The Audacity of Hypocrisy

Enough already. I can hardly stand to read the relentless insipid back and forth about Barak Obama’s recent speech on race. Somebody writes a clever bit of cliched rhetoric for him and the Right can’t quit hosing it while at the same time the Left can’t quit drooling over it. What a slippery mess. I keep waiting for some one, somewhere, PLEASE, to point out the giant pimple on Barak Obama’s rhetorical nose. But no one seems to get it. No one seems to want to say what the real problem is with “The Speech.”

I won’t quote any of the wonderful sound bites he uses. It’s tough to argue against that kind of pablum. Race is bad. Americans are good. And who in their right minds would criticize cute little Ashley and the Martin Luther King references? One sentence (and a bit of a run on sentence at that) provides all the basis we need for analysis of Mr. Obama’s breathtaking moment of historical pandering. In reference to remarks critical of the United States made by his pastor (which, by the way, were accurate assessments of historical fact) Obama says, “They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

Right. First of all, who actually believes that white racism is not “endemic” in this country? And who doesn’t get it that most of what is “right with America” is in fact little more than a series of flowery myths which obscure our deep-seated narcissism and rampant history of imperialist war mongering? But the most “audacious” hypocrisy in the entire speech is the implication that the conflicts in the Middle East emanate from “the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical islam.” Of course, European and Western colonialism and imperialism have no bearing on the discussion and our stalwart ally, Israel, has nothing to do with the situation. Radical islam just popped up out of the fertile sands of the cradle of civilization with no provocation or rational historical context.

Praising Israel in a speech about racism is like praising the history of White South Africa in a speech about civil rights. Has the fact that Israel is a Zionist state completely escaped the minds of all the Obamakins?

For a brief update: Zionism is the political ideology which promotes the exclusivity of Jews in Israel over any other racial, religious or ethnic group. Zionism, by definition, is racism. Israel, with the full support and funding of the United States, flagrantly violates international law and engages in the systematic ethnic cleansing and oppression of the Palestinian people as well as in the establishment of an apartheid system, not just in the West Bank and Gaza, but in Israel proper. The illegal colonization of Palestinian lands is an international crime and a model of institutionalized racism which is without equal any where in the world in that it is so widely ignored and even encouraged by the majority of so-called civilized nations. More importantly, what is largely forgotten in the little discussion there is of illegal settlement activities being practiced by Israel, is that the settlements themselves are racially exclusive. Jews only need apply. Palestinians aren’t even allowed to drive on the same roads as the Israelis in the Palestinians’ own territory. I wonder how Mr. Obama would respond if Canada decided to build huge whites-only cities in U.S. territory. I wonder if he would be willing to refrain from driving on a series of Canadians-only roads connecting those illegal colonies. It would only be a security precaution, after all, and Canada is such a stalwart ally or ours.

So-called liberals should examine their consciences before they bow down at the alter of Obamakinism. He has a lot of wonderful, albeit vapid things to say on the subject of race. Indeed, he has a unique platform and perspective from which to address this and other issues. Unfortunately, he is too busy selling out to the Israel lobby and a vast array of corporate interests to actually rise to the occasion in any substantive fashion.

On the surface Barak Obama may constitute one of the more palatable lesser of two evils we have been offered in quite some time. But he is still only the lesser of two evils. He offers us nothing more than a continuation of the United States’ corporate militarism and imperialist policies as well as the unquestioning support of a racist regime in Israel. For the last 60 years (at least) we have “lesser-of-two-evilled” ourselves into the position we are currently in on this planet. If we want actual “change” in our country and the world, we must move toward a true social revolution and not accept more of the same sound-bite political rhetoric. No matter what color the candidate may be on the outside, and no matter how inspiring his speeches and slogans may be, it is an honest examination of what is in his head, his heart and his bank account (and who put it there) that matters.

Obama represents the same old wine in a brand new bottle. And the bottle is too opaque to see into, even if “progressives” were willing to take off their rose colored glasses long enough to have a look inside. To quote one more line from Obama’s speech: “But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.” I couldn’t agree more. Too bad Obama doesn’t have the courage to include Israel’s state-sponsored bigotry against the Palestinian people in his definition of racism.

