ShareThis Page
Obama’s radical past |

Obama’s radical past

| Sunday, October 17, 2010 12:00 a.m

On the afternoon of April 1, 1983, Barack Obama, then a senior at Columbia University, made his way into the Great Hall of Manhattan’s Cooper Union to attend a “Socialist Scholars Conference.” There Obama discovered his vocation as a community organizer, as well as a political program to guide him throughout his life.

The conference itself was not a secret but it held a secret. For it was there that a demoralized and frustrated socialist movement largely set aside strategies of nationalization and turned increasingly to local organizing as a way around the Reagan presidency — and its own spotty reputation. In the early 1980s America’s socialists discovered what Saul Alinsky had always known: “community organizing” is a euphemism behind which advocates of a radical vision of America could advance their cause without the bothersome label “socialist” drawing adverse attention to their efforts.

A loose accusation of his being a socialist has trailed Obama for years — but without real evidence that he saw himself as part of this radical tradition. The evidence exists, however, if not in plain sight, in the archives — for example, the archived files of the Democratic Socialists of America, which include Obama’s name on a conference registration list.

That, along with some misleading admissions in the president’s memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” makes it clear that Obama attended the 1983 and 1984 Socialist Scholars Conferences and, quite possibly, the 1985 conclave as well. A detailed account of these Socialist Scholars Conferences (along with many other events from Obama’s radical past) and the evidence for Obama’s attendance at them can be found in my new book, “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism” (to be published Tuesday).

The 1983 Cooper Union Conference, billed as a tribute to Karl Marx, was precisely when Obama discovered his vocation for community organizing. Obama’s account of his turn to community organizing doesn’t add up. He portrays his choice of profession as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that supposed impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars Conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism and that blacks would be the key figures in advancing community organizing.

The 1983 conference took place in the shadow of Harold Washington’s first race for mayor of Chicago. Washington was not only Obama’s political idol, he was the darling of America’s socialists in the mid-1980s. Washington assembled a “rainbow” coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and left-leaning whites to overturn the power of Chicago’s centrist Democrat machine. Washington worked eagerly and openly with Chicago’s small but influential contingent of socialists, many of whom brought the community organizations and labor unions they led onto the Washington bandwagon.

America’s socialists saw the Harold Washington campaign as a model for their ultimate goal of pushing the Democrats to the left by polarizing the country along class lines. This socialist “realignment” strategy envisioned driving business interests out of a newly radicalized Democratic Party. The loss was to be more than made up for through a newly energized coalition of poor and minority voters led by minority politicians on the model of Harold Washington.

The new coalitions would draw on the open or quiet direction of socialist community organizers, from whose ranks new Harold Washingtons would emerge. Groups like ACORN and Project Vote would swell the Democrats with poor and minority voters and, with the country divided by class, socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots.

Figures pushing this broader strategy at the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference included ACORN adviser Frances Fox Piven and organizing theorist Peter Dreier, now a professor at Occidental College and an adviser to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. That is to say, Obama’s connection to socialist ideologues didn’t end with his recruitment into the ranks of community organizers. It began there and blossomed into a quarter-century of intricate relationships with both on-the-record and in-all-but-name socialists.

I’ve spent the last two years in the archives unraveling the connections. Here are a few.

By the mid-1980s James Cone, Jeremiah Wright’s theological mentor, had struck up a close cooperative relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Cone and a prominent follower spoke at the Socialist Conferences Obama attended. Shortly after the 1984 conference, Cone joined the Rev. Wright in Cuba, where they expressed support for the Cuban social system as a model for the United States. Wright touted his Cuba trips to his congregation for years. Obama would have quickly discovered Wright’s ties to the liberation theologians he’d first learned of at the Socialist Scholars Conferences.

The connection helps explain Obama’s choice of Wright as his pastor.

A little-known community organizer training institute in Chicago — called the Midwest Academy — is in many ways the key to Barack Obama’s political rise. The Midwest Academy was closely allied to the DSA, which sponsored the Socialist Scholars Conferences in New York. Most Midwest Academy leaders remained quiet about their socialism. Inspired by the success of the American Communist “Popular Front” and by 19th-century American reformers who used populist and communitarian language to achieve socialist ends through incremental legislative means, the Midwest Academy’s leaders advocated a strategy of stealth.

In the ’70s and ’80s, theory was put into action in a series of “populist” coalitions quietly controlled by the socialist leadership of the Midwest Academy and the DSA. The Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition, for example, fought a series of legislative battles against oil and gas companies. Its signature proposal was the call for a public energy corporation to “compete” with private companies.

Officials from the Midwest Academy network trained Obama, supplied him with money and had him appointed head of Illinois Project Vote. Years later, Obama sent foundation money to the Midwest Academy. Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called “Public Allies” that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy.

Alice Palmer, the Illinois state senator who chose Obama as her successor, was once a high official in the Midwest Academy network. Several Midwest Academy leaders advised Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Academy founder Heather Booth is now a key figure coordinating grassroots support for the president’s budget, health care and financial reform plans.

The leaders of the Midwest Academy were eager to avoid public exposure of their socialism. Yet they trusted Obama enough to put him on the board of their satellite organization, Chicago Public Allies, and to succeed one of their own as state senator.

As I detail at length in “Radical-in-Chief,” deceptions and glaring omissions about his radical past reach far beyond Obama’s involvement with the Socialist Scholars Conferences and the Midwest Academy. Archival documents reveal that Obama fudged during campaign 2008 about his ties to ACORN. New evidence confirms that Obama has hidden the truth about his relationships to Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

The unknown story of Obama’s deep involvement with a radical group called UNO of Chicago is revealed.

The claims of candidate Obama and his mentors that he shunned Saul Alinsky’s confrontational tactics turn out to be a sugary fairy tale.

The obfuscating techniques of Obama’s memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” are exposed.

The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world. And that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past.

More important, the president’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration.

As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama’s radical, and only very partially revealed, plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the president’s ambitions.

Knowing the truth about Obama’s past is the best way to safeguard our future.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.