By Donna Schaper with Rake Morgan and Frank Marafiote contributing.
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
With Hillary Clinton poised to win the Democratic nomination for president, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.
The following is our analysis of Hillary’s thesis, plus a link to the actual document, courtesy of the Freedom Underground. It is a large PDF file – please give it a moment to download and open. To read her thesis click here: Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis
Americans who graduated from high school in 1965 and college in 1969 were not just part of a population bubble — the “baby boomers” — but a cultural one as well. The children of the Sixties combined the typical young adult developmental cycle with a unique cycle in the life of this nation. They were not only trying to learn about dating, but also about foreign policy, ethics, and racism.
Hillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation: “Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary.
Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘S pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedago – guey” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at WellesleY, she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut, taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge,thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.
Alan Maki said:
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Progressives and the Middle East; and “progressive” impostors
I received an e-mail that contained this:
The second reason that peace leaders fail to criticize the leading pro-war lobby is because of the influence of pro-Israel ‘progressives’ in the movement. These progressives condition their support of ‘peace in Iraq’ only if the movement does not criticize the pro-war Israel lobby in and outside
the US government, the role of Israel as a belligerent partner to the US in Lebanon, Palestine and Kurdish Northern Iraq. A movement claiming to be in favor of peace, which refuses to attack the main proponents of war, is pursuing irrelevance….
I agree completely with the statement: “A movement claiming to be in favor of peace, which refuses to attack the main proponents of war, is pursuing irrelevance….”
This question of “progressives” supporting the pro-war, right-wing policies of the Israeli government and the right-wing Israeli lobby here in the United States is a very basic and most important question, in my opinion, also.
I don’t think it is so much real “progressives” that we are speaking of; but, rather, people who are posturing as “progressives” and who are opportunistically using the term “progressive” in order to cover-up their real agenda which is, in fact, a corrupt, reactionary, big-business agenda right down the line from supporting the war in Iraq and the Israeli bloodbath and subjugation and repression of the Palestinian people to a host of other reactionary items on their agenda that have nothing at all in common with progressivism which they are trying to pass off as “progressive” in order to hoodwink, us, and the American public.
Why might anyone be so dishonest?
Because, did you ever hear of anyone putting forward a “reactionary” agenda and getting elected to public office? Republicans have already cornered the market on “conservative.”
In the Democratic Party, these reactionaries, which are clearly aligned with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Walter Mondale, Minnesota’s United States Senator Amy “Republican Lite” Klobuchar and other opportunists of this ilk can get no where by describing themselves as “moderate,” [a label they in fact attach to themselves] which means absolutely nothing to most people… other then they just kind of stand in the middle of the road like fools waiting to get run over… ever heard of anyone putting forward a “moderate” agenda and actually getting elected? Again, the distinction between the “moderate” label… and a “moderate agenda.” Moderates never run their campaigns claiming a “moderate agenda,” this would be the kiss of death at the polls. Instead they look to pass themselves off as liberals or progressives… the American electorate is clearly beyond, and to the left of liberalism, and is insisting on nothing less than a more radical progressive alternative to the reactionary Republican agenda. Hence these moderates have tried to hijack the progressive label in using it to dishonestly hide their real aims.
Obviously, if these people wrapped themselves in the “conservative” label, where they and their reactionary ideas and their pro-war agenda really belong, they couldn’t make it to first base among Democratic voters… they would strike out at the polls every time; which had been occurring for many years if you recall.
Take a look at what these people have done… they hired a linguist, George Lakoff, who advised them, for a very handsome fee, that “packaging” is everything. Use slick packaging making any outlandish claim for a product, wrap it in fancy, smancy packaging and you will sell it.
In his popular little booklet which has paid off handsomely for Lakoff, “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” Lakoff is very clear. Lakoff is only for “framing” issues for the purpose of bringing into the political debate progressive sounding policy directions, AND he emphatically advises these “moderate” Democrats to never, ever put forward any specific solutions to any problems. Read the book; see for yourself; this is all spelled out very clearly… and, very cleverly in order to try to suck us all in to “winning.” What is won, though? The war goes on just like people go without health care working for a minimum wage that insures a lifetime of poverty.
Lakoff would like us to believe progressives can’t really win on a genuine progressive platform which provides concrete solutions to the very real problems in our country and the world. Is Lakoff correct…? I say he isn’t.
