The New Republic

I, paragraphless, want to argue that in diary piece Wieseltier (“W”) does not know what he is about: 1. he glaringly defies what he appears to have set out to do; and 2. the content of his musings is fatuous beneath all the high sounding, dialectical dilly dallying To support my case requires some “plot” summary and I will refer to each branch of my contention at different places in what follows. The unself-knowing tension running through this piece is born of W’s inability (no bad thing necessarily) to turn off the faucets of his meditating self. He says he wants to, for a diaristic moment, shun complexity and just enjoy, take a kind of unthinking pleasure from, the symbolism of Obama’s feat. But he cannot: the tumblers of his mind insistently trigger his dithering pilpulism . So W even begins on a note of sly conundrum: “Whether or not this is the Lord’s doing.” And then let the dialectical times roll: Obama has—“somewhat”— ruined soaring language, so called for by this moment; when is history sweet?; let us situtate John Hope Franklin’s exclamation in its proper occasional context; let us decide when we can forgive hyperbole; is Obama’s victory surprising—it may or may not be; ( here a scintilla of a lapse into impossible vagueness—“By the standard of where we were”); ( then a more serious lapse into doing the opposite of what he proclaims—“…the complexities will soon rush in…but for now I will pause to savor the simplicity of a fact”—with a fat chance that happening.); W in his “paused savoring” calibrates the precise mode of his uncomplex, celebratory attitude towards Obama’s blackness—“racialist”, and he structures his happiness at Obama and his wife in their dapping particularity and frames their happiness within the idea of justice. W then, ostensibly savoring the simplicity of a fact, takes us to overarching themes concerning nothing less than justice and America: “Let justice be done” is, as edited, set against “let justice be done and the world perish” or, in another version, “let justice be done and the heavens fall”, taking the highly disputable view that these maxims speak to the consequences of utopianism, itself somehow, and equally strangely, become in W’s mind “…what we would call over-reaching.” (I myself rather see them as expressing the Socratic notion that justice is the constating virtue and that cleaving to it is man’s obligation and necessity everywhere and always, in all circumstances, irrespective of consequence. What this has to do with the consequences of utopianism escapes me.) Setting up a series of overwrought and ultimately empty distinctions, W sees the emendation of these unflinching maxims as their Americanization into an idea of an easily and happily gotten justice. Slavery belies that as does its legacy: unlike most other Americans, slaves and their descendants know that even worse than a world destroyed with justice is its destruction without justice. In their plight, they affirm joyously—“joyful insistence upon”— the world. ( I can see it: black folks singing and dancing and carrying on. Would W care to particularize this joy?) So “yes we can” sounds more forceful (than what?) coming from a black man, Obama. This particular past informs his mantra, gives him a particular weight, even while he is not of this past as such, even while he is detached from it. So his confidence, which this past makes look like courage, is at one with what he appears to be. But W is disappointed by Obama's glibness, his sleekness and his frictionlessness. He does not embody the roiling, dark complexity that marked, say, Martin Luther King—and which, to me, sounds like the yearning for brooding complexity, the yearning of the cloistered and of those dwelling inside the caves of their own interiority. W then rightly dispenses with the foolishness that Obama will expiate the legacy of slavery. But even here he cannot state that plain out: “…but I wonder.” And he approaches the issue abstractly, and with such reification, as a matter of lessening the burden on “America’s conscience”. Where does W find this conscience and by what means he take its measure--is it by, it can be asked, a kind of meteorological finger testing the winds of national guilt? And then W gets needlessly mired in the notion of Obama as transformative. He asserts that, but, then, against that assertion says the seeds of the transformation were long ago planted and Obama is its flower, after decades, keeping to W's imagery, of tending and tilling. So I ask: is Obama transformative: or is he a, or the, culmination of a long and complex process. For as framed by W if Obama is a culmination, then he is the tip of the iceberg of transformation and cannot be said to be transformative. The problem here is W setting up an antimony between Obama and what has laid down the conditions for his ascendance without attending to Obama existentially— (to repeat) "That is why Obama’s glibness, his frictionlessness, is so disappointing”— as a concrete individual who has by virtue of his own gifts made so much happen. As W notes, problems will persist—the problem of the inner city, white racism and black racialism. (Here I ask why is black racism toned down as something less than white racism, as, that is to say, black racialism?) W observes rightly that disappointment will be inevitable; but instead of just saying so, it will ne nothing less than “quasi-eschatological”. (And that means what: one is left with such a spectrum of possible meanings that the phrase is ablank slate demanding concrete particularity.) Finally, W circles back to his desire to enjoy the moment and be glad; and, then, in a bizarre juxtaposition with that uncerebrated enjoyment, W merges Obama into all black men who now can run for president by ending with the question of whether to vote for him. Vote for whom I ask: a black man or Obama? On one construction, W can read as asking whether to vote for any particular black candidate, now liberated to run, although that surely cannot be what he means. Good writing, however, does not allow any such ambiguity to arise.

