HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

I will say it again: If he runs, he wins.

For those of you who missed it, Sen. Obama spoke yesterday from the pulpit of Saddleback Church, one of the largest evangelical churches in the nation. The occasion was the 2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the Church, and the speech, as you would expect, was on AIDS.

Many people on the left, particularly the non-churchgoing left, were concerned that he would hold back in his remarks. They were afraid that he would use the speech either to attack fellow Democrats or to pander to the evangelical community.

Many on the right, well... they questioned why the pastor would allow the anti-christ to speak from such a holy place, so there's really no need to even go there.

As you'll see from the speech, the only people who should be worried are his 2008 electoral opponents.

I don't have time for a full analysis of this right now, but I'm going to highlight a few parts of the speech to demonstrate why I think Obama generates the excitement and enthusiasm he does.

First, the intro:

I want to start by saying how blessed I feel to be a part of today and how grateful I am for your church and your pastor, my friend Rick Warren.

Ever since Rick and Kay visited Africa to see the pain and suffering wrought by AIDS, the Warrens and this church have proved each day that faith is not just something you have, it's something you do. Their decision to devote their time, their money, and their purpose-driven lives to the greatest health crisis in human history is not one that's always reported on the news or splashed across the front pages, but it is quietly becoming one of the most influential forces in the struggle against HIV and AIDS. The resources of governments may be vast, and the good works of philanthropists may be abundant, but we should never underestimate how powerful the passion of people of faith can be in eradicating this disease.

One of those passionate individuals is the man we just heard from - my friend and colleague, Sam Brownback. Now, Sam and I may not agree on every issue, but I could not be more impressed with his efforts on issues like AIDS, the crisis in the Congo, the genocide in Darfur and sexual trafficking - issues that touch some of the world's most vulnerable people. I am proud to work with him on many of these issues, and I'm proud to be by his side today.

Whether some want to admit it or not, the left has for far too long avoided speaking about issues of faith. Not only does Obama not have that problem, its natural for him to do so. He doesn't have to show that he respects it, because it is a central part of who he is and what he is doing with his life.

At the same time, however, he has his priorities straight. The point of religion, and more specifically, the point of Christianity as explained by the man after whom the faith was named, isn't to simply follow the words set down in a 2000 year old book. It has to do with how you live, not how you think, and how you treat all of your brothers and sisters, not just the ones in your immediate family. Many on the christian right seem to have forgotten that. Obama has apparently decided to remind them.

After spending a good 5 minutes telling stories about the horror of the reality of AIDS in Africa, Obama reminded them all of why this matters:

Here's the thing - my faith tells me that Leo's family is my family.

We are all sick because of AIDS - and we are all tested by this crisis. It is a test not only of our willingness to respond, but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response. When you go to places like Africa and you see this problem up close, you realize that it's not a question of either treatment or prevention - or even what kind of prevention - it is all of the above. It is not an issue of either science or values - it is both. Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds; in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist; neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

Bush feebly tried this approach with his "faith based initiatives," but the problem with it was always that it was really just an affirmative action program for christians. If you don't believe me, go read David Kuo's book - he did run the faith-based office for the president, after all.

Anyway, what struck me about this section of the speech is that it may be a new way to talk about all this. Forget the divisions: we need all hands on deck. Rather than divide it up into different spheres of influence, lets focus instead on getting everyone involved. Unity, not division, is the way to solve our problems. Anyone who doesn't think that will be the theme that wins the 2008 race isn't paying attention.

And while we're attacking division, let's not just do it symbolically. Let's do it down at the policy level too:

Let's talk about what these efforts involve. First, if we hope to win this fight, we must stop new infections - we must do what we can to prevent people from contracting HIV in the first place.

Now, too often, the issue of prevention has been framed in either/or terms. For some, the only way to prevent the disease is for men and women to change their sexual behavior - in particular, to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. For others, such a prescription is unrealistic; they argue that we need to provide people with the tools they need to protect themselves from the virus, regardless of their sexual practices - in particular, by increasing the use of condoms, as well as by developing new methods, like microbicides, that women can initiate themselves to prevent transmission during sex. And in the debate surrounding how we should tackle the scourge of AIDS, we often see each side questioning the other's motives, and thereby impeding progress.

