


Wright's wrongs

Will no one rid the airwaves of this turbulent priest?

See article

Readers' comments


Jeremy M Barr

Fortunately I am not an American. Unfortunately the American President is the de facto leader of the world, and I get no say in electing him.
If I did have a say, I would shout “Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. for president!” He is a man who knows his country.
The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr has gotten a bum rap. Barack Obama originally (over) reacted to the media’s reporting, not to his actual words.
Barack Obama has lost the moral high ground by sacking the pastor for telling it like it is. Barack Obama is in denial of America’s faults and comes out as a jingoistic nationalist. Perhaps he should be running for the Republicans?


There were so many absurd things said by so many of you that I cannot possibly respond to all of them. However, I will say this:

1. Most, if not all, of Rev. Wright's comments were blatantly offensive regardless of any context.

2. As racially white and ethnically Hispanic, and even if I was Anglo-Saxon white, I and nobody in my family bear any responsibility for slavery or segregation. Pretending that today's society is responsible or should apologize is wrong, never going to happen, and will only cause further polarization.

3. The explosion of this story does not reflect racist undertones in the media nor does it indicate that white Americans are still racist. Wright is deservedly being called out for anti-American and racist comments. He simply should not have said these things not only because they are offensive but because they are absurd. It is pretty outrageous that the media and white Americans are being called out for their anger, when they are angry over racist comments said by Wright. Historical grievances do not give the African-American community or anybody in it, the right to exercise racism against whites, as Wright has clearly done.

4. You may or may not have sympathies or support Rev. Wright, Liberation Theology, or any other radical ideologies. Regardless, those radical theologies are completely divergent to American and more generalized Western values. If you are running for POTUS, you better damn well have the strongest sense of American values possible. By attending Wright's sermons for 20 years, having Wright as his spiritual advisor, being introduced to Christianity by Wright, etc., Obama is putting into doubt that he shares core American values. Hello people, he is running for POTUS.

5. You may argue that the US is a monster blah blah blah, but the reality is, as Reagan put it, that the US is the "shining city on the hill". Keep in mind that US influence is responsible for building the world order and institutions that have lifted hundreds of millions if not billions out of poverty across all continents. Just look at China. It was the US opening up to the country, pushing for their reforms, and massive investments in the country that have brought it to where it is today.

6. As it relates to Obama, nobody can conclusively say that Obama shares Wright's opinions. However, it does reveal some very important things in regards to Obama's response to the issue. First off, Obama disinvited Wright from his campaign launch event because Wright's sermons could get "rough". Obama, in his famous race speech asserted that he had never before heard Wright say anything like that in a sermon, that he must have been absent from them. Well apparently he knew enough to disinvite Wright for political expediency. Obviously, Obama lied.

7. Secondly, in his famous speech he asserted that Wright's comments had been taken out of context, that he couldn't disown Wright just like he couldn't disown his own grandmother for her inherently racist action of crossing the street to avoid walking past black men when she was alone. Aside from the fact that he threw his grandmother under the bus with this comment, it proved to be political posturing when he subsequently denounced Wright for essentially repeating the same exact thing he had said before.

8. What are the conclusions you can draw? Several. The first thing you must think about is that Obama lied or at least was disingenous about how much he knew about Wright's comments before this scandal erupted. The fact that he knew about Wright's ideology and stayed in the church shows a lack of judgment and possibly a significant and disturbing divergence from core American values. Obama's false start, ie refusing to condemn Wright and then condemning him for repeating the same thing reflects a very significant failure of leadership and lack of political courage. His political posturing (and Wright's own comments) reveal that Obama in fact is just another slimeball politician. The important thing to take away is that this puts serious doubts on Obama's character and his trustworthiness, not only in whether he will tell the truth, but also in whether he can be trusted to exercise good judgment, lead effectively through difficult times, and share the values with the majority of Americans.


The media and public figures like Wright are sensationalizing the race issue because it excites people and makes money. Younger generations of Americans might already be past racism if it weren't for those who have a vested interest in keeping it alive. The real problems to address are poverty and ignorance across all races. A better educated public will not be mesmerized by the spectre of racism and instead demand media reporting on policy, i.e., on how a candidate, if elected, will address the economy, war, the environment, freedom, etc. rather than his or her personal qualities and associations.


