SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Creation Myth

POLITICS SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

Creation Myth

IN LATE OCTOBER 1987, Barack Obama and Jerry Kellman took a weekend off from their jobs as community organizers in Chicago and traveled to a conference on social justice and the black church at Harvard. During an evening break in the schedule, they strolled around campus in their shirtsleeves, enjoying the unseasonably warm weather. Two-and-a-half years earlier, Kellman had hired Obama to organize residents of Chicago's South Side. Now, Obama had something to tell his friend and mentor.

It had to do, in part, with his father. At the time, Obama had just learned from his African half-sister what had happened to Barack Obama Sr., who abandoned him when he was two years old. After receiving his master's degree in economics from Harvard, the elder Obama had returned to Kenya, where he became a high-ranking government official. But, when he criticized Kenya's increasingly corrupt and authoritarian government, he lost his job and had to live from hand to mouth, depending on the goodwill of relatives while drinking heavily. Obama told Kellman that he feared ending up destitute and unhappy like his dad. "He wanted to marry and have children, and to have a stable income," Kellman recalls.

But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him "to make major changes in poverty or discrimination." To do that, he said, "you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials." In other words, Obama believed that his chosen profession was getting him nowhere, or at least not far enough. Personally, he might end up like his father; politically, he would fail to improve the lot of those he was trying to help.

And so, Obama told Kellman, he had decided to leave community organizing and go to law school. Kellman, who was already thinking of leaving organizing himself, found no reason to argue with him. "Organizing," Kellman tells me, as we sit in a Chicago restaurant down the street from the Catholic church where he now works as a lay minister, "is always a lost cause." Obama, circa late 1987, might or might not have put it quite that strongly. But he had clearly developed serious doubts about the career he was pursuing.

Yet, two decades later, to hear Obama the presidential candidate tell it, those years in Chicago as a community organizer shaped the person--and the politician--he has become. Campaigning in Iowa last year, he declared that community organizing was "the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School." In a video this spring, Obama stated that community organizing is "something I carry with me when I think about politics today--obviously at a different level and in a different place, but the same principles still apply." "Barack is not a politician first and foremost," Michelle Obama has said. "He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change."

Certainly, Obama has good reason to tout his community organizing experience. After graduating from an Ivy League college, Obama passed up more lucrative jobs to devote three years to organizing low-income African Americans in Chicago. That choice tells us something about his values, and his pride in it is understandable.

But his campaign has taken the point a step further, implying that Obama the politician is a direct descendant of Obama the organizer--that he has carried the practices and principles of community organizing into his campaign, and would carry them into the White House as well. This is the version of Obama's biography that most journalists have accepted.

In truth, however, if you examine carefully how Obama conducted himself as an organizer and how he has conducted himself as a politician, if you consider what he said about organizing to his fellow organizers, and if you look at the reasons he gave friends and colleagues for abandoning organizing, then a very different picture emerges: that of a disillusioned activist who fashioned his political identity not as an extension of community organizing but as a wholesale rejection of it. Indeed, the most important thing to know about Barack Obama's time as a community organizer in Chicago may not be what he gained from the experience--but rather why, in late 1987, he decided to quit.

Obama arrived in South Chicago in 1985 to find a bleak scene. Roseland and the northern edge of Riverdale, the neighborhoods to which he was assigned, had been decimated by the collapse of the steel industry. In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote of "the boarded-up homes, the decaying storefronts, the aging church rolls, [and the] kids from unknown families who swaggered down the streets." Most middle-class whites had moved out, and, while the area was home to a few middleclass blacks, "[t]he stores and banks had left with their white customers, causing main thoroughfares to decompose." Many of the area's residents lived in the 2,000-unit Altgeld Gardens, public housing that was bounded by the fetid Calumet River, an expressway, and a sewage treatment plant that emitted, Obama wrote, a "heavy, putrid odor."

The election in 1983 of Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington, had given blacks in South Chicago "a new idea of themselves," Obama observed. Yet the mayor's efforts to revive the city's worst neighborhoods were stymied by the conservative white majority on the city council.

Obama had moved to Chicago to work for Kellman, a transplanted New Yorker eleven years his senior, and his partner, Mike Kruglik. The pair was trying to build a regional community organization that spanned South Chicago, Chicago's southern suburbs, and Northwest Indiana. Kellman and Kruglik wanted their new recruit to establish a branch centered in Roseland. It was to be called the Developing Communities Project.