- basman

June 8, 2008 at 6:49pm

I have to disagree with basman that "black racism" exists--"black racialism," yes, but the attempt to invert white racism has never suceeded--read Morrison's The Bluest Eye--and the power relations and property ownership in this country are still such that any fear of "black racism" is ludicrous. I'm also very happy about Obama's win of the nomination, but what I like about the candidate are these traits: his grace under pressure, his flashes of wit, his thoughtfulness, and the intensity that builds in him when he delivers a speech. I am reading his first book with great admiration. His syntax, word choice, his frankness, and above all his nuanced exploration of racial identity all inspire my admiration. I think he has the potential to be one of our greatest presidents.

- Hamilton

June 10, 2008 at 12:31am

Barack Obama's candidacy is "the most radical, far-reaching,significant undertaking by any individual or group in our history." Creation of the nation in the Revolution, writing of the Constitution, Union cause in the Civil War, U.S. participation in World Wars One and Two, here are your hats........ That it was a purported, and prominent, HISTORIAN who uttered this piece of mindless blather is a more withering indictment of the current state of American academia than all of the right-wing radio talk-show screeds about how them-thar-book-larned-collitch-professors-are-teaching-our-children-to-hate-America put together. It isn't, however, all that surprising coming from Franklin, who has boasted of how he refused to serve in World War Two because a recruiter merely TOLD him that he, as a black man, would have to serve in a segregated unit. (Not reveled in telling him, mind you; just told him.) Was it a gross and indefensible injustice that the armed forces of that era were segregated? Of course it was; but that doesn't negate the far greater truth embodied in the response of an African-American soldier of that era, when asked by a London Times reporter how he could serve in the defense of a country that wouldn't allow him to vote or sit at a lunch counter. "Ain't nothing wrong with America that Hitler's gonna fix", he said; thereby proving yet again the perception of Shaw's Saint Joan, who said that people of modest backgrounds can have greater wisdom than proud scholars. Franklin has most certainly NOT "earned his hour of ecstasy" (I am, of course, assuming that by "ecstasy", Wieseltier is referring to the emotion and not the drug)when he utters such nonsense.

- helios

June 10, 2008 at 6:53am

One small point that I think basman was pointing at but wasn't quite explicit about - when Kant says "let justice be done and the world perish," he's explicitly endorsing the first half of the conjunction ("let justice be done") even at the expense of the second, hardly a warning against utopianism. Kant believed that an action is morally justified (and hence ought to be taken) if it accords with the dictates of the categorical imperative, which does not (or at least is not supposed to) take consequences into account when determining the moral worth of an action. This is a rather elementary point of Kant's moral philosophy, and I'm surprised that someone of Mr. Wieseltier's intelligence could make this sort of mistake or, if you're generous, write poorly enough to imply that he was citing this particular maxim of Kant's as a warning against utopianism.

- Zack

June 10, 2008 at 10:16am

To label Obama Afro-American, Kant if alive and if asked would have said, a priory , and a categorical mistake. Why? He was not born in Africa nor tansported from there. He was concieved and at the fullness of natal period was espoused from the womb of true white-breaded of mid-western parentage mother.Abandoned by sire and raised mostly by paternal grand-ma and grand-pa of white-american lot and inspite of these facts, to call him Afro-Amrican is a form of prejudice. He may call himself an Afro-American but we need not agree to it. WHITE-AMERICAN-AFRO,in my view would be more apt emblem ,it honors the woman who was his mother.

- emmanuelcannot

June 10, 2008 at 11:53am

I often enjoy the debate that follows pieces on this site, but this one epitomizes its very lowest depths. Basman, your "paragraphless" ramble is without doubt the most pompous and pretentious piece of writing that I've ever had the misfortune to stumble upon. I'm sorry to single you out, because you are by no means the first person on this website to reveal a staggering case of 'frustrated academic syndrome', but there it is. It's an online diary piece. Your time would be much better spent trying to find a creative outlet for your egotism. This would also leave these pages clear for earnest discussion. You may have greater luck in this pursuit if you ditch the thesaurus, and read your sentences aloud.

