John R. Houk
© January 9, 2014
In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.
Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.
The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.
In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.
In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.
The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.
In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.
Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.
Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.
Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.
But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?
The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.
Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:
After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).
By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: "Alinsky was ... convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations."
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)
By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: "Alinsky was ... convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations."
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)
Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.
…
Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14
According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)
Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.
We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.
Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.
…
In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.
…
Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.
… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)
So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.
JRH 1/9/13
No comments:
Post a Comment