Obama had worked briefly as an organizer in Harlem, but, in Chicago, he learned the principles of community organizing from Kellman, Kruglik, and other disciples of Saul Alinsky, a hardscrabble, profane Chicagoan who, in the late 1930s, had organized white ethnic meatpacking workers in the area around the old Chicago Stockyards. Alinsky was heavily influenced by John L. Lewis, the president of the United Mine Workers and founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). He wanted to do for working-class communities what Lewis and the CIO had done for workplaces: unite people of different backgrounds around common goals and use their collective strength to wring concessions from the powers that be.

Alinsky had died in 1972, but not before achieving considerable success in Chicago and other cities. And, while some of his opinions--like his derogation of Martin Luther King's abilities as an organizer--were not shared by Kellman and other followers, his general principles would guide groups like the Gamaliel Foundation, which trained people who went on to work for the Developing Communities Project and similar organizations. They became the underpinning of Obama's approach. "His assignment was to operate in the classic style," Kruglik, a stubby, scruffy, intense man who now works for Gamaliel, tells me.

These rules can be reduced, more or less, to a few central ideas. Alinsky believed that humans respond to their own selfinterest rather than conscience or morality. (People are "moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, " he argued, while morality is a "rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest.") As a result, the job of an organizer is to discover what citizens think is in their self-interest and then help them fight for it. Alinsky also instructed that the organizer himself should not become a public leader, but should operate behind the scenes to encourage "natural" or "native" leaders among the people he is organizing. That is, the goal of an organizer is never to create a movement based on his own charisma. ("We're trying to build an organization with staying power, not a movement based on instant power and charisma," Ernesto Cortes Jr., a prominent Alinsky disciple, explained in 1988. ) Finally, Alinsky felt that organizers should draw a clear line between their work and the political world. An organization should forge "no permanent political ties," declared a guide put out by the Industrial Areas Foundation, which Alinsky created. When I asked former community organizer John Kretzmann--who teaches at Northwestern and writes about organizing--whether organizers saw all politicians as "whores," he replied, "Even if you found one that wasn't, it makes no sense to get close to them."

Obama attempted to put these principles into practice in South Chicago. Kellman and Kruglik's initial objective was to revive the region's manufacturing base--and preserve what remained of its steel industry--by working with unions and church groups to pressure companies and the city; but those hopes were quickly dashed. Indeed, during his three years in South Chicago, Obama was constantly having to scale back his objectives as one project after another faltered. First, he got community members to demand a job center that would provide job referrals, but there were few jobs to distribute. Then, he tried to create what he called a "second-level consumer economy" in Roseland consisting of shops, restaurants, and theaters. This, too, went nowhere. At that point, Kellman advised Obama to move elsewhere. "Stay here, and you are bound to fail," he told him.

But Obama remained. Next, he began to focus on providing social services for Altgeld Gardens. "We didn't yet have the power to change state welfare policy, or create local jobs, or bring substantially more money into the schools," he wrote. "But what we could do was begin to improve basic services at Altgeld--get the toilets fixed, the heaters working, the windows repaired." Obama helped the residents wage a successful campaign to get the Chicago Housing Authority to promise to remove asbestos from the units; but, after an initial burst of activity, the city failed to keep its promise. (As of last year, some residences still had not been cleared of asbestos.) In waging these campaigns, Obama's organization added staff, gained adherents, and won church support, including from the congregation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But it failed to stem the area's overall decline. "Ain't nothing gonna change, Mr. Obama," says one resident quoted in Dreams from My Father who grows disillusioned with the Developing Communities Project. "We just gonna concentrate on saving our money so we can move outta here as fast as we can."

Publicly, however, Obama did not appear discouraged. He continued to train other organizers for the Gamaliel Foundation. "It was the same traditional organizing leadership training," recalls Obama trainee David Kindler. Obama also put the best face on what he was doing. Sometime before he left Chicago, he wrote an article for a magazine called Illinois Issues that would eventually appear in an anthology titled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. In the article, he insisted that his project had achieved "impressive results" in South Chicago. While acknowledging that the "exodus from the inner city of financial resources, institutions, role models and jobs" posed difficulties for organizers, he insisted that "none of these problems is insurmountable."

Reflecting organizers' general attitude toward politicians, he downplayed the importance of Mayor Washington. "The election of Harold Washington in Chicago or of Richard Hatcher in Gary were not enough to bring jobs to inner-city neighborhoods or cut a 50 percent drop-out rate in the schools, although they did achieve an important symbolic effect," he wrote. "In fact, much-needed black achievement in prominent city positions has put us in the awkward position of administering underfunded systems neither equipped nor eager to address the needs of the urban poor and being forced to compromise their interests to more powerful demands from other sectors." To be successful, Obama argued, the efforts of politicians had to be "undergirded by a systematic approach to community organization." Obama also criticized the role of charismatic leadership, writing that "a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership--and not one or two charismatic leaders--can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions."

