Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Obama and Alinsky tactics

December 22, 2008

I’ve been reading people on the blogs insisting that Obama is using Alinsky “divide and conquer” tactics to keep everyone in chaos.  In my last post I explained why I don’t see the Alinsky “us vs them” technique as being the same as “divide and conquer”.  But beyond that, I also don’t think Obama is TRYING to make there be chaos.  Personally, I think he’d prefer all of us adore him and never, ever ask questions or challenge him in any way.  And definitely he doesn’t want to have to make decisions!  (I guess he went into the wrong line of work!)

I don’t believe that BO “wants” chaos, and I don’t think it’s a tactic he using. IMO, he doesn’t stand for ANYthing, so he just wants to throw crumbs to every group in an attempt to get them to support him or not fight him too hard.

Anger and complaints (perhaps what some seem as “chaos”) will invariably result. But I don’t think it’s his intention. I just think he doesn’t care. If he truly stood for something, he wouldn’t throw everybody crumbs – he’d have principles and stick by them.  He’d be a visionary, a leader.

I think he’s just campaigning already for 2012. He doesn’t have principles, he’s not into being a visionary – he just plays one on TV.  By reading off a teleprompter the words of a 26 year old sexist pig, Jon Fauvreau.


“Alinsky tactics” and Obama

December 22, 2008

I think people have picked up the term “Alinsky tactics”, and they toss it around, but don’t really know what it means.  I don’t prefer his tactics, as they’re too “in your face” for my taste, but they’re NOT about “divide and conquer”.


Lots of poor and powerless people live their lives in misery, never speaking up or doing anything to change their fate.  They feel isolated and disempowered.


Alinksy spearheaded “conflict organizing”, which is the traditional form of community organizing.  He helped the people understand that they don’t have to live in misery, that they have rights, and that if they form a group with each other, they have more power than being alone.  Makes sense, right?


They would then use this community power to fight for better schools, to keep a waste dump from being put in their neighborhood, to get better wages, etc.  He brought those people together, he most definitely didn’t “divide” them, or seek to “conquer” them.


The criticisms in the community organizing field of the Alinsky method is that he frames things in the traditional way, that of “us vs. them” – meaning the little people vs. the big people.  The result is that gains that are won cause further animosity between the haves and have-nots – bridges are burned, further “collaboration” is not likely.  It’s in this way that I believe the “us vs. them” technique isn’t of long-term benefit.


So, Alinksy is not about “divide and conquer” (although I realize that’s what’s commonly said lately by people who haven’t studied community organizing).  Alinsky meant well, but many people, myself included, feel his methods aren’t best.  I think of his methods as “wining a battle, but losing the war”. 


When you use his method, you may win, but it’s a short-term, uni-faceted win.  Sort of like the mortgage loans they won for lower-income residents.  They forced their agenda and “won”, but now down the road those people are losing their homes.  It was a good idea to want more people to be homeowners, but you still have to take basic facts into account – such as, can they afford it!  So these tactics were only a short-term win. 


So, there are pros and cons to the Alinsky method, but it’s NOT about divide and conquer.  It IS about fostering an “us against them” mentality, in order to get poor people to feel empowered and try to do something for THEMSELVES, instead of complaining that no one ever HELPS them.


A more collaborative form of community organizing would have helped some poor people get homes, but only those who could afford the terms.  So the Alinsky method got a lot of people short-term “wins”, but a different method would get fewer people wins, but they’d be lasting, REAL wins.


There are more peaceful, collaborative ways to organize communities so that they can have ongoing negotiations between the community and the powers that be in that same community, so that future issues can be worked on collaboratively.  One of those ways is “consensus organizing”.  The “little people” and the “big people” are brought together, and they work together to find consensus.  It’s somewhat analogous to mediation, I’d say.  But everyone is working together to find a compromise in which enough of each side’s needs are met.  These people, because of the nature of their problem solving, can work together again in the future when new issues come up.  I guess you could say that it empowers BOTH sides, in their ability to work for their own interests while at the same time being empowered to work WITH each other.


