Obama’s Latest Appointment: A Reflection of his Radical Past
What the article does not go on to note,(as Aaron Klein points out on his blog) however, is that Rosenthal’s husband, Richard Phelps, was a three-term Madison, Wisconsin, executive who worked closely with Joel Rogers, one of the founders of The New Party. Clearly, she met Obama in 1996 when he was gaining the support of The New Party for his campaign.
So once again- as with the appointment of Van Jones- Obama has put in a major position of influence a person from the left-wing of the political spectrum who, as an official whose office monitors anti-Semitism, is using her position to support J-Street, on whose Board she previously sat. Conflict of interest, anyone? Are the statements she gave to Haaretz, uttered in her official capacity, likely to help or harm the ability of Israel to defend itself against its enemies, or once again work instead to cast doubt among Israelis about the view of Israel really held by the Obama administration?
Ms. Rosenthal notes, parenthetically, that criticism of her appointment comes “from a very few people who blog a lot.” Add this blogger to that list!
UPDATE: Friday, Dec.25th
I was honored to find that I was attacked by the leading conspiracy theorist in America for my pody on the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal by President Obama, and my tying of her appointment to Obama’s contacts during his Chicago years to the Old and New Left. Writing on his own site, Andrew Sullivan calls my own blog “a petri dish of aging neocon obsessions.” Instead of dealing with the meaning of Obama’s relationship with the left wing in Chicago , he dismisses it as something that took place “over a decade ago,” as if this relatively recent period of time has no effect on the President’s current thought.
I would refer Andrew Sullivan to the post appearing on FrontpageMagazine.com by John Perazzo, who details the influence on Obama’s views of health care he learned from a Communist Party activist, (who later on moved to the terrain of other Marxist and socialist groups) Dr. Quentin Young. Young told Amy Goodman in a 2009 interview that “Barack Obama, in those early days [as a state senator]—influenced, I hope, by me and others—categorically said single payer was the best way, and he would inaugurate it if he could get the support, meaning [Democratic] majorities in both houses, which he’s got, and the presidency, which he’s got. And he said that on more than one occasion….”
As Perazzo writes, Obama’s denial that he ever held that position and never favored a public option is typical of the tactics advocated by Saul Alinsky, “who counseled revolutionaries to conceal their real motives; to say and do whatever is necessary to allay the fears and suspicions of the middle class; and to pursue incremental change where overnight transformation is not possible—knowing they can always agitate for additional change at some point in the future.”
Indeed, contra Sullivan, Obama’s old ideas are most relevant to understanding his actions today.
Next, Sullivan goes on to engage in his own form of McCarthyism, in which he accuses me of being part of a “throng of Likudniks” who want her out. “Likudnik” becomes the word to throw around like old Joe used “Red” in the 1950s. Sullivan thinks we neo-con Likudniks accuse anyone of anti-Semitism just for being critical of Israeli policy. The issue, however, is not what I or others think of Israeli policy, but the wrongheadedness of Ms. Rosenthal’s most inappropriate comments.
Sullivan implies that there are no grounds whatsoever for attacking the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal as the State Department point woman for monitoring anti-Semitism. I am simply part of the vile group that wants to get her scalp. What could be wrong for her taking offense at Michael Oren’s condemnation of J-Street? He asserts that I and others think anyone who does so is arguing that to criticize Oren makes one a “closet anti-Semite.”
Well, here are some responses to her views from leading mainstream Jewish organizations—-none of them Likudniks or on the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum. (Sullivan, of course, simply uses that phrase to intimidate any critics from speaking out, since they will fear being associated with the Israeli right-wing.)
First: From Alan Solow and the Conference of Presidents, the umbrella group of Jewish organizations in the United States. Solow writes:
As an official of the United States government, it is inappropriate for the anti-Semitism envoy to be expressing her personal views on the positions Ambassador Oren has taken as well as on the subject of who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community. Such statements have nothing to do with her responsibilities and, based upon comments I am already receiving, could threaten to limit her effectiveness in the area for which she is actually responsible.
Second: It turns out that among those most embarrassed by her comments was our own State Department, which released this statement from Asst. Secretary of State Jeff Feltman:
The Department of State values its close relationship with Ambassador Michael Oren and his staff at the Embassy of Israel in Washington. The United States and Israel enjoy extraordinarily close ties based on shared values, interests, and history, as well as the deep bonds between the Israeli people and the American people. Ambassador Oren plays an indispensible role in maintaining and strengthening our relationship through his day to day interaction with the Administration and Congress on issues of vital importance to both countries and his vigorous outreach to Americans of all origins and points of view.
It is clear that Feltman’s statement came because, as Politico reported, mainstream Jewish groups were “burning up the lines to the White House” in response to Rosenthal’s interview. And on his fellow blogger Jeffrey Goldberg’s site on The Atlantic, Goldberg makes the very same point I do: “Talk about sticking your nose in places where it doesn’t belong. The Obama Administration official charged with monitoring worldwide anti-Semitism makes her first target… the Israeli ambassador to the United States? I’ll be taking bets now on how long Hannah Rosenthal lasts in the job.” Perhaps Sullivan should read his colleague’s blog before shooting his own mouth off. Or is Goldberg too a neocon Likudnik?
Finally, here are some wise words of wisdom from Shmuel Rosner, a former Haaretz correspondent in Washington, D.C., for many years. He writes:
Rosenthal, a problematic pick for this job to begin with, proved to be more disastrous for the Obama administration than I expected. I didn’t write about her much when she was appointed, because I don’t know her personally, and because some Jewish friends who do know her told me that I should be careful. They told me she’s smart. They told me she’ll be great at this job. They told me that I should hold judgment.
But now it seems quite obvious that Rosenthal isn’t smart – or maybe she’s smart, just not careful, or maybe she’s smart just not the kind of smart needed for this delicate job of anti-anti-Semitism tzar. She was definitely not smart when she sacrificed her ability to execute her mission efficiently for a newspaper headline. And no – she can’t be a successful anti-anti-Semitism tzar. First, because she will hardly be able to cooperate with most major Jewish organizations – something that might become a liability for an official charged with battling anti-Semitism. But more importantly, because Rosenthal is now officially a member of the look-at-them-and-you’ll-know-why-we-don’t-trust-Obama team. Instead of being an asset to Obama, she’s a burden. An unnecessary and unwelcome distraction. Not a healthy position for an official who was just recently appointed for a job that can be easily marginalized.
