Obama’s nightmare with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been well documented in the press and by many of my fellow bloggers. Many are speculating that Wright’s comments have essentially sunk Obama’s bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. And that is very possible given the constant and continued coverage this issue is getting.
Add to the mix statements made by the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson promising demonstrations if Obama lost the nomination, and one wonders what is the real goal of these self-styled representatives of the Black community. For instance, here’s a quote from Sharpton on Bill O’Reilly:
Well, if he is denied the selection of the nominees by super delegates making backroom deals, not by the voters, well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket.
Given the history of some of the “demonstrations” that Sharpton has fostered, one begins to speculate (as others have) if these outbursts will rise to the level of that of the 1968 Chicago riots, or that of the Sean Bell shooting, or somewhere in between. Regardless, I think it is going to get ugly and uncomfortable for everyone.
But what has not been speculated on is this: Do the radicals (Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and now Wright) want Obama to get the Democratic nomination and perhaps the Presidency? We hear threats of demonstrations and speeches that link Obama to the racist views of Wright. Are they sabotaging Obama?
I’m starting to suspect that the answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”. Now before everyone thinks that I’ve gone off my rocker, bear with me.
Should Obama get elected to the Presidency, then the arguments of the radicals that their represented groups need more help with becoming more “equal” with the rest of mainstream America starts to fall flat. After all, 40-years of struggle has resulted in one of “their” group becoming elected to the highest office in the land. So now the argument that they are still victims of discrimination and unfair practices loses some of its sting. Then the reason for these respective people’s existence as advocates is diminished.
What I see happening now is the setting back of Civil Rights. I see more polarization, more “us vs. them” than ever before. The problem is that the more these people are given a forum to spout their message, the more damage they will do to their stated “cause,” which is to bring people together. And they are having the exact opposite effect.
Perhaps they should read my post from January 2006 and think about this statement I made about Martin Luther King:
His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.