Joe Mowrey is an anti-war activist and an advocate for Palestinian rights. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico with his spouse and their three radical canines as well as the fifteen-year old anarchist cat, Mackabee who now has an antithetical feline roommate, Misha, the Velvet Fog. He can be reached at: joe@palestinetruthcoalition.com. Read other articles by Joe.

25 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Michael Hureaux said on March 26th, 2008 at 6:48am #

    Some years ago, I worked with a black writer’s group that found itself divided over the question of whether Professor Leonard Jeffries was steeped in anti-semitic philosophy, and he was, but it mattered little to many of our members. What mattered to them was that a black academic was catching hell, and that was the end of the story for many of us. The actual statements of Professor Jeffries mattered not at all.

    Fast forward to the present day, and some of these same people are supporting Barack Obama. When I mention his support of Zionism, they go deaf.

    I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that the Obama farce can rely on a pretty substantial base of people- black folks, latino, whoever- who really don’t want to think about or act on any question in any depth. It puts me in mind of nothing so much as an old Black arts revival play rom the ’60s called “We Righteous Bombers”, in which a completely disenfranchised black people in a futuristic United States find themselves at war with a ruling class that is led by a politician much like Barack. I don’t remember the author’s name- but I find myself thinking about that play a lot these days.

  2. Michael Hureaux said on March 26th, 2008 at 6:52am #

    That playwright’s name was Ed Bullins, and he wrote under the name Kingsley H. Bass when he presented the work I spoke of earlier.

  3. Maggie said on March 26th, 2008 at 8:09am #

    Thank you, Joe Mowrey. The speech was offensive for just the reasons you outline and to hear the likes of Amy Goodman and countless others praising it blindly on the radio is disgusting. I’m really sick of independent media at this point and wouldn’t shed a tear if Pacifica was taken off the airwaves. They have lost their minds and hearts to Obama and are quite happy to lie non-stop to get him into office. So much for independence.

  4. Citizen Politician said on March 26th, 2008 at 8:50am #

    Excellent piece, thank you, someone has to speak “truth to power”. I would also like to recommend Tim Wise recent piece on the Obama Speech: “Uh-Obama: Racism, White Voters and the Myth of Color-Blindness”
    http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Obama.html

    “In short, the success of Barack Obama has proven, perhaps more so than any other single thing could, just how powerful race remains in America. His success, far from disproving white power and privilege, confirms it with a vengeance.”-Tim Wise

  5. hp said on March 26th, 2008 at 9:29am #

    “If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.”
    Orson Scott Card

  6. Jerry D. Rose said on March 26th, 2008 at 9:34am #

    Like Jeremiah Wright, Joe Mowrey speaks “the truth.” He may be right when he describes Obama as the “lesser of two evils” between (presumably) either Clinton or McCain, but it’s hard to quantify this when his candidacy is based on the “hypocrisy” of appealing to the racial pride of blacks in supporting one of “their own” for President, while taking the cheap shot of condoning our “staunch ally,” Israel who, as Mowery says, is as racist as they come. As some have said, this cynical maneuver was designed to “clear” himself of sympathy with black extremists to assuage the fears of white voters, leaving it to “identity politics” to assure himself that blacks would vote for him “no matter what” because he is (sort of) black. To give equal time to Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy, we might note that she as well practices identity politics, using the proclivity of women to support one of their own and perhaps the sense of many women and men that a “softer” or feminist approach to governing is preferable to the overly macho male leaders we have had. With the women’s vote “in her pocket” she can proceed to show that she has as many or more balls as the guys, that she will be “though,” meaning that she won’t stand up the military establishment nor to the imperialist aspirations of the country. Frankly I don’t know which of these evils is “eviler,” but as a 50-year always-Democratic voter, I won’t cast my vote for either of them (or for Mr. Evil himself, McCain) in November.

    Oh, by the way, if you didn’t hear, they cancelled Wright’s scheduled appearance yesterday in Tampa, as his sponsors said the local police wouldn’t provide adequate security for the event. Obama’s “soft” denunciation of his pastor has apparently piled on top of the harder brand of red neck indignation at the preacher’s “excesses.”

  7. A Reader said on March 26th, 2008 at 9:44am #

    What an excellent post! Well done Joe! I enjoyed every line of it.

