Barack Obama proclaimed what could be a defining goal for public education, in his speech the other day, when he said that U.S. citizens should be guaranteed “an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential.” This phrase might just be rhetoric, but, if not, it indicates a truly stunning goal. A system of public education centered on understanding and fulfilling individual potential would require a revolution in our system of public education.

Obama’s youth and idealism is sometimes compared to John Kennedy’s. Kennedy inspired his generation with a big goal: go to the moon before the end of the decade. I’m wondering, if elected president, Obama might similarly seek to inspire this generation with a big goal. I think a good “go to the moon” goal for Obama, that could define a lot of his presidency, should center on education. Obama’s stunning and inspirational goal for this generation could be this: transform our educational system so that every child has the opportunity to understand and fulfill his or her potential.

The goal in 2008 to transform public education, at first glance, might seem far from stunning — particularly when compared to the 1961 goal to go to the moon. A vision of a transformed educational system is hard to imagine; it is a much murkier idea than the vision of astronauts on the moon. What, really, would it mean to pursue such a goal? Kennedy’s vision of going to the moon was easy to envision, therefore it was a vision of instant inspiration. But, we’ve already been worn out by political talk about school reform — A Nation At Risk, No Child Left Behind — we’ve already been worn out by a lot of political speech about education.

Our collective imaginations have been dulled as to what, at best, we could hope that public education might ever accomplish. The issue of public education has been framed in terms of curriculum, test scores, college admissions, technical training. By common agreement, and through the efficacy of relentless propaganda, we think we know what a first class education amounts to. But our common agreement is wrong.

Compared to education, say, in 2060, our current view of education will seem primitive and limiting. Certainly, if human progress continues, future generations will react with both horror and amusement to today’s understanding of what constitutes quality education. When machines will mimic, and convincingly outdo, all human cognition, what will human education consist of? What, in that future time, will be the goals of human education? What will be the role of human teachers? Obama’s insight that education should center on understanding and developing individual human potential is an insight that anticipates the future.

For Kennedy, the urgency to go to the moon, in part, was the urgency of meeting the Soviet challenge. The Soviet threat was the transcendent challenge in 1961, and, Kennedy’s moon goal condensed that challenge into an inspirational response. For our time, the urgency of now is not to meet an outside threat, it is to meet our internal threat.

I’ve been thinking about John McCain’s great phrase: “transcendent challenge.” According to McCain, as I wrote in this post, “the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists.” But, the transcendent challenge for our nation today, unlike the Soviet threat in 1961, is not that Islamic terrorism will annihilate us, the biggest threat to our future is that our citizenry will be degraded to the point that our democracy will disintegrate, our ideals will disappear. Our chance to enjoy a prosperous, expanding, vital and peaceful future, our chance to fulfill the potential of our democracy, rests in the desires, thinking, attitudes, values, and the capabilities of our citizenry. Our nation’s chance for a good future rests on the quality, capacity and preparedness of our citizenry.

Obama should engage McCain in a comprehensive discussion of what strategy makes most sense to best deal with the Islamic extremist threat, and Obama should articulate his own plan for dealing with the Islamic extremist threat. Our democracy needs mature discussion on real topics.

But Obama should not allow McCain to frame the issue; Obama should present his own view of what constitutes the biggest challenge to our future, and, like Kennedy, he should offer an inspirational response. He should argue, I believe, that the biggest challenge to our future originates from within our country, not from outside of our country. The challenge of our future is that as a nation we grow into our potential, that we fulfill our ideals. We are still the city set on a hill, we are still the hope of much of the world. Meeting the challenge of our potential will require that greater and greater numbers of citizens reach new levels of their individual potentials, new depths of their humanity. Meeting this challenge will require a transformation of all levels of education.

At the core of the infrastructure of our country is our educational system. This infrastructure is badly in need of improvement. Popular culture, media, TV, churches, neighborhoods, families are all aspects of the educational infrastructure. These are often negative and destructive in their educational impact, and to a great degree outside of the influence of public policy. Often the public have given up on the possibility that public education can really make much positive impact. But public education is still a big part of the overall educational infrastructure and public education has a huge untapped potential.

Here is a thought, here is a goal: Via public education, the insight that has guided the development of children in the most loving homes of the wisest parents, the wisdom that has guided the development of children in the most inspired and prepared schools, should be available to all children. I’m sure the overwhelming response to such a thought is emphatic: Impossible.

