Remember Anita Dunn who, at this moment, is employed in the White House?
Yeah, turns out she’s a fan of Chairman Mao….yep, that Chairman Mao.
Exit question: How can anyone be a fan of Chairman Mao…the guy who killed upwards of 70 million people?
h/t – Missy in the comments.
Breaking but unsurprising news…. NFLPA’s DeMaurice Smith is Obama henchman.
Ah yes… Smith’s objection to Rush Limbaugh’s presence in a group attempting to purchase an NFL team is objected to by the NFLPA’s head honcho, sole based on Rush’s political views.
That would be the same Smith who worked for AG Eric Holder, and served on Obama’s transition team. It would be the same Smith who was chosen by the NFL union back in March not for his football savvy, but for his Washington connections. A position that came in handy just a couple of months later as he met with members of Congress to head off a lockout.
Yes… we have a WH and associations who do not hesitate to wield their power against their enemies… none of which, apparently, reside in Afghanistan.
Mike’s America wrote “Well in the case of Obama he was mentored as a child by Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an avowed STALINIST.”
Mike may have a future in writing historical fiction, because he certainly has distorted history. Davis was not an “avowed Stalinist.” As a matter of fact, he directly criticized Stalin in his poetry.
Although Obama’s book indicates “Frank” was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable.” Obama did not even visit Davis for three years before going to college. Obama’s book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the definition of “mentor.” By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
@Mark: I’ve researched Frank Marshall Davis IN DEPTH. I suggest you do the same.
@mooseburger said: ” Keep crying wolf, maybe the wolf will show up, and nobody is going to believe you when it does. “
You mean like global warming?
Your projecting again.
Folks… notice how DESPERATE these libs are to try and change the subject?
Obama is surrounded by commies and all Parrots of the Proletariat can do is screech!
President Obamaâ�¦you are who you surround yourself with enough said thanky….
@Anton:
My Grandma and Mom always said: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.”
Such wisdom! And you know, I never had a friend they didn’t approve of. Don’t know if thats intellect on my part or just fear! LOL
Sarge
I have studied Davis in depth, which is why I encourage you to substantiate your claims with primary source evidence, rather than speculation from bloggers like AIM’s Cliff Kincaid. For example:
“Frank Marshall Davis wrote poetry attacking Stalin by name, which appeared in his collections “I Am The American Negro” (1937) and “47th Street Poems” (1948)” (see page 48 of “The New Red Negro” at
http://books.google.com/books?id=kt5LMD-OnxoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22the+new+red+negro%22+communist+davis&source=web&ots=B-HaNJA9HW&sig=ZiOltjxuI1QwdjCAvvEC0f4NnGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA48,M1)
Thanks!
@ AFSarge
My mom wasn’t so eloquent, but made the same point. She said if you play with dog crap, you’re bound to get some of it on you. She didn’t say crap though, I’m playing it safe in case the FCC diversity Czar is lurking.
About Anita Dunn’s “Chairman Mao” statement.
She was giving a commencement address. She was making (I think effectively) a useful point, and that is that a single, determined person can make a huge difference. She intentionally took two polar opposite people, to make this point: Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa. When she calls these people her favorite philosophers, she is careful to explain what she means about this. Here you have essentially a single man, with initially no resources, who, against all odds, defeated his adversaries and became the leader of a billion people. How did he do this?
I’m sure that you’ve read many of the quotes attributable to Chairman Mao.
e.g.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mao_tsetung.html
I particularly like this one:
Mao was also a feminist before the onset of modern day feminism. You may not be a feminist, but you should be able to see how the philosophies of Mao would please a feminist like Dunn.
Yes, the various sayings of Chairman Mao also include gems like this one, which aren’t so nice.
But you could apply this last one to the Right, equally as to the Left. There is a lot of this type of spirit on this particular blog. The Left as “The Enemy.” Crushing the enemy with the hammer of one’s own philosophy. I think that either Mike or Aye wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.” Where did this come from?
Chairman Mao
So Mike (or Aye, I don’t recall which) agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him. Does this make Mike (or Aye) a Communist? That’s how ridiculous is the accusation of Glenn Beck.
The man (Mao) certainly was a philosopher (unlike, for example, Adolf Hitler, to whom Glenn Beck compared Mao in asking, with exaggerated outrage, isn’t admiring the philosophy of Chairman Mao the same thing as admiring the philosophy of Adolf Hitler? — answer, no, it’s not, because Hitler was not a philosopher).
