Category Archives: Alinsky
A fictional discourse between a learned political science professor and his students.
In little over a month, I’ll be seeing some of you in my honors seminar. For those of you who have other plans and commitments, I’ll continue to send you my thoughts and analysis of current events.
I believe this next class maybe the most important one I’ve ever taught. There is too much at stake for any American who loves this country to sit on the sidelines. The realities are fundamentally frightening. We have just come thru an extraordinary period of destructive national government policies. I’m not being a pessimist when I say, we cannot survive as free democratic nation unless we can recover from the results of the last ten or so years.
First the realities as I see them. The nation is deeply divided between the people who want the welfare promises of socialism and those who believe there is no individual freedom and prosperity under any form of socialism. In a cradle to grave government, there are very few individual choices. An absence of individual choice defines the absence of freedom. President Obama knowingly presided over a transformation process that would ultimately lead to a socialist government. A process that Hillary Clinton would have continued. Remember they both made no secret of the allegiance they paid to Mr. Saul Alinsky.
It was Mr. Alinsky, a brilliant revolutionary writer, who provided the intellectual under pinning to the Progressive movement, including the name. Mr. Alinsky stressed to his followers that the terms socialism and communism would not attract wide support in America and to use the term progressive instead. He also used the terms ‘leading from behind’ and ‘the issue is never the issue.’ I will cover the political takeover of the center/left Democratic Party by the Progressives. Today the Democratic Party of the American political scene is only a misleading name for the Progressives.
The Progressives do not accept that Donald J. Trump won the national election and is now their president. They are doing, and will do anything to bring down his Presidency before it can establish itself and bring America back. They are supported and, even led, by the national media, our higher educational institutions, and the entertainment world. The deluge of misinformation and lies from our once renown media outlets, is having an effect. Without the Presidents tweets, there would be no other broadly disseminated information source. I believe that is true but am still amazed by the weirdness of that statement.
Even though President Trump won the election and selected his cabinet and other government employees, his own Department of Justice, is at best, not engaged and at worst, actually hostile. How else can you explain the existence of a Special Consul when no crime has been identified and it is staffed and run by those openly opposed to the Trump Administration? How could this happen when the Attorney-General and his deputy were appointed by the President?
In my seminar, we will examine the past policies of President Obama and apply the America First principle to both domestic and international actions. Advanced warning, don’t sign up if you base your arguments on emotional beliefs. Just the facts, please.
A fictional discourse between a learned political science professor and his students.
I stress in my seminars that the modern political scientist or journalist must know how to think outside the box, have a solid understanding of history and, above all, a strong dose of logic and common sense. It seems there are very few who can check these three boxes. Look at the fervor over the alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians. According to the Progressive/Socialists, often referred to as Democrats, President Trump only won the national election because of Russian meddling in the election.
What the Progressive followers of Obama and Clinton don’t want to acknowledge and the Congressional Republicans are too timid and self-serving to say, is that the Russians have always meddled in elections, especially in the era of the Comintern organization of the Lenin/Stalin period. But the Russians have never tried to influence an election in favor of a capitalistic nationalist party. They have spent billions on hundreds of foreign political campaigns and elections to further the spread of communism and socialism.
Why would they try to help Trump when the Obama administration systematically weakened America’s military and economic power? Obama pulled missile defense systems out of eastern Europe, curtailed the American development of an ICBM defense, allowed Russia to put a strong military presence in the Middle East, including a naval base in the Mediterranean, refused Ukrainian requests for weapons to combat the Russian takeover of the Crimea and large parts of Ukraine and crippled the development and export of American oil and natural gas.
Candidate Trump made no secret of the fact, that he would rebuild America’s military and economic power. Hillary Clinton pledged to continue President Obama’s policies. The Russians are not dumb when it comes to advancing their national interests. Yes, the Russians can be counted on to meddle in elections in favor of their national interests. Candidate Trump’s campaign promises were and are not in Russia’s national interests. The only campaign and administration that have colluded with the Russians is that of the progressive regime of Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Today’s democratic/progressive messages are tied to the Alinsky strategy of using any and all issues to attack and destroy the opposition. Progressives may take any side of any issue as long as it furthers the progressive cause. Most of the national media is fully supporting progressive policies. Don’t look for truth or logic in progressive messaging. They are not important. Sizing power is.
The following is a fictional account of the dialogue between a political science professor and the students of an honors seminar in an East Coast liberal arts college.