- sam

June 10, 2008 at 12:15pm

I have no problem with looking favorably upon righting a wrong regarding years and years of poor representiveness in government. It is more important, though, that we are sure that Obama is the candidate that we want to represent the best of black candidacy before we hoist him up as the representation of African America. For instance, we have to look back at the Vice Presidential candidacy of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and how losing a presidential race can actually set a movement further back than it was before the actual nomination.

- Mike

June 10, 2008 at 12:30pm

I disagree with basman that Wieseltier was "setting up an antimony...." Leon is too mercurial for that.

- Sb

June 10, 2008 at 1:06pm

Sam: no problem: say what you feel. I usually write shorter more to a precise point posts, but--without a Thesaurus--I was moved here by some muse. And you may be right: maybe what I said suffers from W syndrome. You don't have to answer this: but aside from your vehement distaste for what I wrote, what in it do you disagree with?

- basman

June 10, 2008 at 1:29pm

BARRETT EYES POST-OBAMA TAKE-BACK A proponent of majority-rule is predicting a Barack Obama win in November, but is calling the "calamity" an "opportunity" to "take back" the country, in a post-Obama turn-around. Richard Barrett, speaking over WMPR, the Jackson, Mississippi Negro radio-station, said that Obama would commandeer the White House, but that "the historic calamity generates an unprecedented opportunity to take the nation back in the post-Obama era." Barrett assessed that "minorities taking power over the majority is occurring because Americans have either allowed the usurpation or have been compliant in their own destruction." Barrett compared Obama to Salvador Allende, the Communist, who had been elected president of Chile but quickly overthrown. He noted that "when the people wake up to their political-process being subverted, they rise up, fight back and take their government back. It's bound to happen." Barrett rebuked station-owner Charles Evers, who lobbied unsuccessfully for rejected court-nominee Charles Pickering, for trying to take over the Democratic Party and, then, the Republican Party. "You are not for Democrats or Republicans, you are for Africans," said Barrett. Evers replied, "I am for Obama." "See, I told you so," rejoined Barrett, who struck a boxer-punch stance for cameras, which Evers returned. Barrett's address was filmed by WJTV-TV-reporter Ross Adams, who interviewed Evers, but refused to interview Barrett. Barrett had "blacklisted" the CBS-affiliate for broadcasting a claim that Barrett was "affiliated" with organizations with which he had no affiliation. A similar blacklist had been imposed against WLBT and WAPT, but was lifted when both stations issued on-air retractions and apologies. WJTV refused to retract and declined to broadcast the WMPR piece. Barrett told the Negro-audience, some of whom were hostile and some supportive, that the American majority, not minorities, would ultimately determine the course of the country. "Bear in mind that, ultimately, it is what we do, which will determine our future. In other words, we must be working, building, preparing, organizing, educating and advancing, right now, for the calamity ahead. And, for the resurrection, just on the other side," Barrett stressed. A heavy police-presence surrounded the radio-station, which was situated in a formerly-white, West-Jackson section, which had become an inner-city, high-crime spot. Barrett stood by labeling the site a "slum," on-air, and said that the country demanded change. "They can't stomach Bush III or Clinton II, but they will quickly be wanting to get out from under Obama I. That's when the dramatic, powerful and long-range change will take place," he added. Barrett explained that he was optimistic about "things getting better, after they get worse." "The Bible speaks of the people walking in darkness, until they see a great light. The pitchest-black in November will be pierced by the brightest-light," he insisted. "If you look at history, desperate and disastrous conditions frequently have led to a complete turn-about." He pointed to the Reconstruction over the South, which generated the Redemption, the Bolshevik Revolution, which was overthrown, the Soviet-occupation of Eastern Europe, which was overthrown, the American Revolution, which threw off the yoke of the king, and the occupation of Spain, by the Moors and Jews, which lasted seven-hundred years, which was finally overthrown. Barrett said that the massive-turnabout will come from the "common" people, because so many in high-office had betrayed their own constituents. Barrett remarked that Dwight D. Eisenhower had used the military to impose integration, Richard Nixon had recognized Red China, Ronald Reagan had imposed the King Holiday, George Bush had installed Clarence Thomas and George W. Bush had imposed extension of the Voting Rights Act. "Do we want our nation wrecked, our institutions destroyed, our blood polluted and our people subjugated?" asked Barrett. "Of course not. Neither do we want to carp that 'we told you so,' when the lights go out. Simply, we desire to say, 'Here is the candle' and point the way out." Barrett observed that "what first comes into play is our character. Showing the backbone to never compromise or surrender. Then, our vision. What things will be like, when we have overthrown the oppression. All the while, we must keep our faces and message before the public, no matter how much we are maligned, misrepresented and persecuted." Barrett concluded that "we must keep ourselves organized, intact and marching forward. The takeover of our country is the greatest challenge, but, also, the greatest opportunity. If we fail, all is lost. If we succeed, it is because of that spark of Patrick Henry, Davy Crockett and Charles Lindbergh within us. The question is not, can we, but will we? George Washington could never have gone in, if the king hadn't been toppled, first. And, if the king had just been replaced by someone else, just the same, we still would not have gotten our freedom. So, let us 'make the most of the worst' and the people will rally. This is our 'Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.'" Evers invited Barrett to appear at a concert with B. B. King, but Barrett declined, stating, "You sing your songs, we'll sing ours, but ours will surmount them all." Jason Bunnell summarized, "We will prove ourselves. We are doing just fine. I have faith. We shall arise." http://www.nationalist.org/alt/2008/052801.html Copyright 2008 The Nationalist Movement