The point is that you can learn things from all sorts of people, both good people like Mother Theresa and bad people like Chairman Mao. I’m certain that the graduates who listened to Dunn’s commencement address understood this, even if Glenn Beck and other purveyors of political hate choose distortion in the pursuit of a gotcha moment.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Wow Larry… Stop spinning and sit down before you get dizzy and fall down.
When did I EVER quote Chairman Mao with admiration? Please enlighten me.
I suggest you watch the video again. This woman worships Mao. It would be an oddity if it were not so common in the ObaMAO Administration.
P.S. Is it “hate” to point out the philosophical underpinnings of this Administration? How very MAO of you to think so.
Thumb through your little red book and see if you can come up with a response. Meanwhile, ignore that stack of 70 million corpses piled up in plain view.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Hmmm….I see that Larry has shown up to purvey another myth.
Show me Larry where I have “agreed with”, or “quoted” Chairman Mao.
Show me.
Can you do that Larry….or is this another falsehood from you?
@Aye Chihuahua: Larry must have us confused with Rush Limbaugh. Surely his pals on the left can phony up a few quotes.
From Mike:
From Aye:
You are both distorting what I said (which I don’t need to repeat or explain — it’s all there in my #58. It’s what I said; it’s not what you said I said).
Aye’s comment in particular is a wonderful illustration of his entire approach to debate.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In #60 I quoted verbatim exactly what you said in #58.
For those following at home here’s what Larry had to say (again):
Your claim seems rather clear.
So, I’ll ask you again, where have I ever quoted, or agreed with, Chairman Mao?
Where are the links Larry?
@Aye (#63): See my comments in #62.
Thank you for doubling down in #63.
Q.E.D.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
On Thursday of last week I proved you to be a lying liar through the use of your own words and a series of screenshots.
Today, I proved the same conclusion again.
Q.E.D. indeed.
@ Mike/Aye:
I did some Googling and I found what I think was the “politics is war” quotation. Turns out, it wasn’t either of you, but, rather “Hard Right” (whom I’m sure is no Maoist, even though he did quote Chairman Mao).
I do apologize for my error, although I did make it clear that I was writing from fallible memory and my point wasn’t to cast aspersions on any particular person, but simply to state that one does not need to agree with the totality of a a historical figure’s teachings to learn useful lessons from said historical figure.
CORRECTION:
Should have been: “Hard Right wrote, on a thread some time ago, that “politics is war.” So Hard Right agrees with Chairman Mao — even quotes him. Does this make Hard Right a Communist? That’s how ridiculous is the accusation of Glenn Beck.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
When Hard Right (or anyone else) puts forth Mao as one of their “favorite” political philosophers your point may be valid.
Until then, not so much.
Ow wow, commie davis once criticized stalin. That sure disproves all the other proof he was a commie and America hater.
A little Clozapine would do wonders for you mark.
Below is utterly outrageous. It is the grossest of gross distortions and an utter abuse of language.
You did absolutely nothing of the sort. No one supported you in your spurious charges and there was even a conservative on the thread who criticized your unfounded attacks on me.
And you are a coward to hide behind a pseudonym to make statements like that.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, seriously…get some help.
Your psychophantic defense of obama is just sad, and I too agree you are dishonest when it comes to him.
Here’s something for your need to feel like a victim………you’re a commie.
Hard Right says:
de ja vu, all over again.
Q.E.D.
I need to actually get some of my day job work done today. (walking away, shaking my head in bewilderment).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“…. other purveyors of hate”?? Larry, it’s a dangerously esoteric philosophical argument upon which you embark.
You choose to gloss over Ms. Dunn’s admiration of Mao: the quintessential “community organizer” who, along with his dependence upon military to achieve his philosophical dreams, sent out his call for violence to peasant armies as well. His success in doing so resulted in deaths that surpassed even Stalin or Hitler’s mass murders.
Mao has been elevated to lofty positions by the left since the 60s. And their influence in glorifying his “philosophy” has gained acceptance in various bios and curriculum. Such a figure in life should not be glorified, most especially when you think of the negative impact upon humanity. This is truly an example of “means” vs “ends” debate… especially when you admire the “means” and completely discard the “ends” achieved.
