Whatcom County has just had a shift in the balance of power on Whatcom County Council. Two council members, one moderate, and one conservative have been replaced by two new council members, both aligned with the progressive movement. That gives a count of one moderate, one independent, one Democrat old boy, and four progressives.
Now is a good time for a discussion in political organizing. Are you ready? Who is the godfather of the modern progressive movement? What can we expect from his disciples? Will they be pressuring the moderates and independents? Will there be power plays? Yes!!
Consider the following insider insight from David Horowitz, a poster child progressive in the 1960’s and 1970’, former editor of the progressive standard bearer magazine Ramparts, and now hated (by progressives) arch traitor to their progressive movement. Horowitz singles out Saul Alinsky as the intellectual and practical father of the modern progressives, a man who shifted American socialists from trying to mimic the failed Russian regime, to taking a more Machiavellian, Fascist approach to unilateral government rule.
“Instead, Alinsky identified the problem posed by Communism as inflexibility and “dogmatism” and proposed as a solution that radicals should be “political relativists,” that they should take an agnostic view of means and ends. For Alinsky, the revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system and then see what happens.
“The Alinsky radical has a single principle - to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots. What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism - a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the“people” (who, in the fashion common to dictators, are designated as such by the revolutionary elite).
“This is the classic revolutionary formula in which the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process.”
(pp 5-6 Obama’s Rules for Radicals, David Horowitz, 2009). Horowitz continues a few pages later,
“In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories (she interviewed him personally for the project).6 In her conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King.
“The title of Hillary’s thesis was “There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In this title she had singled out the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause – his embrace of political nihilism.
“An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words the cause - whether inner city blacks or women (or coal trains and coal terminals – JK comment) - is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. That was the all consuming focus of Alinsky and his radicals.
“Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were.
“Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.
The following anecdote about Alinsky’s teachings as recounted by The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza nicely illustrates the focus of Alinsky radicalism: “When Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: ‘You want to organize for power!’7
pp 8-9 Obama’s Rules for Radicals, David Horowitz, 2009
Power. How does a society prosper when leaders are obsessed with control? Am I just imagining here? No. Without permission to name persons, all I will say is that within hours of gaining the balance of power, a key progressive leader in Whatcom Wins approached a certain Whatcom County council member and declared the new regime. You may as well accept the progressive agenda, as we progressives have a plan and the power, and will carry it out now, regardless of the political process and rules.
Clawing, grasping power plays. What ever happened to civil debate? What happened to concern for the welfare of opponents? Is there no common ground? After this last election season with the polarizing strategy of the progressives (hit first, hit dirty, solidify an adversarial, mock and gloat dynamic that locks in your people and destroys post election camaraderie with opposition local leaders), and with the "majority" the progressives are claiming, it seems that back room relationships are what will prevail.
I would like to make two points, and will leave the discussion with that.
One. The heart of the king is in the hand of God. There is no power, except that which is established by God. Atheists may claim to rule by their own might or goodness, but then, there are no honest atheists. No man knows everything, even the smartest atheist. He is really an agnostic, feeling his way along like the rest of us.
A consistent “Christian”, who follows “the Book” will discern the fingers of “hand writing on the wall”, putting down one power and raising another. In other words, God has allowed the progressives their majority. But, can progressives really work with conservatives after their poisonous GOTV campaign? How long will Bellinghamsters cheer for bullies? When will the progressives eat their own? It happens, you know.
Two. Power lies in either fear or love. The fear of coal train traffic in their back yard (which the new County Council cannot stop anyways—the coal will just go to the new terminal going up in Canada) has moved moderates and independents to empower leftist progressives who are promising what they cannot deliver—apart from taking over the BNSF right of way.
Power in love? The Prince of Peace said, “Bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and despitefully use you”.
Conservatives are very familiar with the cursing stage. (Wendy Harris, Jean Melious, David Stalheim, ReSources, Futurewise,et. al.) We can still envision success for these people as they learn to be givers to all, not just their ideological buddies.
We have moved into the hating stage. The Dept of Ecology, Puget Sound Partnership and the Growth Management Hearings Board have made their loves known—tribal aquaculture interventions that will promote hate for farmers, loggers and rural residents. What is doing good here? Speak truth. Return kindness and grace, not revenge. Protect the weak by shining the light on predatorial government.
The field is also set for intensified property rights persecution and the economic abuse stage. (Whatcom County Planning has been relentless in trying to insert groundwater management rules to enable planners to deny new wells any where in the county. Futurewise and ReSources are poised to regain the influence they lost four years ago. EPA and other grant monies continue to flow to community organizers to “help us gain consensus” in local resource management. (E.g. $300,000 for floodwater control stakeholder consensus facilitating).
Pray? Ask for interventions that will heal these people? Yes. Do it. And watch out for the bullets.
Power in love? If, as this “anonymous” Whatcom Wins campaign leader is modeling, there is no more significance in public hearings since outcomes are already decided, will good will do good? When a teenager rebels, what does a parent do? They protect the other family members and release that young person to the hard knocks of life.
Fools can be very smart. Very, very smart. A lazy man has more answers than seven wise men. It is easy to destroy. It is hard to build. When fools rule, prudent men hide. When non-profits“share the wealth”, everyone loses. Wise men will move their energies to other priorities, such as training the next generation.Tough love may confront, and it will also allow consequences. Love will work with the weak of today who are the leaders of tomorrow.
What does that mean? How does this all work out? Only time will tell. But, may I suggest, investment in the next generation now will pay off later in spades. As well, as the huge vote (not) from college students last week indicates, progressives may have the council reins, but they are aging and vulnerable to youthful doubts and inconsistencies. It was the oldies that came to the “hot ballot party” last Friday night, not the college students.
In other words, conservatives, spend time with young people and support conservative educators. That is the new (older) do or die battle. Stablizing the next generation, both your offspring and those of others, truly empowers and redeems. Grow local and buy local is still a hot issue. Got the hint, farmers? The question is, do conservatives really have the moxie to do this?
-- JK
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, John Kirk, I appreciate your involvement.
ReplyDelete