I suspect that when Rosenthal either apologizes or is forced to resign- a la Van Jones-Andrew Sullivan will blog that the Likudnik neocon bloc forced her out. So I say in advance; I didn’t know we had such power and influence with the Obama administration. But if she goes, Andrew, I take all the credit due me for helping them move her out to greener pastures.
Fred Siegel and his buddies must refresh the memories of the Americans who earlier ignored their warnings. They just were not ready to seriously think about Barack Obama’s well-established socialist past. It was easier to blip the information off their personal radar screen and pretend he was a centrist politician. That’s over with! Purple and red state voters are paying attention. It is the 24th of December, one day before Christmas. Few citizens normally care about politics at this time of the year. We can take it for granted, however, that the majority of 2010′s likely voters are perhaps even fearful regarding the threat posed to them by the Democratic Party.
Another figure in the Chicago-Left-anti-Israel coalition, Rashid Khalidi, has been alarmingly low-profile in recent weeks. As the chief proponent of a Hamas-Fatah “unity” government, he must have particular and back door access to his friend, Obama. Whatever happened to the videotapes from Khalidi’s farewell dinner so conveniently gone missing from the LA Times? I suspect much of BHO’s middle east policy is driven by Mr.Khalidi via his Blackberry.
Mr. Radosh,
At this point, we should take into account the role the Bank of Israel plays in supporting the dollar. It regularly buys millions of dollars, upholding its value against the New Shekel (at about NIS 3.80:$1) – something which benefits exporters here as well as the numerous American retirees depending on one form of pension income or another.
But that support of the dollar also helps stop a run on what is virtually a worthless currency. At some point, the utter valuelessness of the dollar will force others to dump the currency – and bank governor Stan Fischer will have to go along just to maintain the value of the foreign exchange here.
I mention this because it is money that any American administration can hold as the carrot to force Israel to its will – and if that money is worthless, the carrot is rotten.
In other words, no matter how objectionable Ms. Rosenthal is, and she stinks, it is irrelevant.
The legacy media not only ignored the connection to far left, hard left, extreme left radicals within the “inner” working of the campaign…it actively assisted in covering up those connections.
It is NOT to say that hard leftists within one’s close friends and advisors is an automatic disqualification for high office, but rather, that those who hold those views and those defending them…seem to spend an awful lot of time disguising them from the eyesight, earshot, and every other sensory perception of the general public.
Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi…were swept under a very thick rug.
William Ayers (and his murder plotting wife) were “simply acquaintances from the neighborhood”.
Jeremiah Wright was simply someone who preached love from the pulpit and was misunderstood by white society, his anger justified by men of his age. Nothing more.
Barack Obama Sr. was not studied in any significant manner, his politics or views were pretty well cordoned off.
The bohemian lifestyle of the mother, grandmother and grandfather were barely scratched, in a superficial, surface manner. The connection with Frank Marshall Davis rendered meaningless and uninteresting. Sleazy bars and pedophile sexual transgressions were not part of any vetting process…not nearly as interesting sludge as Trig Palin, for instance…might arouse.
The days at Occidental and Columbia with the most radical professors…a trifling issue. Cooper Union visitations included….or rather, excluded.
Carl Davidson, Danny Davis, Alice Palmer, Cynthia Miller, Mike Klonsky, ….but I repeat myself.
http://bentongopnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/american-press-let-america-down-on.html
Ron, You would help your readers to explain why people who were part of the hard left in the 60′s, 70′s 80′s (yourself, David Horowitz, many others) and moved to the neocon right have judgement to be trusted, while people who moved from the somewhat less hard left to the center left (Obama, Rosenthal) have to be distrusted because of their radical pasts. Obviously Obama’s presidency is more friendly to Goldman Sachs than it is to the New Party. So why is the fact that he was a couple of degrees further left fifteen or twenty years ago even interesting? And should the same standard be applied to former hard core commies who are now “anti-totalitarians”?
You are afraid to let dissenting POVs on your page? Sad. Very sad, dinosaur.
I usually can’t take the time to answer individual comments, but Scott (no.5) makes an important point that has to be addressed.
Why trust people like me, even though we’ve moved away from older positions? My answer is that I try to use reason and arguments to state my position,and not ask people to take my word because I’m not where I was years ago.
I am not arguing that Obama now has to be distrusted because of views he had years ago. I think it was not that long ago when he had such views in the State Senate in Illionis. This is when, as I point out in the addendum today, he developed his ideas on health care re the help of a Communist medical doctor. Indeed, only a year ago he was for the single payer plan. Now he says he never was. Obviously, his word means little.
I said in an earlier blog that on the big issues–Afghanistan, the economy- he turns to Wall Street and to the Army experts like the Generals in the field, McChrystal and Petraeus, and not to anti-war critics of the Left. It is in the under the surface lower level and less to be noticed appointments that he turns to the Chicago left-wing crowd and lets Valerie Jarret and others make these appointments; ie, Van Jones etc.
So I think Obama is following a contraidctory and confused path. On the issue os Israel, that he has mishandled from the start, he followed a traditional left-wing position on the so-called peace process and hitting Israel for settlements, while generally playing nice with the hard line Arab states and the Saudis.
Thanks for raising these points, Scott.
Obama’s main goal as president is sabotaging the American/Israel relationship, his aims are to splinter the Jewish community, divide support for Israel & construct a new & hostile policy towards the Jewish Sate. All appointee’s & cabinet members share Obama’s ideology and work tirelessly to subvert the established American/Israel relationship.
Scott
Do you comprehend what a few degree’s left actually translates into…?
Ron,
Thanks for the excellent article. You are in fact being too kind to Andrew Sullivan. His use of the words “neocon” and “likudnik” are just disguised ways of saying you’re a dirty”jew”. Sullivan’s pathological twists and turns have landed him in the embrace of every Jew hater–left, right or Islamist.
I understand why black voters stand so solidly with the Dem’s, Johnson’s “Great Society” bought and paid for the black vote back in the 60′s. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why American Jews continue to march in lockstep with the left. Maybe some of the smarter posters here can ‘splain that for me.