Yet there is considerable evidence that, even as he was writing these words, Obama was having doubts about community organizing. By the early fall of 1987--a little more than two years after he had come to Chicago--Obama had decided to apply to Harvard Law School. At some point thereafter, he began to explain his decision to friends and colleagues. The most revealing of these discussions are not reported in Dreams from My Father.

It was not just the walk he took with Kellman through Harvard's campus. Obama also talked to Kruglik about his reasons for leaving Chicago. In their conversations, he described politics--and winning political office--as the most important step toward achieving change. And, instead of seeing Harold Washington as buffeted by forces beyond his control, he now aspired to be Washington. "He was fascinated by Mayor Washington," says Kruglik. "Harold Washington inspired him to think about becoming a politician." Kruglik says that Obama wanted to follow in the mayor's footsteps: Washington had gone to law school, later becoming a state senator, then a congressman, and finally Chicago's mayor. "He told me that he was thinking of running for mayor some day, " Kruglik says.

Obama also talked to Northwestern professor John McKnight, a former community organizer who is a member of the Gamaliel Foundation's board of directors and had helped to train Obama. He asked McKnight for a law school recommendation and told him that he eventually wanted to go into politics. McKnight warned him that politics, unlike community organizing, would inevitably require compromising his values and ideals. "The average legislator is surrounded by competing interests," McKnight told him. "Most of the time what they are doing is trying to balance interests." Obama, however, was not to be dissuaded. Recalls McKnight, "At the time, neighborhood organizing was very parochial. ... He could see that the impact wouldn't reach beyond the neighborhood. The change he was seeking was bigger."

But it wasn't simply that Obama dreamed of pursuing change on a grander scale. By late 1987, he seems to have grown disillusioned with the underlying principles of community organizing. In September 1989, the editors of Illinois Issues organized a symposium featuring, among others, the contributors to After Alinsky. It took place around a circular table in a conference room at the Woods Charitable Fund (a backer of the Gamaliel Foundation) in downtown Chicago. Kretzmann was the moderator, and participants included political scientist Paul Green, author Ben Joravsky, and Obama, who was then entering his second year of law school.

Joravsky kicked off the discussion by recounting Alinsky's core principles. Green then brought up a controversial organization, Save our Neighborhoods/Save our City (SON/SOC), that had launched in February 1984 in response to fears that Harold Washington would promote public housing in certain white neighborhoods--leading to an influx of black residents. As Green noted, SON/SOC was organized by Alinsky disciples who were following their mentor's principle of basing demands on self-interest.

Green insisted that there was an anti-establishment core to son/soc's agenda. "Here are a bunch of blue-collar people ... working to help their neighborhood, " he said. He also pointed out that the group had carefully directed its ire against unscrupulous realtors rather than blacks and had tried to reach an accommodation with Mayor Washington. Joravsky responded by criticizing SON/SOC for using racial appeals to build its organization. As others joined and the argument threatened to grow heated, Kretzmann called on Obama to discuss organizing in low-income black communities. But Obama had been provoked by the discussion of SON/SOC. And, a year removed from South Chicago, he wanted to say something about community organizing in general.

Obama--sporting a white shirt, tie, and incipient Afro--was clearly troubled by the example of SON/SOC, which suggested that an organization, acting on Alinsky's principles, could become racist. (Indeed, Alinsky's first group, the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, had become a bastion of support for segregationist George Wallace in the 1960s.) Obama was also troubled by his own experience in South Chicago, where he had failed to make any headway on the community's central problem--the absence of jobs--and had been reduced to demanding repairs in public housing. That, too, had derived from acting according to Alinsky's principle of trying to win victories against the powers that be based on immediate self-interest.

But Obama was not ready to state his case forthrightly. ("We were all on our best behavior," Joravsky recalls.) Instead, he expressed his doubts obliquely by drawing a distinction between the "two roles that an organizer was supposed to play ... getting power, getting the stop sign, making things work" and "the educative function of organizing." By the latter, Obama meant an organizer's duty to frame citizens' efforts in terms of a larger objective and a greater good: something more noble than dissuading realtors from selling homes to blacks in white neighborhoods or more substantial than getting a stop sign installed.

Obama put it this way: "The process whereby people in communities, like the community SON/SOC was organizing or the community where I was organizing, start to get bigger horizons, start to understand how they connect up with other people, how their power is involved with the power of other people--it seems to me that that strain gets lost. ... At some point, you have to link up winning that stop sign or getting that home equity with the larger trends, larger movements in the city or the country." He quoted an Alinsky disciple as saying, "I am not trying to build some grand utopian organization. I would just like to win it." "That's problematic," Obama noted. In other words, winning wasn't important if what was won was harmful or insignificant.

