2 May 2015

Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Theology and the 2008 Presidential Elections

The Democratic primaries of the 2008 presidential elections will forever standout in

American history for its unique candidates and the baggage each carried into the race.

The most noteworthy candidate at the beginning, Hilary Clinton, is a well- respected

former first lady who survived a White House infidelity scandal. However, by the

primaries’ conclusion, Clinton lost her prominence to Barack Obama- a young Hawaiian,

Chicago senator of mixed descent. Obama’s popularity was suddenly disrupted by reports

accusing his spiritual leader, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of being an “unpatriotic”

African American preacher. Personally, I viewed these accusations as an exaggeration.

As a seventh grader enrolled in an African American Episcopal middle school, it was

easy for me to respect the element of truth in his remarks. However, this was not the case

in white America. In this work, I will explore how Wright’s “Malcolm X-esque” rhetoric

provides insight into black liberation theology and cite historical events in the African

American experience that highlight the inspiration behind this spiritual perspective.

On March 13, 2008, ABC News completely shook up the race for the US presidency

with a news release titled “Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11.”

Prior to the article’s release, reporters reviewed dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons and

“found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of

the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans” (Ross). For example, on September

16, 2001, Wright criticized America, stating "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed

Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and

we never batted an eye” (Ross). Given this observation, Wright alleges that America is

1

quite hypocritical in its application of violence. “If violence is wrong in America,

violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black

children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and

make us violent abroad in defense of her.” For this reason, Wright sees a different

America: “I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.”

In assessing the 9/11 attacks, Wright echoes the words of Malcolm X stating: " now

we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to

our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost” (ABC News). Many

decades ago, Malcolm X used this “chickens” phrase to explain John F. Kennedy’s

assassination and received a host of backlash. The United States, according to Malcolm,

was “guilty of having oppressed and exploited and enslaved” people in America and

abroad and for that reason, “should and will be the victims of God's divine wrath” (Ellis

98). Offering a response, to those who advocated calmer approaches to enacting change,

Malcolm stated, “It's hard for anyone intelligent to be nonviolent. Everything in the

universe does something when you start playing with his life, except the American

Negro. He lays down and says, "Beat me, daddy" (Gist 253).

Thus Malcolm committed to using his voice as a preacher as a retaliatory weapon.

Consequently, his expressive and unapologetically straightforward statements about his

disapproval of American injustices earned him the title of a “preacher of hate and

violence” in the media (Cone 181). Similarly, after footage of his sermons released,

Wright received a host of press coverage, with many reports labeling him “hateful”,

“angry”, and “unpatriotic.” In one week, New York Times reported that “Mr. Wright

dominated 42 percent of political stories last week, from April 28 to May 4” and that

2

“The dominance of Mr. Wright swelled the overall coverage of Mr. Obama…to 69

percent of all political stories” (Seelye).

For whites, the footage sparked a number of questions about Obama’s character:

“Was he really the likable, race-neutral orator many admired, or did his spiritual life

reflect another less inclusive set of beliefs?” (McKenzie 946). “The video excerpts were

particularly problematic for Obama because they might have lead whites to question the

integrity of the senator’s promises to bring groups together” (McKenzie 946). Moreover,

Wright’s remarks, such as “The US is a country and a culture that is controlled by and

run by rich white people” and where “ black men are primary targets”, made white voters

extremely uneasy (McKenzie 946). One report, by Fox News suggested that Obama’s

favorability ratings” had slipped by 7-10 percentage points since the Wright reporting

began (April 2008 Fox News Poll Report) (McKenzie 948). Meanwhile, an April Zogby

poll of Indiana residents before their primary showed “that 21% of registered Democrats

stated they were less likely to support Obama because of Wright's comments” (McKenzie

948). However, it is important to note that these polls included a small sample of African

Americans. What can be concluded however, is that the Wright association, somehow

hurt Obama’s "postracial" image, “aroused whites' anxieties, and led to less positive

evaluations of the candidate.” All this coverage, Politico reports, led GOP strategists

believe “they’ve finally found an antidote to Obamamania”(Martin). Hilary Clinton

further severed the distance between Democratic voters and Obama with the following

remark: “I think given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor"

(Mooney).

