Sunday, September 28, 2008

Obama's Close Association with an American Terrorist

The Wall Street Journal ran a very significant story by Stanley Kurtz on Obama's close association with William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground and an unrepentent advocate of violence against American institutions. Obama worked closedly with Ayers on The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) in the mid-1990s. See Psalm 1 on the significance of our our close associations. This is not the fallacy of guilt by association, but the guilt of close collaboration with error.

This shows Obama's true colors. He is not reformer in the best American tradition. He is part of the anti-American movement of the 1960s, one of the "tenured radicals" who has now infiltrated the system from within,
in good Gramsci fasion. Will the "long march through the institutions" end up in The White House? God forbid it.

"When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do?"--Psalm 11:3.

3 comments:

Sirfab said...

If we engage in the type of politics that Dr. Groothuis seems to approve of by his linking to Stanley Kurtz's WSJ op-ed, then I believe that we should consider a few facts to complete the picture.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News Channel. Kurtz's article is part of a pattern of insinuations that the Murdoch media empire is now pretty much alone in continuing to highlight. (Incidentally, a man of Rupert Murdoch's wealth and his corporations have much more to gain from a McCain than from an Obama presidency. And so do most owners of the media outlets that are supposedly pro-Obama.)

Obama's ties with William Ayers have been portrayed as tenuous at best, and most media outlets have decided not to pursue them further. The only noise about them come from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and his Fox News colleagues, and other conservative sources (many owned by Murdoch). In other words, the usual suspects. Is this just another example of the media's liberal bias in favor of Obama?

If it were, then the liberal media would pursue McCain's own ties with Gordon G. Liddy, who, unlike Ayers, was actually convicted of something--for his instrumental participation in the Watergate scandal--and who has, on more than one occasion, advocated violence against political adversaries. (See this article.) But, alas, not a peep in the news.

Make of Obama's ties with Ayers what you want, and please do the same of McCain's ties with Liddy. At the end of the day, no one is immune from these attacks on character, not even POWs. For every Bill Ayers, there is a Gordon Liddy, and for each Rev. Wright there is a Rev. Hagee. If you want to vote for someone who has been in public service for any kind of time and has no dubious associations, or ties you disapprove of, good luck finding him or her. You might want to read this opinion by Stanley Fish for a rather healty perspective on this type of "guilt by association" accusation.

As for the reference to Gramsci: Tying Obama's fairly moderate political views with those of a founding member of the Italian Communist Party (a pacifist, by all accounts, who is regarded as one of Italy's most illustrious and influential politicians and thinkers) is a nice try, but fairly hard to defend.

Obama's views are actually not as extreme as McCain's campaign and his political adversaries would like to make us think. Obama's opponents continue to rely on disputed, if not discredited, National Journal article.

In Italy, where Gramsci was born, the current incarnation of the Democratic Party would be seen as centre-right in the political spectrum, center at best.

Obama is lucky because so far all he has had to endure is a barrage of attacks on his character and his policies, some of which were blatantly false. Gramsci, on the other hand, wasn't so lucky and was assassinated by his Fascist adversaries. But in today's media panorama, physical assassinations are no longer necessary. Character assassinations are a reliable substitute. Who knows, for example, what President Clinton might have attempted to achieve if he hadn't dragged down the Democratic Party with him when we he was forced to spend most of his time in office defending himself against artfully-concocted accusations? (Which, by the way, he did much to personally help.)

Doug Groothuis said...

It doesn't matter who sponsors the WSJ. What matters is the facts referred to in the article. It doesn't matter if Rush, Hannity, etc., are saying X, if X is true. You are simply poisoning the well--a logical fallacy.

Obama's view are hardly moderate in any way. Read Freddoso's well documented book, "The Case Against Barack Obama." His views on abortion are as extreme as possible: he is for allowing partial birth abortions; he wants to subside abortion for any woman who wants one, but who cannot afford one, and so on (as I have repeatedly mentioned).

Obama's strategies are those of Gramsci: infiltrate, disguise, and impliment a far left agenda--not by violent revolution, but by stealth. I didn't even mention O's being inspired by the Marxist Sal Alinski (see his "Rules for Radicals").

So what if McCain has some connection to Liddy? Liddy is not terrorist who hates America, as is Ayers. Every politician has multiple contacts. The problem is Obama's deep ideological connections with William Ayers.

Tom said...

Although my take on this is much closer to Sirfab's than it is Dr. G's, I just want to note that even as he has claimed he will be clamping down on comments, Dr. G let Sirfab's very contrary view through. Three cheers for Doug and for free speech!!