social injustice; He is not preoccupied at all with subverting the power structure of the street, marketplace, Senate or Sanhedrin; He could care less about the collusion between opportunistic Jews and their Roman occupiers. Jesus is talking "sheep" and "goats" and "lilies" and "vineyards" and "children" and "adultery" and "stones" and "virgins" and "love." He is not talking politics; He is talking about pastoral life while scribbling in the dirt or fishing in the sea. While Rome the Parasite leeches the life-blood from Israel, the real King of the Jews is not raising the alarm about such parasitism; He merely blesses a few loaves of bread, some fish, and He feeds the masses. In His simplicity there is nothing radical or progressive; He is not seated in Rome as a dying idol, He's a shepherd walking about in a living idyll. And when He meets a Roman centurion -- an oppressor with a sword and a god above him, one he obeys immediately -- Jesus blesses the man for his faith; and in that blessing, Jesus, the King of all, says NOTHING about the centurion's sword, his orders or the gods that he serves. Jesus says nothing.
And yet He is the revolutionary.
________________
Politics Of Rightness, And Left
How is it that I get so caught up in political debate? My gut tells me that I am really not involved in political debate in order to forge policy or to change the power structure of Washington. My debate is entirely about truth: I fight what I believe are lies about what is going on right before my eyes. My fight is not to make America great or Republicans the party of choice. My fight is with those who want to damn others with their propaganda. I have fought here to preserve the human mind; I have fought to protect myself from delusions about 9/11, the Iraq War, climate change, or John Kerry's towering intellect. I have fought to protect what it means to be human, a fully integrated and sexual human, made in the image and beauty of God; and I have kicked at the deceptions proffered about identity, gender, and marriage. I am not arguing for a party or a President. I am arguing for a decent argument about all the things that matter.
But I do turn, too often, to my like-minded political leaders for deliverance. I do this even when I know that no such help can come from these fallible souls.
In the midst of this Holy Week, I think of my Christian brothers and sisters who only seem to be able to see Jesus in political terms. They see Him going about doing good political works; while I believe He did not do a single political act. They believe the gospel is about freeing people from other people; I believe that the gospel is about freeing people from themselves -- for themselves.
When Jesus tells His disciples to feed the poor, His advice is the inverse of what one would expect a Hosanna-leader to say. He does not tell His followers to fight the oppressors so that the poor can be made wealthy. He does not tell them to redress injustices in courts, in the halls of legislation. He tells them, instead, to just stop it in themselves: Just feed the poor and stop expecting others to create an ideal situation in which you can obey my commands. Love your neighbor -- right now! You. You love your neighbor. You feed Him. You help the poor. Just do it. Stop making excuses about governmental corruption, about injustice and unfairness and discrimination. You are the one who is unjust, unfair, corrupt, and discriminating: Stop it, and go and feed my sheep. And stop worrying about what others -- like the Romans -- are doing, or NOT doing. You are the one I am talking to. Go.
The God-Man Jesus, the True Caesar, is remarkably silent when it comes to politics. That is why, in part, He was betrayed into the hands of politicians, and they crucified Him.
He did not save them the way they wanted.
And the Roman Caesar never did either.
Peace.
PS. If Jesus was at all critical of political oppression, it was not of the Roman occupiers, but of those religious who oppressed their own kind. Jesus was quite open about His discontent with the Pharisees; these moral and religious leaders laid heavy burdens on others they themselves would not carry. Sounds quite familiar, really. But the Pharisees were ostensibly on the side of Israel. They were not occupiers, they were not minions of the god-man in Rome. Yet it was these folks that Jesus berated and chided the most: their morality upset Him far more than did the idolatrous Romans' behavior. Why? Why did He seem more intent on freeing people of their obligatory moral duties -- apparent rules for proper living, good works and justice -- than He was in liberating Palestine from the grip of an anti-Christ and his armies?
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
This past Sunday was Palm Sunday, the Christian celebration of Christ's entry into Jerusalem; He entered that great city with a donkey as His steed. Palm branches were laid before Him as a sign of welcome and of His high place in the hearts of those who gathered to see Him. Shouts of "Hosanna!" were heard everywhere. "Save us!"
The irony and sorrow of the scene are well-known: Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, described by some as triumphal, is profoundly misunderstood by everyone around Him. He is not coming to Jerusalem for a political fight; He is not mounting a coup. He is merely mounting a stubborn donkey that will take Him toward the temple mount; He will pray with blood pouring from his brow in the shadow of the Mount of Olives; He will mount a cross that will be set upon a mount of trash. The one thing He will not mount is a protest of the government, nor will He mount an overthrow. His goal is different.
Jesus was born in a captive nation. He was born in the southern reaches of the Roman Empire, in a tiny territory over which a god, a Caesar, a kaiser, presided. The Roman emperor was supreme; and while Rome appears to have tolerated the Jewish love of their one true God, there is no doubt that many Jews did not tolerate the one true god of Rome.
