OBAMA, ALINSKY AND THE FISCAL CLIFF
Watching the campaign leading up to election 2012 and President Obama’s press conference yesterday made me think.
Then on my way home, listening to excerpts on who Saul Alinsky was, what he wanted to accomplish and how he proposed going about accomplishing also made me think.
I thought about how quite possibly there are some serious connections that can be made to the rhetoric and mission of Barack Obama and the philosophy of Alinsky.
For some this of thought may be considered as radical as those of Alinsky. Never-the-less I proceed.
In an article at DiscovertheNetworks the background of Saul Alinsky, his mission and his preferred tools for achieving that mission are described in detail. I am going to provide just a few of those paragraphs as well as some of my own to draw a comparison to the current administration.
I pose what may be considered a controversial question that is this: Is driving the United States over the proverbial fiscal cliff part of the President’s endgame towards transforming America into his vision of what the country should be?
“In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation.
Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.”
“…The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.” The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict” and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.”
“The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.”