Contrary to what the Left says, it is not a sign of mental disturbance to believe that President Obama is deliberately fomenting crises in order to advance his radical agenda. I might even argue that it is a form of denial to fail to recognize that the Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s deliberate, exquisitely calculated, ongoing campaign to sow discord and chaos is part of a larger strategy. Crises, as Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton remind us, present opportunities that should not be wasted.
There is no conspiracy because to my mind that implies that the plan is hidden. It is not. The evidence is there for anyone who cares to look. There is a plan to smash America’s longstanding institutions and render the U.S. Constitution meaningless and it comes from Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward, Frances Fox Piven and from others in a rogue’s gallery of liberty-hating revolutionary activists and thinkers. Not every aspect of the plan is clear-cut and not all radicals agree on every aspect of it but there is no denying that there has been a meeting of the minds on the hard Left for the last 50 or so years. They know that the kind of change they want will not come organically, not in America with its wonderfully anti-authoritarian cultural biases. As Che Guevara remarked, “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.”
As an adjunct law teacher and Illinois state senator Obama was very clear about his objections to the basic political architecture of America. In a 2001 radio interview he expressed his contempt for the limits the Constitution placed on governmental power. He said he was unhappy that it did not promote “redistributive change,” i.e. so-called social justice. And what is Obamacare really? It is a vehicle for social justice, this inherently fuzzy abstraction. Obamacare is more about redistribution of wealth than about helping to heal the sick. It is about giving the government almost total control over every American in the pursuit of a sick, perverted vision of humanity.
Of course one can make a decent argument that at the time of its original adoption the Constitution was flawed for a number of reasons but chiefly because it condoned the abominable practice of slavery. (The Civil War and the Civil War Amendments cured what might be called a congenital defect in America’s great charter.) But slavery, which everyone nowadays condemns, is not something about which the future President Obama concerned himself in the above cited radio interview and throughout his intellectual development.
Material inequality, that is, the fact that some people have more money than others, is a near-pathological obsession with him. This is what peeved the future president about the Constitution: its supposedly quaint, archaic preoccupation with the protection of the economic freedoms that by their very nature guarantee that some will be wealthier than others. This appears to be the foundation for more or less the president’s entire worldview and he shares this concern with many other socialists and Marxists.
That said, how does President Obama hope to accomplish his transformative goals? I would argue he’s already shown us in word and deed all the years he’s been politically active. He believes strongly in polarization because it brings things to a head — and that’s when change occurs. As has already been documented exhaustively, Obama is an Alinsky devotee, and Alinsky believed that polarizing society and demonizing opponents was useful. Obama lived and breathed Alinsky’s teachings as a community organizer in Chicago and he continues to do so. Obama is not a stupid man and neither was Alinsky. Obama understands the power of Alinsky’s organizing techniques to move society in a specific direction. It is for this reason that community organizers should not be mocked, as Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani delighted in doing at the 2008 Republican national convention. Sure, their one-liners were funny at the time, but in retrospect, unwise because they made normal patriotic Americans drop their guard.