Thanks for your very sound and correct points kmaver. You are right, I think Wright is taking revenge on Obama by not only leaving him out of the campaign and "selling out" to whites, but he's using the spotlight to catapult himself to greater glory on Obama's black. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy try s to supplant Sharpton, Farakhan, or even run for president in future himself."Obama is a white-hating phony, saying whatever he can to get elected."How can he be a "white-hating" phony when he's half-white himself and seemingly very proud of it and his mother?


I do not know what Rev Wright said recently, because I haven't taken the time to listen to someone who won't change the issues that confront me as an American: the economu, the war in Iraq, increasing gasoline and food prices and no end in sight to the real estate problem. Why is what Rev Wright says so important? The tragedy here is that the MSM has blown this whole affair out of porportion. And of course no one in the media has ever had a realtionship with someone with questionable views or behavior, right?

thomas nager

America, with its love for its military, is far from Christian. Christ may be an influence, an inspiration. But it is self-evident that Americans don't have faith in his way.

Christ and his God gave no space for killing, even of evil political enemies.

We would invite the Economist to report this topic.

Mr. Wright's assertion that 'chickens coming home to roost' is a biblical notion, is a factually correct matter. The Bible does speak in such terms.

Brazil's President Lula was headed to the last Pope's funeral, and the press sought to corner him: "But Lula, do you consider yourself a good Catholic?" Lula said, "I don't know what a good Catholic is, but I know what a good human being is."

Will America ever be a country that moves past this dichotomy of wanting it's military while worshipping at the feet of a fully pacifist God? Will America ever be a country where it is enough to be President to be a good human being?

Perhaps the Economist could give some print to these matters. For even when Wright's generation fades, and the racial tone cools, the larger issue will persist.


Kmaver. I respecfully disagree with your statement that my comments are out of context, why? because here in the us is begining to happen what has happenned in other countries, as proof of this are the controversial statements, this statements are full of hate and treat the ones that doesn.t think as they do, as enemies, they the fight of classes(LUCHA DE CLASES) as weapon and as a goal, the people who belive in this, doesn't need the extreme poverty to act, what they want is power, then want to dominate 100% of the power in the society, they want to dictate you how to live, how to educated your children even what to wear. They weren't fullfilling the dictates of Vatican II, they used the loosening of the requirements to become a priestin the first in the place to to infiltrate the chuch in the early sixties, with marxists that apply for be ordered, and destroy the church from within
I'm not saying that everyone that was accepted was one of this people, but it took 25 years to John Paul II to clean the house, process that it still continues today. They used Vatican II for their own agenda. And today I'm seeing that again the church is been used by people to spread hate and marxims, this is the real context the permanent struggle between freedom and opression. Vatican II never prolaimed or dictated violence or revolution, like this people doMr Wright admires the sandinista guerrilla, a very violent group, and if admires the sandinistas he admires the FARC,the ELN of Colombia, the Tupamaros from Uruguay, monton eros from Argentina, MIR from Chile and most beloved of all of them Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. I agree with you that the execess from coming from any side are a bad thing for society, this point of view include the excesses that you state.Is true that capitalism brought problems to poor people, but nobody has brought more suffering like the guerrilla did and still does(Colombia). Other ones that has brought suffering to to them are nahib politicians, politicians with a lack of good judgement.
Finaly the problems that Mr Obama has shown a lack of judgement, or he has been lying, and in both cases that is dangerous not only to America is dangerous to the world


Rev Wright has helped expose Obama for the fraud that he is. He has said on multiple occasions that the Rev Wright that he heard was talking about hope & helping the poor and other typical Christian ideals. Now, when the Revrend's comments can't be dismissed as sound bites taken out of context, Obama denounces him. For all of those who think Obama doesn't believe this stuff, get a reality check. The church's website was full of white-hating, black liberation theology. Obama is a white-hating phony, saying whatever he can to get elected.