If you depend upon uttered “just words” by many of the various influential monsters of history, I’m sure one can find ideological gems by most that cross boundaries of political beliefs. If one listened to many of Obama’s words…. i.e. need for health care reform… one can find consensus in the phrasing. But it is actions and use of that philosophy …. i.e. what exactly constitutes health care reform…. that should be the focus of analysis.
An ugly fact is you cannot separate Dunn’s admiration of Mao as a philosopher from admiration of his specific philosophies. There is nothing to belie that Ms. Dunn doesn’t associate herself with Maoism in her personal beliefs for a political system. And it is that which is beyond objectionable… especially as one wielding power in the US Oval Office. That you attempt to do so is desperate parsing of intent, merely to give her a “get out of jail free” Monopoly card.
Don’t you find it fascinating and obvious that one can espouse Maoism and his philosophy, but then consider it “hate speech” when called a Maoist? Why the hypersensitivity? I’ll tell you why. Because being labeled accurately is damaging to the “ends”.
I find it notable that Dunn chose to highlight Mao’s determination to overcome adverse odds (a positive) with Mother Teresa’s response to a plea to help to “find your own Calcutta”…. a kind but pointed rejection of the request for aid (a negative). By doing so, she assigns the positive “can do” attitude to a monster, and a negative, by using what may be construed as an uncaring response, from an extraordinary woman.
Indeed, I found it offensive just to hear their names contained within the same sentence that drew any positive comparisons. Attempting to bridge any gap between the two, based on actions and not “just words” is, in my opinion, virtually impossible.
As a final note, you make quite a leap yourself. When you label anyone as a “purveyor of hate” because they point out that Dunn… with her obvious political philosophical agreement with Mao in achieving social welfare and justice (both methods and ends)… you are exactly that which you accuse Beck – a purveyor of hate.
@Mata (#72)
You present a well-reasoned counterpoint to my #58.
I don’t accept what you write in the last sentence, above.
Your current commentary on Dunn, is, as I just acknowledged, well-reasoned. I don’t entirely agree, but your points are not presented in a manner to foment hatred.
I watched Beck’s youtube videos on the subject, however. They were presented in a manner to foment hatred. He was almost literally frothing at the mouth.
I don’t think that I was out of line in my accusation of Beck as being a purveyor of political hate. (n.g. Beck isn’t the only such person on the cable news scene — Maddow, Olbermann, Garofalo also meet the job description.)
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I’ve watched Glenn Beck for years. Long prior to his more public exposure today. Each commentator has a style. What you construe as “frothing at the mouth” is not Beck “fomenting hate”. Beck pulls no punches, and says exactly how I feel about this administration. The Obama admin is packed to the gills with appointees and powerful czars who lean hard left towards statism/Maoism or whatever PC term you’ll accept. (One thing they are not is centrist.)
This lean to the hard left in philosophy and legislation is contrary to every founding concept of the country in which I was raised. You will have to drag me kicking, screaming, biting and fighting down the “social justice” and “welfare state” road advocated by this admin.
If that makes me a “purveyor of hate” in the eyes of anyone… and to my chagrin, even you… then so be it. By evoking that assault of opposing ideas as a political weapon, the 1st Amendment is the first casualty of our “remaking” of Obama’s America. This nation has always been divided and, assuming we still retain the right of free speech and to disagree without personal assault and repercussions, we will always be divided. Any attempt at utopian “harmony” is merely creating a nation of homogenous, subserviant citizens of the various governments in our Republic.
I have also watched/listened to Maddow, Obie, and Garafolo. I find no similarity in Beck’s delivery, as it is esconced in details as to why he has his opinion (ala his associations, which Obama, himself, has invited us to scruntinize), and not merely mischaracterization and vicious name calling. None of the trio you have mentioned has ever utilized facts in their commentary and assault on the opposition. And you can add another foaming at the mouth name to that list, Ed Schultz.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Now you are lurching from the absurd to the ridiculous.
Even after it dawns on you that your original accusations directed at AYE and me are wrong you double down and try to pin it on H.R. with some totally STUPID conflation between one of his comments and Mao.
You really should know better. I thought you were smarter than that. Oh well, I have been wrong before.
I hope you won’t mind if instead of indulge your transparent attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT, I return to the topic.
Dunn states that Mao is one of “the two people I turn to most.”
