I’m of two minds about the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” theory of Obama and Ayers, which is explained here and represented in the following chart:
ACORN Networ.jpg
While I first heard about it last night thanks to a comment from Donna Barber, it is a very interesting theory and it might well be true. In that respect, it is worthy of study. As is Gramscian Marxism.
However, there’s another side of me that tends to worry about conspiracy theories (whether true or not) being used as an obfuscatory tactic, especially when they complicate relatively simple issues and appear out of nowhere and muddy the waters just when relatively simple issues have become tough to ignore.
I refer to Bill Ayers, and his close association — possibly even mentorship of –Barack Obama, over a long period of time. Over the past few days it has struck me that this is just about to “break through” from the blogosphere and talk radio and into the MSM. And now that it seems about to do that, there’s a sudden interest in what may or may not be the “root cause” of the Ayers-Obama association.
Forgive me if I seem blunt, but what’s damning is Obama’s association with an unrepentant terrorist.
A guy wearing a bracelet bearing the name of an NCO killed by a terrorist IED was a close collaborator and friend of a guy who wanted to kill other American NCOs with IEDs, and who regrets he did not do enough.
This — the one thing that will outrage middle America more than anything about Obama — is the subject of a desperate media and campaign coverup.
Yet suddenly, the topic shifts to a tactic floated by obscure Columbia professors in 1966.
Again, the theory might be correct. But why right now?
I’d hate to think that when Obama is finally asked about Ayers, he’ll be able to snark back with something like, “Yes and they’re also saying that my friendship with Ayers is part of something called the ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy,’ which I’d never heard of until now” — to great laughter from a pliant and clueless audience.
If Obama is elected, there will be plenty of time to look for root causes. I may be wrong, but right now, I think the focus should be on Ayers.
MORE: M. Simon aptly summarizes the Cloward-Piven strategy as a practical application of Lenin’s “Worse is better,” and Alinsky’s Rules for radicals. No doubt it is both.
As I’ve noted many times, the fact that socialism does not work because it requires more socialism means that failure is success. But saying that won’t win an election.