The Clinton-Obama-Alinsky Myth
PETER SLEVIN of the Washington Post deserves some sort of award in media mythmaking for his piece recreating Clinton and
Obama as disciples of the great activist Saul Alinsky. They have in fact followed the teachings of Alinsky about as well
as George Bush has followed those of Jesus Christ.
To be sure, they both went to the church and prayed. But life moves on and as Alinsky pointed out, "When the poor get
power they'll be shits like everyone else." The same goes for Wellesley and Harvard Law School idealists.
Clinton, in fact, put her thesis on Alinsky under lock and key once her husband began running for president, something
that Slevin buried in his long encomium. And it is hard to think of anything in recent years more certain to have gotten
Alinsky angry than HRC's deceitful, confusing and insurance company-pandering health plan.
The Obama story is different. He actually worked for several years on Alinsky oriented projects. But that was a long
time ago and to present him as a current disciple of Alinsky is just plain false. He is today your run of the mill
liberal politician who doesn't want anybody mad at him and wouldn't even be a card in the race if he didn't hold the
I mentioned to a black friend that Obama reminded me a lot of the sort of black lawyers you meet at top Washington law
firms. "Yeah," he replied, "the Negro at the front door."
They are fine to handle your mergers or litigation, but if you are trying to save a country going down the tube, you're
probably better off with someone who hasn't spent his whole life trying to position himself safely in a hostile white
America. This is not in the slightest to his discredit personally; it's just not the job description on the table.
There can be in these glass-ceiling breakers a self-protective caution that enables them to survive but also makes them
less likely to break ceilings for others.
I know something about Alinsky because I wouldn't being doing what I'm doing if it weren't for an Alinsky organizer who
hit our Capitol Hill neighborhood in the 1960s and strongly urged me to start an activist neighborhood newspaper.
For the next few years I was immersed in Alinsky style populism while many of my white friends were engaged in something
far closer to the classical stereotype of the 1960s. If there is one theme that has set my subsequent journalism apart
from the more typical left media it has been an Alinsky-encouraged approach rooted in community, populism, placing
issues ahead of ideology and suspicion of power in all its forms.
Reading Slevin's article I was tempted to assume that this was another cynical Washington Post effort to spin America's
story, in this case to steal the populist thunder from John Edwards, the candidate closest to the Alinsky spirit and the
man with whom Alinsky would feel most comfortable. But perhaps this is unfair, because I know how little understood the
Alinsky style and values are anymore. It is not surprising that either Clinton and Obama are so removed from these; they
are, in fact, typical liberals in this regard.
Still you can't have it both ways and no one should think of either as practitioners in the model of a man who once
said, "Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world
can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict."
FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
EDITED BY SAM SMITH
Since 1964, Washington's most unofficial source
LATEST HEADLINES & INDEX: http://prorev.com
PROBLEMS SUBSCRIBING? SUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY: mailto:email@example.com
1312 18th St. NW #502 Washington DC 20036
202-835-0770 Fax: 835-0779