For me, this is a false argument. Let me say this - I don't think we can deny that there is a moral and spiritual component to prevention - that in too many places all over the world where AIDS is prevalent - including our own country, by the way - the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down, and needs to be repaired.

It was striking to see this as I traveled through South Africa and Kenya. Again and again, I heard stories of men and women contracting HIV because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act; because men had visited prostitutes and brought the disease home to their wives, or young girls had been subjected to rape and abuse.

These are issues of prevention we cannot walk away from. When a husband thinks it's acceptable to hide his infidelity from his wife, it's not only a sin, it's a potential death sentence. And when rape is still seen as a woman's fault and a woman's shame, but promiscuity is a man's prerogative, it is a problem of the heart that no government can solve. It is, however, a place where local ministries and churches like Saddleback can, and have, made a real difference - by providing people with a moral framework to make better choices.

Having said that, I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality - that we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions - and that if condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available. I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree. I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence. Nor am I willing to stand by and allow those who are entirely innocent - wives who, because of the culture they live in, often have no power to refuse sex with their husbands, or children who are born with the infection as a consequence of their parent's behavior -suffer when condoms or other measures would have kept them from harm.

This is like Clinton's "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" approach on steroids. And if you don't think there's a huge majority of Americans who would be ready and willing to follow this approach, again... you really need to start paying more attention.

Furthermore, for those who were afraid Obama would shade the truth in an effort to pick up votes, it looks like your worries were misplaced. Reread that last paragraph again. Not only has he made his own opinion, h has reframed the debate in such a way as to almost naturally make those opposed to condoms supporters of death. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes.

Now of course I'm not naive enough to think that an approach like this is going to change the minds of those way out on the far right. They believe they know what god wants, and nothing is going to change their mind. So focusing on them is simply a waste of time and effort. Its the 20-30% in the middle who matter most.

Clinton's approach worked well, but the nation wasn't yet ready to completely change. Triangulation is only triangulation when you can't permanently reframe the debate. When you can, you shift things so thoroughly that your third way becomes the new way, a permanent realignment of both rhetoric and policy. The nation wasn't ready for that kind of shift in the 1990s. But I believe it is now, and that it will be the winner of the next presidential election who does it.

More:

Another area where we can make significant progress in prevention is by removing the stigma that goes along with getting tested for HIV-AIDS. The idea that in some places, nine in ten people with HIV have no idea they're infected is more than frightening - it's a ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

So we need to show people that just as there is no shame in going to the doctor for a blood test or a CAT scan or a mammogram, there is no shame in going for an HIV test. Because while there was once a time when a positive result gave little hope, today the earlier you know, the faster you can get help. My wife Michelle and I were able to take the test on our trip to Africa, after the Center for Disease Control informed us that by getting a simple 15 minute test, we may have encouraged as many as half-a-million Kenyans to get tested as well. Rick Warren has also taken the test. Sam Brownback and I took it today. And I encourage others in public life to do the same. We've got to spread the word to as many people as possible. It's time for us to set an example for others to follow.

Lead by example? I seem to remember reading that in a book somewhere before. I seem to recall that once being a central part of the American Dream.

More:

Of course, even as we work diligently to slow the rate of new infection, we also have a responsibility to treat the 40 million people who are already living with HIV.

In some ways, this should be the easy part. Because we know what works. We know how to save people's lives. We know the medicine is out there and we know that wealthy countries can afford to do more.

That's why it was so frustrating for me to go to South Africa, and see the pain, and see the suffering, and then hear that the country's Minister of Health had promoted the use of beet root, sweet potato, and lemon juice as the best way to cure HIV. Thankfully, the South African government eventually repudiated this, but it's impossible to overestimate how important it is for political leaders like this to set a good example for their people.

We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives. And one of the miracles to come out of the AIDS pandemic is that scientists have discovered medicine that can give people with HIV a new chance at life.

We are called to give them that chance. We have made progress - in South Africa, treatment provided to pregnant women has drastically reduced the incidents of infants born with the infection. But despite such progress, only one in every five people with HIV around the world is receiving antiretroviral drug treatment. One in every five. We must do better. We should work with drug companies to reduce the costs of generic anti-retroviral drugs, and work with developing nations to help them build the health infrastructure that's necessary to get sick people treated - this means more money for hospitals and medical equipment, and more training for nurses and doctors.

Using religion to support science? Now that is reframing the debate.

Let's skip ahead to the close. It's a long excerpt, so apologies in advance:

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned."

I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.

Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

For in the end, we must realize that the AIDS orphan in Africa presents us with the same challenge as the gang member in South Central, or the Katrina victim in New Orleans, or the uninsured mother in North Dakota.

We can turn away from these Americans, and blame their problems on themselves, and embrace a politics that's punitive and petty, divisive and small.

Or we can embrace another tradition of politics - a tradition that has stretched from the days of our founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another - and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done for the people with whom we share this Earth.

Let me close by returning to the story of Leo, that South African woman burdened by so much death and despair. Sometime after the death of her fifth sibling, she decided that she wasn't just going to stand idly by. She decided to call the town's first public meeting about the AIDS crisis - something that no one had even talked about, let alone met about. 200 people showed up. Some had walked for miles to get there, a few with their grandchildren on their back.

One by one, they stood up and broke their silence, and they told their stories. Stories of tragedy, and stories of hope. And when they were done, Leo rose and said, "I don't know whether we will win this war, but I'm looking for people who will stand up and face the reality. The time for sitting silently has come to an end."

Everything did not suddenly get better after that meeting, but some things did. Despite all the children she had to raise and all the sick relatives she still had to care for, Leo still decided to open the AIDS orphanage she had dreamed about so long ago. She began building a daycare center that would house one hundred orphans. And she started plans on a youth center and a soup kitchen.

I hear that part of the story and I think, if this woman who has so little, and has lost so much, can do so much good - if she can still make a way out of no way - then what are we waiting for?

Corinthians says that we are all of one spirit, and that "if one part suffers, every part suffers with it." But it also says, "if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."

On this World AIDS day, it is the stories of overcoming, and not just illness, that the world needs to hear. Yes, the stories of sadness call us to suffer with the sick. But stories like Leo's also call us to honor her example, rejoice in the hope that it brings, and work to help her find that brighter future. Thank you, and God Bless you.

If he runs, he wins. No need for other predictions. If he runs, he wins.

UPDATE: Carpetbagger has an interesting post on media coverage of the event.

After discussing Obama's ability to speak "church language," he says the following:

I don’t think Obama’s the only one — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark can also “speak church language” with sincerity and conviction — but it’s nevertheless interesting that the religious right is taking note of the Dems’ interest in the evangelical vote, and they see Dems making some progress.

Hillary Clinton can also "speak church language?" If your definition of church is white and uptight protestant New England church, perhaps. But that's not even remotely what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about evangelical churches, institutions that have far more in common in both language and style with the southern baptist and AME churches than with New England protestantism.

"Church language" isn't just what you say; it's also how you say it. Bill Clinton understood that. But Hillary? Please. Go back and watch the remarks both of them made at Coretta Scott King's funeral. Yes, she speaks with both eloquence and sincerity when she speaks of her faith. But she does it in a way that's very, very different from the way an evangelical or a southerner would.

As for the other two mentioned - John Edwards and Wes Clarke - perhaps. Edwards certainly is far more capable than Hillary, but its still not in quite the same thing. When it comes to language, he reminds me more of Jimmy Carter's approach to the language of faith than modern-day evangelism. And Wes? I honestly haven't seen enough of him recently to know. To be hoenst, I have my doubts as to whether a military general could ever really speak those words in that way, but we'll see...

UPDATE II: From a link provided by one of Carpetbagger's commenters, I came across this interview with Obama in his church's newsletter. This quote stood out:

“I believe that democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values,” Obama said. “Social justice and national security are both universal values, values that may originate for some in their religious beliefs, but are shared by us all.”

“I think it is up to individual pastors and faith leaders to help guide religious Americans in prioritizing what is in their own holy books,” he added. “But when these priorities come to the Senate floor, I can tell you that the universal values of both security and justice for all motivate my work.”

Democracy is about translating the particular into the universal through dialogue, compromise, and negotiation. Obama is right when he says that both the right and the left seem to have forgotten that.

You want to know where the political center lies? That is where the center lies.