Now that Hillary Rodham’s Wellesley College thesis on her radical hero, Saul Alinsky, finally has been made public, it appears her fondest wish in 1969 was to have a “loving wife” to keep “the children away” while she took on more important responsibilities.
Bill Clinton says he will be happy to take on many of the traditional “first lady” roles in a Hillary presidency.
“I wouldn’t mind actually doing some of that work, some of the, uh … you know, some of the more social work,” explained Bill, the eager first hubby.
It occurred to me after reading Hillary’s incredibly boring thesis that she finally may get what she wants as president.
“Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing,” she explained in her acknowledgements.
What an odd comment, I thought. How many undergraduate students have a “loving wife” to help them write their thesis?
This is what occurred to Hillary to write as the opening words in her paper, “‘There Is Only the Fight …’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”
No, you don’t want to read it. It’s sheer torture, believe me. I did the heavy lifting for you. If there were anything in here worth your time, I would tell you. Suffice it to say Hillary chose to write about, in a most reverential way, the quintessential limousine revolutionary of his time, Saul Alinsky, a man who took pride in the term “agitator.”
“Although there is great disagreement among writers about the definition of ‘radical’ and among radicals themselves over the scope of the word’s meaning, there is sufficient agreement to permit a general definition,” Hillary wrote in her uniquely laborious style. “A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and the behaviors of men. Radicals are not interested in ameliorating the symptoms of decay but in drastically altering the causes of societal conditions.”
Got that? Are we all clear? Hillary was telling us what she was all about back in 1969 — and nothing has changed since.
There is also some other insight provided into this sad character’s motivations: It’s all about “power” with Hillary — as if we didn’t know.
“The key word for an Alinsky-type organizing effort is ‘power,'” she writes. “As he says: ‘No individual or organization can negotiate without power to compel negotiations.’ The question is how one acquires power, and Alinsky’s answer is through organization: ‘To attempt to operate on good will rather than on a power basis would be to attempt something which the world has never yet experienced — remember, to make even good will effective it must be mobilized into a power unit.'”
Power, power, power, power, power. That is the essence of Hillary’s thesis. And it is still what she is chasing today. She’s in love with power, and so was her mentor, Alinsky.
“For Alinsky, power is the ‘very essence of life, the dynamic of life’ and is found in ‘… active citizen participation pulsing upward providing a unified strength for a common purpose of organization … either changing circumstances or opposing change.'”
Hillary, who calls herself a “progressive” today, didn’t sound as if she had much respect for liberals back in 1969. She quotes Alinsky as explaining the difference between a liberal and a radical: “The liberal refuses to fight for the goals he professes.”
Are we ready for a president in the radical model of Alinsky?