Scott,
People who change their opinion should be able to say why–what experiences caused them to find error in former beliefs. These people usually go through a process of soul searching, trying to find a core.
This is what we don’t see in Obama. He tries to come across as one who always knew best and whose previous statements an opinions seamlessly connect to today’s. He has acceded, somewhat, to the generals on Iraq and Afghanistan, not because he sees error in his previous rhetoric, but because in one-on-one talks with them, he has realized that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is letting them act rather than expose his ignorance. With regard to bankers, he also sees the possibility of fat campaign contributions. I don’t detect any self questioning in the man.
I envy you, Ron, for having been attacked by Andrew Sullivan. It is like being awarded the Combat Infantryman’s Badge. I would cherish being attacked by that jerk. It would make me proud to know I was on the right track.
How the devil do you know it’s Sullivan? Apparently, he has a couple of others blogging for him without attribution.
J-Street, the unrepresentative American Jewish left-wing group that purports to speak on behalf of the mainstream American Jewish community.
In fairness, the “mainstream Jewish community” does seem to be pretty left-wing. They voted 80% for Obama after all. Only the black demographic supported him more feverently.
judge O-bum-A by the company he keeps.
that is what I am doing and that makes him a lying narcissistic marxist.
Why does everyone keep parroting that the USA is a close ally of Israel. It’s actions for many years prove that it is not.
@ Scott: We don’t have to trust Ron Radosh or David Horowitz they write and express opinions but do not hold positions of authority or power in the current regime attempting to oppress us. The notion that Obama has moved to the center is preposterous, to assert that he and his minions have, demonstrates either woeful ignorance, willful obtuseness or deliberate deceit. That Obama is willing to exchange favors for monetary support with the likes of Goldman Sachs demonstrates an appreciation of the “power of money” rather than love of free market capitalism. The fact that this regime is willing to make concessions to those whom Obama himself calls the “Devil” should be more alarming to the left than surprising to the right.
As a matter of curiosity do people still refer to themselves “Neo-Conservatives”?
“However, I cannot for the life of me understand why American Jews continue to march in lockstep with the left. Maybe some of the smarter posters here can ’splain that for me.”
The vast majority of American Jews have abandoned the teachings of the Old Testament. But they prefer lying to themselves and pretend otherwise. The same also holds true, one might add, for a lot of Catholics and Protestants. Jerry Falwell was a loyal friend of Israel. And yet, most Jews virtually hated his guts. Did they think he was conning them? Not really. In the back of their minds, these people knew Falwell was the genuine article. No, the truth of the matter is that they were hostile toward his views on abortion, homosexuality, and the other cultural war issues. These Jews were committed secularists. It’s really that simple.
Listen closely the next time you talk to anyone about Sarah Palin. It matters not a whit if they are Jewish or non-Jewish. The odds are overwhelming that the reason they either like her or not will be decided by their position on abortion. All the other issues are normally of secondary importance.
Rosenthal is a JINO (Jew In Name Only). People like her (and Obama) value their party politics and left-wing ideology as a religion, while religion (the further left they are) is only a consequence of inheritance to which they give lip service; and for some, when it seems to work for them to gain position and influence. As for the 80% of Jews who voted for Obama, it shows that Jews in general are no better, no worse, and definitely no smarter than others, especially the redistribution activists. I’m from the 20%, and more disgusted with the various array of adamantly loyal Dems surrounding me everday. Taxes being a little higher or lower are one thing, and I too believe in a generous and effective safety net; but deliberately compromising Israel’s security and position in the greater world, by appeasing and enabling the leftist-muslim axis is another, it’s called betrayal. In doing so we do ourselves no favor either. The reality is so obvious that you have to be brain dead to not understand this. Some things transcend family and “friends”…
When no side wants you, you retain others to post for you, but must own what is on your site.
Hannah Rosenthal is well known in Democrat Party cirles of Madison, Wisconsin. I believe she’s held appointments in Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration.
#13 jb
See Norman Podhoretz: http://tiny.cc/F99WK
Why are Jews liberals? They have not awakened to the fact that their best and only friends are conservative Christians.
Good old Leftish overreach, just like on Obamahcare, cap and trade, and everything else. But let us not forget the coarseness of this administration, especially those from Wright’s church. To them, slapping around an ally is just business as usual.
Mr. Radosh has answered Scott’s post (#5) quite well, in my estimation. However, just a couple of points of my own …
In his book, “Hating Whitey, and other Progressive Causes”, David Horowitz talks at length about his involvement with the Black Panther Party, and his increasing disillusionment with its violence and corruption. Mr. Horowitz admits to being radically Left in his youth, and he still does.
Can not we allow for a person’s experiences and the aging process itself to bring about change? Can’t a person grow? Can’t he or she learn something about life, and alter their views?
Ronald Reagan had an epiphany about taxes, one day, when he noted the unfairness of the government taking 90% of his income. This, despite his Democrat history and his presidency of the Screen Actor’s Guild. The rest is history.
Unfortunately for all of us, it would appear that Mr. Obama is terminally locked in the views of his youth. If this is so, he has only one direction to go … farther to the left. This cannot have but disastrous consequences for us and our nation.
If we reject everyone from the conservative cause who had (note the tense) a Leftist past, we limit conservatism, and might very well condemn it.
Not to take away from Ron Radosh’s effective correction of the Andrew Sullivan smear, but what truly amazes me is why the ravings of that madman continue to require anything of a public response at all, rather than the purely private therapeutic assistance called for. Sullivan long ago disgraced himself so thoroughly with even more groundless and pointless smears than this one, that it is impossible to take him seriously on anything.
past?! radical, Marxist, statist. past, present and future.
Yeah, Barry’s a socialist. That’s why he called that reporter several hours after the reporter asked if he was one. Barry wanted to squelch that real fast. And added by the MSM, was quite successful.
As Barry would remind us, ‘a man is known by the company he keeps’.
@ David Thomsom: #21
I think the reason is more complicated than your answer indicated. Perhaps there is some deep seated need steeped in the holocaust experience that escapes me,,, sort of a Stockholm syndrome thingy, if you will. But the need to continue support for the enslavers of the minorities should have been outgrown a few generations ago. Jews are the ultimate businessmen, the true small business generators,,, their love of the tax man is truly beyond my comprehension.
