“I don’t know how much I buy this whole ‘ex-leftist’ thing,” one of my old professors wrote to me earlier this year as he was trying to wrap his head around how one of his “progressive” poetry students could somehow devolve into an aggressive, unapologetic, Evil Neo-Con Warmonger working for the demonic David Horowitz.
“From what I remember you always struck me as a pretty moderate dude in your columns,” he said.
Why of course I did. Looking “moderate” and “reasonable” and “liberal” was the objective when in reality in my heart I was a radical and a socialist. Back in 2004-2006 when I was taking my professor’s courses the public face I wore was one of a “progressive” Democrat. In my weekly op/ed columns for the Ball State Daily News I argued on behalf of John Kerry and critiqued the Bush administration and the Conservative Movement.
I may have been dumb enough to identify with the Left but I was smart enough to know that if I told the truth about my political convictions then few people would be persuaded. So while I might have had six books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on my shelf at the time, their names never showed up in my columns. How could I persuade anyone if I came out and actually said that racist, genocidal AmeriKKKa was the world’s greatest terrorist state, its clawed fingers dripping with the blood of poor brown people all over the world? What good would it do to support Ralph Nader in 2004 and point out that Kerry was also an elite member of the Ruling Class — also part of Yale’s Skull and Bones Society — and was only a baby step’s improvement over the malevolent George W. Bush? No, New Left-style honesty in “speaking truth to power” and brutally confronting the American Empire was a road to nowhere. It made infinitely more sense to just become a Democrat, and yank the established party leftward until the day came when a true leftist could be elevated to the White House to reform a corrupt system.
This is the nature of the majority of the Left today from the most inconsequential, amateur blogger to the Commander-In-Chief: radical Che wolves in liberal Democrat donkey costumes.
So why is it then that it’s taken so many conservatives so long to finally begin to accept that Barack Obama is actually a radical seeking to destroy America from within? Simple: conservatives follow the evidence. And up until now, while various pieces have certainly been available, there just has not been enough to prove conclusively that Obama is a socialist. Billy Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, “spread the wealth around,” etc. etc. — were we in a court of law all these data points could legitimately be tabled as merely “circumstantial evidence.” Associations, off-the-cuff remarks, and friends don’t prove Obama’s core intellectual and political convictions and intents.
Just a few months ago the Freedom Center prepared the production of a new pamphlet, Breaking the System: Obama’s Strategy for Change. The point of the pamphlet was to show how the Obama administration was utilizing the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy to intentionally try to bankrupt the government.
When we started the project I was skeptical of the premise. Was Obama really employing Cloward-Piven? Short of getting Obama on film admitting it how could we actually prove it?
As the early drafts of the manuscript came in, though, the weight of the evidence was overwhelming. I was convinced. There was no way that Obama and his administration could be doing what they were doing by accident. There was no way they could have no idea what the effects of their policies would be. Was it more likely that the administration was stupid or malevolent? If they were idiots then how could they have been so competent as to accomplish their objectives?
And now that we have Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism we can know conclusively that the negative economic consequences of the Obama administration’s policies are no accident. It is the single most important political book released in the last three years.
What makes Kurtz’s book so unique and vital among all the other anti-Obama tomes to come out? Simple: Kurtz did original research, digging through obscure archives of socialist groups and piecing together the history of socialism in America in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s — and Obama’s extensive, overwhelming, intricate connections with it. It’s a challenging book to try and summarize adequately. (The whole point is to just try and take in all the evidence that Kurtz has assembled.)
For his entire political career Obama has been an unassembled jigsaw puzzle, allowing others to project onto him their own readings of his political philosophy based off of the few available pieces.