3

Clinton’s remarks are indicative of two things: 1) an inability of members outside the

African-American community to accept some of the truth behind Wright’s words and 2) a

failure to understand the tradition of black liberation theology. For those guilty of the first

point, Malcolm X once addressed a key factor in this inability: “You're not to be so blind

with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says

it (Kuntz 94). Yet, in response to his critics, Wright reveals that the bulk of the criticism

he received stemmed from patriotism. He alleges, ''I think they wanted to communicate

that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American… that I am filled with hate speech, that I

have a cult at Trinity United Church of Christ” (Bosman). He continues, ‘‘it's to paint me

as something: 'Something's wrong with me. There's nothing wrong with this country ...

for its policies. We're perfect. Our hands are free. Our hands have no blood on them,'”

(Bosman).

To Wright’s point, there is plenty of blood leaking and a look at African-American

communities will provide all the necessary insight. It is more than apparent now in

Baltimore, where media coverage has focused on riots after Freddie Gray’s death instead

of shifting attention to the ways the American government has failed Baltimore’s

citizens. I have little doubt that residents of Baltimore would co-sign the following

statement by Malcolm X: “The same government that you go abroad to fight for and die

for is the government that is in a conspiracy to deprive you of your voting rights, deprive

you of your economic opportunities, deprive you of decent housing, deprive you of

decent education” (Harris 298). This reality is expressed in The New York Times’ Op-Ed

titled “Black Culture Is Not the Problem.” Author N. D. B. Connolly, states the problem

in struggling inner cities “is not black culture. It is policy and politics, the very things that

4

bind together the history of Ferguson and Baltimore and, for that matter, the rest of

America” (Connolly). She adds, “on the heels of any ghetto economy based on extraction

comes the excessive policing necessary to keep everyone in place. Cities that are starved

for income have found ways to raise revenues by way of fines and fees exacted from

poor, underemployed African-Americans and migrants of color. These include property

taxes and court costs” (Connolly).

Wright believes the intense patriotism expressed by many American citizens blinds

them from observing the historical and lasting blows dealt to African American

communities. It is this frustration with America, that leads Wright to proclaim, “God

damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme” (Ross).”

Preceding this statement, is another valid critique: “The government gives them [blacks]

the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God

Bless America” (Ross). While Baltimore provides an understanding of a modern case

study, Reagan’s “War on Drugs” in the 1980s exemplifies the roots of Wright’s

frustration and the aforementioned critique.

In her work “The New Jim Crow”, Michelle Alexander traces the roots of the “War

on Drugs” to Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign, a time when “conservatives…

succeeded in using law and order rhetoric in their effort to mobilize the resentment of

white working-class voters, many of whom felt threatened by the sudden progress of

African Americans” (Alexander 46). Ronald Reagan, the next successful Republican

presidential candidate, “mastered the excision of the language of race from conservative

public discourse’” by including implicit racial appeals in dialogues and letting the

administration’s actions carryout their agenda. At the start of his presidency, Reagan

5

exploited “racial hostility or resentment” among conservatives for political gain by

having The Justice Department announce “its intention to cut in half the number of

specialists assigned to identify and prosecute white–collar criminals and to shift its

attention to street crime especially drug-law enforcements” (Alexander 49). This street

crime was to be found in African-American communities.

Thus the War on Drugs began on October 1982, despite the fact that “less than 2

percent of the American public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the

nation” and “surveys conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse showed

significant drops in drug usage” (Alexander 49). For example, “percentages of

respondents 18 to 25 years of age” showed “marijuana use during the preceding year

dropped by approximately 15% between 1979 and 1982, and continued to decline sharply

throughout the decade of the 80s. Reported use of cocaine by the same age group also

dropped by approximately 15% between 1979 and 1982, and continued to decline

throughout the decade” (Alexander 49).