Wow. It’s a good thing reporters latched on to this story early on in the campaign and did some real digging to find out the truth….just like they did on Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue. Otherwise, the American people could have been hoodwinked in voting for a man whose true political passions were carefully disguised. Thank God for the unbiased, straightforward investigative reporting that….what? Oh, that’s right. They were part of the great coverup. Never mind.
Commies everywhere! Everywhere! They are putting sterilizing drugs in the water! Barcodes read 666! Run!
Lol. You folks are degenerating.
2010, 2012 can’t come soon enough… if we still get to vote by then, that is.
“I think the reason is more complicated than your answer indicated.”
It’s the secularism. Alan Dershowitz is a quintessential example of this mindset. Jerry Falwell was so despised that fund raisers were able to scare American Jews into donating million of dollars to oppose him. Huh? This made no sense whatsoever. Some even argue that Ronald Reagan got fewer Jewish votes in his second presidential bid due to the involvement of Falwell and the religious right. Jews simply could have cared less that Jesse Jackson and number of Jew haters were heavily involved in the Democratic Party. Even now Barack Obama will likely receive most of the Jewish vote if he decides to run again in 2012.
Poderhertz takes on the question of Jewish liberalism in his new book Why are Jews Liberal (or something like that). This Jew can provide his 2 cents. Most Jews live in traditional bastions of liberalism, NYC and the like. I will wager those Jews from conservative areas vote according to local interests. There is another non-liberal block. Those Jews who are ardent Zionists and/or those with military backgrounds and subsequently recognize that the world is not the touchy-feely place of liberal fantasy. These Jews recognize the suicidal nature of the liberal worldview.
Unfortunately it takes pain to change someone’s mind. Under Obama we are likely to get in the form of an Iranian bomb. Meanwhile liberal American Jews seem willing to forgive and forget that Obama gave a medal of freedom to Mary Robinson, chairperson of the 2001 Durban anti-Israel hatefest, snubbed the ZOA in favor of J Street, and appointed an antisemitism Czar who was a leader of J Street, somehow deduced that the Middle East conflict is about Israeli apartment building on the West Bank, and effectively gave the Arab revisionists carte blanche to continue their hate mongering in his groveling Al-Arabiya interview and pontificating Cairo speech.
The Committees of Correspondence were basically the U.S. followers of Mikhail Gorbachev. I believe he has been invited to the White House before, first time by Reagan. The Democratic Socialists of America are a part of the very same Socialist International as Tony Blair.
Looked at that way, President Barack Obama’s “radical” past might not seem quite so radical. I don’t think fishing expeditions like this one, or the nonsense about Bill Ayers ghostwriting his autobiography, have any real explanatory value.
The liberal American Jews are upset that their communist experiment in Israel has failed and are probably trying to reinflate that weak balloon. The great part of this story is that is was former communist (Russian) Jews that have popped that balloon in Israel, recognising communism for what it is they immediatley set out to destroy the lie and embraced capitalism and it’s working in Israel.
I don’t think either Hannah Rosenthal’s past associations or her recent comments are particularly revelatory about the Obama administration’s radical connections. After all, as past Obama associates go, she doesn’t exactly stand out as more extreme or influential, and her comments add nothing new to the administration’s position on Israel.
The real significance of her comments is that they represent the coup de grace for J Street’s efforts to portray itself as something other than a subservient shill for the Obama administration. For all the spittle flying about among liberals regarding, say, AIPAC, I don’t believe it’s ever compromised its own non-partisan independence by anything so egregious as having one of its former board members join a US president’s administration and then tell the Israeli ambassador–speaking on behalf of the administration–to listen specifically to AIPAC, more than to other American Jewish organizations. And if AIPAC ever did allow that to happen, nobody would ever again grant it an iota of credibility as a non-partisan representative of American Jewish opinion and interests.
Only the truly stupid were taken in by Obama, ie. McArdle,Noonan,Althouse,Frum. The ladies got a little wet spot in their panties imagining naughty sex with a black man.I can’t believe anyone takes these sex starved ladies seriously.
At #41 Fred Mecklenburg: I feel so much better knowing the “The Committees of Correspondence were basically the U.S. followers of Mikhail Gorbachev.”. Being the last dictator of the “Evil Empire” instead of, say the first makes all the difference. And he visited Reagan’s Whitehouse! Perhaps Obama can now give him that cabinet post Reagan so unfairly denied him! Most communists were/are affiliated with the Socialist International. Which side of this debate are you on?
Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts in relaxing Soviet Russia were an effort to save it and his parties power. Just because he lacked Stalin’s’ gift for homicide doesn’t make him one of the good guys, merely less evil. Gorbachev could be considered a soft communist, just like Obama!
Used to be that USA was Israel’s bestest friend ever. Now USA is Israel’s worstest nightmare ever. Seems there should be some happy middle somewhere.
Adobe Walls:
“Most communists were/are affiliated with the Socialist International…” Do you even know what any of those words mean? Clearly you know nothing about the history of socialism, or the relations between Socialist and Communist Internationals, or what might be contained in your vague “were/are” formula.
Read some history please, before you bother to reply. Ronald Radosh most certainly does know this history, which is why I considered it worth responding to him.
“Which side of this debate are you on?” My point is that it isn’t a real “debate” at all, it is just a load of nonsense and vague conspiracy theorizing that is useless at best and, at worst, opens the door to the truly insane conspiracy-mongering of groups like the Birchers. The “side” I’m on is the one that is against that filth and madness.
If you wanted to see just how little “radicalism” President Obama would bring to the job, it would have been helpful to read the pre-election analysis of his politics written by Manning Marable of the CoC. It is a real tragedy of American history that this false idea of Obama as a “radical Leftist” has opened the floodgates to the demonic conspiracy theories that Norman Cohn traced the genealogy of in his classic book, “Warrant for Genocide.”
But hey, keep on shouting, don’t let me spoil your fun and games.
barry is an asshat with no ideology. delusional and pathologically narcissistic, he runs like a rabbit when reality intrudes. he surrounds himself with old friends because they are admirers. it makes no difference to him what they believe in with the exception of himself. this guy is nuts. jews won’t vote for him again. jews understand neurotic. psychosis is more a goy thing.