I think the author of this article had some insight in identifying two things about Reverend Wright: his liberal theology and his generational perspective. I am 42 and from the West Coast so I grew up in a world where blacks and whites intermingled without racial tension. The many black friends I have had seem much more like Barack Obama in their perspectives on race. Older blacks tend to be more reactionary in their views and not such good listeners. When one listens and respects others, they exercise grace in their speech.
With regards to his theological leanings, I find that some approaches to theology tend to use Scripture in ways that reinforce one's preconcieved notions ("How can God serve man's needs?", rather than, "How can man submit to God's will?") If Reverend Wright was led by the Holy Spirit, I would expect him to demonstrate a little more humility and at least admit when he says things that are opposed to biblical teaching and godly wisdom. Pride and ignorance are not characteristics of the men of God I admire and want to emulate.
Personally, I don't think Reverend Wright's rantings necessarily reflect Barack Obama's tendencies or leanings and this issue wouldn't keep me from voting for him. Other issues, however, might...


Lexington took his "sweetness and kindness" medication before writing about Rev Wright and Mr. Obama, and how important is their generational difference. The shiny smooth image projected by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson [with their infallible instinct for the TV camera]has not disappeared with the Obama generation. Let Lexingtonwalk at night through our nations capitol city if he wants a genuinelook at Obama, and later, black generations.Despite billions of dollars and affirmative action programs, we remain a divided society, where it is not "cool" for a young black man to work hard and excel in high school.Better yet, let Lexington listen to Doctor Bill Cosby for a true analysis of the young black condition in the USA.


After reading this article, I decided to watch the speech myself on YouTube. I have to say that I think the Economist might have misrepresented Rev Wright's comments and the event generally (it did not appear Rev Wright "surrounded" himself with Mr. Barry or Mr. West--they were simply members of the audience).His speech was annoyingly self-serving (actually, at one point he flexed his muscles during applause, he mocks the event's hostess, and throughout he refers to himself in the third person). Rev Wright goes on far too long to explain why his church is superior to the U.S. government in its service to society...and I don't know how many times I heard him talk about "the prophetic theology of the black church"...I will say that despite these minor failings, the speech actually brought up a lot of important, however trite, points that should be addressed regarding religion and race in America and America's imperialism abroad.That bit on blacks and whites learning differently, however odd (and perhaps racist, as the Economist claims), was in the context of talking about diversity. Differences between blacks and whites are simply differences, and one should not be considered better than the other. He certainly does not take to an assimilationist view--Rev Wright believes blacks and whites are different and their differences should be respected.Also, he did not say that he agrees with Farrakhan, he simply said that he is not his "enemy" and that he is a very influential man--"who else can draw one million people to the mall?"All in all, the most controversial rhetoric from this speech was not part of his prepared speech, but rather his responses to questions.One strange thing though: it seemed like someone in the audience was making faces at him, as he had a strange smile about him throughout the entire speech...but maybe he's just trying to appear excessively friendly after being known for DAMNING America!


1)The more academic term for "chickens coming home to roost" is "blow back." There are many Americans who see attacks on America as blow back - at least in part. 2)Farrakhan has been important (particularly to blacks) net necessarily positive but important. 3)We did have church in the morning and Klan Sheets at night. 4) We have many people who would agree that our government is capable of doing anything - look at our record. 5) Learning styles are not necessarily hard wired. (White, 72 year old, male)


Tigulio, I can address the issue of liberation theology. What your comments lack is context. Liberation theology originally draws from the experience of suffering, landless poor people in South and Central America, encouraging social justice and self determination. It also, by the way, draws directly from Vatican II and many of the "radical" priests who practiced liberation theology at the beginning were simply trying to fulfull the dictates of Vatican II. In liberation theology, marxism is used as a critique of the excesses of capitalism. That absolutely cannot be denied. However, given the deplorable situation of the impoverished in Central and South America brought on by capitalism, I'd say the excesses of capitalism could use a little critique, wouldn't you? Here's what I see as the problem: When I was in seminary during the Reagan years, I found a poster on the seminary wall that said "Our enemy is in the White House!" The problem was that there was no footnote, no acknowledgement that the "enemy" might also be within ourselves. Lack of measured, humble, reasoned reflection is the source of so many ills, including both knee-jerk conservatism AND knee-jerk liberalism.