In fact, contrary to Lakoff’s “theory” aimed at making a mockery of the science of linguistics, progressives can win; and, when putting forward intelligently framed progressive policy directions accompanied with real solutions to problems progressive do win in the United States like they do in any other country in the world. There are numerous current and historic examples.
With this book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” Lakoff has hoodwinked many real progressives who should know better… however, real progressives have been desperate for finding a way to bring their ideas forward into the mainstream of American politics so even many real progressives have bought into Lakoff’s advice dished out explicitly for this bunch of so-called “moderate” democrats… I can’t stress this enough— Lakoff’s advice is tailored to these so-called moderates… not to real progressives except to lure us into a sinking ship. Moderates, who, if we examine their positions in regard to race issues, women’s equality, peace, environmental and global warming, and most especially labor issues and on capitalism, we find these so-called “moderates” to in fact be very reactionary… again, Hillary Clinton is our prime example… in fact all the announced and leading Democratic candidates for President in the double-digits are prime and classic examples.
They could never get elected on their real pro-business, pro-war, anti-labor reactionary agenda. This is why, for real progressives to continue to advocate for the “lesser of two evils” is a losing proposition because all we end up getting is evil in one form or another; corrupt politicians whose goal is to drive down our standard of living and carry forward the aims of U.S. imperialism which means a never ending cycle of wars, along with social and economic injustices.
Maybe we should clearly define the basic hallmarks of real progressivism.
Real progressivism is based on a world outlook which holds that all life is sacred and war, in our modern world, is not a solution to local, regional, or international problems. Real progressives believe as Lincoln did— that labor is to be respected and all forms of human exploitation, be it chattel slavery or exploitation of labor in any form must be rejected, and that labor is the superior of capital. Real progressives would never tolerate the Israeli occupation of another people’s homeland and sit in silence in the face of the continued Israeli campaign of carnage and repression against the Palestinian people.
Jimmy Carter, who is among these “moderate” politicians has had the courage to break ranks and take a genuinely progressive stand on the Israeli-Palestinian question and has the moral courage to bring forward the concept that Palestinians are human beings like any of us… he hasn’t really brought forward a specific “progressive” solution into the debate; at least not yet; however, and this is a very important “however,” he does insist that dialogue is the solution to the problems in the Middle East rather than war… obviously for progressives, too, this is the basic, fundamentally necessary first step towards a lasting peace in the Middle East. We can live with a moderate who has the courage to join with us in advocating the first step towards peace.
Yet, Jimmy Carter has been viciously attacked by his moderate friends for taking this courageous stand.
For bringing forward my ideas about peace in the Middle East and speaking out against the continued Israeli carnage I have been targeted for the most vicious attack aimed at trying to silence me and drive me from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party; this attack is pretty much summed up in an e-mail I received from a sitting judge, who wrote: “Maki, you must be fucking an Arab bitch.” This was in response to my suggestion that a special meeting of the State Central Committee of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party be called to have a dialogue, discuss, and debate what our position should be on ending the carnage and bloodbath in the Middle East.
Unlike Jimmy Carter, we have a life-long, true and very real progressive like George McGovern who has brought forward in his “Blueprint” to end the war in Iraq which embodies very specific progressive solutions backed up by progressive policy directions which have been framed very well.
McGovern’s “Blueprint” is like poison to these “progressive” posers and impostors who have deceptively, opportunistically and dishonestly wrapped themselves in the “progressive” label in the very same way the so-called patriots wrap themselves in the American flag and send everyone else off to fight their dirty wars as they reap the spoils and profits simply by clipping their Wall Street coupons without dirtying their hands.
To these “progressive” impostors and posers, George McGovern has committed the deadliest sin of all according to George Lakoff who specifically warns against: framing an issue from a progressive policy position, and then putting forward a real solution; solution is what we need to hone in on.
It would seem to me real progressives need to find a way to mature to the point where they can work with moderates like Carter when he brings forward a progressive viewpoint which sets forth a progressive “first step” solution aimed at ending this bloodshed in the Middle East on the basis of self-determination along with advocating full respect and equality for the Palestinian people… and who knows, Jimmy Carter may find an eventual home in the real progressive movement— stranger things have been known to occur… he has displayed many exemplary humanitarian traits that coincide with real progressive ideals on numerous occasions since leaving public office.