  8. El Oaxuco said on March 26th, 2008 at 9:47am #

    Thank you for this much needed piece. I agree with your assessment. However, I do think that his speech has merits, aside from the very problematic segment you quoted. It was a speech that delved into some of the nuances of race and it felt like a breath of fresh air compared to so many political speeches that tend to over-simplifiy or dumb-down the discussion for general consumption.

  9. Kay said on March 26th, 2008 at 12:26pm #

    I agree with El Oaxuco regarding the speech. I was inspired by it, I thought it was the most honest piece I have ever heard Obama, or any other politician of my time, speak.
    Having said that, there is still the issue of coddling Israel and it’s racist, murderous policies and his blindness (selective?) regarding the “boogeyman” stigma of the Islamic Extremists.
    And then, ofcourse, there’s that minor (NOT!) issue about adding 100,000 more or so to our military….if you ask me, it just stinks of New World Order….sorry Obama. Same wine alright…

  10. rosemarie jackowski said on March 26th, 2008 at 12:28pm #

    Too bad Obama did not support his pastor. If we were to rate speakers Rev. Wright would be at the top of the list. He’s got personality, passion, and the truth.

  11. dan e said on March 26th, 2008 at 5:30pm #

    hp nailed it! ROTFL:)

    Props, Joe: great job.

    Props likewise to Rev Wright for getting Question A put on the top of the Agenda where it belongs. Now how long before the presstitutes drop the subject & “move on”.

    Obama? hohum. As I may have said previous, Run Tom Run.

  12. opeluboy said on March 26th, 2008 at 5:31pm #

    I have to agree with Mowrey on the Israel/Palestine issue. As anyone knows who ever sees my handle on a response, I am a tireless campaigner against Zionism (not just online but in life as well, and it has cost me) and entirely pro-Palestinian (which is why I am now barred from posting on AlterNet). When Obama made this one comment, I winced.

    However, I utterly reject the notion that this speech was “pablum” and that it was written by someone else. I still believe it was one of the great speeches of our time and reveals a remarkable man. For an interesting look at the speech, see George Lakoff’s article here: http://www.alternet.org/election08/80549/

    I think we all know why Obama must make nice to AIPAC and American Jews. If he does not, his candidacy is over, as well as his Senate career. That is what should be pissing people off here at Dissident Voice. Not that Obama played the game, but that if he does not, he is finished. That we have a unabashedly pro-Zionist media in this country, owned by Zionists whose allegiance is not to America, but a criminal state on the other side of the world, should get all Americans active. To castigate Obama for being unwilling to commit political and career suicide to prove this is unfair.

    Please remember that right now there are still people that believe he is a crypto-Muslim and an anti-Semite and that that smear will be used should he win the nomination. He has virtually no choice but to back Israel if he wants to stay in the race. you know this and so do I.

    Sure, it would be great if he could continue to state that no one is suffering like the Palestinians. As I listened to his speech, I was intensely aware that everything he said about black anger could apply to those people as well. Being a brilliant man, I am sure this fact does not escape him either.

    As much as his Israel ass-kissing infuriates, disappoints and saddens me, I will still vote for him. He is the lowest ranked candidate, according to a Ha’aretz poll, as being favorable to Israel. That is worth something.

    And yes, I would prefer McKinney or Nader or both of them together. I supported Kucinich for both runs, and have helped out in his congressional race. But Obama gives us a chance to change our face to the world. He has a real chance of being president, unlike McKinney or Nader or Kucinich.

    And if you are anti-Zionist (as opposed to anti-Jew) like me, the thought of Hillary Clinton in the White House is unacceptable, not to mention McCain, both of which topped Ha’aretz’s poll.

    Obama is the Palestinian’ best and only real hope. I am not going to deny them that to make a point or an impotent protest vote.

