Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Small-“c” Ideals Alive and Popular

    Posted by Shannon Love on October 12th, 2008 (All posts by )

    Former SDS member Marilyn Katz, “an Obama fundraiser, strategist and public relations maven…” quoted in the Chicago Tribune [h/t Instapundit]: 

    “Bill [Ayers} and I were in different parts of SDS. We disagreed on tactics. Bill has spent his entire life contributing to the betterment of society. That’s all I can say about Bill,” she said.[emp added]

    They disagreed on means but not ends. I’ve said it before, the ideals of Bill Ayers, who still describes himself as a small-“c” communist, are simply not so extreme in the leftist subculture that nurtured and supports Obama. Bill Ayers waged war on America in order to further the interest of totalitarian despots such as Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, Mao and the Soviets. He did so out of the belief that totalitarian communism represented a better system of governance than did liberal democracy. Katz openly supports Ayers and his vision of “the betterment of society”, and presumably so do large numbers of people on the American Left. 

    If we elect Obama, these ideals will have a foothold in the White House itself. Obama will select small-“c” advisors, appointees and judges. We will be a long time undoing that damage. 

     

    11 Responses to “Small-“c” Ideals Alive and Popular”

    1. Chel Says:

      Wow, I didn’t realize that people actually thought that Obama would install communists in our government.

    2. Shannon Love Says:

      Chel,

      Had you’d ask me a year ago I would have said the idea was ridiculous but that was before the democrats nominated a former socialist whose political career was launched in the living room of a small “c”.

      The truth is the democrats and the press have not bothered to vet Obama or his circle in the least. Ugly surprises are in your future.

    3. Phil Fraering Says:

      Hey, Chel, they’ve already been given hundreds of millions of dollars to ‘reform’ education in Chicago. I’d have trouble believing it, except, well, there it is. And President Zero sat with them on the board.

    4. Robert Schwartz Says:

      We think that past is prologue.

    5. Jose Angel de Monterrey Says:

      Obama speaks about hope for change and about community work and all that, in ways that sometimes he even sounds naivete, so much that sometimes for a lot of people it is hard to believe him. It’s just too nice to be true.

      We want to be optimistic, I’d like to think that once in power, if he does get to power, he would, like most presidents and governors have done in past administrations, tilt to the center as he’d need to reach out to strong political opposition in congress and the senate.
      Clinton pursued free trade agreements with enormous support from the Republicans in congress, even when his own party opposed them and he sometimes had to go horse-trading to get their votes, I think Clinton actually moved himself to the center and he tried to bring his party along with him.

      But then there are some toxic elements everyone seem to be overlooking, Obama speaks about hope and about love for his country and countrymen and about helping communities throughout America, and yet those spiritually closest and dearest to him pour a profound hatred of america,Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his own wife confessing at conferences that she’s never been proud of her country.

      It really makes me wonder sometimes.

    6. Ginny Says:

      Perhaps his wife’s faith that he will make us live up to our potential reminds us a bit too much of the “engineer of human souls” — promises of a perfect world if we would but resign ourselves to that overarching vision. Or perhaps the deals he struck as a lawyer with banks, ensuring that they would offer loans to poor risks. Or his habit of suing those who put up ads critical of him. Lately, Ayers has spread his educational theory to Venzuela; that he and Obama worked on projects to encourage some forms of education and discourage others indicates they shared a view. Modern thinkers may wrap themselves in other words, but the plans are the same old ones – these as destructive as they were in early adaptations.

      His philosophy may not be what it looks like – but if it turns out it is, we can hardly say we were deceived. We will say that, of course; just as the Democrats say they were deceived about going into Iraq; just as so many of us were shocked Clinton lied under oath when little that went before indicated he would be truthful. Indeed, I always hoped Bush would be more eloquent – his speeches were often good – you can find a speech writer with whom you are in accord, but I was forewarned he was unlikely to make the best case for his own positions.

      People can become more skillful but time will not give them abilities they don’t have; positions can change with deeper knowledge and more experience – but assumptions are not likely to.