But Obama didn't stop there. He had a litany of criticisms of Alinsky-style organizing that he wanted to put forward. He objected to community organizers' dismissal of charismatic leadership and of movements. Instead of making the point directly, he recalled a friend telling him of an IAF trainer who complained that "movements are rotten with charismatic leaders." Obama said his friend had responded, "That's nonsense. We want a movement. I would love to have Martin Luther King here right now." Obama argued that charismatic leaders and movements bring "long-term vision," and that community organizers cannot be effective without such vision.

Obama also criticized community organizers' "suspicion of politics." "The problem we face now in terms of organizing is that politics is a major arena of power," Obama said. "That's where your major dialogue, discussion, is taking place. To marginalize yourself from that process is a damaging thing, and one that needs to be rethought."

Before he was done, Obama had rejected the guiding principles of community organizing: the elevation of self-interest over moral vision; the disdain for charismatic leaders and their movements; and the suspicion of politics itself. But he did so in a way that seemed to elude the other participants. Two decades later, Green couldn't recall any disagreement over his more positive take on SON/SOC. Joravsky also didn't remember Obama's criticisms of organizing. Instead, he recalled thinking how "cool" and "well-spoken" Obama was.

Obama, too, seemed initially oblivious to the harsh implications of his own words. While he was at Harvard, he would return to Chicago to train organizers at Gamaliel, and, after graduating and moving back to Chicago, he would retain ties to the city's community organizing network--serving on the boards of the Woods fund and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center, which promotes organizing among African Americans on the city's South Side. But he would never again practice community organizing, as he did in the 1980s. And he would begin to construct a political identity for himself that was not simply different from his identity as a community organizer--but was, in fact, its very opposite.

Based purely on his organizing background, one would have expected Obama to become a bread-and-butter politician, a spokesman for his constituents' immediate needs. Instead, Obama became a politician of vision, not issues--one who appealed to voters' values rather than their immediate self-interest. As a state senator in Illinois, he was best known for his advocacy of government reform. Asked in September 1999 to explain why someone should vote for him for Congress against incumbent Bobby Rush, Obama told the Hyde Park Citizen that, unlike Rush, he had "a vision." And, as a Democratic presidential candidate, he has run on an abstract platform of "change" that appeals to many young and upscale voters, but has fallen flat among the white working-class voters whom Alinsky once courted.

Obama has also eschewed the retiring persona of the organizer. Initially awkward as a speaker, he became a charismatic politician whose run for president has produced something very much like a movement. And, while his campaign has used some techniques from community organizing to rally state-by-state support, it is the antithesis of the ground-up, locally dominated, naturally led network of community groups that Alinsky envisioned. Obama, in short, has become exactly the kind of politician his mentors might have warned against.

None of this is to say that Obama was wrong to abandon community organizing for politics. Or that his critique of organizing was incorrect. In fact, many of today's community organizers would acknowledge that Obama was absolutely right to question the limitations of Alinskystyle organizing. The elevation of self-interest at the expense of higher ideals can clearly be an ugly thing. Improving people's lives has to be about more than installing stop signs. And no one who hopes to truly change urban communities can stay out of politics altogether. Indeed, in contrast to what Alinsky advised, many community organizations now participate in political campaigns.

Still, one has to wonder: In making the transition from organizer to politician, did Obama go too far in rejecting one of the cardinal principles of community organizing? True, appeals to selfinterest can sometimes lead organizations astray. But such appeals are also a necessary part of community organizing--and politics as well. Few candidates could hope to win an election at any level without convincing their constituents that they understand their immediate hopes and fears. And presidential candidates are no exception. Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton certainly had the ability to persuade voters that he identified with their interests. So did Ronald Reagan. Al Gore and John Kerry did not.

In this election, Obama can count on the votes of African Americans in Roseland as well as many upscale voters attracted by his message of change. But he also needs to win support from the descendants of Back of the Yards and SON/SOC--working-class voters who, today, are more worried about high gas prices and rising heath care costs than about the prospect of blacks moving in next door. To win their votes, Obama needs to do precisely what he once taught organizers to do: speak to the self-interest of ordinary people.

So far, this has not been Obama's strong suit as a presidential candidate. To his credit, he has certainly talked about gas prices and health insurance. But, as Obama would have told his trainees 20 years ago, conveying concern requires more than saying the right thing; it involves seeing the world from the vantage of those you are trying to win over--and convincing them that your empathy is sincere.

When Obama came to South Chicago, he believed in community organizing; within two-and-a-half years--by the time he and Jerry Kellman went for their late October walk around Harvard's campus--he was clearly growing disillusioned. Now, having fashioned a political identity in near-total opposition to the core principles of his one-time profession, Obama's bid for the presidency may come down to this: Is he willing to rediscover--and put into practice--one of the main principles he followed as a twentysomething activist all those years ago?

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

 This article originally ran in the September 10, 2010, issue of the magazine.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 70 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

70 comments

I do not get the point of your article. Are we not all evolved from the experiences of our past?

- P. Eischen

August 27, 2008 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess the point is that Obama started out in one career and changed to another and that he was smart enough to realize that, as Trollope said on many occasions, it is better to be a Vicar than a curate.If Eischen's point is that this essay consisted of many words devoted to the crashingly obvious, I agree

- kaboom

August 28, 2008 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have not finished reading the article, but half way through I feel that Mr. Obama is full of hot air; little beef, lot's of talk.

- erika

September 1, 2008 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[W]hile his campaign has used some techniques from community organizing to rally state-by-state support, it is the antithesis of the ground-up, locally dominated, naturally led network of community groups that Alinsky envisioned." As a Obama Campaign volunteer leader, I know that this is completely false. Go to my.barackobama.com, for example, and you will see the diversity of the effort. Yes, of course the campaign is not "locally dominated" - it is a tightly run national campaign. But the campaign does respect, empower, and include volunteers in the strategy and operation of local efforts. It is truly democracy in action; Obama has incorporated his past experience into his political efforts. Part of the reason he is so compelling. After the contrasting conventions, I feel very motivated to help change our Nation, and I'm grateful Obama has created the structure to do so.

- Roger

September 5, 2008 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Erika. that's what you're supposed to think. this is meant to confirm your ignorant bias. If you look into it- you can find his plans for any issue you can name- and dozens you can't. This is a long boring non story about a kid who wanted to move up and make bigger changes. and despite pieces like this, he will. you may not like people who read and think a lot, but it's not worth the wars mccain will stumble into to confirm your laziness in a mccain vote.

- eli

September 5, 2008 at 1:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I appreciate Mr. Judis's digging up the transcript and a good faith attempt to understand organizing. But he misses the point and, as usual, brings it back to the typical Judis message that Democrats like Barack should pander to 'hard working, white Americans.' I'm not sure what the Obama campaign would look like if they took this advise, but it probably would resemble Clinton '08 or Gore '00. Barack has set up a set of policies (see his speech on the 'American Promise') that will meet the economic self-interest of middle-class Americans who have seen their fortunes stagnate. And yeah, he learned that from the core principles of Chicago style "community organizing." One thing that Barack is damn right about is that community org coalitions are way too polyanna-ish and a little too sanctimonious about not dirtying themselves with politics. As he points out in the Alinsky chapter, the sort of media campaigns and cultural wedge politics kindled in groups like Moral Majority sometimes have to be countered with an equally big gun. In the world as it should be, organizers could shun party politics and just say that politicians only reward organized money. In my own experience, this is critique is as serious and damaging to the movement today as it was when Obama first got his feet wet in the late 80s.

- npeter

September 5, 2008 at 1:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks for putting this together. it's one of those pieces that if read by the people who dislike Obama, could be used to paint him as a flip flopper rather than the learner that he is. to me it explains the very reason why many who see him speak do not hear what he has to say and points out one of the reasons why the story that he is 'an empty suit' persists. he is not trying to find something specific that people say that they want and then make himself the hero by getting it for them so that he can keep his job. he appears to be interested in and actually attempting to fundamentally (and clearly not from the fundamentalist worldview) change the world. the former is what people generally have been conditioned to expect so when they do not get that, they are blind and deaf to the message. this makes a lot of sense to me. i recently saw the movie Gandhi for the first time and so it comes to mind that Gandhi spent his entire life (and it ultimately cost him his life) in a similar pursuit. it will be interesting to see how far this effort goes. i am not sure that this country has a form or degree of suffering that makes the whole endeavor possible. but, that's why i sit here typing while Obama runs for president.

- understood

September 5, 2008 at 1:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Learner that he is"? What I've noticed about Obama is that he deliberately obfuscates on the issues, and believes that the vast majority is going to fall for it. He's going to lose Michigan and Ohio because of it, and other states as well. His record and ongoing ties to the corrupt ACORN group is going to haunt him. His indifference to the joblessness, long term un/underemployment problem facing American citizens, while rhapsodizing about amnesty and open borders is going to be thrown at him. In Europe, governments are now changing their minds about immigration. Spain's socialist president has now realized that his policies have caused more harm and now is saying no more immigration, and he's demanding a massive deportation plan. The only "change" Obama has in mind is change for the worse. We are in debt, and can not afford to be the welfare agency for the world any longer, nor can we afford to amnesty 20 to 30 million illegals. I'm a liberal democrat, and I'm not the only one who see's Obama for what he is (I wasn't a Clinton supporter either).

- Marie

September 6, 2008 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anyone get a job from the poor ? No. We all get a job from the rich. Who's the rich ? the small and big business, the small and big corporations. Before anything, we need to create the rich, then we can take care of the poor. In the article, 'the stores and banks leave with the whites'. Yes, they are leaving in pursuit of the rich people in some other places. There's nothing Obama can do in a place where there's no rich people. That's exactly the reason why Republicans tends to take care of the rich. Once the rich is created, we'll get jobs and prosperity. This is Reagan's tricke-down economy, and it worked. Reagan presided over the longest economic expansion, and so did Bush after 9/11 as a result of tax cut to the rich. When the rich has money, they will invest, and that will create jobs. You see, Obama created a job referral center and no job is available. If Obama just tried the Republican principle by creating an environment that attracts the business first and foremost, then the creation of jobs will fix all problems. One of the mean of attacting the rich is to lower the tax to the rich. Yes, lower the tax for the rich so they can make more money so they can invest and create jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. Obama still doesn't get it. Failing as a community organizer, he now believes in the government's power to tax heavily the rich and dole it out to the poor. Less money for the rich, less investment, less economic growth, less jobs, and finally more neighborhoods like South Side: no jobs. Big corporations (the rich) leave their profits overseas to avoid the tax (on the rich) here at home. That's why Republicans correctly label Obama's tax policies anti-economic growth. In an economic downturn, the rich already has less wealth, and if Obama sucks away more of their wealth, the rich has even less money to invest. The rich has money to pay tax only when they're making money. They make money only when they've the money to invest. The poor doesn't make money because they don't have the money to invest. Of course the rich can get greedy as evidenced by the current housing crisis. They overinvestment in housing crisis and lost a lot of money. The lack of credit means less money to borrow from because many of the rich has become poorer. Less money to invest means less jobs from the rich. We're going to see the jobless rate to rise. At this moment in history, it's suicidal to create more tax burden on the rich, as Obama has promised to do. Communist and socialist societies failed because they've killed the rich, and Democrats are trying to starve the rich. That's what happened to the communist China. Now the Chinese government starts catering to the rich, and as a result creates a new class of rich people. The rich can not only create jobs for the poor, they also create wealth for the nation. Look at the successful Beijing Olympics and you'll understand why. I don't know about you. My friends, relatives, and I, none of us never got a job from the poor. We all get the job from the rich. Go Republican.

- Haha

September 6, 2008 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before I begin, I find it amusing when McCain leaners/supporters accuse Obama of having no substance (which is really an admission that they haven't been paying attention) while McCain continues to get a free-ride for avoiding detail. Even Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, conceded that this election "isn't about issues." Facts are tricky things, aren't they? As for the article, it was fairly pointless. Perhaps Mr. Judas had nothing else to write about, or ironically, out of self-interest, attempted to repackage something abundantly obvious as novelty so he could get a few pats on the back. So we know that Obama's understanding of 'change' matured through his thoughtfulness and hard work. And? Besides, the article questionably assumes that changing tactics, i.e. entering politics, is somehow tantamount to compromising the core values of community organizing. No, not really. Through his persistence, he is finding a way to 'change' society's problems from a broader institutional perspective, not out of self-interest, but from his sympathy and determination to find a pragmatic solution. With all due respect, I found the article dry and lacking.

- electionwatcher

September 6, 2008 at 7:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems pretty clear that Obama has long had a messianic view of himself, and community organzing wouldn't have placed him at the center of the action, let alone at its pinnacle -- so quite simply, he needed to move on to something o a much grander scale for himself. If you support Obama, you see in this decision, a self-confident pursuit of his "calling" - a move toward fulfilling his destiny. If you don't support Obama, you see it as part and parcel of his narcisisstic grandiosity. I don't think it has much to do with an honest critiaque of communityt organzing pr se.

-

September 6, 2008 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A thoughtful piece and a good draft of biography. Yes, it is possible to learn and the experience that leads to the learning is valuable. Obama learned much as a community organizer in Chicago: the realities of poor and disenfranchized people's lives - through living with them, working with them. And he did this in the U.S. where he has a stake and commitment as a citizen, not as a stint in the Peace Corps (not to denigrate that kind of experience either). And he learned the frustration of trying to work to improve conditions from a base of no power, in the face of the instability which comes from the powerlessness that is cause and consequence of the poverty. But to learn and to change ones approach and ideas is not to negate the motive. On the contrary. The essay points out that the needed change is not just this program or that policy, but finding ways to help people work together - to create the conditions for choice. Obama is doing that with his campaign and it is immensely encouraging. Through his common sense and intelligence, rather than the sloganeering and distractions (the red herrings and trip wires) of the other side, he offers a model for how a politics generative of freedom and responsibility can work.

