I had been talking to a friend about Cloward and Piven the other day and she sent me an email; an editorial by Wayne Allyn Root. The text is correctly attributed as the "Urban Legends" link shows. I would ask that you read it with an open mind, trying to fight that very human "normalcy bias" reaction. You see, when I was in my Social Welfare programs (undergraduate and graduate) I became acquainted with these two people through their books and discussions in my classes. The plan to "overwhelm" the system to the point of collapse in order to usher in a new system is very real and was discussed openly in my classes. Cloward and Piven were two of the reasons I left the program. Saul Alinsky was the other. I am very uncomfortable with someone who basically believes the ends justify the means an has no belief system (except his belief that to have no belief system is in itself a belief system) that would guide him in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is now recommended reading for some of Obama's programs for youth. In particular AmeriCorps training materials are steeped in the "collective" world view. Most people believe that taking care of each other is important. Doing "good" for you community is a good thing and, as a Christian, I believe that God would have us be good stewards of what we are given. However, the world view I hold says I need to do this of my own free will. My Lord and Savior did not in any way support forced re-distribution of wealth. We each decide that to live the Christian life includes taking care of one another. What many people don't see is the endpoint of this "social planning." It gives the political "elite" the power to decide what is good for the community. This does not include the consideration of individual rights and liberties. I heard a commentator the other day discussing the sexual assault claims against Al Gore and he made a very good point. The Progressive view is "what is best for the community/country/planet." That sounds good on the surface, but the "individual" becomes unimportant. If what I am doing for the good of the world is of ultimate importance what I do to one individual is not that important at all becomes their world view. Consider Hillary Clinton's response when it was pointed out that her health care plan would destroy countless small businesses: "I can't save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America." In her book "It Takes a Village" she says: "[C]ivil society is just a term social scientists use to describe the way we work together for common purposes." Jonah Goldberg responds in his book "Liberal Fascism": "No, no, no. Civil Society is the term social scientists use to describe the way various groups, individuals, and families work for their own purposes, the result of which is to make the society healthily democratic." ...It helps regulate life outside of state control....which is why we have a Constitutional Republic and not a direct Democracy and the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution. Much of it needs to out of state control because to give the State the power to control every aspect of our daily lives makes it a "God State." I don't know about you, but that is frightening to me. Call it whatever you will: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism; it all leads to the same place. It is important that we each learn our history and ask questions and find the truth for ourselves. Please do not buy into the statement that there is "too much information" out there that exposes us to many different arguments (Obama.) Do your research now, while it is there for you to find. Net Neutrality is something you want to take a long hard look at. I would also suggest you get acquainted with Cass Sunstein. In particular his definition of "conspiracy theorist."
As we remain in God's hands,
LB
No comments:
Post a Comment