Instead of being ashamed by this admission that a key White House insider worships one of the worst mass murderers in history you try and change the subject.
What a pity you haven’t got more ammunition in your belt. Your efforts on this thread are pathetically weak.
@Mike (#74)
No, I wasn’t the one to change the subject. I was responding to a point raised by Aye.
To address your point:
Dunn didn’t say that she “worshipped” Mao; she said that she “turned to him” AND to Mother Theresa for insights into ways to approach life. It’s perfectly clear that she “turns to” Mao for insights into political struggle against seemingly impossible odds — again, it’s hard to think of a recent individual who so single handedly rose from a position of total obscurity to overthrow a totalitarian regime and become the leader of a billion people. The fact that Mao, himself, becamse an even more ruthless totalitarian is not that which Dunn was holding up as an example. She was referring to the struggle for success, not what one does with success, once achieved. Her point was, again, that it’s possible to learn valuable lessons from all sorts of people, if you are willing to approach the world with an open mind. She did this by presenting the two most extreme examples one could choose.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mata: I NEVER said, implied, or thought that you were a “purveyor of hate.” Nor are most of the senior F/A “staff” editors. I know one when I see one, however, and Beck is one.
@Mike: My reply to #74 went to spam. Can you dig it out? Thanks.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Considering I agree with Beck, Larry, the only reason you can’t consider me a “purveyor of hate” is simply the difference between our deliveries of our opinions.
So let me ask you this… just what phrasing of Beck’s can you point to that is “fomenting hate”? Perhaps specifics may be in order here.
Or is this just a “feels like” kind of thing?
Actually larry, the commie remark was satire. I was using your own words against you in the same way you tried to use what may have been mine against me.
Really, you have zero credibility with me when it comes to politics. The way you complement obama reeks of verbal fellatio and your blatant dishonesty whenever you defend him has made it clear you suffer from pathological denial and narcissistic tendancies. The latter part means if obama is as wonderful as you claim, you too are smart, wonderful, etc., for seeing that in him and supporting him. Therefore it’s really all about you and your ego.
Ya know larry, hitler rose from nothing against overwhelming odds too. Should we turn to him for ways to approach life?
Really, when you defend scum like dunn you are absolutely repulsive.
Hard Right wrote: “Ow wow, commie davis once criticized stalin. That sure disproves all the other proof he was a commie and America hater. A little Clozapine would do wonders for you mark.”
The first point of contention was not whether he was “a commie and America hater.” The issue was Mike’s unfounded claim (#15) that he was an “avowed Stalinist.” That claim is without merit.
The second point of contention was Mike’s unfounded claim the Davis was Obama’s mentor. Obama’s book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a “wise and trusted counselor,” which is the definition of “mentor.” By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
Since Mike’s America claims to have done in depth research on Davis, perhaps either he or Hard
Right have “proof” that Davis was a commie and hated America. (Blogger speculation is not proof. Much of Davis’s writing is available online. Links to supporting evidence should be easy to provide, especially for anyone claiming to done “in-depth research” on Davis.
The only primary source evidence that he joined the CPUSA comes from Cliff Kincaid’s (“Accuracy In Media”) source University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, whom Cliff Kincaid cites as “an expert on the life and writings of Davis.” Professor Tidwell dismisses misrepresentation of Davis’s influence in one simple paragraph:
“Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.”
BTW: As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am researching political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory’s misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century. This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” where a target is smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. Relying on unsubstantiated claims of mentorship to implicate Obama makes no more sense than relying on Curveball’s unsubstantiated claims of mobile weapons labs to implicate Iraq.
“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” – Abraham Lincoln
@Mata:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY
Yes — “feels like”
Or, to put it another way, I know it when I see it.
The Glenn Becks of the world are vexations to the spirit.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You just keep digging the hole deeper don’t you.
Your lame and transparent attempt to take the focus off what Dunn said and what so many Obama Admin types believe has been exposed.
You really should know better than to continue to draw attention to this issue by such obvious distractions (Isn’t that Obama’s favorite excuse “distractions?)
That Kool Aid you are drinking must be powerful stuff. Too bad you can’t get the Independents, Seniors and women voters who are fleeing from Obama in droves to sip it along with you.
@Hard Right (#78):
Can I ask you a serious question?
Why can you not simply debate issues without layering on so much in the way of personal vituperation? I’m just trying to understand something, here, in the spirit of trying to learn something from people with whom I disagree.