In short, Alinsky tactics aren’t something “evil”.  It’s a way to empower the poor to fight for themselves.  I don’t feel it’s the best way to organize people, but I thought I should point out that it’s really misunderstood on the blogs. 

Is Blago “insane”?

December 15, 2008

I see a lot of people on the blogs equating “insane” with having a clinical, diagnosable issue.  As I understand it, “insane” is a legal term, and has to do with being able to tell right from wrong.

“Insane” isn’t a psychological term.  In psychology, there are Axis I disorders, only some of which have to do with not being in touch with reality.  The Axis II disorders are personality disorders, which many politicians may surely have (think narcissism!). 

But just because a politician may have narcissistic personality disorder, doesn’t mean they can’t tell right from wrong.  So having a clinical diagnosis isn’t necessarily the same as “insane” in the legal sense.

To me, Blago’s narcissism and “delusions” are related to his arrogance and sense of entitlement.  They may stem from a personality disorder, but it may be common among politicians.  And it’s certainly not a “get out of jail free” card!

Feel free to substitute “Obama” for “Blago” in the above paragraph.

The “reform candidate” who wasn’t

December 15, 2008

Obama was supposedly the “reform candidate” (even though he has never done anything to reform anything).  Of course, he didn’t have experience in ANYthing, but that didn’t matter to vulnerable followers needing a god to believe in, in these uncertain times. 

Obama was post-racial (which means race-baiting at every opportunity), he was transcendent, not a part of corrupt politics (but not only rose from the swamp of Chicago politics, but rose faster than any politician anywhere AND with no qualifications), and he was all about transparency (which means hiring law firms to keep his school records and birth certificate hidden, and obfuscating on his relationship with Rezko and Blagojavich).  It’s downright refreshing.

Hmmmm….  the reform platform is the exact same platform that Blagojavich ran on for governor of Illinois.  They SAY they are a reformer, then once in, they either participate in corruption or look the other way.  Both ways are illegal and immoral.

(And why is that governor hanging out in Chicago, anyway?  The capital of Illinois is in Springfield, way south of Chicago.)

Obama and the birth certificate issue

December 15, 2008

There are a lot of lawsuits out there, some at the US Supreme Court, alleging that Obama is not a natural born citizen.  Some assert that he was born in Kenya, some that he was born here but of dual English/American citizenship, and some assserting that his living in Indonesia led to his losing his American citzenship.  All of these options would negate any “natural born” status, required for any citizen to assume the presidency or vice presidency.

I don’t know what the truth is, but it’s all rather fishy.  On the one hand, the claims seem wild.  But on the other hand – why doesn’t Obama just prove his citizenship?  Why has he sealed all of his college records (do they show financial aid for a foreign student?), and why has he hired THREE law firms to keep this information private?  Why?

Furthermore, while the state of Hawaii has confirmed they have an original birth certificate for him, they didn’t verify that it was a Hawaiian birth certificate.  In Hawaii, you can get a birth certificate even though you were born somewhere else.  Why doesn’t Obama request that the original be released?  Why? 

At first I thought he was playing a game, wanting Hillary supporters to get all worked up in a lather, and then he would release the information and make them look like fools.  But all these months later…..  no proof.  Seems like he’s trying to hide something.  Even if it’s not a lack of citizenship, there must be something being hidden.  Why pay for law firms to fight off the law suits, and deal with all these citizens questioning you, when for a couple of bucks you could get the birth certificate and show it?

There is a short-form certificate on his website, although its appearance has changed in response to criticism.  For example, it was noted that birth certificate are mailed, and always have creases, which the posted one did not.  Poof!  Magically, the image grew creases.  Some experts have alleged the images on the net are forged.  I don’t know if they are or not, but it is true that an original birth certificate lists way more information than this short form certificate does – such as in which hospital someone is born.  The name of a hospital would be information for people to follow – therefore something to hide?  As of this date, all Hawaiian hospitals have been queried, and they can’t find one which has records of him being born there.  That’s fishy, too. 

This is the candidate who was going to reform politics as we know it, the candidate who was going to be honest and transparent?