But is this dream of what is possible in education more absurd in 2008 than the idea of walking on the moon seemed in 1961? Isn’t this idea of transforming public education into unheard of levels of quality doable, even as Kennedy’s moon idea was doable, isn’t the question one of whether or not there is sufficient political will to make it happen? I’m thinking that, if Obama becomes President, he will seek to inspire major improvements in our nation. He will seek to lead, not simply manage. If elected, I think Obama might present to the nation a “go to the moon” challenge — one that looks to the future. What better challenge could he offer than the challenge to transform public education?

I am dumbfounded as to why Rev. Jeremiah Wright would make such a spectacle of himself at the National Press Club. An older black woman, a commentator on Anderson Cooper’s show, said that, in her opinion, what had motivated Rev. Wright’s behavior was his perception that Barack Obama had “dissed” him, and, that Wright lashed out at Obama in anger. An interesting theory.

In today’s New York Times, Bob Herbert affirms that theory. In an article entitled “The Pastor Casts a Shadow,” Herbert writes, “Feeling dissed by Senator Obama, Mr. Wright gets revenge on his former follower while bathed in a spotlight brighter than any he could ever have imagined. He’s living a narcissist’s dream. At long last, his 15 minutes have arrived.”

Herbert continues, “The thing to keep in mind about Rev. Wright is that he is a smart fellow. He’s been a very savvy operator, politically and otherwise, for decades. He has built a thriving, politically connected congregation on the South Side of Chicago that has done some very good work over the years. Powerful people have turned to him for guidance and advice. … So it’s not like he’s naïve politically. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Forget the gibberish about responding to attacks on the black church. That is not what the reverend’s appearance before the press club was about. He was responding to what he perceives as an attack on him.”

The judgment that Wright is acting out of ego and out of selfish anger I’ve heard repeated in many versions. It seems the best explanation. This is a strange case that, to me, doesn’t make sense. Why would Rev. Wright, a man of seasoned maturity, throw away so much? Why would Rev. Wright seek to sabotage his parishioner, a person he has known and influenced from the time he was a fatherless young man in his twenties, a man who obviously has affection for Rev. Wright and who, over time, has established what he thought was a basis of trust with the minister. Why would Rev. Wright discard such a friendship?

And with his decision to throw away his friendship with Barack Obama, Rev. Wright also discards a wonderful opportunity to have positive national influence, an opportunity to transform our nation’s discussion about what it means to be a Christian. Wright, as potentially the president’s pastor, could have had the platform to teach the nation about his understanding of “liberation theology,” about his commitment to define Christianity in terms of service to others, about how Christianity caused him to want to serve and uplift his community. Rev. Wright could have provided the teaching and the inspiration that might have provided a valuable counterbalance to the view of Christianity presented by “God wants you to be rich” TV evangelists and to the view of Christianity promulgated by narrow minded right wing evangelicals. It is hard to understand why Rev. Wright threw such an opportunity away.

One thing is for certain, Rev. Wright, because of his actions, has a real problem. His claim to legitimacy is not that he is a scholar, not that he is a community leader, not that he is a black man. His claim to legitimacy is his claim that he is a man of God, a man dedicated to a life of Christian ministry. His actions have now undermined his very legitimacy as a minister. Does a man of God, who feels he has been “dissed,” seek to get even, does he seek to lash out in destructive words and actions? Does a man of God seek his own way? Is Wright’s actions and attitude a good example to anyone who is seeking to understand Christianity? I don’t think so.

It is possible that before this is all over Rev. Wright will surprise us and repent of his sin of ego and self centeredness. Possible, but unlikely. It seems that Wright sees himself as a prophet, and having boldly presented himself to the national stage in a certain manner and with a certain message, it seems unlikely he will reconsider. In the Bible, we are warned about false prophets. And much of the negative trends in today’s world can be blamed on the false prophets of our time. We criticize Moslem religious leaders for leading their flock astray, but the Moslem religion is not the only religion with false prophets.

I imagine that Rev. Wright feels his actions and words are justified. But, what the behavior of Rev. Wright can remind us is that any man who is ego driven, whose thinking and actions are self centered, can delude himself as to his own motivation and can do great harm, while convincing himself that he is doing great good.