Submitted by Robert Farrell, Mar 24, 2008 11:58

Yes, in a strict sense this is true. But I believe the psychological function and purpose of both speeches are totally different. Lincoln's speech was delivered in a time of civil war with the race issue smoldering at the heart of the conflict. Thus, Lincoln's speech was designed to bring both sides to account for enabling so corrupt a system to flourish. It was an attempt to be fair by holding each side of the conflict to an equal moral standard.

Whereas reverend Wright's anti-American speeches, including the infamous speech delivered just days after 9/11, are propaganda vehicles designed to remove guilt by showing America to be perpetually in the wrong. No matter how cruelly America is attacked, according to Wright, America deserves, and continues to deserve to be maligned.

This is a typical propaganda ploy used to nullify guilt. When in the wrong, immediately play the victim while downplaying the real victims.

The extreme left thrives on guilt, and can't afford to have the tables reversed; hence, any egregious attack on America or Americans must on principle be inverted by not allowing any sense of America as being unjustly wronged.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.