Daniel wrote:May 01, 2008 15:43Why does The Economist continually call Rev Wright a priest? It's not a big deal, but why not call him pastor(former pastor), preacher or even minister? Priest in America is usually reserved for the Catholic faith. Just wondering.Daniel, Reference to King Henry II and his disagreements with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury - "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?".This of course led to 4 of his knights killing Thomas Becket, something I don't think the Economist is quite advocating! ;)


The problem with Jeremiah Wright is that his Liberation Theology or theory, is based according to him in 1960 LIBERATION theology, born in South America, he said that on March 07, in an interview, he also critsized Oliver North for the help he gave the contras in Nicaragua against the sandinista guerrilla, last Monday and that theology is the theology of the south amerecan Marxist priests like, Leonardo Boff from Brazil, Ernesto Cardenal from Nicaragua, Elmo Catalan, from Colombia Etc, al people of marxist orientation, what is more dangerous they are all linked the south american guerrillas,,Leonardo Boff was ousted from the catholic chuch by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger today Benedict XVI, Ernest Cardenal was reonvened in public and in front the tv cameras in the Managua International Airport in 1983 when John Paul visited Nicaragua. Elmo Catalan was killed fighting against the colombian army in the colombian jungle. What this means is that Mr Wright has a marxist agenda, and he has been Mr Obama's mentor, pastor, uncle, spiritual guide for 20 years, Mr wright has been the most influential figure in in Mr Obama's life, this according to Mr Obama himself only know Mr. Obama realices that Mr Wright is an extremist? Only now after 20 years, after saying Mr wright was the inspiration for his book about hope? He now want us to believe that he has not any Mr wright's simpaties with the guerrilla or his hate for America? Sorry but I don't buy that Mr Obama thought that he could get away with out, denouncing him. He is doing this for political gain only.Mr Wright support for the sandinistas, in last Monday speech and his declaration that his theological believes are based in the TEOLOGIA de la LIBERACION< proclaimed by the South American Guerrilla of the end of thne sixties, is what concerns me the most, it is posible that the american people will awake on January 22, 2009 and will have reckon that the novell THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE has become true.There ia say in Latin America "Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres" meaning "Tell me with whom you are and I will tell you who you are".


Obama represents a strange mix to most blacks and whites. He represents the ultimate paradox to the racially minded-is he a black man with a white mans attitude or a white man in black mans skin? The blacks seems to have finally gone by simplest logic- if he looks black, he is black enough.

The irony is obama fits the caricature of a steretypical white- highly educated, family rooted, high minded and aloof. That may explain why that class of people are firmly behind him- they can identify with him.
The leaves the major chunk of white voters behind and to them he is nothing like them. So the easiest thing is to characterise him as another black pretender and root for someone else. For them, someone like Wright is godsend- as a cover and justification for their racial bias.

Finally Wright comes in corresponding group of blacks. He understands Obama is nothing like him beyond the skin. To him, Obama is a white guy coming to his church. He is willing to toleate that, but there is no sense of attachment, like he feels to his black brothers. He fails to understand Obamas crisis of identity, it must have seemed like political posturing for him from the time they first met.

The sad part is at this age, we are all incapable of looking and seeing behind the color of the skin. Why are we still not able to judge a fellow human for what he is rather than how he looks? Probably that is too much to ask for.


The irony of Wright is that he has single-handedly ensured that the racial divide and injustices that he has so fervently attacked in this country are now certain to live on for some time, if not to the extent of his belligerent distortions.

The line in the article about how he could be remembered as the minister who foiled his 'parishioner’s try at being the first black president' is a powerful reality check. And a very sad possibility as well.

Obama’s run for the White House has been colorless on his watch; shame on Wright for dragging a new-thinker into a school of thought from the passed. And worse.

dick purcell

What's worst about this tragic story is not what Wright has said, but what America's "mainstream" media have done to explode it into the dominant "news" of election 2008. Here, it serves as a mighty awakener of America's deepest disease, racism, and as a cover for its practice.

In focusing your criticism on Wright instead of our media, you have missed the target and come too close to joining the lynch mob. It would be better if your essay better matched what its title suggested: ridding the media of this poisonous trash.

On the positive side, your essay and some reader comments express appropriate praise for Obama's wonderfully responsible response to this sad American story.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events