Despite these trends, antidrug expenditures skyrocketed. FBI antidrug funding grew

tenfold between 1980 and 1984, topping off at $95 million from $8 million (Alexander

49). “Department of Defense antidrug allocations increased from $33 million in 1981 to

$1,042 million in 1991. During that same period, the DEA’s (Drug Enforcement

Administration) antidrug spending grew from $86 to $1,026 million, and FBI antidrug

allocations grew from $38 to $181 million” (Alexander 49). This budget increase was

accompanied by a decrease in spending for agencies involving drug treatment,

prevention, and education. “The budget of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, for

example, was reduced from $274 million to $57 million form 1981 to 1984, and antidrug

6

funds allocated to the Department of Education were cut from $14 million to $3 million”

(Alexander 50).

While these respective funding changes took place, David M. Kennedy, director of

the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice

reports, “crack blew through America’s poor black neighborhoods like the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse” disrupting social life (Alexander 51). An estimated 150

tons of cocaine had entered the United States by the mid-1980s (Gitlin 33). In 1985, The

Associated Press traced the roots of the crack influx to “Nicaraguan rebels operating in

northern Costa Rica” who “have engaged in cocaine trafficking, in part to help finance

their war against Nicaragua's leftist government” (Barger).

However, in 1996, The San Jose Mercury News also revealed that the US played a

role in this trafficking. Writer Gary Webb revealed, “For the better part of a decade, a

San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street

gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla

army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency" (Grim). Furthermore, the profits were

used “to buy a $250,000 arms shipment and a helicopter, according to a U.S. government

official in Washington” (Barger). This discovery supplements an investigational report by

Senator John Kerry in 1986 ,which charged a former Senate aide “as an intermediary

between the contras and Lieut. Col. Oliver North, a member of the National Security

Council staff” (Engelberg). Despite initial denials, the CIA admitted in 1998 that

“guerilla armies it actively supported in Nicaragua were smuggling illegal drugs into the

United States” and stated the CIA “blocked law enforcement efforts to investigate illegal

drug networks that were helping to fund its covert war in Nicaragua” (Alexander 6).

7

The catastrophic aftermath of these federal efforts serves as the backbone of Jeremiah

Wright’s criticism that “The government gives them [blacks] the drugs, builds bigger

prisons.” Given the lack of economic opportunity in black inner cities, where the

employment of blacks stood at 28 percent, the CIA’s introduction of crack cocaine

provided a means of quick income for residents but later became extremely detrimental,

especially given Reagan’s “War on Drugs.” “Blacks constituted more than 80% of the

people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time

in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite the fact that more than 2/3 of crack

cocaine users in the U.S.” were white or Hispanic (NAACP). As a result, “In less than

thirty years, the US prison population exploded from around 300,000 to more than 2

million, with drug convictions accounting for the majority of the increase” in incarcerated

citizens (Alexander 6). Today, the War on Drugs has caused the United States to now

have a larger percentage of incarcerated blacks than South Africa did at the height of the

apartheid (Alexander 7).

Considering this example with the history of slavery, and the recent deaths of

unarmed black men, it is evident that Wright’s remarks can be described more accurately

as a passionate condemnation of domestic and foreign injustices. That has long been the

tradition of churches that preach black liberation theology. Obama said it best, “What

Wright was saying is not considered in any way exceptional in the African-American

community…And what you were seeing in Reverend Wright’s statements…showed an

anger and bitterness…that may be more acceptable in some circles in the African-

American community but is never acceptable in mainstream America” (McKenzie). A

8

congregation member of Wright’s church echoes these sentiments: "I wouldn't call it

radical,” “I call it being black in America” (Ross).

Here, I return to Hilary Clinton’s remark: “I think given all we have heard and seen,

he would not have been my pastor" (Mooney). The second indication that can be deduced

from her comments is an inability to understand/relate to the tradition of black liberation

theology. Black familiarity with black religious life truly impacted their views on the

Wright controversy. In one survey, “The majority of Black respondents (51%) were not

at all concerned by the pastor's comments, and 15% stated the sermons did not disturb

them that much. This more composed response likely results from the group's familiarity

with Black religious life” (Mckenzie 954). But for White America, not having an insight

into black liberation theology certainly sparked confusion about Wright’s intentions.