Anyone can contrast the views of Jimmy Carter to those of his former Vice-President— Walter Mondale, and see a very significant difference. Mondale has called for more wars… war against Iran… a pre-emptive strike against North Korea; continued unconditional support for the bestial and inhuman policies of an expansionist Israel. When it comes to being a “progressive,” Mondale is the embodiment of a worthless charlatan and a fraud. Jimmy Carter on the other hand has been moving in a genuinely progressive direction on numerous issues… if he doesn’t make the complete turn to progressivism; it is not for lack of trying… it may be for the lack of progressives reaching out a hand.
Getting back to George McGovern… the “progressive” impostors and posers have done a real number on McGovern— so, what is new, they have been smearing him for years, five decades in fact… because he was an unflinching progressive political proponent of the New Deal and political ally of Frances Perkins, the feisty progressive Secretary of Labor in the New Deal government of Franklin Roosevelt who wasn’t afraid to have friends like Communist Party leader Earl Browder; the heroic Communist Party member and leader of the West Coast Longshore Union, Harry Bridges; and, Minnesota’s real progressives, socialist governors Floyd B. Olson and Elmer Benson and the Communist Party member of the United States Congress from the Iron Range, John Bernard— all three overwhelmingly elected on the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party ticket in the 1930’s.
In fact, when reactionaries tried to rattle her cage by quoting to her from Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto, a liking it to the social programs she advocated, Perkins responded by humorously saying she was glad to see someone agreed with her.
How do these “progressive” posers and impostors attack McGovern’s “Blueprint” for ending this dirty war in Iraq? They again turn to smearing him; claiming “we” can’t be associated with such a “loser” when in fact, long-time serving, continually re-elected United States Senator George McGovern, who wore his progressive label on his shirt sleeves and in the legislation he authored and in every speech he delivered, in every discussion with constituents would have won the presidency had not these very same “moderates,” who now make the claim— a knowingly false and dishonest claim— of being “progressive;” if they would not have sat out the election twiddling their thumbs and picking their noses as they with-held the resources of the Democratic Party from McGovern which he would have needed in order to be elected President— these “progressive” posers were responsible for McGovern losing and throwing our Nation to the vultures and the wolves who were already circling over us as if we were road-kill… as a result— for over thirty-five years now the New Deal has been under attack, rolled-back, and pulverized.
In fact, these “moderate” Democrats now posing as “progressives,” gave us, and the world, Richard Nixon— not to mention giving us tens of thousands of American G.I.’s returned from Vietnam in body bags while killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese in who knows how many My Lai Massacres which has left our country deeply in debt to this very day.
Since then they have rolled over and acquiesced to the Republican big-business agenda.
It is not true “progressives” advocating support for the right-wing, warmongering policies of the Israeli government which fronts for U.S. imperialism like corrupt Native American tribal officials front for organized crime in the casino industry… and note who is among the first to endorse Hillary Clinton and who has been among the foremost defenders of the right-wing, warmongering, Israeli government here in Minnesota politics… one Melanie Benjamin… the head of a casino empire where thousands of workers are employed in casinos filled with second-hand smoke, without any rights under state, federal, or tribal labor laws and without any voice at work or in the communities where they reside— all receiving poverty wages— as the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party turns over its home page website to Ms. Benjamin to pontificate and lecture about human rights!
Imagine that… one who denies thousands of casino workers their most basic and fundamental human rights and calls for continued support for the reactionary policies of the Israeli government… and, what label is attached to Melanie Benjamin by herself and her friends in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party? You guessed it… she is a “progressive!” Not just any “progressive,” but a “PROGRESSIVE!!!!” Melanie Benjamin is touted as a “progressive supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” She joins Walter Mondale in being anointed to “progressive” standing in the MN DFL.
Now, figure this out… Minnesota DFL state representative Bernie Lieder boasted to the news media just days before the election that he was more conservative than his Bush-Cheney, war supporting anti-single-payer, universal health care loving Republican opponent, yet Lieder’s campaign literature stated that he was a “progressive.”
Progressives have in fact been a dominant force in American politics when truthfully asserting their progressive agenda for peace and social justice. Under the progressive banner the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party dominated the political landscape in Minnesota for years with a legacy that cannot be destroyed. Even Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty was forced to acknowledge in his keynote address before the last Republican State Convention that he could not break through this barrier of progressivism in Minnesota which has become, what he described, as a “tradition.”
