PLAYING THE ISSUES
If you have been following my recent blogs, you know I believe President Obama is following the guidance of Saul Alinsky, a brilliant radical tactician. The core of Alinky’s teaching is that “the issue is never the issue.” The only goal is the destruction of the existing order and replacing it with the Progressive (socialist/communist) blueprint for a new and better world where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone pays their fair share. Under this political social philosophy, even a discussion of ends justifying the means is meaningless. If you are striving for power, the means are always morally justified. This strategical approach gives anyone using it incredible flexibility. They can change sides at any time it appears advantageous. The first step in creating a new world is to destroy the current order.
Now for some complexity. All issues are not the same and cannot be treated the same by the Progressives. For our purposes, I will put issues into three categories: The first category is issues that have been with us for several decades. Under this category live issues such as immigration, states rights, taxation, gun control, energy development, abortion, and solvency of our social programs. The second category are those that have been created recently. Here, I put climate control, sequestration, cabinet appointments, the role and size of the federal government, right to work issues, and government spending. Granted, some of these issues could fit under one of the two other categories. The third category contains those issues that appear to be spontaneous such as Benghazi, Syria, Muslim radicalism, international debt problems, unemployment, and job creation.
The flexibility Alinsky believers have somewhat depends on what category the issue is in. Take immigration as an issue. Obama cannot come out against immigration and he doesn’t have to put forward an effective bi-partisan solution. In fact he will not. Published plans, budgets, position papers are not part of Alinsky tactics as they limit changing sides or conditions abruptly. Instead, the immigration issue will be used to damage the Republican Party, the only party that stands in the way of the establishment of a Progressive dictatorship. This president does not want the Democrats and Republicans to come together to pass bipartisan immigration legislation. Instead, he will present obstacles and deal killers.
Since this is a blog and not a book, I’ll deal in this piece with only a few of the many possible issues. Energy policy is a perfect issue. Does any sane person believe America can be energy self-sufficient without the primary use of fossil fuels for several more decades? Yes. A constant search for alternative power sources is good as long as we are focused on creating an energy program in America that creates thousands of jobs and energy self-sufficiency. Windmills, algae, corn, solar panels just are not economically viable nor credible. How can any president not welcome the Canadian pipeline? It is a no-brainer unless your real objective is to create chaos, high unemployment, angry union workers, and blow off a good neighbor. Only Alinksy followers can applaud Obama’s lethargic non-action. Don’t fall for the Progressives blaming the increasing cost of gasoline on Big Oil. They aren’t boy scouts but the price goes up when the Federal Reserve, which is a private company, prints obscene billions of dollars each month that weaken the dollar. Arabs sell oil for dollars. The weaker the dollar, the more dollars it takes to buy a barrel of oil. Keep in mind few transformations ever occur in a country with an sound economy, near full employment, and a promising future.
One last issue, Benghazi. Could the president have anticipated this crisis? No. But his staff and Cabinet should have. This issue just popped up. The president didn’t know what to do. So he did nothing. Well, he did create confusion. To have this shameful crisis be centered around who created what “talking points” is a mark of Beltway mentally. Fix the blame. Not the problem. Not even Alinsky or Axelrod would have recommended he not call the Pentagon for action or fail to convene his National Security Council, or travel the next day to Las Vegas to attend a fundraiser, or throw Susan Rice under the bus, or the bumbling concealment of information. In keeping with Obama-type transparency he has even kept the names and whereabouts of the Benghazi survivors secret, in spite of requests from Congress. On the Benghazi issue, the president damaged himself as well as the nation. Using every issue as a means to attack your opposition often diminishes all of us. Just ask the surviving family members what they think about the issue is never the issue as a principle for presidential leadership.
By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series. www.factsandfictions.com
- Is there an Obama-Alinsky comparison to be made and will it push us over the fiscal cliff? (itmakessenseblog.com)
- Eight Decades of Insights 34 (factsandfictions.com)
- Eight Decades of Insights 35 (factsandfictions.com)