PJ Media

To DavidN: I can understand that it seems odd to you that Ayers and Obama would leave Ayers name off the cover of the book. Consider this, however: Yes – it may have been a shock to Obama, as you mention, that Ayers name would raise hackles today. But, I promise you, it was no surprise to Ayers. He was well aware that my generation knew his and Bernardine’s name as well as we knew the names of our parents. And we saw their photographs on the Wanted Posters for years in every post office in this country.

Again – Ayers was and is a ‘movement’ guy. The political ends are his obsession. He would very well know that if Obama’s name was married to the Ayers name, that Obama’s future usefulness to him would be crippled when older folks learned of the association. And he knew very well how his name would be viewed outside the Chicago Hyde Park Bubble.

Better for Ayers to have a high placed friend whose actions aren’t subject to ‘question’ because of his association with a former terrorist who happens to be Ayers, himself.

In fact, as far as pursuing fame: With Ayers’s notoriety, he could have sought real fame in society. But that wasn’t his goal. Note: Until this latest brou-ha-ha virtually no one in the general public knew what Ayers was doing. And what was he doing? He was climbing higher and higher into more influential positions on national education committees. He was having tremendous [but quiet] influence. You never saw him on t.v. preaching ‘revolution’ in education. You didn’t see him – like a publicity hungry Jesse Jackson – leading pickets outside of schools to object to their policies.

Nope.

It wasn’t about him achieving personal fame. It was about revolutionizing education and changing this country through indoctrinating youth. If he had become a famous national figure in education, he would have been watched and attacked by those who knew of his activities. Check out his curriculum vitae and you may be surprised at just how quietly well-known and influential he has become across the country in acceptable educational circles.

Never forget when dealing with these guys: their political identities are their personal identities. If a political goal of Ayers has been achieved, it is no less satisfying to him than if he achieved personal fame. His political issues are his children. If they succeed, he can sit back and beam at what he produced while not being in the limelight. Probably the only thing that Ayers would share with Ronald Reagan would be the motto, “It’s amazing what can be accomplished if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

And note what I quoted from Ayers’s post after the election: “Goodbye to politics as arid, dry, self-referencing and self-satisfied…..Goodbye…….to ego.”

In two sentences, back to back, he is extolling the idea of Obama’s election as introducing a new era of political selfless altruism where the political ends are the goal rather than desires of self-promotion or to have an ego trip.

If you want a point of reference for understanding an ego like Ayers’s – think of a dedicated Catholic Priest or Monk toiling in the Third World. Just as it is difficult for virtually all people to understand the single-minded devotion of one who quietly dedicates his life to God, so is it equally difficult to understand the single-minded devotion of an Ayers to a political cause. If his ego was to get in the way of the ’cause,’ he’d practically want to whip himself for his sins.

These fellows do not think in the same way as average folks do. They are not after the customary fame and accolades that ‘woo’ most people. They view those as sinful capitalistic traits. They look at such self-promotion as tacky capitalist behaviors in which an individual elevates himself above the purity of the cause. And anything that interferes with that cause – especially one’s personal negative notoriety – is to be avoided.

Ayers and Co., didn’t just make ‘noises’ about revolution to attract attention to themselves. In fact, they conducted their activities in secret. What they wanted was revolution – the real thing. He may have wanted, as one poster, above, remarked, ultimately to be leader of some sort of dictatorship. But to achieve it he was prepared to stay out of sight and work behind the scenes. He was no Abbie Hoffman attracting attention to himself, prancing onstage and promoting his own personality. He did not need to feed off applause. He had his superior ‘knowledge’ and that was enough.

The actions that Obama would consider to be friendly help by Ayers, would – by Ayers – be considered a political investment in a stock of unknown worth that had potential to grow.

Would Ayers sit there for hour upon hour writing a book for no credit and no royalties? Sure. Such altruism could prove worthwhile to the cause someday.

For Obama, however, it has become a Sword of Damocles.

As for Ayers being a known ‘liar?’ About what? – I ask. He will give his interpretation of his actions as a ‘revolutionary’ that are characterizations quite different from those of most people. He writes of his past but admits that he’s using fake names and altered time lines. But does he deny setting bombs? Nope.

What exactly has he lied about? He may dissemble and use words to cleverly disguise his goals – but, in general, he’s proud of what he’s done. What’s to lie about?

People assume that, because he engaged in criminal activity – he is also a liar. Uh – check his books and his record. He talks about bombing. He talks about rioting. He talks about violence. He reveals utterly horrific details of his political obsessiveness. I’m not sure what people are referring to when they accuse him of lying. I’m not defending his character. I’m just saying, look at the record. He may interpret it differently, but he doesn’t deny it.

And if you fail to find he is actually a liar, consider this: His words to the National Journal and Anne Leary are the very first words he’s uttered about Dreams From My Father. He has not contradicted himself on the issue of authorship on the two occasions he has ever spoken about it.

Saying to later interviewer that people have lost their minds and are in the twilight zone for asking follow-up questions about ‘Dreams’ is NOT a denial. It is a statement that means absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. But he knows that people will hear what they want to hear. He already made his point. Obama got the message. He doesn’t need to keep talking about it at this point. He can just sit for a while longer and continue to watch.

Jim Anderson
anderson.james@att.net