The New Deal Administration of the 1930’s and into the 1940’s was truly “progressive” representing Americans from all walks of life and was a marvelous progressive undertaking; brought to an end by Harry Truman— the idol of these “moderate” Democrats.
There are the examples of progressivism from North Dakota and South Dakota; Wisconsin and New York and California.
We need to be careful we do not fall into the trap of allowing these phony politicians the opportunity to hijack real progressivism in the name of political opportunism. In fact, we don’t even need the Hillary Clintons and this bunch of “progressive” posers and impostors.
What we do need to do, is carefully lay a firm foundation for a truly progressive movement with a well framed progressive agenda which includes real solutions to the real problems people are experiencing; again, I stress… “solutions.” People are looking for solutions to all these problems.
Here in Minnesota the reactionary leadership of the Minnesota DFL which has deceitfully and dishonestly wrapped itself in the cloak of “progressivism” has tried to manipulate and control the peace movement by insisting that those who support the rights of the Palestinian people be excluded from the peace movement, as well silenced in the MN DFL if they dare to stand up and criticize the warmongering, racist, and repressive policies of the Israeli government.
The specific methods they use include forcing the “Progressive Caucus” to agree to support all candidates endorsed by the MN DFL. Why anyone would be so week-minded to agree to such shenanigans I will never understand.
We saw this at the last MN DFL state convention when the well known peace activist Charley Underwood decided at the last minute to challenge the nomination of Amy Klobuchar for United States Senate… he was given a “loyalty oath” which he agreed to: “Will you support the nominated candidate of the MN DFL if you do not receive the endorsement of the convention?” He responded, “Yes.” Even though he knew that in spite of his excellent speech condemning this dirty war in Iraq— even though he did not dare to criticize Israel’s warmongering policies— he knew he was not going to be nominated, and Amy “Republican Lite” Klobuchar would get the nomination. He and others from the Progressive Caucus and members of the State Central Committee were repeatedly warned they would be removed from their positions should they do otherwise. Well, I am still here; not only did I not endorse Klobuchar, but I urged people not to vote for her and I didn’t vote for her myself. Even the popular, truly progressive, anti-war and pro single-payer, universal health care candidate, Ford Bell, who had been challenging Klobuchar, was done in by the Israeli lobby in the MN DFL.
Given that this is the way these “progressive” impostors and frauds maintain their control together with smear and hate campaigns progressives are going to have to consider some alternatives.
In my opinion, what needs to be done is that progressives need to use more tact. What we need to do is remain active inside the Democratic Party without fearing going outside of the Democratic Party to pursue our progressive agenda. Democracy requires such an approach. One way of doing this is for progressives to get behind a candidate in the primaries and, if not successful, have another candidate ready to move into the general election.
In fact, in West Michigan, a similar tactic successfully led to Richard Vanderveen being the first Democrat— a progressive anti-Vietnam War Democrat— in years to attain the 5th District Congressional seat after Jerry Ford held the seat for many years. (Vanderveen lost after the professional political hacks got their clutches on him and convinced him his populist progressive message was a fluke and he wouldn’t win again without moving to the center— sound familiar?; well it was losing advice; when he asked me what I thought, I told him he would lose if he budged from his progressive agenda.)
As progressives we should consider this tactic; it works. People have a right to vote for candidates that reflect their views… in the United States today people want to have a real progressive option… this is evident with the clear signs of let-down and disappointment when Democrats continued to cave in to Bush and Cheney after the last election.
There was clearly a time when there was the need to consider the lesser of two evils, in my opinion. This is not such a time. As progressives, we have the majority of humanity in all countries now moving along the progressive road— this is our “protection.” We need not fear the danger from the right to the extent we have to hold our noses every time we enter the voting booth whether it is for drain commissioner, county commissioner, state or federal elected officials; or the president.
What we need to do is strategize; and, we need to serve notice on these frauds and impostors posing under the guise of “progressivism” that we really do dare to step outside of the two-party system, and we dare to do so in a way where we dare to win… not worrying if these progressive impostors lose.
Part of our strategy that should be considered is running in very close and hotly contested races so that these progressive fakers know that we mean business. A big part of politics is demonstrating having the power to make or break other candidates. It is not of our making, or our fault, that these “progressive” posers can not win elections without our support… and, they can’t.