- Martin

September 6, 2008 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love this kind of article. It is serious analysis (which one may or may not agree with) rather than political spin or polemics full of loaded characterizations. The central conclusion that to win working class (or any group of) voters, a candidate must convince them that he or she understands them is right on the mark. Understanding someone does not imply pandering or even agreeing. One may or may not win the group over, but it will almost always enable one to get their ear.

- Gary 98

September 6, 2008 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the article. It has giving me a better understanding of how Obama has developed his career and thinking. It is clear that he has learned through his experiences and understands what people and this country need. Obama is interested in change and so am I.

- Sonya W.

September 6, 2008 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

here´s the point of every single article on obama and mccain: the republicans have mishandled every major issue over the last 8 years and are ruining our country in every way possible! to continue to vote republican and expect change is simply crazy. those of you who are wealthy out there and vote republican because of tax issues need to ask yourselves if paying a little less tax under mccain is worth watching our country be wrecklessly destroyed under further republican handling. the wealthy did extrememly well during the clinton years remember? those of you who vote republican because they interpret the bible the same way that you do need to remember that we need separation of church and state and that the value of your homes continue to decline based on poor republican handling of the economy. when ford makes bad quality automobiles we don´t continue to buy fords. we buy from other manufacturers until ford cleans up their act and starts to make a quality product again. stop buying republican until they regroup, reform and come back with a quality product. they have let all of us down the last 8 years and to vote them back into office right now would be political suicide. don´t reward a party for doing a terrible job! vote them out until they prove to us that they are ready to get serious again and tackle the issues that effect us all. do not fall for the same republican tactics of waving a bible and a pistol around and expecting you to vote for that. if republcans hold the oval office we will be looking back on the good old days of bush and cheney. do any of you really want that? i found this article to be a waste of time. our country is in serious trouble and is in need of serious people to run it right now. the republicans were given ample chance and fumbled the ball on every single play. i don´t care how far right you are, how religious you claim to be or how pro-life you are you have to admit that things are horribly wrong and that your party has failed us. you might like mccain, you might like palin but they are the republican party and bring more of the same with them. we cannot afford 4 more years of nothing. we are well into the 21st century and have gone backwards as a country. do the right thing in november and lets get america back on track again!

- getreal

September 6, 2008 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is all smoke and mirrors, like all democrats he harps about how bad off everyone is and how his election will bring everyone out of poverty. If Obama wanted to bring people out of poverty he could have reqested that people donate 300 million to distribute between every American instead of having Greek pillors.Obama cares about Obama and has not said one thing that will help anyone. All he does is talk. Have you all learned French yet? Obama is ashamed of those that don't speak French.

- debbie

September 6, 2008 at 8:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really appreciated your work on this piece. Although I do not support most of the ideas that Obama wants to accomplish, I believe most politicians start out wanting to make peoples lives better. This seemed to motivate Obama in those formative years in Chicago. Your detailed description of the concepts of "Community Organizing" were fascinating. Having worked with churches all my life, I understand the dilemmas Obama was grappling with. Unfortunately, I think when the day is done, whether Obama wins or loses, he is going to find his experience in politics about the same as community organizing. From what I have seen, most politicians seldom have a sense that they really accomplished what they set out to do. If fact in their heart of hearts I think they leave their professions with a sense of sorrow at what should have been. The Law of Unintended Consequences is one factor. The fact that our government has a two party system, with the constant opposition to everything tried, is another factor. Finally, you never know what human frailties in you and your staff , or the fact of constant change at every level of economy, technology, and etc. are going to force you to do what you never imagined. Anyone who wants to be President is neither qualified or sane enough for the job. It’s a lose, lose proposition. Who wants the majority of people in their country to be unhappy with them?