Dear Fred: Social Democrats, USA’s web page “Declaration of Principles – Adopted June 22, 2008, Amended May 3rd, 2009”. Paragraph 3 reads in part “WE SUPPORT THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL” paragraph 11 reads in part ….” we have not given up our vision of the new socialist society”… Historically, social democratic parties espoused achieving socialism thru class struggle. According to Wikipedia “modern social democracy has deviated from socialism, and supports the idea of a democratic welfare state”. I rather believe the “welfare state” is an interim step on the way to Marxist Socialism. In 1903 the Russian Social Democrats split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in a dispute over Marxist dogma vs practical action. In the his excellent history of the Russian Revolution “A People’s Tragedy” Orlando Figes defines Social Democrats as a “Marxist party”. Most books on post WW1 history, I’ve read, use the terms Social Democrats and Communists pretty much interchangeably as do I (one could try something by Fest or Toland ). Perhaps my view of History is too long for your tastes. The difference between Socialism and Communism in my opinion is and always has been a means and methods, degree vs kind or semantic argument. You know such as, how radical is Obama?
“Obama’s Latest Appointment: A Reflection of his Radical Past”
Obama’s Latest Appointment is a reflection of his future intentions…
President Obama’s appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to fight anti-semitism can be clearly understood when we absorb the fact that she has no history or particular expertise in this matter.
Dear Fred: After my last post I googled Manning Marable and “Warrant for Genocide” I was unfamiliar with Mr. Marable. After discovering his background I thought perhaps I’d discovered a truly formidable “asymmetrical warrior”, you not Marable, I mean what genius using the founder of two far left groups to vouch Obama’s moderateness. At first I thought perhaps you worked for the White House. That staff could be that dense, or maybe lack of meds? Comparing believing Obama is a radical to belief in the “Protocols of Zion” provided the final clue. Fred Mecklenburg is your pen name. You’re actually Nancy Pelosi.
Funny, but the Muslims and Arab nut jobs say Obama is a Zionist tool and their counterparts in crackpottery here are now saying he is the stealth Muslim/Nazi. All this because his anti-semitism Czar said that the Israeli ambassador should’ve met with a Jewish group yet somehow it gets played here like she said the US should nuke Tel Aviv into submitting to Hamas
I am a former member of Social Democrats, USA and a glance at its current website indicates it has changed some from those days. A lot of SD’ers, for example, were active supporters of Scoop Jackson in 1976. I let my membership lapse some years ago and I am guessing a lot of people with similar views did, because the current group seems more overtly left-wing than we were.
Still, I have no regrets about my membership although I am not likely to rejoin. It may be more “leftist” than when I belonged but it clearly isn’t loony.
Why does anyone give a hoot in hell about what Andrew Sullivan, a British citizen, thinks or says about American politics? He’s the political equivalent of singer George Michael for crying out loud, a whining klieg light crazed wannabe celeb who can’t even run for the office of Dog Catcher where he lives in Provincetown, MA! Can’t we send him back where he belongs? we’ve got enough home grown liberal asshats without having to import any from England!
socially conservative republicans and (progressive) socialists are two sides of the communitarian coin…
“I mean what genius using the founder of two far left groups to vouch Obama’s moderateness.”
The sad thing is that in the cultural milieu of the far left—Obama is something of a moderate! These people perceive an extremist as someone who advocates violence. The Saul Alinsky and George McGovern types are perceived as somewhat middle of the road. This is why the country is in such danger. A present day “moderate politician” would have been considered a left-wing nut ball only a few decades ago.
Think about it for a moment. Just about every single Democratic Party politician embraces the 1972 domestic polices of George McGovern. These folks, however, have learned how to better hide their radicalism.
I have known Hannah Rosenthal for 30 years. She is on the left of the spectrum but she is very connected to Israel. She supports the state unequivocally, she is not one of those like Tony Judt who want to see the state dismantled. She did join J Street but I have seen her over my 25 years as an AIPAC member at some of the meetings and know she was involved in that organization. She isn’t a Van Jones or Anita Dunn. I disagree often with Hannah’s policies (I played a role in helping to prevent the Madison Wisconsin City Council from making Rafah a Sister City and I published articles in the 90s in Midstream such as The Iraqi Threat in the New World Order, Comrade Arafat, Russia’s Iranian Wedge so you can guess my take on the Middle East conflict). But I have never doubted and do not to this day doubt her concern and love for medinat Yisrael. I think it is more important to see what her ultimate response is (and I suspect it will be affected by what State finds acceptable) to David Bedein’s (Israel Resource Agency head; Philadelphia Bulletin correspondent) question whether Rosenthal would directly criticize the PA for its incitement against Jews and Israelis and Mahmoud Abbas’ Holocaust denying book.
Ron: Hannah is left liberal not far out left; she represents a side of pro Israel activism in the US and in Israel with whom I deeply disagree and whose policy prescriptions I fear will unintentionally harm the strategic interests of both Israel and the US to the detriment ultimately to peace as well as security and freedom. But don’t confuse Hannah Rosenthal with Israel’s enemies who do, unfortunately, include some Jews.
“But don’t confuse Hannah Rosenthal with Israel’s enemies who do, unfortunately, include some Jews.”
Your argument is based on nothing less than sentimental balderdash. It matters not a whit, as a practical matter, whether Hannah Rosenthal loves and adores Israel. Her words and actions greatly endanger its existence. I’ve also noticed this bizarre mindset regarding Bill Clinton. This well-meaning guy is inadvertently responsible for the murders of countless Israelis. His childishly naive policies resulted in a nightmare. Rosenthal and Obama most assuredly consider Israel guilty of white imperialism toward the darker skin Palestinian Arabs. The latter are victims of aggression and Israel’s allegedly reactionary stance. All that is really required is a little love and the Palestinians will soon be willing to sing Kumbaya with the Israelis.
The heck with this “they mean well” crap. It’s time that folks like Hannah Rosenthal are judged by objective standards. Their intentions are of secondary importance. Are they truly a threat and causing enormous harm? That must remain our primary consideration.
Adobe Walls:
To be clear, I was not “comparing believing Obama is a radical to believing in the Protocols of Zion.” I am saying that this lie of Obama’s alleged “radicalism” that some may have seen as politically useful has served to open the floodgates to retrogressive, paranoid, and viscerally racist ideas that have long incubated in the darkest unswept corners of American life. It has given a new “acceptability” to the John Birch Society, for example, which upholds the very conspiracy theories that Norman Cohn traced historically in “Warrant for Genocide.”