    7. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Paul Mirengoff, one of the principals of Power Line has a good essay about Obama’s leftism:

      “Guilty by Participation: Barack Obama’s radical associations and what they mean” by Paul Mirengoff, At DCExaminer.Com on 10/12/08

      * * *

      For two decades, Obama regularly worshipped at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church. Obama has described Wright as his spiritual mentor. … In his autobiography Obama writes that he was essentially a non-believer when he first met Wright, and that he was attracted to the reverend’s flock precisely by virtue of the pastor’s political and social ideas. In other words, Wright became Obama’s pastor because of, not despite, Wright’s ideology.

      Leftist ideology also provided the glue in Obama’s relationship with the 1960s era radical terrorist William Ayers … Ayers, a professor of education, worked hand-in-glove with Obama to promote a radical educational agenda. … Ayers founded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC), an organization whose mandate was the “reformation” of Chicago’s public schools. He then helped select Obama to be CAC’s first chairman. In that role, Obama worked with Ayers to determine how to distribute tens of millions of dollars. … Much of it went to “community organizers” and other radical activists. Under Obama, CAC funded Ayers’ teacher training programs — the ones designed to promote “resistance” to an oppressive system. …

      In any event, Ayers’ radicalism (though not his terrorism) was manifest in his educational philosophy, which Obama promoted. Obama’s collaboration with Ayers – guilt by participation – is further proof of his radicalism. …

      … does his affinity for black liberation theology and Ayers’ non-violent but still extreme 1990s radicalism show him to be a man of the far left, as opposed to a garden variety liberal Democrat?

      Perhaps not. Ayers and especially Wright were influential figures in the community where Obama hoped to advance his political career. It’s possible that Obama attached himself to these two figures for purely opportunistic reasons. …

      Alternatively, Obama may have believed significant amounts of what his leftist associates espoused, only to cast it off over time. … But there are at least six reasons to fear that Obama will govern from the far left.

      First, it’s all he really knows. …

      Second, it’s how he votes. …

      Third, it’s what he falls back on. …

      Fourth, it’s what his base wants. …

      Fifth, it’s what he can pretend the times demand. …

      Sixth, with the Democrats almost certain to have substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, who would constrain a President Obama?

      =====================

      Go RTWT

    8. tehag Says:

      I sometimes think of the Catholic Church as the defining institution or our time. What has happened to it happened earlier and more thoroughly in other institutions: education, the Democrat Party.

      In America in the 1960s and 1970s, the Catholic Church ceased to defend its doctrine. Men no longer felt called to priesthood. Instead the elders, that is those who made decisions in the name of the church, allowed a few men to join who weren’t Catholic-they didn’t believe in the doctrines of the church, wouldn’t promote them, and wouldn’t obey them. The sky didn’t fall. God didn’t revoke the Church’s charter.

      The priests and bishops and cardinals that might have defended traditional teachings confined themselves to words while all around them the church became filled with anti-Catholics. The few became many until the church was staffed by communists, socialists, and homosexuals. Catholic in name only, these anti-Catholics disgraced the church, probably beyond repair for a few generations.

      The same happened to education. The defenders of traditional and effective education restricted themselves to speeches and publications, while fad after fad failed and while colleges of education were staffed by professors such as Ayers. More than fifty years of ill-concieved fads have had the intended effect: fewer graduates than ever can read, can cipher, can recite classical literature, or know America history.

      The same happened to the Democrat Party. Sam Nunn and Daniel Moynihan may have been the last democrats in the party. Now the party is owned by its anti-American faction, each of whom hates America. Kennedy hates individualism. Ayers admires socialist thug Chavez and wishes America were more like Venezuela. Obama admires his socialist thug father and dreams for an American more like Kenya. Delegates too numeous to count admire Castro and Che and wish America were governed like Cuba. No one should have to guess what kind of regime the Obana-Ayers-Wright faction would apply if it were able. It won’t happen today or tomorrow and with luck not in my lifetime, but it will happen.

