Reader John Rylanders points Cornerites to this very interesting October 2006 interview of Bill Ayers in Revolution (the self-styled “Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA”).
Some context: Ayers explains that he returned from summer vacation to his post as a professor of education at the University of Illinois only to find an apologetic letter from colleagues with whom he had been working for decades. The colleagues were writing to explain why they were not inviting Ayers to a conference on “progressive education” being planned for the following spring. Ayers tells Revolution:
The people who wrote the letter were an administrator at a university, a dean, and then a couple of people I knew pretty well, actually. I think I was stunned to get it because what it said in effect was we’re having an important progressive education conference, we count you as one of the important progressive educators in our era. Therefore we feel we owe you an explanation of why you’re not invited…. [A]s I thought about it I thought … here’s one of the dismal signs of the times. These guys aren’t just progressive, they’re socialists, and they think of themselves as activists. And yet they feel that in order to have a meeting that will be legitimate, they have to make a decision who to exclude, and they excluded me. And I decided it wasn’t an issue about me in particular…. But I did feel increasingly agitated about the thinking that went into it….
They said in the body of the letter: we want to position progressive education not as radical, but as familiar and good. Now that just steamed up my ears because if you’re saying you’re a progressive educator… That’s one of the things that’s actually annoyed me for about 40 years of being a progressive educator: the separation of the concept of progressive education from the concept of politics and political change. You can’t separate them…and this is a contradiction, incidentally, that goes all the way back to the beginning of progressive education and really the beginning of the conversations about the relationship between school and society. But John Dewey was one of the brilliant, brilliant writers about what democratic education would look like and was himself an independent socialist. But he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom. This contradiction is something progressive educators should address, not dodge. So this is what got me going. That’s a short version.
There’s much more of this at Andy’s post and I’d suggest you go read. But the reason I blocked as much as I did, here is I want you to get the context of the plan. Read the passage again:
These guys aren’t just progressive, they’re socialists, and they think of themselves as activists. And yet they feel that in order to have a meeting that will be legitimate, they have to make a decision who to exclude, and they excluded me. And I decided it wasn’t an issue about me in particular…. But I did feel increasingly agitated about the thinking that went into it….
They said in the body of the letter: we want to position progressive education not as radical, but as familiar and good.
OK, that’s the first part I want you to focus on…and leave aside Ayers for the moment. They’re trying to mainstream socialism. They’re trying to take all the sharp edges off of it. Trying to hide it’s true nature. Now, really think about this… What has Obama been doing all along in this cycle? Every time a sharp edge comes up, it ends up under the bus. Ayers, Dorn, his wife, etc… and now the “New Party”… every one. (Pardon the mixed metephor, but given the context I’m sure you understand what I mean)
Now, let’s look at a second point;
That’s one of the things that’s actually annoyed me for about 40 years of being a progressive educator: the separation of the concept of progressive education from the concept of politics and political change. You can’t separate them…and this is a contradiction, incidentally, that goes all the way back to the beginning of progressive education and really the beginning of the conversations about the relationship between school and society.
So much for the warm, cozy, and non-threatening description of Ayers as an ‘educational reformer’. His version of ‘reform’ clearly, and in his own words, is pushing socialism.
This is the guy whose living room is the place of the starting of Obama’s political career. As McCarthy says:
Again, this is from only two years ago. Ayers does not try to hide who he is or where he is coming from. He is a proud leftist revolutionary. His driving idea, in this phase of his career, is that the classroom is the frontline of the revolution. And when he was given the opportunity of a lifetime, a $150 million fund to be doled out as seed money for the kind of programs he thought would advance the cause, the guy brought in to run it was Barack Obama — with whom he worked closely on “change” in the schools for five years.
Now, if we were talking abotu a Republican with that kind of connections, there’d be gallows and ropes being employed before the echo died. But I’ll bet you want more. OK, let’s dig deeper into Obama himself.
Politically Drunk On Power [2]has a post up containing a report that says… well, check it for yourself:
In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago “New Party”. The ‘New Party’ was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist ‘New Party’ was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations “fusion” reform platform as unconstitutional.
There is lots more, including updates. But as PDOP says themselves:
Obama’s membership within the ‘New Party’ is disturbing as even Green Party members attacked the DSA and New Party as nothing more than a fringe group. The New Party had hoped to implement Socialist Rule in the United States and was established to counteract the influence of a Democratic Party that they viewed as too moderate and too centered. Now it seems that nearly 10 years after the socialist party fell apart, their strategy of upward growth has reached the White House. Obama’s ties to the DSA’s New Party is beyond just an association it is outright membership, as clearly defined by the parties August 1996 newsletter, in an outright Socialist organization.
Are you shocked by this revelation? Me, neither. It fits exactly with all the rest of what’s been revealed about the man. Ayers, Wright, his wife’s publicly stated positions, the whole shebang. Isn’t it about time we started questioning this stuff? As Powerline’s Hindrocket [3]says:
It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do.
You know, there was a time in this country when this stuff would mean a serious outcry.
Look at it this way; Let’s say John McCain was shown to have serious and substantial connection with someone who had bombed abortion clinics. What do you suppsoe the response would be from the democrats and their wholley owned mouthpeices in the press?
Doesn’t it kinda make you wonder why we’re not seeing that kind of reaction with the Lightworker?