The Alinsky explanation

Jim Geraghty makes a pretty persuasive case that we are living in the Alinsky administration — “It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power”. Excerpt:

few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought…

Obama insists that he doesn’t want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn’t want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He’s critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets. Much of this is explained by Alinsky’s epigram, “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”…

Obama has dominated the news by unveiling a new initiative or giving a major speech on almost every weekday of his presidency. There has been a steady stream of lighter stories as well — the puppy, Michelle Obama’s fashion sense, the White House swing set, the president and vice president’s burger lunch. The constant parade of events large and small ensures that whenever unpleasant news arises and overtakes the desired message — think of Tom Daschle’s withdrawal, the Air Force One photo op, or North Korea’s missile launch — it leads the news for only a day…

Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power. As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it

The Alinsky theory also helps explain why Obama’s $100 million in budget cuts in a $4 trillion budget is good politics, even if it riled the media for a nanosecond.

2 Responses to “The Alinsky explanation”

  1. Maggie's Farm Says:

    Monday morning links…

    Invasion of the Lionfish (photo). Sheesh. But they are highly edible.
    The Alinsky explanation for the O and the Dem agenda. Dino
    The humiliations of the modern Dad. Dr. Helen. Lucky Glenn.
    Moslems call for Jihad in NYC. No wonder they have a lo…

  2. Thalpy Says:

    All of this proving once again why people don’t lead; they are led. It is projection. We do it in our daily lives, so why not in selecting a “leader”? My question is: why do some want others to do their bidding, while others just want to be left to alone?

    Our time is one of the few when the many have had any say in what they do in their life. In the interest of change, hate, and ignorance (possibly stupidity), that might not happen again for some time.

Leave a Reply