Do you feel that the language in #78 is really helpful — to anyone? In what way is it helpful?
There are now 82 comments on this thread. Virtually all of them are the genre of echo chamber feeding the echo chamber. I was trying to interject a modicum of thoughtful debate. Mata seized my comments by the throat and offered compelling counterpoints. She didn’t treat me with kid gloves, but neither did she find it necessary to resort to the most personal forms of verbal attack.
On the other hand, perhaps Mata views me as being a guest on her blog (she being one of the editors). Bill Maher is one of those political hate fomenters who, at least, treats his own guests with respect. You and I are are simply visitors, so, perhaps, it’s OK to sling personal mud at that level. I’m just musing out loud, in real time. On one hand — on the other hand.
But I think that good manners are good manners, and I’m sufficiently old fashioned to appreciate good manners from a host.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@mata (#75):
Once again, it depends on where one’s own personal philosophy is, on the political spectrum.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1008chapmanoct08,0,6061831.column
The above column (by a writer I’d consider to be a moderate — his columns are frequently run by the conservative/libertarian Orange County Register, which NEVER runs leftist op-ed columns), makes the point that Obama’s so-called socialist leanings are grossly exaggerated.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mark #81, it’s nice that you… Mark Davis, son of Frank Marshall Davis.. are again paying us a visit. I have not forgotten our forum conversations in an August 2008 thread. And what rang the bell of association was not only your career comments, but your reference again to Tidwell’s article, and your MyBarackObama blogpost on the same subject.
The link to our prior conversations will, perhaps, remind you of our previous encounter about this Tidwell exoneration, as you see it, of your father’s political beliefs.
As you have again highlighted Mr. Tidwell’s paragraph here, I will again repeat what I responded to you back then…
In the interest of balance, your response to me stated that it was likely your father viewed his membership in the Communist Party as a tool, citing “The New Red Negro”.
As I said to you then, from what I read of your father, I didn’t throw him into the 100% “radical” or “communist” class. However I do include him in the “socialist/Marxism” class.
One can spend much time debating the nuances separating Stalin and Karl Marx political philosophies. But what most of us can agree upon is that neither of them are particularly well suited to the founding concepts of the USA. Six of one, half dozen of the other… neither are guidelines for this nation, unless you are interested in “remaking” it in their philosophical, statist image.
Again I will say it was ironic his idea of achieving “constitutional” freedoms for black America was not to implement civil rights legislation, but to apply a socialist agenda – “every one is equal”. Socialism/Marxism, or Communism, does not lift up citizens. It lowers some, slightly raises others so that individuality becomes muddy, and excellence becomes out of favor, or prohibited and impossible.
And even more ironic that a Communist govt, assuming as a CPUSA member he would have been okay with that, would have probably made sure his poetry never made it to the masses.
The days of your father are entirely different than opportunities for black Americans today. While you may apply reasoning to justify the method your father chose to achieve civil rights in his time, those same methods are not acceptable by Obama in today’s era of civil rights. For in fact, a swing towards socialism and equality, as espoused by Marx, would result in the decline of enrichment and rewards enjoyed by many a successful black American.
I will also nitpick with your “mentor” comment: ala By what creative definition can Davis be considered his “mentor”?
The answer to that is, quite simply, Merriam Webster’s definition. I don’t think it can be effectively argued that your father was not a friend, trusted counselor or guide to a young Obama, sans his own father. So tho Mike’sA can speak for himself, I’d say it’s not farfetched to term him as a mentor and influence in Obama’s life.
But I do have to say, I always enjoy when you jump into the fray INRE your father’s defense since I do think you bring a balance to the myths when you put it into the perspective of your father’s era. But that dog don’t bark in 2009.
Larry #85… ’tis nice of you to reply to the “centrist” remark. However, you and I are standing on opposite sides of a wall. Your side is painted blue, mine is green. Your concept of “centrist” doesn’t come close to resembling mine, and you’ll always see blue when I always see green. From our perspective, both are “true”.
It’s rather like your response when I asked you just what you found to be “fomenting hate” in Beck’s words, and you opted for door #3… it’s a “feels like” judgment call.
I figured we’ve run the gamut on the issue. I can’t debate someone’s opinion based on emotions and “feels like” observations. Nor can I argue with someone who sees the center from the left stance, while I see the center from my right.