Think about it all for a moment. Here we have -- in Rome -- the seat of the great man/god in the person of Caesar Augustus. Rome had been a Republic, but as Christ came into the world, Rome was becoming an Empire, where the Caesar, the Kaiser, the Tsar, reigned supreme. A man/god sits on the throne in Rome; a God-Man nurses at His Mother's breast in a tiny manger somewhere far away. Israel, the nation of the Chosen People of God, is held captive. The true King is hidden in a cave.
How is it that throughout Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels He says virtually nothing, nothing at all, about living as a captive to the Romans? How is it He never mentions this injustice; how is it that He never talks about the government at all? Once He mentions Caesar: He holds up a coin and asks, "Whose image is on this?" But He never rails against what was clearly the anti-Christ on that coin; He never mentions Him again. There is no talk in Jesus' ministry about this captivity. He is only focused on the captivity of sin, guilt and the fear of death. There is no mention of social injustice; He is not preoccupied at all with subverting the power structure of the street, marketplace, Senate or Sanhedrin; He could care less about the collusion between opportunistic Jews and their Roman occupiers. Jesus is talking "sheep" and "goats" and "lilies" and "vineyards" and "children" and "adultery" and "stones" and "virgins" and "love." He is not talking politics; He is talking about pastoral life while scribbling in the dirt or fishing in the sea. While Rome the Parasite leeches the life-blood from Israel, the real King of the Jews is not raising the alarm about such parasitism; He merely blesses a few loaves of bread, some fish, and He feeds the masses. In His simplicity there is nothing radical or progressive; He is not seated in Rome as a dying idol, He's a shepherd walking about in a living idyll. And when He meets a Roman centurion -- an oppressor with a sword and a god above him, one he obeys immediately -- Jesus blesses the man for his faith; and in that blessing, Jesus, the King of all, says NOTHING about the centurion's sword, his orders or the gods that he serves. Jesus says nothing.
And yet He is the revolutionary.
________________
Politics Of Rightness, And Left
How is it that I get so caught up in political debate? My gut tells me that I am really not involved in political debate in order to forge policy or to change the power structure of Washington. My debate is entirely about truth: I fight what I believe are lies about what is going on right before my eyes. My fight is not to make America great or Republicans the party of choice. My fight is with those who want to damn others with their propaganda. I have fought here to preserve the human mind; I have fought to protect myself from delusions about 9/11, the Iraq War, climate change, or John Kerry's towering intellect. I have fought to protect what it means to be human, a fully integrated and sexual human, made in the image and beauty of God; and I have kicked at the deceptions proffered about identity, gender, and marriage. I am not arguing for a party or a President. I am arguing for a decent argument about all the things that matter.
But I do turn, too often, to my like-minded political leaders for deliverance. I do this even when I know that no such help can come from these fallible souls.
In the midst of this Holy Week, I think of my Christian brothers and sisters who only seem to be able to see Jesus in political terms. They see Him going about doing good political works; while I believe He did not do a single political act. They believe the gospel is about freeing people from other people; I believe that the gospel is about freeing people from themselves -- for themselves.
When Jesus tells His disciples to feed the poor, His advice is the inverse of what one would expect a Hosanna-leader to say. He does not tell His followers to fight the oppressors so that the poor can be made wealthy. He does not tell them to redress injustices in courts, in the halls of legislation. He tells them, instead, to just stop it in themselves: Just feed the poor and stop expecting others to create an ideal situation in which you can obey my commands. Love your neighbor -- right now! You. You love your neighbor. You feed Him. You help the poor. Just do it. Stop making excuses about governmental corruption, about injustice and unfairness and discrimination. You are the one who is unjust, unfair, corrupt, and discriminating: Stop it, and go and feed my sheep. And stop worrying about what others -- like the Romans -- are doing, or NOT doing. You are the one I am talking to. Go.
The God-Man Jesus, the True Caesar, is remarkably silent when it comes to politics. That is why, in part, He was betrayed into the hands of politicians, and they crucified Him.
He did not save them the way they wanted.
And the Roman Caesar never did either.
Peace.
PS. If Jesus was at all critical of political oppression, it was not of the Roman occupiers, but of those religious who oppressed their own kind. Jesus was quite open about His discontent with the Pharisees; these moral and religious leaders laid heavy burdens on others they themselves would not carry. Sounds quite familiar, really. But the Pharisees were ostensibly on the side of Israel. They were not occupiers, they were not minions of the god-man in Rome. Yet it was these folks that Jesus berated and chided the most: their morality upset Him far more than did the idolatrous Romans' behavior. Why? Why did He seem more intent on freeing people of their obligatory moral duties -- apparent rules for proper living, good works and justice -- than He was in liberating Palestine from the grip of an anti-Christ and his armies?
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, February 12, 2007
God, Bootlegged
On Saturday morning, just before Barack Hussein Obama stepped out from behind the temple veil to reveal his plan to make each of us happier people, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ejaculated that Abraham Lincoln, the great statesman who once governed in Obama's home state, would be dancing for joy at the familiar site of Springfield, Illinois' capitol building; and how it now served as the backdrop to an "African American" announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States. Remember, Matthews gushed, this is where Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Moments later, deep into his own emancipation proclamation -- calling for an end to poverty, promising resolution in Iraq, and freeing us of our fearful dependence on foreign oil and its attendant destruction of the atmosphere -- Mr. Obama said (in bold) this in a list of wondrous deeds Americans have performed as ONE:
"In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." [emphasis added]
Of course, the "King" referred to is Martin Luther King, the fallen and iconic civil rights leader.
Perhaps in this age where some do not respect the fences erected around us by the scribes of copyright laws, by the good manners of attribution and the love of one's neighbors' own genius, it is easy to honor the wrong men, the wrong women, even the wrong gods; or to steal for oneself the giftedness of others. Lakes steal from springs and rivers, and rivers abscond with lakes' blue riches, only to find poverty in the sea that robs from the sky as the sky steals back. So great leaders, apparently existing unto themselves where all greatness is apparently shared, are remembered for the great things they have said, even though they did not say them.
Abraham Lincoln may have said, "The house divided against itself cannot stand." And I may have said the same thing in a speech as vice-president of my high school senior class. But I was not quoting Lincoln, and Lincoln was not quoting himself: we were both quoting Jesus Christ the Plagiarized.
And then dear Mr. King, who surely gave the right attribution in his original speech, acknowledging his mentors' gifts to him and their own genius, never did say a thing about "justice rolling down." The Jewish prophet Amos did, a fact Mr. King learned as a Christian in Sunday School.
Clearly Mr. Obama and Chris Matthews have both missed out on these apparent trivialities. Who cares if religious language is stolen for political purposes; who cares if the fullness of genius was found in the prophets who uttered what the world most likely had never before heard? What matters is that it takes a certain amount of genius to plagiarize for political gain; to forget that true justice is rooted in the heart and language of God, and to take His honor for oneself.
(It matters not the source, but the outcome, if you but believe in "destiny.")
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Moments later, deep into his own emancipation proclamation -- calling for an end to poverty, promising resolution in Iraq, and freeing us of our fearful dependence on foreign oil and its attendant destruction of the atmosphere -- Mr. Obama said (in bold) this in a list of wondrous deeds Americans have performed as ONE:
"In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." [emphasis added]
Of course, the "King" referred to is Martin Luther King, the fallen and iconic civil rights leader.
Perhaps in this age where some do not respect the fences erected around us by the scribes of copyright laws, by the good manners of attribution and the love of one's neighbors' own genius, it is easy to honor the wrong men, the wrong women, even the wrong gods; or to steal for oneself the giftedness of others. Lakes steal from springs and rivers, and rivers abscond with lakes' blue riches, only to find poverty in the sea that robs from the sky as the sky steals back. So great leaders, apparently existing unto themselves where all greatness is apparently shared, are remembered for the great things they have said, even though they did not say them.
Abraham Lincoln may have said, "The house divided against itself cannot stand." And I may have said the same thing in a speech as vice-president of my high school senior class. But I was not quoting Lincoln, and Lincoln was not quoting himself: we were both quoting Jesus Christ the Plagiarized.
And then dear Mr. King, who surely gave the right attribution in his original speech, acknowledging his mentors' gifts to him and their own genius, never did say a thing about "justice rolling down." The Jewish prophet Amos did, a fact Mr. King learned as a Christian in Sunday School.
Clearly Mr. Obama and Chris Matthews have both missed out on these apparent trivialities. Who cares if religious language is stolen for political purposes; who cares if the fullness of genius was found in the prophets who uttered what the world most likely had never before heard? What matters is that it takes a certain amount of genius to plagiarize for political gain; to forget that true justice is rooted in the heart and language of God, and to take His honor for oneself.
(It matters not the source, but the outcome, if you but believe in "destiny.")
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
And Now The Presentation
"We shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth."
Thus concluded Barack Hussein Obama moments ago in his much-anticipated announcement. Talk about audacity!
"We are one people." Indeed.
Consider this a strange observation: Mr. Obama was presented to the temple of his American audience with the music of U2 laving the podium. If there was ever a band that yearns for a messiah, and surely struggles with a messianic impulse itself, it is U2.
Here is Howard Fineman (right now on MSNBC), editor of Newsweek, on Mr. Barack's announcement:
"This is an amazing story. It can't be repeated enough. ... At this point in our history ... this [isn't about just bringing America together], it is about bringing the world together."
And in light of Mr. Obama's multiculturalism, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said,
"To the world this must say, 'America is bigger than we thought.'"
I would point out that Mr. Obama's speech was very similar to an altar call at a Billy Graham tent-meeting: He called his followers to come forward, to follow their destiny, to come together as one people. And that he was hailed into the temple by people holding up his book -- The Audacity of Hope -- a book that looks a lot like a Pope's own volume, is a curiosity one cannot ignore.
