The Wellesley Thesis

Continuing with Hillary's early radicalism I'll go back further than the internship monitoring the Black Panther trial in New Haven. I alluded to this briefly as the article I linked from in the previous post also referred to Hillary's interest in "radical" Saul D. Alinsky.

Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis
"Clinton White House asked Wellesley College to close off access"

As described in the article: "As forbidden fruit, the writings of a 21-year-old college senior, examining the tactics of radical community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, have gained mythic status among her critics — a “Rosetta Stone,” in the words of one, that would allow readers to decode the thinking of the former first lady and 2008 presidential candidate."

This excerpt from "All Things Considered" has Hillary in her own words disagreeing with Alinsky, but in a manner I'm not certain is an improvement upon his views. (see Alinsky Wikipedia link above):
In her 2003 biography, "Living History" Clinton notes that although she agreed with some of his ideas, "particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves" they had a fundamental disagreement: "He believed could (you) change the system only from the outside. I didn't."
I think this speaks volumes. It illustrates what I see is Hillary's biggest flaw, and her biggest difference from competitor Barack Obama. Democracy is built upon the power of the people to create change. Hillary believes that it is not the people but rather the people in power who will create change. I believe that the United States government was designed so that people could influence and ultimately change things from the bottom up, from the outside. Hillary believes that she, and not the masses, knows what is best for them. In fact, I think it is free will... the thing that Alinsky used as a vehicle for his ideals.... I think it is this that scares Hillary the most.

Now Wikipedia as it turns out actually has a page devoted to Hillary's hidden thesis. The summary, short and sweet is that it never should have been hidden to begin with, and that by and large it criticizes Alinsky's modus operandi. (Her thesis was 92 pages..... the site claims it is available now on the web, but only via copyright infringement... Yowsers... 92 pages!)

And actually Wikipedia is probably right on the money. But to me, this move goes back to the assumption that the masses aren't intelligent enough to realize the truth about what young Hillary wrote. Ultimately the move.... by Clinton or Wellesley, (there seems to be a little debate on who was responsible) may have backfired as Hillary critics pounced on it thinking there was something to hide.

From the Globe: A student's words, a candidate's struggle

The article ends: Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals," was a powerful and popular figure on college campuses in the 1960s, and Clinton calls him "charming." He asked Clinton to join him at an activist training institute in Chicago after she graduated. But she turned him down to attend Yale Law School. Alinsky died in 1972 .

"His offer of a place in the new Institute was tempting," Clinton writes at the end of her thesis, "but after spending a year trying to make sense out of his inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." I think Hillary's ideas of Alinsky's "inconsistency" were along the lines that her view of "empowering" people involved creating laws, where it seems Alinsky saw a collective voice and protest as more meaningful.

The Globe also makes a point to say that there are sources that have revealed that the White House was indeed behind locking away the thesis, and that this was omitted from this story. Information control, even in cases where it is petty is as much part of the Clinton's standard operating procedure as it is of the current one. If anything, much of the Bush administration's ability to withhold information from the public was established via the precedent of the Clintons.

Here is yet another write up of Hillary's Thesis:
Hillary's Thesis: The Village Needs an Enemy This piece uses many sections of the thesis that actually illustrate that Alinsky did indeed have a profound impact on Hillary's current views.

Most notable from the piece: One year after Hillary turned in her thesis, Time Magazine profiled Alinsky. Their assessment was much different than hers. It said, “In his [Alinsky’s] view, the end of achieving power justifies a range of means…If the occasion requires, Alinsky’s forces will not refrain from spreading rumors about an antagonist or indulging in something that comes very close to blackmail.”

Sounds a little like Hillary's (and by that matter both of the Clintons) Campaign tactics. I'm guessing this would be an example of what Hillary considered "inconsistencies" in his views.

Actually when I read up on Alinsky, I have to admit that I sympathize with some of what he says. There is an interview from a 1971 Playboy which is available online (click link) which paints a pretty good picture of his views (It is good reading...). What is troubling is that Hillary thinks that to realize Alinsky's ideas she needs to force the system with radical re-branding, which she will achieve once she infiltrates it. CEOs shouldn't be able to make over a certain amount, tax the rich and give to the poor, force people to make the "right" decisions. Hillary has severe doubt in the decency of the common man.

Now I will be the first to say that people suck, (much of my cynical, critical personality is based on it) however, I think people need the freedom, free will, to make good or bad decisions for themselves. Let the consequences be what they will. Now there are certain instances where consequences have bad implications for others, however, this train of thought is a slippery slope. To survive in this world everyone needs a little faith in humanity. Hillary appears to have no faith in humanity. Her intentions, while she may believe they are noble, will rob us of what humanity we have only to create an equal sharing of misery for those who don't have the luxury of power.