- anti-witch

June 10, 2008 at 1:42pm

Far be it from me to take on our erudite basman when he is on, so I will not even try, A fine piece Leon, terrific sentiments, all true and long overdue. Wouldn't Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - and the rest of the signers who wisely kept slavery out of the Constitution and sadly foisted it off on future generations - be greatly relieved by Obama and his rise?

- WandreyCer1

June 10, 2008 at 1:57pm

But basman, my man, Leon Wiesletier is a brooding complexity. So what else would you expect? This is one of the most beautiful of Mr. Wieseltier's mediations in some time. I notice how the quality of thought and writing in opposition to Mr. Wieseltier never approaches one -millionth of the original. Well, he is a professional writer and I believe that it is metaphysically impossible for anyone to declaim more sublimely than he does. The stain of racism and of slavery indeed cannot be negated in one election cycle; the blood and tears and the pain and horror of what the African-American experience all too often was can never be fully righted no matter how many African-American presidents we might wind up having. Mr. Wieseltier superbly captures the optimism that is America but he also calls us not to forget existential truths that - though they no longher exist - define the beginnings of our republic and its continuation for all too long - no less than the gifts of the likes of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson so define it.

-

June 10, 2008 at 2:50pm

As an Obama supporter, i rather like Wieseltier's caution. I do not know the Latin inscriptions he cites, but did Kant really subscribe to the first? Or did he just like the sound of it. Kant, the arch-deontologist, almost certainly couldn't have warned _against_ favoring justice over the outcomes; it's what his metaphysics is founded on. The guy thought you should never ever lie, even if it meant saving the life of your first-born baby.

- Giles

June 10, 2008 at 3:16pm

I almost always admire Wieseltier's eloquent writing and, lately,frequently lament that his rhetorical flower always withers. I think I can guess why, but I'll wait for the other shoe to drop. Given his opinions of late, it probably means that Obama will fail the "Is he good for Israel" question, apparently the new fifth Passover question. No matter how much TNR tries to redeem its recent illiberalism and neo-conservatism, one can always count on Peretz and much more frequently Wieseltier to view the world through a single, narrow lens. Wieseltier's occasional hero, Reinhold Niebuhr,was a true political realist, Wieseltier only a cherry-picking one.

- Donald Heinz

June 10, 2008 at 4:02pm

One wonders if Wieseltier would be chanting odes to Obama's candidacy if he were a Republican. Certainly don't see any articles about Condi's brilliant rise to power...

- JWL2672

June 10, 2008 at 4:50pm

What is so damn marvelous, Leon? Obama has been successful where Jesse Jackson wasn't for the same kind of reasons JFK was successful where Al Smith wasn't. Obama is a very refined, very articulate Harvard and Columbia graduate. He is not parochial or "ethnic," he is mainstream in his style and education. Jack Kennedy may have been the grandson of a Boston Irish pol and Mayor. And he may have been the son of a bootlegger, pirate financier. But, he too, was cultivated, and elite educated, and a former Naval officer. He was marinated in the American aristocratic sauce. Unlike Al Smith, a charming, but no so refined, not elegant, not handsome city machine politician. Prior to Obama, Colin Powell is the only national figure who was both black and not of the Americabn black ethnic style. (That he was actually of Caribbean black descent would have contributed to that.) Colin Powell could very likely have won the presidency unambiguously in 200 if he had run instead of Bush II. Powell has none of Obama's "exotic" problems. His national security cred is, of course, unimpeachable. Since he's a Republican, we would have heard a lot less self-congratulations from the media about how incredible it was that a black man had won the nomination and the White House. For that last reason, I wish the hell Powell had run and won. Then we wouldn't have to hear all this inane conversation.

