Tag: Radicals

Does Ayers Equal Keating In The Media?

I was hoping by now that I would not have to address this subject too much more.  But as usual I was mistaken at the stupidity of a political season.

The two stories are not at all similar. Obama has had passing contacts with Ayers over the years, mostly via the board of a small non-profit; Obama once held a fundraiser in Ayers’ house. (Ayers, who helped carry out a handful of nonlethal bombings in protest against the Vietnam War, is an academic in Chicago and well known in education policy circles. Federal charges against him in connection with the bombings were dropped in the 1970s.) The New York Times story that launched Ayers back into the media spotlight found that “the two men do not appear to have been close.”
It’s hard to describe McCain’s role in the savings-and-loan scandal as “peripheral”; as one of the Keating Five, he was a key player in the highest-profile political scandal connected to the financial disaster. Though a Senate investigation cleared McCain of serious wrongdoing (it did flag his “poor judgment”), McCain’s ties to Keating were well-established: He had received over $100,000 from Keating, had traveled on his private jet and had vacationed in the Bahamas with him; McCain’s family and Keating were also involved in a business venture together.
McCain has claimed for many years that the shame of the Keating scandal was what motivated his interest in campaign finance reform. But does that mean that the Keating history is off limits? Should reporters treat criticism of McCain’s conduct in the scandal as a low blow, given that more recent stories have suggested that the senator is still doing favors for influential constituents, lobbyists and contributors (New York Times, “A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain,” 4/22/08; Washington Post, “McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer,” 5/9/08)?

There is an unfortunate tendency among campaign reporters to suggest “both sides” are equally at fault in situations like this. In this case, the McCain campaign’s accusation that Obama is friendly with a terrorist is considered somehow on par with Obama raising McCain’s political record on a matter of actual relevance.

For now Obama does not need to go there, McCain is doing a fine job of hitting his political thumb with the hammer of negativity. (damn that was good!)

Finally, They Got Around To Saul

Saul Alinsky that is…..who is he, you will ask?  If you listen to McCain and the conservatives he was a Marxist writer that set down some rules for a Marxist take over of society.  Well that is a pipedream and an outright lie.  Yes he was a writer, but he was also the father of modern community organizing.  And we know what the McCain group thinks of community organizers, right?  By labeling Alinsky a Marxist makes all Organizers look like Marxists.  The Republican demonizing machine at its best.

With all the talk about this person or that I was afraid that McPalin would miss Alinsky.  I am so glad to see that I was mistaken.  In the last couple of days his name has made an appearance even on Monday Morning in an interview on MSNBC, Jon Voight, a McCain supporter made reference to Alinsky as a Marxist.

Alinsky is considered the father of community organizing, that is to get communities to act in organized self-interests.  He was a critic of mainstream liberalism, but that does not make one a Marxist.  In his book, the Rules For Radicals, Alinsky wrote:

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default.”

The very first sentence is non-Marxist, for a Marxist would not work within the system, but rather by a working class revolution.  Ayers may have been a “terrorist” back in the 60’s, but Saul Alinsky was no Marxist and should not be held in disdain because he showed the way for community organizing.  Many, many organizers are from the Alinsky school, such as, Caesar Chavez, even the great Hillary Clinton was an admirer and we all know by now that Obama was also from the school.

To call Alinsky a Marxist is just the typical conservative ploy to lessen the individual of whom they talk.  Once again the McCain camp is using tactics from the past.  After all, it is the 21st century and time for the US to look to the future.  It seems that Repubs are afraid of the future, they prefer to fall back on the tired policies of the past.

Saul Alinsky had a profound influence of the fight for social justice in the US.  He should be remembered for that and not some made crap used to influence voters and win elections.  Alinsky may have been a radical, but that does not make him a Marxist.