Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Obama's "Economic Justice" Comes from his Socialist Past
Share:
by BigT | July 30, 2008 at 03:54 pm
1528 views | 17 Recommendations | 21 comments
a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
But is that true?
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (21)
at 16:03 on July 30th, 2008
Interesting. I'm not sure what I think to be honest, as it's hard to know what to believe about either of the candidates these days, but it was interesting to read about Obama's past and how that influences who he is now.
at 16:34 on July 30th, 2008
Thanks for the comment Amy. To be honest, I do not like either candidate. As a conservative (classic liberal more accurately, I think) I do not think McCain will be a great president.
But there is a difference, a big difference, between the two candidates. Obama, whatever his personal history actually is, does have a voting record both in Illinois and in the US Senate. It's obviously far to the left. How that came to be can be answered, I think, by looking at his past.
Again, thanks for the comment and the read.
at 16:57 on July 30th, 2008
Thanks for this, its definitely useful to look at Obama's past. An opposite view, held by left-leaning critics like Naomi Klein, is that Obama's recent policy proposals are too "neoliberal."
at 17:23 on July 30th, 2008
Thank you for the link Julian. It's wise to look at as many sides of an issue you can before making a decision.
at 16:50 on July 30th, 2008
I do not believe in choosing a candidate based on "liking them". We need to think realistically about what will happen if McCain gets in - he will probably attempt to instigate Armageddon. In his off time, he will push partisan politics, overturn Roe v Wade, cripple efforts to deal with the energy crisis and continue tax breaks for the uber-rich. There seems to be a stereotype in the media that democrats ( in which group you could lump in leftist, progressives and socialists) will run up the tax bill and break the budget. Whoever came up with that sterotype must be a marketing genius because even so called liberals cringe when the image is conjured. Here is the only problem folks: Bush has already done that! Too late!
Meanwhile we have Obama. He didn't chose when, where and to whom he was born. So let's let it rest. He did have a choice about hanging out in the streets or studying hard, working hard and making a difference. Perhaps you don't agree with the presence of some of the adults in his life when he was still a minor - so does that mean that you as an adult are making sure to mentor a kid and steer him in the right direction? Obama had some choices as a legislator - they are more accurately described as centrist. (However, to someone on the far right perhaps he is appears leftist?) Whenever possible he chose a method reflecting his professionalism and ability to examine all sides of an issue. He did have choice there and made some really good ones that benefitted people on both sides of the aisle - even when democrats were not on his side.
I could go on and on about the actual choices that Obama has made that reflect thoughtful analysis and leadership. It is totally acceptable to disagree with the conclusions that he has drawn.
It is unfathomable, however, to me that in this day and age people are still talking about whether they "like" a candidate or about things in a person's childhood that he had little or no control over - but made the best of anyways. This socialism charge is even more mind-numbing than the flag pin debate.
PS I'm pretty sure the now infamous senator from Alaska has a flag pin! Feel better now?
at 17:21 on July 30th, 2008
So which one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse is McCain? And, in your scenario, is Obama Jesus?
at 17:02 on July 30th, 2008
It's Marxism stupid!
at 17:04 on July 30th, 2008
BigT, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 17:22 on July 30th, 2008
Thank you PEP.