Black liberation theology (BLT), which was established in 1960, “provides messages

of social justice, emphasizes connections between religion and politics, challenges the

marginalized status of African Americans, and interrogates the political system to

improve it” (McKenzie 950). Drawing inspiration from both Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

and Malcolm X, this theology ‘sees God as concerned with the poor and the weak. It’s

not just for black people in the narrow sense of that term…it focuses on the concerns of

blacks who are living and voiceless in this society” (Gross). As a voiceless demographic,

African American ministers historically have challenged their congregations to oppose

white racism with “every ounce of humanity” (Hannity). Every sermon thus is aimed at

conveying the following message “God is taking sides with those who are voiceless and

weak” and he is empowering them “to know they were not made for slavery, not made

for exploitation, but were made for freedom like everybody else in the world” (NPR).

9

Another unique aspect of BLT is the delivery method and style used by preachers. It

is designed to grab “the audience's attention, convey the importance of the topic being

discussed, and demonstrate the minister's commitment to social concerns” (McKenzie

950). This commitment leads to clerical participation in various causes “including faith-

based initiatives, civil rights issues, crime prevention efforts, and voter registration

drives” (McKenize 950). Furthermore, it is for this reason, ministers “are often viewed as

community leaders among Blacks” and tie social commentary into their sermons

(McKenzie 950). A 2008, NPR Interview, with James Cone, the founder of black

liberation theology states his ultimate goal was “to bring Martin and Malcolm together so

we can fight for justice as Martin King said but love ourselves as Malcolm X says”

(Gross).

Cone’s remarks reveal that what has been labeled “unpatriotic” and “angry” speech is

really a form of religious expression. Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a quintessential black

liberation theologian and thus his comments, “about U.S policies and racial inequality are

consistent with theological frameworks that critique society in order to improve”

(McKenzie 950). Though some citizens’ patriotism and love for country blinds them

from acknowledging America’s wrongdoings, black liberation theologians never fail to

stay critical of society so that church members both know their worth and ability to

change unfavorable status quo. Thus despite criticisms of Wright’s rhetoric as “hateful”

and “anti-patriotic”, an observation of the African-American experience (present and

past) reveals that there is more to his message than controversy.

10

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of

Colorblindness. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Bosman, Julie. "THE CAUCUS; Pastor Defends Himself." THE CAUCUS. The New

York Times, 25 Apr. 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Cone, James H. Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-

1998. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1999. Print.

Ellis, Carl F. Free at Last?: The Gospel in the African-American Experience. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996. Print.

Engelberg, Stephen. "REPORT LINKS EX-SENATE AIDE TO CONTRAS." The New

York Times. The New York Times, 15 Oct. 1986. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Gitlin, Marty. The Baby Boomer Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2011.

Print.

Grim, Ryan. "Ron Paul Had Accurate Conspiracy Theory: CIA Was Tied To Drug

Traffickers." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 02 May

2015.

Gist, Brenda. Eloquently Speaking. [S.l.]: Xlibris, 2011. Print.

Hannity, Sean. "The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation

Theology Doctrine." Fox News. FOX News Network, 05 May 2008. Web. 01

May 2015.

Harris, Richard A., and Daniel J. Tichenor. A History of the U.S. Political System: Ideas,

Interests, and Institutions. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Print.

11

"Http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116." Interview by

Terry Gross. NPR. 31 Mar. 2008. Radio.

Kundtz, David. Awakened Mind: One-minute Wake up Calls to a Bold and Mindful Life.

San Francisco, CA: Conari, 2009. Print.

Martin, Jonathan. "2010 Complete Election Coverage: GOP Sees Rev. Wright as Path to

Victory." GOP Sees Rev. Wright as Path to Victory. Politico, 19 Mar. 2008. Web.

30 Apr. 2015.

Mooney, Alex. "Clinton: Wright Would Not Have Been My Pastor." CNN. Cable News

Network, 25 Mar. 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

"Criminal Justice Fact Sheet." NAACP. National Association for the Advancement of

Colored People, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014

Ross, Brian, and Rehab El-Buri. "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame f

or 9/11." ABC News. ABC News Network, 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Seelye, Katharyne. "Wright Dominated News Coverage." The Caucus Wright Dominated

News Coverage Comments. The New York Times, 06 May 2008. Web. 30 Apr.

2015.

12