Gitlin

by tristero

As mentioned in my previous post, I often disagree with Todd Gitlin. And I disagree with this post of his. Sort of::

Obama has to say full-out where he disagrees with Wright. He has to say so full-throatedly. It’s not enough to say he’s “wrong and divisive.” He has to divide himself–from Wright.

Of course, Obama should continue to explain his positions on the history of race and American history. Of course, Obama should also discuss in further detail his positions on present day issues of race in this country.

So should all the candidates.

But I have no idea what Gitlin means when he says that Obama should “divide himself” from Wright. Been there, done that. The last I checked, they were different people and both had made a very careful point of saying they often disagreed. In fact, in the link to Wright’s q&a that Gitlin gives, Wright even makes it clear that if Obama becomes president, he’s going to go after him! I didn’t think for a moment he was joking; I think he meant it.

Regarding Wright, Obama said what needed to be said in his Philly speech. Obama dissociated himself from Wright’s wacky ideas. saying he was like an “old uncle” if I remember correctly. Will Gitlin now call on McCain to pledge never to take Pat Robertson’s phone calls if he is elected president? Or James Dobson? All these men have acted at least as, if not far more, clownishly. I recall seeing Robertson blame 9/11 on the gays, and nuking Chavez, fercrisssakes.

Anyway, the real issue is how the candidates differ. And far more importantly, how do they envision a federal role in addressing the complexities of the racial issues in the United States? And not only race: what about gender issues, including abortion, an issue that I, at least, perceive as inseparable from the politics of race and class? What about economics? And perhaps most importantly, what about this godawful, immoral war that has created so much harm, not just death and mutilation, not just property damage, but is also wrapped up in Bush’s disgraceful violations of the Constitution?

Enough.