The Secret Hillary Rodham Clinton, Part II

By Ralph Benko

hillaryAs recounted in the previous column, the record is clear that Saul Alinsky, about whom the young Hillary Rodham wrote her Wellesley honor’s thesis, was neither communist nor  conventional Big Government liberal. Hillary Rodham turned down a job  offer from Alinsky.  She turned aside from the path of  anti-establishment populist. Hillary Rodham took the road more traveled, that of conventional  liberal. By word and deed she turned away from Alinsky’s optimistic  participatory politics. She turned, instead, to central planning.  What might that choice suggest?

Hillary’s honor’s thesis, THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT, in full context, provides a clear picture of her decision-making.  In  Chapter IV, “PERSPECTIVES ON ALINSKY AND HIS MODEL” she writes:

One of the primary problems with the Alinsky model is that the removal of Alinsky drastically alters its composition.

Alinsky is a born organizer who is not easily duplicated, but, in addition to his skill, he is a man of exceptional charm.

[S]ome New Left strategists  …, although, disenchanted with Alinsky-like faith in individuals, apply  many of his tactics in confrontation politics.

The problems inherent in such an approach, including elitist arrogance and repressive intolerance,  have become evident during recent university crises.

She then pivots to the main point: community organizing vs. central planning.

Accompanying the decline of  the traditional neighborhood as a living unit [was] the massive  centralization of power on the federal level…. Federal centralization  reduced local and state power….

Thus, we find ourselves in the middle of an urban crisis which is really a crisis of community power.

One … element is the role of  participation. The … model assumed that participation, as the root of  the democratic process, was a necessary and good thing.

Today, nothing is so certain ….

Alinsky and Rodham both were for social transformation. She found  Alinsky admirable but probably not replicable at a national scale.   Hillary Rodham confronted the choice between “community vs. centralized  national planning in social change.” She chose central planning as her  way.

But was her choice definitive?  It may not sit easily within her soul. Mrs. Clinton’s title for her 1996 It Takes A Village suggests a continuing tug back to community. Is the idealistic Rodham  still with us?  Hillary retained her maiden name until the political  exigencies of her husband’s second gubernatorial race reportedly persuaded her to adopt Hillary Rodham Clinton.  She retains the Rodham  name.  There are good reasons to believe that her identity as Hillary  Rodham — an idealistic (albeit, in her own words, hard-hitting) soul — remains intact.

Would Alinsky have concluded that in her choice to take the establishment route Hillary sold out?

Or became subtly contaminated?

Alinsky, in Rules (p. 13) states a critique of comparable choices in religion and business:

Two examples would be the priest who wants to be a bishop  and bootlicks and politicks his way up, justifying it with the  rationale, “After I get to be bishop I’ll use my office for Christian  reformation,” or the businessman who reasons, “First I’ll make my  million and after that I’ll go for the real things in life.”  Unfortunately one changes in many ways on the road to the bishopric or  the first million, and then one says, “I’ll wait until I’m a cardinal  and then I can be more effective,” or, “I can do a lot more after I get  two million”—and so it goes.

Alinsky, by reports, was more of a genial than judgmental man.  Reading Hillary Rodham leaves little doubt in this columnist’s mind  that, notwithstanding the massive policy and philosophical differences  between us, her desire to make people better off, and the world a better place, is authentic.

Yet… the seductions of celebrity — power and glory — are  enormous.  Although she has not transformed the world Hillary has reaped enormous personal gain from her successful pursuit of power.  She also  has paid an enormous personal price.  Hillary Rodham Clinton certainly  must be looking at the astronomical personal price tag of a presidential run.

Moving from the secular political equivalent of priest to bishop to  cardinal — and next, perhaps, to Pope — though, could it be occurring to her that central planning simply will not work?  In 1969 the central  planning model retained legitimacy in the eyes of leftist  intellectuals.  The Soviet Union did not repudiate the central planning  model, definitively dissolving itself, until 1991.  This was a full  generation after Hillary made her choice.  Nevertheless… it dissolved  itself.

Hillary is in a bind. Hillary Clinton’s power base is made up of conventional establishment liberals who are  about the only ones left who have much faith left in central planning.   If Hillary merely repudiated conventional liberalism she would  immediately be attacked from her left (as she was in 2008). Her  political base could turn on her.

Yet the ability to become a transformational agent of social  betterment — through subsidiarity and human dignity — is within her  grasp.  It does not require her moving to the right.  It requires her  rediscovering authentic optimistic populism.  She can do this in such a  way as to lead, rather than alienate, her base.  She can lead from  liberal to radical.  Radical does not mean destructive.  Deriving from  “root” it means fundamental.

She cannot be unaware that the national mood has shifted away from  faith in central planning.  The ability to help people — and, more  important, to facilitate people’s gaining their dignity by helping  themselves — from the top down, is, at best, frightfully constrained.   Obama’s efforts at central planning have pushed America as far to the right as it has been in 50 years.

Hillary Clinton, her own woman, cannot possibly be interested in  being cast in the role of “Obama’s third term.” If the GOP nominates a  populist candidate, one optimistic about citizen participation, a  philosophy of conventional liberal central planning could be Hillary  Clinton’s Achilles heel.

Young Barack Obama also spurned the opportunity to take the Alinsky way.  As previously reported by this columnist from an interview with one of Alinsky’s main successors, Arnie Graf:

There are significant differences between movement  politics, community organizing, and being part of the system. Obama let  Graf know that he was not interested in being an organizer. He hoped to  become a great civil rights lawyer or a judge.

Obama chose to be a political leader, not a community organizer.

As Sandy Horwitt, Alinsky’s definitive biographer, observed in an email to this columnist, here quoted with his permission:

An irony about Obama is that while the Tea Party bashes him as an Alinsky community organizer, the reality is that as President he  has rejected anything he learned on the South Side of Chicago or from  Alinsky disciples such as Arnie Graf.  So we end up with conventional  establishment politics which the majority of Americans know is not  working.

The days of liberal establishment central planning as a plausible  means for the betterment of the human condition are over.  One wonders  whether at some private level Hillary Rodham Clinton, shrewd and  observant, has herself lost faith in central planning.  Inner doubt  reflecting on her outward bearing would go far to explain why so many of her sympathizers portray her as dour rather than joyful.

There is a clear way out of this bind:  to go back and follow the  Alinsky breadcrumb trail. Alinsky: “Denial of the opportunity to  participate is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not  work.”  The cultivation of human dignity through participation is the true rule for radicals.

Republished with permission from Forbes.com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s