A Conservative Viewpoint
- The Left’s Socialist Manifesto
Article by Bob Steinburg
- Edenton, North Carolina: Cradle of the Colony
The late Saul Alinsky, a committed community organizer of the 20th century, was a neo- Marxist who wrote the book “Rules for Radicals.” Alinsky was primarily influenced, not by Karl Marx, but by the 19th century philosopher and co-founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci.
Gramsci believed in the theory of “Gradualism,” a long methodical march through the permanent institutions of a society that will ultimately capture the existing culture and turn it inside out. He deemed this the most effective means of changing forever western society.
Capitalism and Christianity are primary targets. Weakening or destroying both opens the door for the socialist ideology to secure its foothold. Alinsky argued against the violent tactics to create change radicals used in the `60’s and `70’s. Rather he believed in stealth and deception to achieve a cultural revolution.
In examining U. S. society today, it’s clear to some that the radical left’s agenda is having an impact. Debate is stymied on controversial subjects like homosexuality and racism for fear of one being called a racist or homophobe. The left coddles our enemies like terrorists and criminals, while attacking fellow Americans. They create political distrust in capitalism and ridicule Christians for their beliefs. They’re also advocates for an aggressive re-distribution of wealth by rewriting codes to benefit all those who hurt.
Should benefiting the “hurting” include helping those who owe more money on their home than it’s worth? Using that logic, what about those who own cars that are worth less than owed? How about furniture and/or appliances we bought? Is government responsible for reimbursing us if suddenly we’re not happy with our purchase?
What about failing private industries with incompetent management and/or poor products? Should the taxpayers assume the responsibility for a bailout or a government takeover to insure a company’s survival?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why should “private” companies get billions in “public” money? The answer is: they shouldn’t –at least not in a free-market capitalism economy. The strong and innovative businesses will find a way to survive. The weak, inefficient and poorly mismanaged operations will fall by the wayside. That’s how capitalism works and why it remains the greatest creator of individual wealth in the world. The government can never create wealth; it can only spend ours in the form of tax dollars.
Government is beginning to insert itself more and more into our daily lives. From health care, to banks, to industry-the government is everywhere. It’s hard to deny what is happening in Washington today. We are now moving away from capitalism and toward socialism at an alarming rate. President Bush may have unwittingly further set the wheels of socialism in motion with his ill-advised $700 billion bank bailout plan (TARP); but the Obama administration is taking it to heights never before seen in the history of the world.
Socialism is defined as a political and economic theory that advances a system of collective or government ownership and manages all means of production and distribution. It eventually seeps into every aspect of life, including censorship of the airwaves. This leads to government’s total control over its citizenry.
Charitable giving in the U.S. has always been significant. Citizens donate to provide funding to those with needs; their generosity helps in giving assistance to those in need of shelter, food, medical care or the paying of utility bills. Yet, President Barack Obama’s new tax proposals seek to eliminate or cap those charitable deductions from the income tax returns of those wealthy individuals who give the most.
Obama argues that those folks should altruistically continue giving anyway, regardless of tax deductions. Maybe so. But why risk any contributions drying up, unless the real goal is to drive those being nurtured by charities into the all too welcoming arms of big government? This strategy has been used by the Democrats for decades to retain the votes of many who continue to receive welfare benefits. Government assistance should be a bridge to somewhere, not a road to nowhere.
The threat of socialism, or worse communism, is more a danger today, than at any time in our history. Last fall, conditions were right for the “perfect storm.” The economy was tanking; we were fighting two wars and a left – wing, inexperienced and relatively unknown candidate was running for president- promising everybody, everything. Barack Obama’s campaign mantra of “change” catapulted him into the Oval Office.
By the end of this fiscal year Obama’s spending will have quadrupled the size of the Bush deficits last year. There appears to be no end of spending in site. As a result we might see periodic bumps in the economy in the short-term. But in the long-run, our staggering national debt may require us to surrender our economic sovereignty completely to a more fiscally sound economic power.
In their last issue, Foreign Affairs Magazine cites facts and figures that China definitely is becoming the world’s new economic powerhouse, citing the decline of the U.S., and the trillions China holds in American debt. We must stop the madness in Washington now!
In an editorial from Boston.com last fall, Saul Alinsky’s son David said the following after the Democrats held their convention in Denver: “…The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfect organized event, Saul Alinsky style.” He went on to say, “When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change, and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.”
It remains to be seen what that lesson will ultimately mean for the rest of us. But reading the tea leaves thus far, one can reasonably conclude this is not the change for which most Americans voted.
The only point Bob did not make clear is that Barack Obama gained much of his fame among the left's supporters by his MASTERFUL TEACHING OF THE ALINSKY METHOD! He trained ACORN on Alinsky techniques for several years. How can anyone vote for a President who advocates the subversion of democracy by stealth and deceit as his life's goal?