After watching and listening to Mr Obama and his minions over the course of the past year, I have become increasingly convinced that there is more to Mr Obama’s playbook than he would have you believe. Some would say the goal is simply the advancement of liberal ideas and programs. I submit that this is the merest cover for the overarching and final end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
Apparently Gene Schwimmer of The American Thinker is running parallel thoughts. Or is he?
Mr Schwimmer takes a very different tack a short distance into his article:
So, irrespective of the Cloward-Piven Strategy’s ultimate goal, its intermediate goal is undeniably to bring down the current system. And needless to say, “Treason!” “Hang ’em!” or some polite-society equivalent is the instinctive reaction from conservatives. But if they could restrain themselves and think for a moment, conservatives might realize that Cloward and Piven have some interesting company.
Cloward and Piven, meet Ayn Rand.
Recall the basic plot of Atlas Shrugged: John Galt, a disgruntled inventor whose work is appropriated for “the common good,” decides to “stop the motor of the world” by convincing the world’s innovators, inventors, and producers to stop innovating, inventing, and producing. Galt’s theory is that, deprived of these people’s intellect and industry, the state would be forced to supply the wealth that Galt and his ilk do not. As the state has no means to do this, the system would break down, force government to “get out of the way,” and herald the advent of pure capitalism.
Mr Schwimmer then smacks us right between the headlights:
So if we do in fact share, at least temporarily, Cloward-Piven’s intermediate goal, should we not at least consider working with, rather than against, them? Why not a Cloward-Piven-Rand Strategy whereby, simultaneously, we convince the innovators, inventors, and producers to stop innovating, inventing, and producing — and they convince every eligible American to apply for every available social program and lobby for government at all levels to create even more? Would our combined efforts not bring down the current system — a goal we both share — even faster?
Ultimately, the Cloward-Piven crowd’s path and ours would necessarily diverge, to put it mildly. But for the present, while we share a common goal, why not work together, just as America and the Soviet Union fought together in World War II?
Later, when the war is the war won, when the common enemy — the current system — is defeated, we can go back to fighting each other.
And then may the better system prevail.
Is this the goal of Conservatism? To take down the system?
The questions pour out of my head now.
Thoughts?
BZ
Once you’ve already found yourself half way down the road to Perdition, perhaps it’s better to start looking out of the front windshield rather than continuing to stare into the rear view mirror… at least that way you can plan where to head next once you’ve passed through the city limits.
FJ, I don’t suppose we really are too terribly far from the veritable end of that road. Things are going to go CLUNK here, in the not too terribly distant future; and we most definitely will NOT like the results of that noise.
BZ
BZ,
This is indeed an intriguing scenario. Two “take back the government” movements collide in a big-bang theory scenario.
The chink in the armor would probably be conservatives who are to their very core self-dependent. I would find it distasteful to depend on the government. As for liberals, it’s second nature. Interesting post.
When you join the barbarians it is most difficult not to become one.
When you seek to ‘bring the system down’ you often find the conditions are not amenable to rebuilding in any shape.
There is no positive in Cloward-Pliven, it is just a means to an end, and that end is bringing the system down by acting like children demanding ever more from adults and not doing a damned thing for yourself. When all you know is wanting to be taken care of and destruction, what is left is not good at all. A movement of moochers and destroyers are not builders, and those who know how to build will not join them in the fervor of destruction Retreat from society is just that: retreating from society.
What describes the C-P and Randers?
Moochers, destroyers and retreaters.
There is a word for that category of people and it is not pleasant: losers.
Our agreement is to build, be civil and create a more perfect Union: not have government shove programs down our throats at high cost and not to retreat when the Statists wish to do so.
Live free or die is what you do, fight if you must and never, ever give up even as the gates of hell close behind you. Then you march forward as that is the only way out of hell once entered: forward and through. Those who can’t do so are lost… the destroyers, moochers and retreaters… they have found their home and their end. When you join them, you join their end.
I plan on following the light of liberty out of hell. No matter where it takes me, it is better than the alternative of staying.