- ChanRobt

June 10, 2008 at 4:56pm

TO: TNR posters FROM: The English language RE: Reader responses Please confine your responses to succinct, discrete paragraphs. Sentences should contain no more than two ideas. Further, please resort to esoteric words and phrases only where the use of standard English obscures, rather than elucidates meaning. Many thanks, The English Language

- gperez-

June 10, 2008 at 5:21pm

He's Mixed! Hello?

- DirOfTheObv

June 10, 2008 at 5:37pm

To Wandrey Cey1: Franklin, yes, but Jefferson?! In his Cooper Union speech, Lincoln identified the three "leading anti-slavery men of the day" as Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris. Jefferson owned about 200 slaves, and when he died in debt, they were sold off at Monticello along with the farm equipment (see McCullough's John Adams bio for the decription). The view admirable things TJ said about slavery are outweighed by his behavior and by his essentialist ruminations in "Notes on the State of Virginia."

- Hamilton

June 10, 2008 at 5:55pm

Obama is a Biracial American. He is 50% white and 50% black!!! He is all of us!!

- Avery

June 10, 2008 at 10:59pm

G Perez: 1. Thank you for speaking on behalf of the English Language. I bet E.L. comes often to your Grade 9 composition class to give your students many tips and pointers. 2. Please note that this site does not allow for paragraphs whether or not they contain a topic sentence followed by a series of concise interconnected sentences that the develop the topic idea for the paragraph and whether or not they contain one, two or even--God forbid-- more ideas. Yours in good writing always.

- ITZIK BASMAN

June 11, 2008 at 12:28pm

Citing "inner city" problems as something nearly impossible to fix is somewhat of a red herring. In fact, a great many cities across the land are starting to turn to the "Portland (OR) model" of more affluent families living closer to the city center, and pushing poorer families outward. Combined with good public transportation this makes sense, and helps maintain sustainable livability. Should gas prices hold at a high rate for the long term, we'll likely see this process increase.

- El Brucé

June 11, 2008 at 7:40pm

I too found the article a touch inconsistent, Basman, and I don't have a particular issue with any of the points you made. Frankly, I wouldn't wish to set myself the task of identifying one from the mire of your response. What grates is the presumptuousness of your grandstanding as resident literary critic, woefully coupled with your unreadably pompous style, which rarely elucidates your argument, but rather comes off as a cackhanded attempt to show off your own erudition, in this case put to work like the proverbial dog on heat.

- Sam

June 12, 2008 at 11:24am

"...but for now I will pause to savor the simplicity of a fact." Amen, brother. While the epic struggle between the internet & immodium continues, sometimes less is more.

- Vidoqo

June 12, 2008 at 8:43pm

I've consulted with my in-house Latin expert, my daughter, who has studied the language for six years. She confirmed for me what seemed obvious from context and culture - the author of this piece is reading these two Latin phrases in a way that reverses their meaning. In the context of public art about great leaders, the correct translations have to be: "Let justice be done 'tho the world perish" and "Let justice be done 'tho the heavens fall." Far from being cautions against the dangers of idealism, these are exhortations to it, in the same spirit as "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Instead, the author of this piece appears to be wrestling with whether to let justice be done 'tho he may be disappointed.

- Philnick

June 12, 2008 at 10:27pm

If Obema will be next President of U.S. That one is greatest victory of mankind.Whole history of will be changeforever. I hope new era will began,and map of whole world will change new way. Only fear is, are raciests and strong lobbies of U.S.toltare this new era?

- Ramesh Raghuvanshi

June 13, 2008 at 4:03am

Sammy, my man: 1. You don't take issue with my points--and you found the piece a touch inconsistent--but then you don't wish to try and identify my points from my mire of words. Which is it big fellah? 2. ...What grates is the presumptuousness of your grandstanding as resident literary critic, woefully coupled with your unreadably pompous style, which rarely elucidates your argument, but rather comes off as a cackhanded attempt to show off your own erudition, in this case put to work like the proverbial dog on heat... Pots and kettles? Itzik Basman-- and who be you?

- basman

June 13, 2008 at 2:00pm

Christ alive, you're right. I am becoming Basman. I felt conflicted from the beginning, I should have known my foray into the world of online discussion would end like this. Yipes. I need to retreat, before I start numbering my points. And seriously, no hard feelings.

- Sam

June 13, 2008 at 7:35pm

Itzik, our man sammy is the pot. Pun intended.

- scrubbyoak

June 14, 2008 at 10:04am

...no hard feelings... None, Sammy, and there never were any. Scrubby, comment ca va?

- sam

June 16, 2008 at 4:48pm

#30 posted by moi.

- basman

June 16, 2008 at 6:26pm