Cohn has a brilliant analysis of the conspiracy theories which arose after the French Revolution, which at first did not mention Jews at all. But these theories will always attach themselves to racism, anti-Semitism, and whatever other irrational hatreds and prejudices may exist. Thus the “Protocols.”
That is what I was talking about. Do read “Warrant for Genocide.”
BTW your scholarship needs work. That is, you get everything wrong, from the reasons for the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia, to the idea that any reputable historian of Germany (such as the ones you mention) would use the terms Social Democrats and Communists “more or less interchangeably” in a period when those two groups were at deadly odds with each other, from the Social Democratic government’s murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in 1919 when the Spartacist rising was crushed, to the Stalinized Communist Party’s later willingness to ally with the Nazis against the Social Democrats they termed “social fascists.” Likewise, the differences between Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev can hardly be reduced to terms like “hard communist” and “soft communist.”
And if you recall, I pointed out Marable’s background myself. So if you had to Google him, that isn’t my fault.
“I am saying that this lie of Obama’s alleged “radicalism” that some may have seen as politically useful has served to open the floodgates to retrogressive, paranoid, and viscerally racist ideas that have long incubated in the darkest unswept corners of American life.”
Barack Obama’s Saul Alinsky radicalism is well established. It is beyond dispute. David Freddoso’s carefully written book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate, clearly lays out the evidence. You are throwing around the race card. Please provide us with specific examples of these “retrogressive, paranoid, and viscerally racist ideas.” That would be most appreciated. Thank you.
David Thomson:
Okay, from the start, there is the myth that Saul Alinsky was some kind of dangerous revolutionary character. That in itself is a great untruth. Having grown up in Chicago, I was able to watch the myth being born when Alinsky supported Dr. King’s campaign for open housing on the segregated South Side.
I heard how that support was interpreted as “communism” by people who had no desire to allow African-Americans to move into the neighborhood. It had nothing to do with any real politics Alinsky held, it was a smear, and it was a smear that grew from racism.
In other words, it was exactly “retrogressive, paranoid, and viscerally racist,” and it doesn’t become any better after 40 years has passed. Unfortunately, it is not me playing the race card here, whether you know it or not.
“Okay, from the start, there is the myth that Saul Alinsky was some kind of dangerous revolutionary character. That in itself is a great untruth.”
The irony is that with friends like you—-Barack Obama does not need any enemies. I am quite knowledgeable concerning Saul Alinsky. My copy of Sanford D. Horwitt’s biographical work entitled, Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky-His life and Legacy, is in a bookshelf only inches from the my computer. Yup, it’s exactly as I said earlier. The 1972 George McGovern is now a Democratic Party middle of the roader. This political entity has shifted decisively to the left, and Obama is its leader. You really should remain silent. Your line of argument does not thrill Obama’s people. Unwittingly, you are letting the cat out of the bag.
That’s a pretty good biography, as I recall.
It’s true that George McGovern was not particularly radical either. To anyone but the White House Plumbers of old, maybe. So I will say that your line of argument is unlikely to thrill Nixon’s people and bid you a good evening.
Dear Fred:
You persist in referring to the “lie of Obama’s radicalism” as if repeating “It’s a lie” over and over again will make it so. How utterly liberal of you. I submit that it is those who insist that not their policies, but only the skin color of minority politicians is worthy of opposition are the racists. One does not need theories to determine Obama’s minions are radicals but take them at their word. The slogans such as “redistributive justice”, what do you think that means?
To be clear, you are “comparing believing Obama is a radical to believing in the Protocols of Zion” in that you compare such belief to these “retrogressive, paranoid and viscerally racist ideas” that you insist are the only basis for opposing this regime. Oh no the “John Birch Society”. Your obsession with the “Protocols of Zion” whether only as a comparative or not is unhealthy.
How you or I researched Marable is not the point. The irony of using Marable an extreme leftist to vouch for Obama was perhaps too subtle?
My some what oversimplified characterization of the split between Mensheviks and Bolshevik is accurate. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin argued for an almost immediate “proletarian” revolution (action). While the Mensheviks believed that Russia wasn’t sufficiently advanced, according to Marxist theory for a Revolution to succeed (dogma). While it’s true there were “Communist “and separate “Social Democratic” parties they weren’t always enemies. They were both always Marxist (I’m sure there’s an exception to prove the rule). The difference being mainly means/methods. Would you argue that Russia was not “communist because it’s name was “Socialist Republics” rather than “Communist Republics” As I’ve tried to make clear I consider any effort to differentiate between Socialists and Communists is a “Fools errand”. One need not agree with all I’ve said here to consider Obama a “Radical Ideologue”.
Adobe Walls:
I repeat that it is a lie because the lie is endlessly repeated by people like you. As if that will make it so.
It is of a piece with the lies about Obama’s citizenship, the authorship of his autobiography, and many other things that are endlessly repeated. ALL of it appears racist because it is based on nothing real–unlike an opposition to policies, which I have said nothing at all about, and which is perfectly acceptable.
But you aren’t defending that kind of opposition, you are defending a lie. You keep trying to wriggle out of that, but there it is. And now you are defending the John Birch Society?
Yes, the awful John Birch Society. William Buckley and Russell Kirk warned Goldwater away from them for a reason. They have been considered political persona non grata for decades, and it is only the idiot, irrational, and racist attacks on Barack Obama that have opened a way for them to return to something like the mainstream, i.e., the self-destructing Conservative movement. Bubbling right under them is a host of other filthy and destructive forces, including the open white supremacists who really give the game away.
You know that is happening as well as I do. Silence is complicity.
Oh, and you are the one who brought up the Protocols, remember. I referred to the whole body of conspiracy theory that Cohn traces in that great book which you have never read, or perhaps even heard of until you Googled it.
Otherwise, you have not answered even one point that I have made. Your explanation about the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks remains wrong. You confuse 1903 with 1917. At best. You still have absolutely no idea about the Communist/Social Democrat distinction, and you indicate that you don’t care to learn. Fair enough, but don’t presume to lecture people who do know what they are talking about because it makes you look silly. Presumably whatever audience you have in mind for your comments doesn’t care.
Dear Fred:
Was surprised to find that JBS was having a bit of a revival, I actually thought they were still just the Left’s bogeyman. Hadn’t heard much about them since I was a teenager. Now those guys knew a thing or two about conspiracy theories, reminded me of someone I’ve recently become acquainted with.
On the upside I must applaud your baby step towards my point of view. We’ve traveled from exactly “…viscerally racist”(#62 3rd paragraph) to merely “appears racist” (#66 paragraph 2) a journey begins with the first step.
In 1903 the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party met in Belgium and due to “police attention” moved to London. In the course of this Congress the party split into two factions the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. After the 1905 revolution the two factions became two distinct parties This is historical fact not opinion. See a People’s Tragedy by Orlando Figes. In 1917 the Bolsheviks seized power, in 1918 changed their name to the Communist Party and banned the Mensheviks in 1921.
Perhaps I’ve been unclear previously. It is my strongly held opinion that there are no significant meaningful differences between Social Democrats, Socialists or Communists. They often espouse varying degrees of radicalism, usually as to the means to coming to power. It is my opinion that any effort to make a theoretical distinction between these parties is a red herring, a ruse a flim flam, the purpose of which is to conceal their true goals in order to facilitate coming to power. It is not that I don’t care to learn about “the Communist/Social Democrat distinction” it’s that I suspect the motives of any who attempt to make the case. To see the distinction one must wear rose colored glasses. Accepting such arguments is akin to giving credit card info to a stranger.
Adobe Walls: There is an important distinction between social democrats and communists-social democrats were often in the forefront opposing communists and were described by Stalin as social fascists. Socialists such as Sidney Hook were way ahead in opposing communism’s advance than many capitalists who subordinated national security to business sales with China. Now there has long been a split among social democrats or democratic socialists vis a vis the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Willy Brandt group for example as opposed to the Helmut Schmidt group which supported the introduction of American missiles to counter SS-20s. And of course there are many conservatives who are strongly in support of capitalism who have been mainstays in the fight against communnist domination. These distinctions are not theoretical; they are practical and that is the basis on which they should be judged. Who is for freedom and democracy and who supports the hegemonic dictatorships, Nazi, Communist, jihadist.
David Thomson: you are correct about objective standards for judging the practical effects about the policies someone promotes but I still think it important to assess intentions-foolish policies by the well intended have the potential to be recognized as mistaken; I saw Rosenthal enthralled by Arafat at the time of the Oslo signing; a moment which I knew would spell disaster while those around me were floating on air. But the terror war of 2000 changed Rosenthal’s view of Arafat-I know-a thousand dead too late but it is still different from one who is enthused about those deaths and sees both Oslo and the terror war as steps to Israel’s destruction. Given that Rosenthal’s peers are in power there’s no chance of changing their minds if you mix the ill intended with the naive. And the people who are ill informed and easily led will turn off if every one is branded with the same brand despite differences in intention.This does not mean avoiding taking hard, straight positions against retreat-that’s why Bedein’s question to Rosenthal, yet to be answered needs to be asked by everyone-will she directly condemn the PA for incitement? That’s where her role comes into play. Her sticking her nose into the J street discussion isn’t ultimately important-Bedein’s question is for incitement is the means the PA uses to inflame theMulim street and demonstrates its intentions which unfortunately the average American doesn’t see.
One more thing: When I spoke at the city council during the Rafah sister city debate I pulled no punches about Palestinian terrorism, the teaching of kindergartens to love martyrdom etc but I made distinctions in how I dealt with the naive versus the ill intended. The Jewish community as a whole did that and I think it helped convince the “soft left” to oppose Rafah despite some brutal commentary in the general press directed against the Federation director. Had we taken Radosh’s approach (and I think he is usually on target) towards Rosenthal as our model we would not have captured enough support. We focused on relentlessly demonstrated the facts about Rafah and about the PA and Hamas do the talking and that is what worked. Objective assessment of the strategic facts and the consequences of ignoring them is absolutely vital; but in a democratic society where one has to convince others of what they don’t see how one deals with other people as people and understanding who is ill intentioned and who is naive and making that distinction can affect the outcome of the debate. And if I am totally correct about the facts on the ground but have failed to convince the majority in part because I have resorted to comments which aren’t necessary to the debate but lead others to be turned off by my accusations not of the enemy but of the well intentioned, then I have failed and my better strategic understanding goes for naught.
Now as for Obama-it is important to find out who he is-it does make a difference if he is Hannah Rosenthal or Jacqueline Rose or Tony Judt. Naive or ill intentioned. I haven’t read the references cited so I have no basis for saying which he is; I do know Rosenthal; my connection with her allowed me to give her names of people in the war against anti Semitism she might not have known or contacted. What she will do with that I don’t know but if I had been dismissive, if I had brushed her with the brush she didn’t deserve, however incorrect her positions on the Arab -Israeli conflict then any chance I had of leading her to look at the world differently would be lost. My stance on anything isn’t going to make a difference-I had at most 7,000 readers at one point and no one listened it seemed but for those who do have real influence, knowing how to convince those in power who are naive rather than ill intentioned is a crucial element in the war for freedom alongside the relentless statement of strategic facts.
#5 Scott:
I’ll tell you precisely the moment when my eyes were opened to the difference between justice and “justice movement politics.” I went to work for ACORN, having been told I would be working as a liaison between police and neighborhoods in crime reduction activities for high crime areas. Was I very naive about their politics? Sure. I had not been raised in a political family. I didn’t speak the language. I had no interest in “revolution.” And it took about five minutes to discover that the “program” I’d been hired into was a racket that had nothing to do with police/ neighborhood relations but was a front for organizing for and subsidizing other causes — they were literally pimping the issue of crime prevention while pocketing money from federal agencies to do so. And this was in New Orleans, in the early 90′s, where children were being shot to death on the way home from school. The ACORN activists could not care less about the human toll — to them, it was merely a political opportunity. This was their ideology, and Obama was their lawyer. Over the next two decades, I saw this type of behavior repeat itself again and again and again (as I moved to the Center, then Center-Right). Frankly, I haven’t changed my views on what makes a good society or the importance of actual legal equality. I’ve just become less naive about the real intentions of such activists, the consequences of their actions, and their politics of systematic divisiveness and deceit. And while there are plenty of crooked politicians across the political spectrum, virtually every crooked, on the make, or exploitative “civilian” I’ve ever met was sucking off the teat of some government-subsidized activist group on the far left — the very same groups that, whole-cloth, make up Obama’s theoretical and political universe. I may not agree with some positions taken by my peers on the Right, but they generally hear me out, treat me with respect, and don’t try to pick my pocket or “re-educate” me. The best way to understand what is happening in the current administration, I think, is to go join one of those groups yourself and see what they’re saying and doing behind closed doors. You’ll be shocked.
“…any chance I had of leading her to look at the world differently would be lost.”
The chance of leading her to a reasonable point of view regarding Israel and the Palestinians is next to zero. She is infected with western race guilt. The Israelis are mostly white skinned and the Arabs are dark skinned. Thus, the Jews must inherently be oppressors. It is deemed outrageous and racist to perceive the Palestinians as anything but victims of imperialism. I have long argued that the Israelis would have been far better off if the Arabs possessed blue eyes and blond hair. And no, I am not even slightly joking. White race guilt is also almost certainly responsible for the near disastrous terrorist suicide bomber attack on the airplane traveling to Detroit, Michigan. Our politically correct western institutions are incapable of dealing forthrightly with the threat of dark skinned terrorists.
I have a hard time imagining Hannah Rosenthal thinking along the lines David Thomson presumes. She is completely aware that half of the Israeli Jewish population is of descent from north africa, yemen, iraq, syria and Iran(let alone the new and fairly small Ethiopian Jewish community). And I have never heard her refer to Israel as an apartheid state as the far left does. She certainly doesn’t think of Jews as inherently oppressors. To whatever degree the concerns about failing to profile airline passengers as expressed by David are accurate, the concept doesn’t apply to Rosenthal’s view of the world. This discussion is veering off course. She is not, as I said, a Van Jones nor an Anita Dunn, nor a Bill Ayers. She’s a left/liberal. She is, I think, mistaken in her views about the conflict and I believe she should answer David Bedein’s question about PA incitement affirmatively. And she should be held accountable and her administration if it fails to speak out. Meanwhile let us assemble the facts; go to David Bedein, Barry Rubin, Caroline Glick, Martin Sherman, Dore Gold, Joel Fishman, Mark Helprin, Charles Krauthamer, Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Ledeen and (yes) Ronald Radosh to acquire cogent analyses of the war against the terror masters as Ledeen puts it. Let’s get those facts out there and let’s challenge public officials ala David Bedein asking straightforward questions and see how they respond and find public officials and candidates who can learn this material and take the lead in restoring the balance on the side of opposing the tyrants.
“She is completely aware that half of the Israeli Jewish population is of descent from north africa, yemen, iraq, syria and Iran(let alone the new and fairly small Ethiopian Jewish community).”
The politically correct establishment is not rational concerning this matter. Logic has little do with anything. It simply does not recognize dark skin people as truly Jewish. Real Jews are those possessing white skin. All others are somehow not genuine. They are, it must also be quickly added, often not conscious of this ingrained mindset. It is second nature to their way of looking at the world. At the end of the day, the only relevant fact is the dark skin of the Arabs. Please note how often Marty Peretz and others are described as racist. Why would they make such an accusation if they didn’t consider the Arabs to have darker skin than the chief editor of The New Republic?
The race card is constantly employed whenever the misbehavior of the Arab majority is discussed. They are constantly referred to as victims of the West. Hannah Rosenthal may not be in touch with her feelings, but the odds are overwhelmingly likely that the woman suffers from race guilt. You need to push her buttons a little harder. It should eventually come out. After all, this is minimally a tacit requirement to become a top official with the Obama administration.
From the new book, The Obama Timeline:
Obama successfully seeks the endorsement of the New Party (NP), a Marxist third party in Chicago, for his 1996 state senate run. The endorsement of the New Party requires that the candidate “…sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” Obama receives the endorsement with an in-person appearance with the NP; it is not an unsolicited endorsement. After his victory in the election, the NP states “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” (Democrat candidates need to cater to the New Party or risk New Party candidates running against them in the primaries. The New Party essentially blackmails Democrat into taking far-left positions—if they do not already have those positions.) [72, 243, 253, 431, 1280]
The platform of Obama’s New Party’s includes: full employment, a shorter work week, a guaranteed minimum income for all adults, a universal “social wage,” full public financing of all elections, universal voter registration, more progressive taxes, reductions in military spending, and the nationalization of the banking system. The New Party has worked with ACORN on a number of issues. (Race activist Al Sharpton once considered seeking a New Party endorsement for a U.S. Senate run.) [1281]
A February 12, 1996 Chicago Sun-Times article with the headline “Candidate Not What He Seems, Foes Insist” quotes Northwestern University professor of political science Adolph Reed, Jr., who calls Obama a politician with “impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neo-liberal politics.” Obama is called a tool of forces outside the black community by Robert T. Starks, chairman of the Task Force for Black Political Empowerment. [2463]
Obama also receives the support of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Obama was then an associate of the DSA’s Chicago branch. The members of the New Party, the DSA, and ACORN are largely interchangeable. Obama is a panelist for a discussion, “Employment and Survival in Urban America,” sponsored by the DSA on February 25, 1996. The DSA is associated with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is its most prominent member. After an expose of the DSA in 1999, it scrubs its Web site of connections to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and removes a number of inflammatory postings (including song lyrics about “shootin’ that Wall Street throng.”) [239, 243, 253, 432, 1282]
The Marxist New Party refers to Obama as one of its own party members in an October, 1996 “Running to Win: The Key Races” announcement, that reads, “Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).” Clearly, Obama was a member of the New Party. [244, 422]
The Progressive Populist magazine runs an editorial that states, “New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.” The New Party’s parent organization is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The New Party’s short-term objective is to move the Democrat Party far to the left, helping establish the conditions for an eventual Marxist party. (It is difficult to argue that Obama joined the New Party not because he believed in its socialist philosophies but only to gain votes—because he had no opposition on the ballot. He could have completely ignored the New Party and still won the election.) [253]
Just want to say your article is astounding. The clearness in your post is simply striking and i can assume you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with future post. Thanks a million and please keep up the solid work.