Michelle Obama the Radical?

I was following a thread about Chicago Community Organizers and radicals, and found a post that picked up on Michelle’s quoting Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Two of the best comments came from mbabbit:

It looks like Michelle Obama actually inverted the Alinsky statement. Alinsky states that the real radical deals with the world as it is and uses techniques that are rooted in this reality, not using techniques that come from a fantasy of how you wish the world should be. He was arguing that you have to use the means necessary to achieve your ends and that non-action is just helping the Haves and definitely not helping the Have-Nots. George Bush, in a way, followed this in that he saw the reality of Saddam Hussein and knew that after 9/11 waiting until it was too late out of the fantasy that Saddam could be negotiated with was no longer a viable option. War was a necessary means though in an ideal world, it would never be used. Hand it to Michelle to take this statement of Alinsky’s and turn it on its head: live for the fantasy of Barack Obama’s power of articulate conversation to change the mind of the US’ most lethal enemies.

I bolded his third sentence mostly for my own edification of what radicals do, and why the Obamas qualify as students and admirers of radicals, in an elitist political sort of way.  They use the tools and techniques of radicals like Alinski and Ayers to attack those in power, even as they strive to become te very people they rail against.

His second comment in the thread made his position even clearer.

After hearing Michelle’s speech, it became evident that the fantasy of the world most evident in the Obamas’ view of life is the one where the entire world, the good and the evil, can be seen through the template of the South Side of Chicago, with grasping conflicting/competing forces at play. But this is a very narrow view of the world, which is filled with forces much more lethal and evil than those the Obamas encountered. They encountered Americans, who by nature are a decent people even when overheated with emotion. But the Ahmedinejads, the Putins, the Osama bin Ladens of the world are not steeped in the American mindset. They are different from us, To not see this is to be in a dangerous state of blindness or denial.”

See it there?  The Obamas are still using the Chicago playbook.  It works in Chicago so much better than anywhere else in the US, but so much less so on the world stage.  It takes a massive number of people to buy into your fantasy to bring about change, and too often a murderous anarchist will not wait for you to get your forces together. As mbabbit says,  “To not see this is to be in a dangerous state of blindness or denial.”

Advertisements

3 Responses to Michelle Obama the Radical?

  1. I bolded his third sentence mostly for my own edification of what radicals do, and why the Obamas qualify as students and admirers of radicals, in an elitist political sort of way. They use the tools and techniques of radicals like Alinski and Ayers to attack those in power, even as they strive to become te very people they rail against.

    What are these “tools and techniques” you speak of? When did Michelle Obama bomb a Pentagon toilet with nobody in it?

    You either believe our society is “working” as it is, or you don’t. If you do, it must be working for YOU, and that immediately informs me that your economic status hovers around the top 10% of this country. Everyone else is getting the shaft right now. (And if that isn’t your economic status, you are being had.)

    And if you do believe in change, you listen to what EVERYONE (yes, everyone) has to say about how to achieve that. We call that open-minded and intelligent; it is only nefarious and terrorist if you are anti-intellectual by nature.

  2. OldGuy says:

    Daisy, if you will look to my referenced post on Rules for Radicals (linked in first paragraph), you’ll see some of the tactics.

    *The Ninth Rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.” (p. 35)

    * Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

    For the full list of tactics, look to Alinsky’s book itself. Also, the Gamaliel Foundation has some great training materials. BO is well schooled in these techniques. If you aren’t, why are you jumping on MY case? (BTW: I’m a career public servant, meaning my income is a little above average, but I’m no where near the top 10%.)

  3. I’ve read Alinsky, hon.

    This is my response to what you wrote on my blog, writing it here in case you miss it:

    Excuse me, but you are mistaken.

    Did you ever hear the song “Monster” by Steppenwolf? I mention it (as a totally random example) because I first heard it at a redneck party with a bunch of bikers drinking beer. I thought, WOW, since some of them were enthusiastically singing along with it, even the ones with confederate flag tattoos. And this was Bill Ayers’ era.

    “but that that class of radicals think different from mainstream America.”

    Speaking of 2008, you would be right… in fact, any time after Reagan was inaugurated, you would be right. BUT AT THE TIME???? You are dead-ass wrong. As the poet-laureate of the age so memorably sang, “There was music in the cafes at night and revolution in the air.” Hippies, bikers, housewives who frequented the same beauty salon my grandmother did, my neighbors, et. al. talked about revolution as if it might be inevitable, and there was even a revolutionary faction of ex-GIs against the war. Even serial killers (think: the most famous of our time) believed in revolution and made that part of their psychosis. IT WAS VERY DIFFERENT THAN NOW, and even my Republican grandfather from West Virginia thought there could be revolution.

    Can I ask how old you are, and if you were there at the time? How old were you in the 70s?

    As I wrote here, I am getting fed up with the rewrites of history by people who have it wrong in countless ways. In addition, you are applying the morality of NOW to the morality of THEN, and as we all know, 20/20 hindsight is perfect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: