I'm reading a book about popular psychology and while there is some good stuff in the book this author is oblivious.
The author is enchanted by the propaganda around Brarrak Obama. So far Obama has done nothing but refuse responsibility, spend money and engage in conflict politics.
I know some people, like the author of this book I am reading, think Obama is a “community organizer”, someone who brings people together for social justice. A “community organizer” is nothing of the sort.
The guy who started the concept of community organization is a guy named Saul Alinsky and he wrote a bunch of rules for community organization and called them....wait for this...Rule for Radicals.
Sounds a little strange, it isn't like bringing people together is a radical idea. Lets look at a couple of Alinsky's “rules” .
3) “Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy.”
4) “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
5) “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Now maybe I am a little weird, but, those don't sound like rules designed for bringing people with different ideas together, those sound like rules of engagement for conflict.
Conflict, not bringing people together but how to engage in conflict. Community Organizers are people who fight with others on behalf of some group with a purpose. Think “Lobbyist”.
So...look at the stuff Obama did during his first term, created conflict making the other side look “wrong”. Think about the current IRS scandal. People Obama managed committed illegal acts targeting opposing political groups. Conflict Politics. Obama denies responsibility, the way Alinsky tells people to.
“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as the “dangerous enemy.” The word “enemy” is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people . . .”
Here, in one of Alisky's most famous directives for community “organization” we discover that the job of a community organizer is to engage in conflict with an enemy. A community organizer has no other purpose except to engage the enemy.
There has to be an enemy to engage one.
Barrack Obama specializes in conflict politics and the actions of his administration, such as the current IRS scandal, are the result of Barrack Obama's focus on conflict politics. It doesn't matter if Obama knew about everything the soldiers he placed in the field did since they followed his leadership style, a leadership style whose foundation is in conflict politics.
This idiot writing this book “throughly” studied Barrack Obama and didn't realize the guy focuses on conflict politics.
The IRS scandal, or at least one like it is predictable. The IRS scandal is the result of conflict politics. The idiot who wrote this book will never admit that any more than Obama will stand up and say “As a community organizer I engaged in conflict politics to further the ideology of the communities I represented. I brought those politics to Washington and while I had no personal part in the actions of those I managed, my leadership and focus on conflict politics undoubtedly influenced their actions.”
Instead both the author and Obama will go to their grave defending their assessments and behaviors.
Psychology is a subjective science. While statistics can give us information on behaviors it is the subjective application of that data which makes or breaks the psychologist. In addition it is the subjective assessment of peers which drive the evaluation of psychological assessments. That kind of subjective assessment driving subjective assessments leads to the kind of group psychosis which resulted in the Salem Witch Hunts and a presidental administration specializing in conflict politics.
As long as psychology is practiced as a subjective science it will continue to be mis-used. The guy who wrote this book I'm reading made an irrational assessment of an individual based on his own prejudices.
No rational person can look at the conflicts which have pervaded the Obama Administration and claim this President has brought people together. Reagan, whom I thought of as a pussy, was an expert at bringing people together and engaging in cooperative, bi-partisan legislation. Bush 2 really tried, Clinton did better than either Bush 1 or Obama. Out of the last 5 presidents, Reagan has been the president who brought people together and Obama has been the president pushing them apart.
I have seen changes in the way Obama behaves. I think he has realized that conflict politics are detrimental and he is now working hard to bring people together. I think it is too late though. The legacy of his first four years will define him, scandals of opposition, conflict politics, will define the Obama Presidency.
I'll pray for him though. I think the guy bit off way more than he could chew and the job has chewed him up. I feel bad for him, but, not to bad since being Pres and being an ex-Pres has a lot of perks.
When Obama first took office I knew he would fail miserably because of his focus on conflict politics. I wish he had turned it down, but, I have come to understand that few men could turn down this kind of opportunity to try and create change. He failed to change anything for the better, the conflict politics have made many things worse and will continue to make things worse until around 2020. I just hope that people don't blame the failure on Obama's skin color.
I'm sure some people will. We should be able to tell by the number of blacks in office. About 1 out of 10 should be black. If there are fewer than 10 black senators or fewer than about 50 black congress people then racism is still a huge factor in politics. 12% of the population of the United States is black so about 12% of politicians should be black.
Eventually this will just happen because people won't see skin color. How do we know when it has happened? Skin color won't be an issue AND there will be a common distribution of people in politics.
In the meantime I'll read crap like this book and learn something since I can learn from anyone, and I will continue to be amazed at the ignorance some people flaunt as if it is intelligence.