Acknowledged
LW/HB
Thanks for your reply MataHarley. I am not contesting the truth, but only refuting the lies, concerning my father. Especially heinous are the flagrant falsehoods from posters like Mike’s America, who portray him as an avowed Stalinist (or worse). Upon reviewing the discussion from last year (thanks for the links), I find that Mike’s America posted (#51)
Now, however, Mike’s America claims he was an “avowed Stalinist.” Perhaps Mike’s America can explain this shift.
You may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid’s researcher: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/05/31/judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-singing-sensation-susan-boyle/#comment-13017. Only the last group of comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June. Not a peep was heard from him since then.
Frank Marshall Davis was primarily a civil rights activist. I invite anyone to provide any primary source evidence (i.e., his writing) that he was devoted to Marxism/socialism, or even believed in collectivism. The CPUSA was merely a means for publication, that’s all, since only the CPUSA provided institutional support for African American writers at that time.
For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC’s capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members. According to CNBC’s “The People’s Republic of Profit,” the PRC now has over 100 billionaires – second only to the United States. Some Communist Party members are VERY successful capitalists!
Even today people join some organizations, such as churches and the YMCA, without internalizing their core values because membership has its advantages. I believe everyone will agree that many so-called “Christians” have not internalized Christian values. Some could argue that Stalinism perverted the core values of Marxism, just as the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests perverted the core values of Christianity.
Contrary to the fraudulent memes circulated throughout the blogosphere regarding Davis, University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, cited by AIM’s Cliff Kincaid as an expert on the life and writings of Davis, explains that THESE were the “radical” goals of Frank Marshall Davis:
(1) integration of armed forces
(2) integration of AFL and CIO
(3) fair wages and other benefits for workers
(4) general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation
(5) end to laws supporting anti-Semitism
(6) end to atomic warfare
(7) rights for soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections
(8) support for Fair Employment Practices Act
(9) support for a broad United Nations (not just US and Great Britain forming a world power union)
(10) end to restrictive covenants in real estate
You will likely find that these have mostly been transformed from “radical” goals of the 1940s into mainstream 21st century standards. Frank Marshall Davis was not out of line. He was just ahead of his time.
Lastly, you wrote
As Obama himself said Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable,” what evidence is there that Obama trusted his counsel? With empirical evidence against it, and mere speculation for it, any objective analysis would have to “follow the evidence,” as they say on CSI.
Thanks for your consideration.
“Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant
@Mark: I was wrong earlier Mark. Davis is a Stalinist and you can hide behind all the warm and fuzzy deceptions of which your fellow communists are expert but it won’t alter the fact.
Your definition of a civil rights activist would also cover George Wallace.
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
P.S. Who is YOUR #1 hero: Mao or Che Guevara?
Mike’s America: Since he criticized Stalin in writing, where is your evidence that he was an “avowed Stalinist”? Where and when did he make any such “vow”? Methinks you are living in Right Wing Fantasyland (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG59cf)
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
Mark, I find it nigh on impossible to pass judgment on your father’s chosen methods of achieving civil rights. Quite frankly it was an era that few of us could fathom the goin’s on INRE race relations. Were I to live in times where I was so oppressed (and it’s not out of the question I may yet live see those in my lifetime), I’m quite sure that history (were I important enough to be recorded history as a mere foot soldier…) may classify my actions as “radical” in response. It’s difficult to view history without experiencing those times yourself.
I think there is merit in what you say that, at the time, the Communist Party offered your dad a public forum not accessible to him in those times. So let me say this. Perhaps it’s inappropriate of me to assume that your dad’s champion… Tidwell, in this case… thought he was doing your dad a favor when he said that Frank believed communism was the means to achieve civil rights. After all, the man is not here to speak for himself, nor note the changes in our society. But then, that’s all we have to go on, yes?
I’m not sure you could answer this question (without it being one of those tongue in cheek “are you still beating your wife” moments)… but I guess your father’s speculative legacy might be this: in those days, would he accept a communist society as the answer to civil rights even today, totally discarding his capitalist/excellence beliefs you say he held?
Who can answer this, but your father himself? No one. But by his chosen associations, that is the legacy he leaves.
Personally, I have long discarded your Dad as a talking point or “association” worthy of bringing up to evaluate Obama’s performance. First of all because it was a different time and circumstance. Second, because he is not here to speak for himself with current societal changes.