at 22:17 on July 30th, 2008
GASP! Obama is a liberal? Oh no, he'll ruin the beautiful country bequeathed to us by years of Conservative control --- worst inflation in 26 years, negative personal savings rate, near doubling of average insurance premiums (since 2001) 8.5 million more unisured (compared with 2001), record deficits, record low dollar, record foreclosures, bank failures (many more predicted - http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/13/2008-07-13T194832Z_01_N13367014_RTRIDST_0_BANKS-FAILURES-ANALYSIS.html )
I wish he was more of a liberal - I and others on the left think he's too Centrist. He's not for single-payer health care, he's not for pulling us out of Iraq (proposes combat troops leave in 16 months but that the Green Zone- and it's thousands of Americans -stay basically as it is) he's not for slashing our obscenely high "defense" budget, he's in favor of expanding or involvement in the Afghan civil war etc etc
But either way it's ridiculous to repeat this lie that he's "the most liberal Senator" -- the National Review's methodology is flawed for many reasons, such as the fact that they just decide what is and isn't "liberal" i.e. voting to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission was considered a liberal position. The biggest flaw was that the vote count was skewed by how many votes Obama missed because he was campaigning for president (I think that's appalling, but sad fact is McCain missed even more votes)
The National Review called Kerry the most liberal senator in 2004 and he was beaten with that label for months. Only after the election did the National Review say they were wrong and he wasn't anywhere near the most liberal
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=08c25e0a-9b88-49a6-97f5-45114f3fff28
and from the article:
So where does Obama really fall on the spectrum? No vote-ranking system can capture it perfectly, since ideology is as much about legislative priorities and emphases as it is about votes. But here's a rough idea: In his first two years in the Senate, when he didn't miss many votes, Obama ranked 16th and 10th on National Journal's "most liberal" list. A separate and more elaborate ranking system, developed by highly regarded political scientists Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole, found him to be the 11th most liberal senator in 2007 and 21st most liberal in the previous Congress. Obama clearly belongs to the party's liberal wing rather than its centrist contingent--he's essentially said as much--but he's not close to being the Senate's left-most member. (The same was true of Kerry, by the way: He's been ranked 20th and 12th in the past two National Journal rankings. In fact, the palpable absurdity of Kerry's "most liberal" ranking led the magazine to alter its methodology. Under current rules, Kerry would have been disqualified in 2004 for missing too many votes--a cold comfort now.)
at 09:28 on July 31st, 2008
Um, OK. I didn't link to anything from National Review. And I seriously doubt your characterization of them is correct anyways. But what the heck, I've got a couple of minutes to respond to your first accusations.
WORST INFLATION: the average inflation rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is given two different ways. December to December inflation under Clinton was 2.58% and under Bush it has been 2.74% (through 2007). The average inflation growth under Clinton was 2.61% and for Bush it has been 2.69%. [SOURCE] The worst president in recent memory was Jimmy Carter, a liberal. His average inflation numbers year over year (Dec. to Dec.) was 10.38% and his average inflation rate was 9.73%.
Furthermore, Clinton was a centrist with a strong republican Congress. Bush is a mild conservative who had a republican Congress through 2006. Now he has a democrat Congress. Inflation is up more in the last year than at any other time in his presidency.
NEGATIVE PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE: This is a flawed complaint to begin with and it betrays your ignorance of economics. The personal savings rate is something that each individual is responsible for, not the president. It's actually quite frightening that you want the president to go into your pockets to make sure you save more.
HEALTH CARE: Why even bother with this? You all want to socialize medicine because you believe (erroneously) that it will make it fairer or better or whatever. Do you think that health care is some sort of free market bonanza? It's anything but. So why would more government make it better?
RECORD DEFICITS: I've commented on this before in other areas [HERE]. What's really scary is something no one is talking about: our entitlement system. In 1993 our entitlement debt (which is defined as the "debt held by government accounts" for things like Social Security and Medicare) was 16.8% of our GDP - in 2008 it's projected to be 29.1%. And you want to add onto that with socialized medicine?
And when you take out the "debt held by government accounts" you get this:
Look, I've got other things to do now since this has taken a while. So I'm going to leave you now after shedding some light on a history you know very little about. Don't just read the headlines and think that's the whole story. You have to look into the numbers and make opinions for yourself.
at 11:23 on July 31st, 2008
Spin spin spin spin spin --- Ah, how I live to bear witness to your arrogance and attempts at condescension when you reply to people who disagree.
I love how, in your defense of the current economic conditions, you nibbled around the edges and ignored bank failures, home forclosures, etc etc nor do you address the main issue, which is the assertion that Obama is "the most liberal senator." But since you want to debate a couple trees and ignore the forest:
1. Sorry about that, I misspoke, I said National Review instead of National Journal. But it's clear from the articles quoted I was referring to National Journal's "most liberal" rankings" -- and it's not about my "characterization" of them, it's about the facts regarding their rankings.
2. the number of people without health care and the personal savings rate are both reflective of the state of the economy. If people aren't saving anything, and if they don't have insurance, chances are it's because they aren't doing well financially. Nowhere did i say the government should force people to save, but thanks for mischaracterizing my point.
3. I agree with you that entitlements are going to bury us - we just disagree on the remedies.
4. You're playing games with numbers -- yes, debt as a percentage of GDP was about the same for Clinton and Bush (on average), but a look at this chart shows that during Clinton the debt went down, and under Bush it shot back up. Clinton started with high debt and made it lower - Bush started with low debt and made it higher -- so the average every year looks the same, but that's just a way to hide the truth
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
5. As for inflation numbers, you can't compare Carter's numbers to current figures because the government has - as I'm sure you know - completely changed how it calculates inflation. And the point of Bush's inflation numbers aren't the average over the last 6 years, but what is happening now. It's easy to get the economy humming, just slash taxes and raise spending - the economy will be great...for a little while. If i stop paying my bills and start maxing out my credit cards my lifestyle is going to go through the roof... till it comes time to pay the bills. My point is, the bill is coming due.
at 12:47 on July 31st, 2008
First point - thanks for coming to the realization that cutting taxes is good for the economy. And inflation wasn't worse under Carter? Are you for real?
Anyways, I took a look at the debt under both Clinton and Bush and just solely based on the gross budget it went up by about 30% under Clinton and is projected to go up by about 71% under Bush. However, once you take away the entitlements, something that the president has little to no power over, the numbers change. Under Clinton the Budget went up by over 100% and the projected numbers for Bush put it at about 73%.
But this is beyond the point. Your guy, Obama, wants to dramatically increase entitlements. That is going to explode the budget. How can you possibly increase spending on a scale the democrats want with health care and a bunch of other welfare projects and have a balanced budget or a shrinking national debt? You can't.
"the bill is coming due." Do you know when was the last time this country was debt free? Answer: never. We're always going to have debt. It's not a bad thing in and of itself but I think it is way too high and getting higher. The only way to bring it down is to shrink the size of the government. And by that I mean cutting back entitlements - something democrats and many republicans will fight tooth and nail against happening.
My point about the savings rate was that the president doesn't have any control over that. How can you blame him for that? Unless you insist on blaming him for everything then you can't blame him for people not saving. And here's a graph showing how the savings rate has fallen since 1980 [HERE].
Bank failures. So? This is a capitalist society and companies go bust. These banks should be allowed to fail. We're making a big mistake by bailing them out. If these companies know that the government is going to back them up why would they change their risk exposure all that much? They won't. And again, we don't live with a controlled economy. The tech bubble burst under Clinton's watch and I cannot blame him for that. That would be ridiculous.
Housing. Foreclosures are up. Those were bad loans to people who didn't have the ability to pay their bills. How is the president responsible for this? We do not live in a communist regime - we live in a capitalist society. But not everything is all doom and gloom. More people own homes during the Bush Administration than at any time since 1965 (I cite 1965 because that's as far back as the data I'm looking at goes; SOURCE).
Overall, I agree with you. Under Bush spending has gotten more out of control. But do you see things improving with a President Obama? Like you said, he's going to keep us in Iraq for a while, which means we have to continue paying for the war, and he's going to try to increase entitlement programs with the likes of universal health care.
Thanks for your comment and your continued interest.
at 22:24 on July 30th, 2008
BigT, I like this story. It's good stuff. Damn Commies!!
at 23:21 on July 30th, 2008
As the son of Frank Marshall Davis, I am fighting the right-wing disinformation campaign that exaggerates my father's radical influence over Barack Obama in Hawaii. Please read my blog at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha.
at 06:54 on July 31st, 2008
But...the author makes such a slam-dunk case! He quotes one article, an article which contains plenty of assertions (i.e. "After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors...") but gives no substantiating evidence. And the article itself is based on guilt-by-association and does not give even one example of any socialist/communist ideas espoused by Obama. So clearly, Obama is a communist bent on destroying or country.
at 08:43 on July 31st, 2008
If you had followed the link to the original article you would have found a list of socialist ideas espoused by Obama. But you might have a point here: what are Obama's ideas? Does he have any? Is "change" enough? Thank you for the comment and gross mis-characterization of my stance.
at 11:27 on July 31st, 2008
You're right, I apologize and stand corrected-- the author does talk about specific Obama policies he feels are socialist or socialist-tinged.
at 06:55 on July 31st, 2008
Obama a socialist? Why would Obama have the same ideology as his mentor for 20 years...
at 08:44 on July 31st, 2008
Good question mpress. The way a person is brought up has absolutely no influence on a person.
at 16:51 on October 26th, 2008
Source: factcheck.org