The More Things Change...
...the more they remain the same.
Wait a minute. What's that you say? From 1974 to 1997, that's 23 years. Bill Ayers is now a respected teacher and author, accepted by the academic community and the world at large as a former radical who no longer espouses violence as a legitimate means to change American society, isn't he? Well, perhaps.
It is true that Ayers no longer - publicly, at least - advocates blowing people up as a method of addressing the evils of American Capitalism/Imperialism. But have his goals changed or is it just the means? First, let's take a look at a passage from page 41 of Prairie Fire:
Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.
Now let's look at a description of a new book - also written by Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn - and due to be published shortly after the election: (h/t Protein Wisdom)
White supremacy and its troubling endurance in American life is debated in these personal essays by two veteran political activists. Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors' own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.
Doesn't sound all that different, does it? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this book doesn't receive a glowing review from one of their more prominent neighbors, either. Oh, before I forget, note the whitewashed biographies:
About the Author
William C. Ayers is a distinguished professor of education and a senior university scholar at the University of Illinois–Chicago. He is the author of To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher and Fugitive Days, a memoir about his life with his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Bernardine Dohrn is the director of the Children and Family Law Justice Center and a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern University. She is the coauthor of A Century of Juvenile Justice and Justice in the Making. They live in Chicago.
But what does any of this mean? Let me illustrate it another way. Take a look at the following two videos. (h/t Belmont Club) It's okay, they're short and won't take much of your time. And the music is appropriate, I think. It could almost be the theme song of the Obama Nation.
Pretty cool, huh? 1968 to 1993. Wow, that's 25 years. And yeah, the years have taken their toll - man, that bass player sure lost a lot of hair, didn't he? - but if you close your eyes and listen, the song sounds pretty much the same, doesn't it?
So, what does any of this mean, especially as it applies to the election of our next President? Probably nothing. But if any of this gives you a moment's pause and a slight case of anxiety, just pull on your ruby slippers, tap them together three times and repeat the mantra:
There's no place like Queens
There's no place like Queens
There's no place like Queens...
posted by VermontGuy @ 5:33 AM
6 Comments:
Ok, that last line was a good laugh, I'll give you. But speaking of slippers, I can hear you tap dancing from here. "A slight case of anxiety" about what? Just say it, man -- are you anxious that Obama's a crypto-socialist, or is it something else? Because even if I accept almost all of what's claimed here -- I hope you'll let me discount the claim that he ghost-authored Obama's book -- the most I still get is that Obama has respect for some of Ayers' views (with respect to juvenile justice in particular) and was willing to accept some support from him. Kind of like how I (and McCain) feel about G. Gordon Liddy.
WIll there about an upcoming post about fluoridating the water?
Oh, please, that whole fluoride conspiracy stuff was a hoax.
I'm glad you enjoyed the ending - that was my intention.
As for the rest, if I understand you correctly, your take seems to be remarkably similar to that of Obama's political strategist, David Axelrod:
Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.
Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."
In this belief, Obama is somehow able to associate (a very loose term, that, and not entirely accurate to the point but I'm pressed for time and it will have to do) with quite a number of unsavory organizations or people (or both) and yet somehow the stench from their actions or beliefs never touches him.
He's able to take their money, funnel (in some cases, enormous amounts) money to them, absorb their views and anti-american bias and yet none of this influences his judgment?
I find that very hard to believe.
Well, sort of, but not exactly. I really don't mean the G. Gordon Liddy thing as a political tit-for-tat, but rather a substantive comparison. What I mean is that Ayers is undeniably still a radical leftist when it comes to big picture "how should we run our country" issues. Still a pinko at heart -- no doubt about it. But I understand from friends in the field that he's also done substantive, detailed, mainstream, worthy work on juvenile justice and education of juvenile offenders. If I had to guess, Obama's got pretty much the same attitude I have -- people are complicated, and even if they're misguided on some pretty big issues, you can still value their worthwhile contributions to the good, if their "good" is a subject you care deeply about.
Mr. Liddy, similarly, says some really smart things. He was one of the folks pushing for an accurate (i.e. individual right) reading of the Second Amendment back when it was considered fringe-y to do so. He's a strong proponent of individual civil liberties in general. He's also funny as hell. However, if you need evidence that at heart he's still a little out there, how about the fact that he also suggested that if the ATF comes to take your guns, you shouldn't aim at the big "ATF" target because they're wearing bulltetproof vests; you need to take headshots. He's a pretty complicated guy. I'd sure as hell never say my politics will match his, or be seriously influenced in most ways by his, but I can still learn something from him.
Ayers' work on juvenile justice, like his work on education, is extremely radical by American political standards. He proceeds from the assumption that America is oppressive and racist, so the blame must always be on society. (For favored groups, anyway. The people he doesn't like, such as the rich and the Right, don't get off so easily.)
Obama did support Ayers' views back in the 1990's. Obama was on a panel with him on this issue and had a blurb for Ayers' book published in the Chicago Tribune. If Obama today announced he supported Ayers' views, and explained what they were in great detail, he would lose the election. This is part of the reason Obama is distancing himself, saying he and his administration will have nothing to do with Ayers.
Post a Comment
<< Home