      A majority of American intellectuals, academics, politicians, and self-described avante-guarde thinkers oppose freedom, prosperity, and America. In the past they confined their polticial participation to socialist parties (as Obama’s first political party, the New [Socialist] Party) or appointed positions (‘brain trust’) because they were shunned by Democrat Party members. In the 1970s the Democrat Party invited them. Loyalty to the party was more important than loyalty to America. The traditional Democrat Party members who believed in America were pushed aside. Now self-described former Communists and admires of Castro, Mao, Chavez are the Democrat Party.

      No Constitution, no First Amedment, no law will halt the transition from American to European-Venezuelan-Cuban state. Already a minority of Supreme Court justices look not to the Constiution, but to international law when deciding cases. And international law is clear on this matter: from Saudia Arabia to the People’s Republic of China to Iran to Singapore to the EU: speech which the government decrees isn’t suitable for public expression should and will be suppressed. Persons with opinions unsuitable for expression have no rights to speak, assemble, or print those opinions.

      By electing Obama, a majority of Americans will have repudiated Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln in favor of Che, Castro, Chavez, and Mao, all who whom are the idealized political leaders of the sixties generation and its scions.

    9. Obloodyhell Says:

      > and judges.

      Including a number of SCotUS judges.

      Fear not just that, but the long-ranging effects of:

      1) The Fairness Doctrine. Give them the PotUS and the Congress, and it’s a lock. No more conservative radio.

      2) Energy Policy. Obama supports not just idiotic policies like Wind and Solar, and stands openly against both home development of typical oil supplies as well as Shales and Sands — he has indicated he believes that our power generation should be LOWERED by 15% in the next decade and more. That means not only NOT building more plants, but eliminating existing capacity. That is not something it only takes a few years to reverse, and its effects on the economy are going to be SEVERE.

      3) Overt Economic Policy. The idiot is a hard-bound socialist. All solutions will be filtered through the “government is wonderful” meme — and the last time we had this kind of situation, we got S&Ls, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and Social Security. This time, we are going to get Socialized Health Care, at the least. Probably “Living Wages”.

      4) Non-overt Economic Policy. The FM crisis is only the first wave — within another 8 years, count on the Entitlements problem to begin to become serious, all the while the Dems keep claiming (much like they have throughout the FM downhill snowballing) that “there is no problem” with Social Security and such. The GOP *might* use the current crisis to point strongly at the need to work towards a fix for that problem NOW rather than waiting until everything is on the verge of collapse. The Dems will make no such effort, guaranteed.

    10. Obloodyhell Says:

      > We want to be optimistic, I’d like to think that once in power, if he does get to power, he would, like most presidents and governors have done in past administrations, tilt to the center as he’d need to reach out to strong political opposition in congress and the senate.

      I believe it’s naive to imagine that someone whose political mentors were clearly aware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy to do anything positive for this nation whatsoever. They are invested in The Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

      Your idealism assumes a benevolence towards the American State which I argue IS NOT THERE. The man went to a church where the reverend laid on “God Damn America” quite thick and thought nothing of it. His wife says “She’s never been proud of America”, and thinks nothing of it.

      Obama has been raised to believe that America — that Western Culture in specific — is a pernicious evil, and has shown no signs of shucking off that absurdity.

      The genesis of that idea, inherent in modern liberalism, lies here:
      What We Lost In the Great War
      by John Steele Gordon

      Until we confront that false meme — that Western Culture is somehow worse than any others — we have a fatal cancer in our midst.

    11. Obloodyhell Says:

      > People can become more skillful but time will not give them abilities they don’t have; positions can change with deeper knowledge and more experience – but assumptions are not likely to.

      Assumptions can change all the time for a rational person — an assumption is just a starting point… if one sees that a specific starting point leads to a very wrong end, then a rational person realizes that that starting point must be rejected and a new one selected.

      The problem is, liberals as a whole are not rational and their entire approach to life is anathema to rationalism. They pick the endpoints, and the starting points, and assume that the trick is to find the right path to connect them.

      The Bridges of Königsberg Problems — that notion that You Can’t Get There From Here — is not an acceptable proposition, and not allowed as a claim for changing either the ends or the initial state.