He is indeed the savior the Democrats particularly have been praying about: At last, U2 has finally found what they are looking for.
Wow.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Thus concluded Barack Hussein Obama moments ago in his much-anticipated announcement. Talk about audacity!
"We are one people." Indeed.
Consider this a strange observation: Mr. Obama was presented to the temple of his American audience with the music of U2 laving the podium. If there was ever a band that yearns for a messiah, and surely struggles with a messianic impulse itself, it is U2.
Here is Howard Fineman (right now on MSNBC), editor of Newsweek, on Mr. Barack's announcement:
"This is an amazing story. It can't be repeated enough. ... At this point in our history ... this [isn't about just bringing America together], it is about bringing the world together."
And in light of Mr. Obama's multiculturalism, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said,
"To the world this must say, 'America is bigger than we thought.'"
I would point out that Mr. Obama's speech was very similar to an altar call at a Billy Graham tent-meeting: He called his followers to come forward, to follow their destiny, to come together as one people. And that he was hailed into the temple by people holding up his book -- The Audacity of Hope -- a book that looks a lot like a Pope's own volume, is a curiosity one cannot ignore.
He is indeed the savior the Democrats particularly have been praying about: At last, U2 has finally found what they are looking for.
Wow.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Two Annunciations: MSNBC Supports Barack Hussein Obama, And He Is Not Black (or so says someone)
In a matter of minutes from now (30 minutes), Barack Hussein Obama, the handsome and well-spoken senator from Illinois, shall officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Assisting him in this proclamation, and no doubt a supporter of his candidacy, is MSNBC, the cable network featuring such notable political wisemen as Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. My saying that MSNBC is assisting him is due entirely to the fact that MSNBC is hyping its "live coverage" of Mr. Obama's annunciation with undue alacrity at this moment: MSNBC is giddy about this man. Even Mr. Russert's words on an Imus in the Morning program, words replayed during Mr. Russert's testimony in court the other day -- in the Scooter Libby perjury trial -- are perfectly apt: It was "Christmas Eve" in the newsroom when Libby was indicted. No doubt it is Christmas morning today.
Alas, I have proven rather incompetent in my coverage of the Obama story. For I have not properly secured the facts, though, in this digital age of plastic facts, it is not likely that I could ever pin down any fact, for facts vanish in a flash-media second. But please note that on October 24, 2006, in an essay I wrote about Mr. Obama, I noted that his September 2005 essay posted on the Daily Kos, the influential, self-described leftist blog, had as a banner advertisement the following image:
Please note Mr. Obama's placement in this advertisement. Please note that this ad was present at Mr. Obama's Daily Kos essay months before Mr. Obama even announced his exploratory committee for the presidency. Please note that MSNBC not only placed an advertisement for itself on Mr. Obama's Daily Kos diary, but MSNBC placed Mr. Obama's image adjacent to President Bush's, suggesting, perhaps, that both men are in some sort of great struggle. To MSNBC, Obama is a contender, and this MONTHS before he was indeed a contender. Amazingly, MSNBC threw Mr. Obama's hat into the presidential ring before he had himself.
Or so it looks. Or so it feels.
Unfortunately, I only took a screen shot of the actual ad. I failed to take, and preserve, a screen shot of the ad on the actual Obama page. And as you can see, the ad has been removed from Mr. Obama's essay posted, as it was, on the world's largest blog, a blog entirely devoted to political and sociological liberalism.
But who cares, right? This is, after all, the deliverer we are talking about. The great hope. And in just a little less than an hour, there will be a star over the silent little town of Springfield, Illinois. You know, where Abraham Lincoln once lived.
This is all shaping up to be a perfect little fairy tale, the kind America just loves to tell itself.
MY SKIN IS CLEAR (I think)
Curiously related to all of this mythmaking, and jarring our senses, is this essay ("Colorblind") about Mr. Obama (and race in America in general). It is published on Salon. com, and it is written by a "black" woman, Debra J. Dickerson. Perhaps you saw Ms. Dickerson on "The Colbert Report" earlier this week (in a brilliant interview). Ms. Dickerson's thesis, in case you did not know, is that Mr. Obama is NOT BLACK. I kid you not. His mother, apparently, is a white woman from Kansas, while his dad is from Kenya. That Ms. Dickerson defines blackness in political terms is astonishing: to be black in America means, strictly, to be a direct descendant of former African slaves. During Ms. Dickerson's interview with the thoroughly enjoyable Mr. Colbert, she said that Mr. Obama would be better served if he defined himself -- and I am NOT MAKING THIS UP -- as an African African-American. But he is definitely NOT black.
That this woman, who wrote the book, The End of Blackness, is ruining the great idea of a man with dark skin announcing his presidency from Abraham Lincoln's hometown, you know, the town of that great president who clearly made the first great step for the emancipation of slaves so they could become -- eventually -- candidates for President, is a fact too interesting to let pass unnoticed.