But most especially since there is so much that Obama has done – all by himself – that doesn’t require a linkage to your father using the worst portrayal. Obama’s own action reinforces my opinion of him as the architect to destroy this nation as it was founded.
Nor would I expect you to accurately predict how your father would approve/disapprove of a black American in the WH, actively thwarting black Americans’ successes (along with other races) in order to elevate others. If your father was genuinely a capitalist, I can’t believe he would approve of the current events. I think I… and even more you… would love to see upon what side he would land. Would he stand with Charles Payne on economics? A Ward Connerly on affirmative action? Walter Williams, George Schuyler or Thomas Sowell? Ah… if we could only see parallel universes.
I suspect that here, you and I will agree to disagree… your father aside. This is assuming that, over 8 months into his term, you agree with Obama’s economic decisions. Considering your career background, I will leave your opinions of his foreign policy as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” moment.
Just in case Mike’s America is trying the Humpty Dumpty gambit of making up his own definitions, according to dictionary.com “avowed” means “acknowledged; declared: an avowed enemy.” A “Stalinist” is “an advocate or supporter of Stalin or Stalinism.” Therefore, an “avowed Stalinist” is an acknowledged or declared advocate or supported of Stalin or Stalinism.
The Humpty Dumpty gambit was highlighted in the story of Alice’s adventures in “Through The Looking-Glass,”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
Lewis Carroll
English author & recreational mathematician (1832 – 1898)
“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
– Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968)
The above interchanges between MataHarley and “Mark” are a jaw-dropping example of blogosphere discourse at its very best. Thanks to both of you. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
MataHarley,
I am confident that after the 1950s, my father recognized the obscene truth of Soviet Socialism – and by extension any other collectivist society outside a small farming commune. He once said that he worked with communists just as he would work with the devil himself to defeat Jim Crow.
I personally believe that the era of racial preferences is over. Everyone today should be judged exclusively on the content of their character. While I am unqualified to judge whether Obama’s actions to recover from the recession are the best, honest people will always tend to disagree on economic policy.
My greatest disagreement with him is on his human/civil rights record since taking office.
“The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry…. You need a hankie. I can see your brown nose from here.
@Mark: I’ve learned my lesson. I saw firsthand today how Larry W. can just make stuff up about me that I never said. Over the past few months I’ve seen the same thing happen time and time again, most recently with the racist attacks on Rush Limbaugh.
Apparently, if those kinds of assaults on the truth are good enough for your side I might as well engage in the tactic too.
But again, here we are getting DISTRACTED (to use Obama’s favorite word) which is exactly what you and Larry are trying to do to take the focus off the Mao loving Ann Dunn.
Sorry pal, I’ve allowed you to get away with that for too long. Do you have a comment to make which is ON TOPIC?
Sorry, Mike’s America, but I could care less about Anita Dunn. My blogosphere attention is focused almost exclusively on refuting the lies concerning my father, such as your “avowed Stalinist” fabrication.
@Mark shared. . .
“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
——-
If this is so true — why is there not a memorial to Benedict Arnold in DC?
Because England lost.
@Mark:
I’m not quite clear what your bone of contention is here.
Is it true or false that Davis was a member of the CPUSA?
Is it true or false that he plead the 5th in testimony before the US Congress when asked about his membership in the CPUSA?
Is it true or false that the NAACP rejected Davis because of his radical views?
Seems to me that “Stalinist” or garden variety “Communist” is a difference without distinction.
@Mark wrote — Because england lost
—-
Are you altering the 19th century quote you offered? I did not see a footnote with the puissant thought.
@Mike:
You are the one changing focus. My posts have squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue; the only time I got off topic was to answer/address Aye’s issue. And I didn’t “make” anything “up.” I accurately recalled a relevant comment on F/A by a very conservative discussant who was no Mao lover, but who quoted Mao, none-the-less. I was clear in saying that I “thought” I recalled this was you (or Aye), but made it clear that this was simply from memory, which is, of course, fallible. I then took a break from my workday — solely to do the Google research, identified the correct (conservative) commentator, and posted the correction.
Other than that, I had several posts, which squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue. You (and Aye and Hard Right) did not address the specific points I made — instead you simply responded with dismissive (and often personal) insults. I debated seriously. You simply hurled epithets.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA