“What does the radical want? He wants a world in which the worth of the individual is recognized....A world based on the morality of mankind...The radical believes that all peoples should have a high standard of food, housing and health. The radical places human rights far above property rights. He is fro free, universal public education and recognizes this as fundamental to the democratic way of life... Democracy to him is working from the bottom up....the Radical believes completely in real quality of opportunity for all peoples regardless of race color or creed.” - (quote from Saul Alinsky)
Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound “radical”. his are the words used in schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structure of our lives in order to realize them.
**********************
This is a sample of what is inside this thesis.
Maybe you mean that the difference is that Alinsky-style "change" (espoused by Hillary) involves using the irresistable power of government to force people to behave in a "government-approved" manner. That 's both radical and totalitarian.
“’What does the radical want? He wants a world in which the worth of the individual is recognized....A world based on the morality of mankind...The radical believes that all peoples should have a high standard of food, housing and health. The radical places human rights far above property rights. He is fro free, universal public education and recognizes this as fundamental to the democratic way of life... Democracy to him is working from the bottom up....the Radical believes completely in real quality of opportunity for all peoples regardless of race color or creed.’ - (quote from Saul Alinsky)
Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical’. his are the words used in schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structure of our lives in order to realize them.”
Regarding the issues you raise:
“Worth of the individual” According to which standard?
“Morality of mankind” Define moral. Define moral as it exists in various cultures.
“High standard of food, housing and health” Once again, compared to which concept of normal.
...
“Real equality of opportunity” Who decides this? Who enforces this? Globally?
“Changing the present structure of our lives” I used to think that was necessary and possible. Now, I don’t want to live as most North Koreans or Danes or Kenyans or French. The structure of a human life takes, if not infinite, then 1000s of variations. The wonder is in what is possible, not probable.
While I recognize the conceptual beauty of these thoughts, the reality of life itself is that even if we dared consider that some of these thoughts could be implemented, someone or someones have to decide what the standards are. THAT is not a power I willingly give to anyone but me.
Hopefully, this thesis coming out party, coupled with the run for the presidency will educate millions of Americans of just how the “liberals” have hoodwinked them over the years.
It’s really quite extraordinary and very under-reported.