But I ask you: if being black is a political-linguistic term denoting only those who are descendants of actual African slaves imported to America, does it NOT FOLLOW that "white" is equally political, denoting only those who have descended from white slaveholders who imported African slaves to America? I think it does. And if that is the case, then, since there were no slaveholders in my ancestral gene pool, I am not white.
There you go then.
I am not white, and Barack Obama, should he become president, will not be America's first black President.
Go figure.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Alas, I have proven rather incompetent in my coverage of the Obama story. For I have not properly secured the facts, though, in this digital age of plastic facts, it is not likely that I could ever pin down any fact, for facts vanish in a flash-media second. But please note that on October 24, 2006, in an essay I wrote about Mr. Obama, I noted that his September 2005 essay posted on the Daily Kos, the influential, self-described leftist blog, had as a banner advertisement the following image:
Please note Mr. Obama's placement in this advertisement. Please note that this ad was present at Mr. Obama's Daily Kos essay months before Mr. Obama even announced his exploratory committee for the presidency. Please note that MSNBC not only placed an advertisement for itself on Mr. Obama's Daily Kos diary, but MSNBC placed Mr. Obama's image adjacent to President Bush's, suggesting, perhaps, that both men are in some sort of great struggle. To MSNBC, Obama is a contender, and this MONTHS before he was indeed a contender. Amazingly, MSNBC threw Mr. Obama's hat into the presidential ring before he had himself.
Or so it looks. Or so it feels.
Unfortunately, I only took a screen shot of the actual ad. I failed to take, and preserve, a screen shot of the ad on the actual Obama page. And as you can see, the ad has been removed from Mr. Obama's essay posted, as it was, on the world's largest blog, a blog entirely devoted to political and sociological liberalism.
But who cares, right? This is, after all, the deliverer we are talking about. The great hope. And in just a little less than an hour, there will be a star over the silent little town of Springfield, Illinois. You know, where Abraham Lincoln once lived.
This is all shaping up to be a perfect little fairy tale, the kind America just loves to tell itself.
MY SKIN IS CLEAR (I think)
Curiously related to all of this mythmaking, and jarring our senses, is this essay ("Colorblind") about Mr. Obama (and race in America in general). It is published on Salon. com, and it is written by a "black" woman, Debra J. Dickerson. Perhaps you saw Ms. Dickerson on "The Colbert Report" earlier this week (in a brilliant interview). Ms. Dickerson's thesis, in case you did not know, is that Mr. Obama is NOT BLACK. I kid you not. His mother, apparently, is a white woman from Kansas, while his dad is from Kenya. That Ms. Dickerson defines blackness in political terms is astonishing: to be black in America means, strictly, to be a direct descendant of former African slaves. During Ms. Dickerson's interview with the thoroughly enjoyable Mr. Colbert, she said that Mr. Obama would be better served if he defined himself -- and I am NOT MAKING THIS UP -- as an African African-American. But he is definitely NOT black.
That this woman, who wrote the book, The End of Blackness, is ruining the great idea of a man with dark skin announcing his presidency from Abraham Lincoln's hometown, you know, the town of that great president who clearly made the first great step for the emancipation of slaves so they could become -- eventually -- candidates for President, is a fact too interesting to let pass unnoticed.
But I ask you: if being black is a political-linguistic term denoting only those who are descendants of actual African slaves imported to America, does it NOT FOLLOW that "white" is equally political, denoting only those who have descended from white slaveholders who imported African slaves to America? I think it does. And if that is the case, then, since there were no slaveholders in my ancestral gene pool, I am not white.
There you go then.
I am not white, and Barack Obama, should he become president, will not be America's first black President.
Go figure.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A Newbie Attitude
It is a very messianic thing to be. One might wonder whether any deliverer would dare to be anything but; for to be something other than a bridge-builder -- a uniter -- is to be something less than a messiah. Messiahs bring people together; they are conciliatory, appeasing; they understand compromise and concession.
But this is not the least a messiah can do. A messiah can also reveal his or her salvific message once every four years or so, at least in America. He (or she) can remind us all -- once again -- what life can truly become -- if we but believe, if we but thrill in the audacity of hope.
Barack Hussein Obama has lifted his head from his pillow and in the silence of the night, he has heard a call, a voice, the voice of the people; and he has responded. His message? He wishes to bring together that which has been torn asunder; to mend the torn veil; to build on those things which unite rather than divide. In other words, he wants to deliver a message of hope, of optimism in the power of the human will when it works in collective concert. Mr. Obama believes that it is not the enormity of the issues before us, but the smallness of our politics in addressing those issues that has failed us all. Such issues can be rendered small, no doubt, by a politics that is larger than anyone has heretofore dreamed possible. It is all about a brighter vision in a darkness deceptively dark: things are not as black as they seem. Nor are they as white. For such simple distinctions betray us when confronting dire challenges: our tried yet failed policies based on categories of good and evil, light and dark, black and white, north and south, have proven themselves tired, myopic, weak; senescent.
And now, in the juvenescence of the year, in the season of Janus (the two-faced deity that guards against war), Barack Obama is a great light in the deep and lonely solstice of Northern Hemispheric politics. He is the newcomer with the right attitude, speaking new beatitudes. His name means blessed. He brings a message.
Two things, really. First, the message Mr. Obama brings is utterly old and not the least bit spry or sprightly. It is what we have heard in the United States from leaders ad infinitum: we have long been given empty promises that there shall be no more empty promises. We are promised an end to partisan bickering, to gridlock, to more of the same. We are promised the "setting of a new tone in Washington," of "forging a new direction for America," of coming together to "take America back" and building anew a "government for the people by the people." We are promised an end to rancor and discord; we are promised unity in a United States on the threshold of disunion. It is time to cease the fearmongering, the backbiting; the good-old-boy backroom favoritism; the special interest plundering of American goodwill and industriousness.
In short, we have heard all of this before, said the same way, at the same time of year, and even for the same reasons.
But what we have not heard enough is that a real messiah -- perfectly presented in the Christ of the Christian faith -- is the only religious figure in history who built a religion on the self-revelation that He came to divide, not unite; to separate, not combine; to winnow out, and not to blend; to cleave asunder and not to mend. Jesus the Christ is indeed exactly the sort of politician we need to hear from, though not on the airwaves or from the podium, or on the breakfast news shows or a podcast from the Jesus 2008 website. We need to hear from Him in our hearts, if for no other reason than to stop this insanity.
The messiah has already come, and He will come again. But He is not a politician from Illinois, or a president from South Africa, or a megalomaniac from Venezuela. He is not a man with a gun, nor is a he man with a Texas swagger. Nor is he a man with a soft, bipartisan voice.
"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ... The poor you shall always have with you. ... I have come to set brother against sister. ... You have no part in me unless ..." This is what a deliverer says; these are the words of a real leader, a real revolutionary. He does not coddle his base, or stroke the hair of those eager to pronounce him god.
Just a few thoughts in this season of Hosanna Politics.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
But this is not the least a messiah can do. A messiah can also reveal his or her salvific message once every four years or so, at least in America. He (or she) can remind us all -- once again -- what life can truly become -- if we but believe, if we but thrill in the audacity of hope.
Barack Hussein Obama has lifted his head from his pillow and in the silence of the night, he has heard a call, a voice, the voice of the people; and he has responded. His message? He wishes to bring together that which has been torn asunder; to mend the torn veil; to build on those things which unite rather than divide. In other words, he wants to deliver a message of hope, of optimism in the power of the human will when it works in collective concert. Mr. Obama believes that it is not the enormity of the issues before us, but the smallness of our politics in addressing those issues that has failed us all. Such issues can be rendered small, no doubt, by a politics that is larger than anyone has heretofore dreamed possible. It is all about a brighter vision in a darkness deceptively dark: things are not as black as they seem. Nor are they as white. For such simple distinctions betray us when confronting dire challenges: our tried yet failed policies based on categories of good and evil, light and dark, black and white, north and south, have proven themselves tired, myopic, weak; senescent.
And now, in the juvenescence of the year, in the season of Janus (the two-faced deity that guards against war), Barack Obama is a great light in the deep and lonely solstice of Northern Hemispheric politics. He is the newcomer with the right attitude, speaking new beatitudes. His name means blessed. He brings a message.
Two things, really. First, the message Mr. Obama brings is utterly old and not the least bit spry or sprightly. It is what we have heard in the United States from leaders ad infinitum: we have long been given empty promises that there shall be no more empty promises. We are promised an end to partisan bickering, to gridlock, to more of the same. We are promised the "setting of a new tone in Washington," of "forging a new direction for America," of coming together to "take America back" and building anew a "government for the people by the people." We are promised an end to rancor and discord; we are promised unity in a United States on the threshold of disunion. It is time to cease the fearmongering, the backbiting; the good-old-boy backroom favoritism; the special interest plundering of American goodwill and industriousness.
In short, we have heard all of this before, said the same way, at the same time of year, and even for the same reasons.
But what we have not heard enough is that a real messiah -- perfectly presented in the Christ of the Christian faith -- is the only religious figure in history who built a religion on the self-revelation that He came to divide, not unite; to separate, not combine; to winnow out, and not to blend; to cleave asunder and not to mend. Jesus the Christ is indeed exactly the sort of politician we need to hear from, though not on the airwaves or from the podium, or on the breakfast news shows or a podcast from the Jesus 2008 website. We need to hear from Him in our hearts, if for no other reason than to stop this insanity.
The messiah has already come, and He will come again. But He is not a politician from Illinois, or a president from South Africa, or a megalomaniac from Venezuela. He is not a man with a gun, nor is a he man with a Texas swagger. Nor is he a man with a soft, bipartisan voice.
"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ... The poor you shall always have with you. ... I have come to set brother against sister. ... You have no part in me unless ..." This is what a deliverer says; these are the words of a real leader, a real revolutionary. He does not coddle his base, or stroke the hair of those eager to pronounce him god.
Just a few thoughts in this season of Hosanna Politics.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Blazing To The Top Of The Charts
Just a hasty observation, but if I was, let's say, Hillary Clinton, I would be delighted with the early excitement over Senator Barack Obama. In fact, I would be fueling it at every turn. I would even attempt to move the media towards Mr. Obama. Why? Because I would want Mr. Obama to peak too early. And it is, quite likely, exactly what he is going to do. People in New Hampshire gathered on Sunday to see the man, to touch the hem of his garment; and I mean people gathered by the thousands. Over 100 reporters captured his every move and jotted down his every word. And all this -- all this money and hoopla and passion -- for a man who has not even announced he is running for president. The only other phenomenon in New Hampshire's primary history that closely resembles the Obama-Nation† was when John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for president while standing on Main Street in Nashua.
And all this for a man who is, to be honest, utterly unseasoned, with nary a stitch of experience. That some critics of George W. Bush like to point out that he himself was hardly a fireball of political activity prior to his 2ooo run miss several points, the most salient of which is that many Republicans were utterly aware of Bush's lack of experience. In New Hampshire, at least, George W. Bush was hardly a Republican favorite. But at least Bush had some experience simply by being a President's son. I might have this wrong, but George W. actually worked in nearly every office of the White House during the Reagan-Bush years. This qualifies for something, though it does not entitle any man to have the Oval Office.
But I will not detract from Mr. Obama's popularity by suggesting he is too inexperienced. I will merely point out that those who also seek the office can only be encouraged that Mr. Obama is peaking early.
Or so they hope.
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†I note the word the term Obama-Nation for a host of reasons. Obviously, no supporter of Mr. Obama could ever refer to his followers as Obama-Nation, largely for its homophonic cousin, abomination. Moreover, yesterday I saw the word "obamanible," penned by an Obama defender upset by criticisms over Mr. Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). But Mr. Obama's name will no doubt lend itself to all sorts of wild headlines in the Daily News or New York Post: "Barack Star!" "Running Out Of Money: Barack's B-roke!" "Obama's Meandering State of the Union Speech: Barack's Baroque!" "Southern Vote is Clear: A'bama Says No To Obama!" "Barack Urges Kids: Obey Ma!" OK. These are foolish and, I dare say, unfortunate. But the reality is not to be denied: Headline writers are going to have a field day. "O-BAM!- A: Barack smashes O'Reilly's fastball in Factor interview."
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, Cult of Personality
And all this for a man who is, to be honest, utterly unseasoned, with nary a stitch of experience. That some critics of George W. Bush like to point out that he himself was hardly a fireball of political activity prior to his 2ooo run miss several points, the most salient of which is that many Republicans were utterly aware of Bush's lack of experience. In New Hampshire, at least, George W. Bush was hardly a Republican favorite. But at least Bush had some experience simply by being a President's son. I might have this wrong, but George W. actually worked in nearly every office of the White House during the Reagan-Bush years. This qualifies for something, though it does not entitle any man to have the Oval Office.
But I will not detract from Mr. Obama's popularity by suggesting he is too inexperienced. I will merely point out that those who also seek the office can only be encouraged that Mr. Obama is peaking early.
Or so they hope.
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†I note the word the term Obama-Nation for a host of reasons. Obviously, no supporter of Mr. Obama could ever refer to his followers as Obama-Nation, largely for its homophonic cousin, abomination. Moreover, yesterday I saw the word "obamanible," penned by an Obama defender upset by criticisms over Mr. Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). But Mr. Obama's name will no doubt lend itself to all sorts of wild headlines in the Daily News or New York Post: "Barack Star!" "Running Out Of Money: Barack's B-roke!" "Obama's Meandering State of the Union Speech: Barack's Baroque!" "Southern Vote is Clear: A'bama Says No To Obama!" "Barack Urges Kids: Obey Ma!" OK. These are foolish and, I dare say, unfortunate. But the reality is not to be denied: Headline writers are going to have a field day. "O-BAM!- A: Barack smashes O'Reilly's fastball in Factor interview."
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, Cult of Personality
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
A New Magnificat
In Swahili his name means "one who is blessed." It seems a fitting name. In fact, in American politics his name surely means "charmed."Of course, I am talking about the freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. He is being presented to us as the next big thing; he is the rising star in American progressivism. He graces the cover of the most recent Time magazine; he streaked across the talkshow skies this past weekend, and we are left with a glowing after-image seared into our minds.
Some of you might recall that the late Pope John Paul II wrote a book called Crossing The Threshold of Hope, which was wildly popular among the faithful. It still ranks in the top 20,000 of Amazon. Now comes The Audacity of Hope, written by Mr. Obama, which ranks atop both today's Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists. It has not yet this morning shown up on the New York Times bestseller list, but we need but wait another thirty seconds and it will be perched on top, I am sure.