  13. Ray Ralph said on March 26th, 2008 at 6:52pm #

    opeluboy, I congratulate you on being banned from posting on AlterNet. I’m surprised you could even read AlterNet. It is “liberal” as oppposed to “radical” and its main objective at all times seems to be to support the Democratic Party establishment. I used to read AlterNet and post there but I soon found it tiresome and a waste of my time. Any time I offered any criticism of the Democratic Party (never mind that my criticism came from a “left” perspective) a multitude of strident “liberal” voices shreiked that I was a right-wing, Republican troll (so predictably simplistic is the thinking of many of the AlterNet regulars). Any mention that I was a Green Party member who had voted for Nader in 2000 brought an even stronger negative reaction. The AlterNet “Liberals” hate Nader even more than they hate Bush. I wish I could say that I had the honor (I would consider it such) of having been banned from AlterNet. Instead, I just got tired of reading trash and quit going there. I congratulate you again, opeluboy, on having been banned. I would undoubtedly have enjoyed reading the post that got you banned.

  14. Deadbeat said on March 26th, 2008 at 8:17pm #

    I think we all know why Obama must make nice to AIPAC and American Jews. If he does not, his candidacy is over, as well as his Senate career. That is what should be pissing people off here at Dissident Voice. Not that Obama played the game, but that if he does not, he is finished. That we have a unabashedly pro-Zionist media in this country, owned by Zionists whose allegiance is not to America, but a criminal state on the other side of the world, should get all Americans active. To castigate Obama for being unwilling to commit political and career suicide to prove this is unfair.

    I agree with this observation. No politician can survive in Washington without catering to AIPAC. However there are many on the left who find it easy to castigate a single pol rather then the entire power of Zionism within the United States.

    The left’s failure to challenge Zionism is why you don’t see any politicians taking it on.

  15. Mike McNiven said on March 27th, 2008 at 12:34am #

    Thank you Joe Mowrey for your principled writing showing that racists come in a variety of colors! Those who say that BHO had/has to kiss AIPAC’s butt are revealing something dangerous about themselves, which is that they would do the same thing for a good reward! Palestinian problems would not go away until the US voters/tax payers confess to their collective guilt of complicity! The French people ended the Algerian occupation when they agreed that they were guilty of supporting/financing their government’s racist policies! Apartheid in South Africa ended when the Western imperialists felt guilty enough to withdraw support! Obama got to Harvard when the whites here felt guilty enough to allow color blind admission practices,… BHO owes it to the progressives of this country to fight zionism and imperialism, or resign! To say that imperialist BHO is the best thing that could happen to the Palesinians, is racist! (first do no harm!)

  16. Jerry D. Rose said on March 27th, 2008 at 2:32am #

    Response to last two posts (from another Kucinich dead-ender): Don’t you realize that you (and from what I’ve heard, Kucinich) are “enabling” the very Zionist power you are castigating by letting the “one pol” (Obama) off the hook because he “has to” pander to that power in order to win an election and presumably to do all the wonderful progressive stuff that his wonderful rhetoric promises? That’s the way the Z’s exercise that power: “one pol at a time,” and believe me they will do it from here to eternity until once or a few times, progressives stand up and say “not this time!”

  17. jaqwith said on March 27th, 2008 at 6:00am #

    What shall I say? I’m a Swiss citizen – a small, peaceful country, with a centuries old democratic tradition, in an old, almost forgotten Continent. To be honest – I hate that mode of language use. What the hell does he wants to say?

    Ashley brings the answer: If you feel oppressed, experience discrimination, get expelled from your job and med care. No need to worry – all you need is to eat your hot dogs without sausage in it, stay calm and eventually everything turns out fine.

    He made it perfectly clear to me that in his opinion the plebs should play by the rules, shut the f* up and let the big guys play their games. I admit that his style of delivering this message was by far superior than what I’m used to from his kind.

  18. Ryan said on March 27th, 2008 at 8:10am #

    “Obama is the Palestinian’ best and only real hope. I am not going to deny them that to make a point or an impotent protest vote.”
    That’s really pathetic. Ralph Nader, not Barack Obama, is the best hope for the Palestinian people. Quit pretending you’re voting for him for any other reason then you’ll vote for any Democrat in the world.
    Want to change the US face in the world? Vote Ralph Nader.

  19. ashley said on March 27th, 2008 at 8:56am #

    opeluboy: I also agree about the Zionist issue viz. Obama. The simple fact is that if he is pro-Palestinian rights etc. that he has absolutely no chance in US politics at any level. Although I was very skeptical of him at first, as I read more of his speeches and so on, along with listening recently to Wright’s ‘god damn america’ speech in full, I am increasingly inclined to favor his candidacy as being slightly better than simply the lesser of two evils and quite possibly a real step forward.