The class had just started when Alison raised her hand. The Professor nodded, and she asked, “Everyone talks about a bi-partisan process in Congress to pass needed legislation. I don’t see how that is possible. It seems to me that the bi-partisan approach to legislation is a thing of the past and is just not possible today. Am I right?”
“When the country is divided, so will the Congress. The wider the divide between our two parties, the more difficult it is to put together a bipartisan vote in the House or Senate to pass any kind of legislation. In the past, while both parties worked to elect a strong majority in both houses, it has only been in the last decade that one party is dedicated to achieving a long-term one-party rule. This has been true since the Progressives have dominated leadership positions in the Democratic Party. Your best source for this recent political direction is the writings of Saul Alinsky, a brilliant revolutionary writer who was once a ‘political organizer’ in Chicago. Alinsky has made a profound effect on the liberal left-wing of the American political scene.
“You can sum up his teaching by saying that as long as your intention is to seize power for the Progressive Party (his term for socialism and communism), the end justifies the means and you are free to choose whichever side of any issue that will help you destroy the political opposition. Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton chose the Alinsky doctrine to push for a one party ruling government in America. They came very close to success. The danger is still there. Approximately half the voters in America have accepted the socialist message. Remember, in most cases people have voted themselves into a socialist government. Voting yourself out of socialism is a very difficult problem. Venezuela today is a perfect example.
“When the democratic/progressive party is devoted to destroying all political opposition, bi-partisan legislation is a hard challenge. If a champion arises from the very diminished number of moderates in the old Democratic Party who could champion America issues of well-being, social mobility, economic prosperity and national security, then maybe the numbers of socialist followers in America could be diminished and there could be a return to bipartisan government. There is not much time left as the Progressives today control the national media and nearly all our universities.
“Alison, does that answer your question?”
“Yes, but how can we who do not believe in socialism and its ‘leading from behind doctrine prevent a Progressive takeover?”
“Don’t stand on the sidelines and whine. Become real players. Get in the political fray at all levels. Speak out. Americans are a remarkable people and given a choice will pick the right course. But only if that choice is laid out and explained, Otherwise, the Progressive/Socialists will play their seductive song over and over until it becomes a reality. At that point, returning to a free society with individual choices and freedoms will require more than words. It will require a people’s revolution in the streets of America.”
You can sign up to receive these blog posts via email by subscribing at www.factsandfictions.com.
The class was halfway over and the momentum of the discussion was slowing when Alison asked, “Professor, if everything is political, how much does the viability of our system of government depend on the existence of two or more political parties?”
“Good question and one that is outside the ‘box.’ People create and join with a group of like-minded citizens to be able to push their political and social beliefs. Without such ‘parties’ it is hard to see how a democracy could exist. The alternative is clearly an autocratic dictatorship or single party led by an elite group. Recent and current communist and socialist governments fit this template. The other possibility is a utopian plan such as the utopian agrarian parties common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The utopian parties, with their roots in European socialist philosophy, all failed for the same reason, the lack of an authority to motivate members to follow the rules, written or unwritten.
“The Socialist and Communist governments fixed this problem by establishing a one party ruling elite with strong coercive powers. They all failed due to over centralization and harsh penalties for those who have the courage to dissent. The combination of centralized control leading to a falling standard of living and increasing political repression eventually bring the people to revolt.
“Enough background. American democracy needs a political arena of more than one party. A one-party system has always led to a loss of freedom regardless of the political ideology of the ruling party. During your lifetime, you will face a continued struggle between the Progressive Party and its conservative opposition. It sounds theoretical, but it is very real. The Progressive Party has swallowed the Democratic Party. It exists only in name. In the last national election, more than 50% of the voters voted for the Progressive Party. Only the Electoral College system established in the Constitution kept the Progressives under Hillary Clinton from winning the White House.
“The Progressives owe their name and political program ideology to Saul Alinsky, a brilliant American Socialist, who had a defining impact on both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He, too, was a Community Organizer in Chicago. The Progressive ideology is to use any means available to destroy the opposition and seize power to redistribute individual and national wealth using the power of a single party government. In the process of destroying the opposition political party, it was first necessary to destroy American economic and military power. President Obama, I believe, made an impressive start to destroying American uniqueness and the faith the citizens have in their government. The entire Civil Service now has a questionable first and second tier leadership.
“The next four to eight years of leadership is critical. We were close to the tipping point and unless the media reverts to reporting all the news and the conservative leadership becomes far better at getting its message to all Americans, freedom of choice of the individual will be lost. Pick your side. There can be no fence siting.”