I watched Mr. Obama on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, (transcript is here) and I must say he is, indeed, a winner. I have no doubt that he shall be a very serious candidate for president, particularly in 2012. However, my sense is that he is, perhaps, still too young to make it to the White House two years from now. After all, he has yet to have to fight in even one reelection campaign. And I think he might be bucking history, though I am not sure; for if he does aim for the White House in 2008, he might very well be the first senator to win the presidency before completing one whole term in the Senate.
HOSANNA POLITICS
Remember with me what it was like, at least according to the gospels, when Jesus entered Jerusalem just days before his crucifixion. He was greeted with fanfare, palm branches laid out before him, his supporters shouting "Hosanna!" as he passed (Hosanna! means "save!" or "save us!" It is a cry of worship and praise, but one mixed with a plea for deliverance.) As Jesus entered Jerusalem, people greeted him as deliverer and savior.
I am struck every election cycle (at least since I have been paying attention) how often this sort of imagery and language is employed. Candidates come as deliverers: all will be right if we just elect so-and-so. It is rather alarming, for it would seem Americans (in particular) would be wary of this sort of idolatry. No one can save us, though a man or woman can surely assist us. But we must face the very real fact that we will never be delivered from an imperfect state, nor will we ever reach one that is more just. Justice is an elusive idea, as it is so often shaped by the smallest minority incensed that its particularly unique qualities are not held in higher esteem or respect. Such injustices can be found on nearly every street corner; shouts of "unfair!" do not stop in the wake of better laws or better leaders. This is not to say that there are not injustices that have been made right. It is merely to say that there will never be any rest from the fight for a more just world. In all of this, no man or woman can step in as our deliverer or liberator. They can only help us, but not as clairvoyant or prescient guides. They can help us by being willing to fight for what is hopefully right, and hopefully good.
Unfortunately we cannot remove from our political life images smacking of messianism. Jesus comes as representative of heaven; not only that, he comes as our representative to heaven. He stands in our stead; he dies as our substitute on the cross. In Christianity, it seems, there is no salvation - or damnation - without representation. Christ is the law and our public defender; he is the advocate on our behalf, doing for us what we cannot do or have no time to do. He intercedes for us; he mediates, and he takes our place when the guilty verdict is handed down. He is taken away in shackles, while we are free to go.
Curiously, political representation comprises this same sort of imagery. If there is no expectation in heaven without representation, there is no taxation without representation here in America. Senators and representatives and presidents stand before the ideals of the American state on our behalf. They are our mediators, defenders and advocates. They will do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Before the great courts of men in Washington, our elected officials stand as us incarnate. And they do so before that great Trinity, that great Godhead of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
No wonder it is so tempting to speak of candidates in implicitly religious terms, that they shall "save us" from domestic and foreign enemies. No wonder some leaders might present themselves even in messianic terms. So many of us expect so much from our leaders. I even think that we often expect too much of ourselves, living vicariously through the man or woman for whom we voted, certain that we, along with them, know how to save the world.
THE AUDACITY OF HOPE
It is a catchy title, full of poetry and boldness. There is even a veiled criticism hidden therein, that here is a man daring to hope in the face of naysayers; here is a man willing to rally the despondent masses to reject the pessismism of our current leaders, and our current paradigm. And there is even a religious simplicity to it, begging us to remember St. Paul: "Now these three remain, faith, hope and love." Hope audacious? Only to the liberty deniers among us.
Of course, I have yet to read Mr. Obama's book. I am sure that when I do read it, he will help me answer the question: Hope in what? Or are we merely to hope in hope? I hope not. And I am not quite ready to go as far as Boston radio talk show host Jay Severin went yesterday on air, whispering on in hushed, reverent tones about the left's new saint, "Saint Obama." But sainthood is in the air.
Really, it is.
ONE LAST NOTE ON "BLESSED"
I visited Daily Kos, the world's largest blog, this morning. I was searching for items on Mr. Obama, and I was surprised to find that Mr. Obama has himself posted something at Daily Kos. But I want you to note an advertising banner over Mr. Obama's essay. It is an adlink for MSNBC's news team. But note two things. Note that you find, right in the middle, a picture of the leftists' new favorite pundit, Keith Olbermann. Then, one image over, note that there is a picture of Mr. Obama, facing right, adjacent to a picture of President Bush, who is looking left. This is no accident at all. MSNBC might as well say that it is pitching Mr. Obama for President right now.
The second thing I want you to note is that MSNBC is advertising on the most liberal blog on the planet. It would be foolish to think that FoxNews would be a featured advertiser there; and it would be foolish not to think that, if Fox is indeed a mouthpiece of the Bush White House, MSNBC is aligning itself as a mouthpiece for all things progressive. After all, that is what Mr. Obama is after, since he aims to create a "workable progressive majority in this country."
This all, really, should be quite interesting.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Barack Obama photograph originally found here. Image by Reuters.]
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hosanna politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)