    Parallel point: anyone running for national office in the US is not going to be successful as an ideological purist, such as Nader whom I deeply respect and for whom I have voted. The system is totally corrupt, as Nader often points out. Barring outright revolution, the best that can be hoped for is someone savvy enough to do what it takes to get in and then effect as much paradigmatic change as possible. Obama has stated in no uncertain terms that he means to change the mindset behind flawed policies rather than getting caught up in endless policy wonking.

    That said, I found his comments about radical Islamic extremists etc. very disappointing. I also think he could have said a little more about Wright in terms of defending some of the underlying logics even if distancing himself from the emotive tone – which is part of the tradition behind the pulpit but is not appropriate for politicians.

    And THAT said, I find the airing of speeches from the pulpit as part of campaign propaganda – either as defense or attack – a very bad thing on many levels and the mainstream press should be severely criticized for having done so. But since they are a bogus societal organ…..

  20. Mike McNiven said on March 27th, 2008 at 2:19pm #

    Thank you Joe Mowrey for your principled writing showing that racists come in a variety of colors! Those who say that BHO had/has to kiss AIPAC’s butt are revealing something dangerous about themselves, which is that they would do the same thing for a good reward! Palestinian problems would not go away until the US voters/tax payers confess to their collective guilt of complicity! The French people ended the Algerian occupation when they agreed that they were guilty of supporting/financing their government’s racist policies! Apartheid in South Africa ended when the Western imperialists felt guilty enough to withdraw support! Obama got to Harvard when the whites here felt guilty enough to allow color blind admission practices,… BHO owes it to the progressives of this country to fight zionism and imperialism, or resign! To say that imperialist BHO is the best thing that could happen to the Palesinians, is racist! (first do no harm!)

  21. dan e said on March 27th, 2008 at 6:26pm #

    geeziz i dont belIEVE some these posteers! Swamis! Mindreaders! Detecters of nonexistent nuances! these guys are worse than “jazz critics”. Talk about slop suckers, jackal-seeking Rocky Mountain Canaries.
    Lissen, all differences in the public stances of the three mushkateers running for Head Stooge are differences in Packaging and Marketing only. Pre-election “promises” have zip to do with what a Candidate will do once in office.
    Got that? OK, on to lesson the second: one and one is two, two & two are four, and do NOT forget the VIG!

  22. opeluboy said on March 27th, 2008 at 6:27pm #

    Ryan said, in reference to my previous post:

    “That’s really pathetic. Ralph Nader, not Barack Obama, is the best hope for the Palestinian people. Quit pretending you’re voting for him for any other reason then you’ll vote for any Democrat in the world.
    Want to change the US face in the world? Vote Ralph Nader.”

    You are entirely missing my point. I would prefer Nader over all choices. But he has as much chance of becoming president as I do.

    And I will NOT vote for just any Democrat. If Clinton is the nominee, a person I beleive is truly evil, I WILL vote for Nader. If that helps install President McCain, and his likely sidekick Elmer Fuddstein, in the White House, too fucking bad. Maybe more pain is what we need to wake people up.

  23. hp said on March 27th, 2008 at 7:11pm #

    And more pain is what we’re gonna get.
    Real pain, not rich people pain.
    There’s another old saying, I’m not sure who said it but it sure seems likely we’ll all know what it really means soon. I already know..
    “Everybody gets the same amount of ice; the rich get it in the summer and the poor get it in the winter.”

  24. dan e said on March 28th, 2008 at 2:52pm #

    well hp you nailed it again. Dunno bout parts them posts higher up on this Fredd but that last is the bottom line. “Word, man!”, I’ll put that in my Bag for future use:)

    Except I can’t beleeve these guys like Mike McN & opraluby: yee gods, the Will To Believe! “Gimme sthn to Bleeve In! Bleeve in SOMEThing, even if it’s wrong!”.

  25. hp said on March 28th, 2008 at 6:24pm #

    dan e ,
    I tend to see discrepancies in the vein of rich and poor as opposed to black and white.
    For one thing, it is truly inclusive. What about all the other people? The hispanics, natives, asians, etc. Chopped liver?