There is no reason why peace and social justice organizations shouldn’t be seeking ballot status. For instance, why shouldn’t “Minnesotans for Peace and Social Justice” be on the ballot, and be fielding candidates for public office? I think the time is now.
I have been mulling this over for quite some time… anyone else thinking along these lines? If so, let’s talk. We can get together around your kitchen table, or mine.
Alan L. Maki
LikeLike
Mark said:
Alan,
Get a job
LikeLike
someone said:
Make an educated choice on the facts.
When candidates use fear for votes such as the dems.
The truth from the government census website.
44.8 million do not have health care.
Of that 9.3 million are not Americans, they are a (NON CITIZEN)
35.5 million with out insurance are American
7.8 million Americans without insurance earn more than $50,000
7.8 million Americans without insurance earn more than $50,000
So 15.6 million Americans could pay for health care
That leaves 27.7 million without health care
I would take another 5 million off to account for people in prison and those who don’t care.
That leaves 22.7 million without health care which if you use the same numbers as dems. That’s 8% of Americans without health care
With the poverty rate of 12.7
Remember this is just who is insured not who gets health care
Do we have people dying in the street or in their home, NO WE DON’T
Is American insurance system broke?
Is American health care broke?
No they are not, are they perfect.
No they are not perfect, but they are better than what is being proposed.
Don’t destroy a system that could be improved with minor changes
Do you really what the government who pays for $250,000 for a screw or $100,000 for a toilet seat.
Think about it first
LikeLike
Rake Morgan said:
Chris (AKA “Someone”), I certainly appreciate your taking the time to comment and for making available the chart from the Census Bureau about health care. I realize that there are many people who feel the way you do. Many of us look at the same numbers and come to a different conclusion. It is a matter of perspective and of looking deeper and the situation behind the data.
First, I think you were looking at the wrong column. The total uninsured in 2006 is 47 million.
Second, in an instant you throw out 10 million non-residents and say they should not be considered part of the health care problem. They are a BIG part of the problem for two reasons: 1) They are here in this country, health care is a human right, not a privelege for the wealthy, we have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that they receive proper medical care, 2) Most uninsured non-citizens get whatever healthcare they receive in our hospital emergency rooms — the most expensive place to get care. If they were insured they would go to regular clinics and doctors for treatment and — most importantly — preventive care. So, I put those 10 million people back into the totals.
You also tossed out households earning over $50,000. That’s another 14 million people. What you might not realize is that a) many of those households (as defined by the Census Bureau) are comprised of non-married, non-related individuals. Even if one person had insurance, the other one would not be covered under most insurance programs.
You also dismiss the possibility that — depending on the number of dependents — even family households earning at those levels could not afford today’s insurance premiums if they had to pay for their own insurance.
Finally, the biggest issue is that insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick who they will insurance. Many households with higher incomes are refused insurance, even when they can afford it. If they cannot buy insurance because of their medical condition or past insurance use, it does not matter how much they make.
Those 14 million people that you tossed out go back into the “problem” pool.
Third, your last category of people who don’t need health care are those in prison and those who “don’t care.” I think we can make a distinction between inappropriate “privileges” granted to prisoners and their basic human right to receive appropriate health care services. They’re back into the “problem” pool.
Then there are the people who, as you put it, don’t care. Just like non-citizens, individuals who “don’t care” — typically young people who think they will live forever — do use our health care system and also get their care in the most expensive place to get it — the emergency room. They must be mandated to have health insurance, if only to protect the financially viability of the health care system as a whole.
So, those 5 million go back into the pool of the problem uninsured, and we are back to a total of 47 million people who are legitimately in need of health care coverage.
I know that health care quality always comes up as an issue, but I think we can address that topic during our next “chat.”
— Rake
LikeLike
Brian Wrye said:
wear my t-shirt
(Sorry, Brian, but we do not advertise here.)
LikeLike
peoplepowergranny said:
I loved Saul Alinsky. Check out my post on http://peoplepowergranny.blogspot.com and get my impressions of the South Carolina Democratic Primary. You can also vote in my poll or add your comment.
I bet Obama was influenced by Alinsky. All community organizers love the man!
LikeLike
Pingback: “Liberal Fascism” #1 Nonfiction Book In America! « Riggword Weblog
Pingback: The Methodists, Alinsky and Hillary Clinton « Churchmouse Campanologist