- Eric Means

September 6, 2008 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am glad to read Judis's reporting, which fills a few gaps in Obama's life. But when Judis moves into the realm of analysis, he is completely off base and comes across as ill-equipped to make sense of Obama's writings in Dreams from my Father about his community organizing past. Alinskyism was Obama's introduction to one form of community organizing, when he not only had little activist experience but also no connection to any sense of commmunity (Black or otherwise). He makes completely clear that "the most important education" he got as an organizer came more from defeats than sparkling victories. That's true of any inner-city organizer working in the difficult post-1960s era of hypersegregation and urban abandonment. Obama's turn away from Alinskyism occurred as he developed a more organic connection to the Black community organizing tradition which he got through relationship buidling with elders from the South, an astute reading of MLK and others, and a reassessment of changing realities. His move to Harvard and toward electoral politics--well detailed by the alternative Chicago press--is explicitly accompanied by a call to bring the bottom-up community organizing of the civil rights movement together with electoral changes that would foster a new inside/outside dynamic to movement building. Now, one can and should question whether Obama has since lived up to the standards he has set for himself and whether his rhetoric will become reality if elected President. I intend to be as critical as any observer. But to state that Obama's shift away from Alinskyism necessarily means he no longer believes in the power of community organizing writ large strains credibility. Mr. Judis has only knocked down a straw man target.

- Scott Kurashige

September 6, 2008 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So having failed at community organizing, and, if the author is to be believed that "By late 1987, he [Obama] seems to have grown disillusioned with the underlying principles of community organizing", then I have two questions: 1) If the majority of Obama's initiatives as a community organizer failed, then what experience can he demonstrate where he was successful in leading? 2) Why, twenty years later, is he running a campaign justified in large part by promoting that the work he did on the streets of Chicago should be replicated across the nation under an Obama administration.

- my_two_cents

September 6, 2008 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So instead of screwing the people of Chicago, Obama can screw the whole nation with his neo-marxist BS?

- DIrk

September 6, 2008 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I got halfway through this article and got a big headache. I could not finish it... felt sick-ish and dizzy bleh

- just me

September 6, 2008 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One has to question the author's bias when not once in the long article did he mention that Alinsky was a notorious communist.

- Howard Berger

September 6, 2008 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Same old classic Barack, even back then "flip flopping".

- Airboater

September 6, 2008 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What if change IS our most immediate self-interest?

- Michael Evolution

September 6, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Obama is disillusioned. And he is attracting disillusioned and depressed people. And all of them have been brainwashed into thinking America is wrong or broken, and needs fixing. Well, I have new for you: You guys and your supreme candidate ARE WRONG! And you will feel it come November when the majority of people vote for McCain-Palin. If Obama wins, it will only prove that America is really falling apart. Just like humpty dumpty.

- Nancy Cohen

September 6, 2008 at 11:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, exactly what community did Obama organize and what did he organize them to do? What were the results? Was the community better off after he organized it? Was it a lasting, permanent organization, or did it get disorganized again after Obama left? Who did he work for? Who signed his paycheck? If I wanted to become a Community Organizer, who do I send my resume to? What if the community doesn't want to be organized? What if I lived in a disorganized communited but liked it that way and Obama came along and told me I had to get organized? Would I have a choice? Do any of you know a community organizer? Have you ever been organized by one? If not, do you wish one would come along and organize your community?

- darcy

September 6, 2008 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

erika, Have you ever sacrificed your own self-intrests for others?

- bt

September 6, 2008 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

10 years ago, I worked in my community. I was 25. I didn't want to change the world, but wanted to help. change one person's life for the better, then I did something worthwhile in my life and for my community. I worked with women and kids. I did it for 2 years and went back into corporate world. I went through, in thought, exactly what he did. 10 years later, no job beats the 2 years I 'gave back' to my community.

- mik

September 7, 2008 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The most poignant fact that arises from this article is that Obama's strongest desire as a community organizer was to somehow get jobs created where they had disappeared. He failed. And ever since, he seems to have never learned what it is that makes jobs appear - a financial and investment environment that encourages people with capital to take on the risk and enormous task of building a business, especially a BIG business (i.e. - one with lots of JOBS). To do so in an increasingly competitive global economy requires being competitively enticing to those who would start or expand a business. Yet his economic proposals are classic job-killing measures - raise capital gains and dividend taxes, and keep America's corporate tax rate the second highest in the world. God, even Charlie Rangel wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, because the tremendously liberal New York congressman fully understands what it will take to create the expanding job base that the country will need to avoid a spiral downwards economically, and then socially. Capital and enterprise can, and will, move anywhere in the world with the click of a mouse, and it will go where it is rewarded, and not punished. Obama's tax plan, if enacted, will result in a massive increase in US job loss - which is not a good idea during the current downturn in the business cycle. For that matter, it's not a good idea at ANY point in the business cycle. It will only hurt the people he seems to most truly want to help. Rasmussen polling - Americans by a 4 to 1 margin disagree with ANY increase in investment taxes. Even Joe Sixpack understands that his job depends on his company staying competitive. It's the one thing I don't get about Obama, who is brilliant in so many areas, but seems simply dense in this one.

- alex black

September 7, 2008 at 12:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a former community organizer myself (who also left organizing to return to school), the argument that Obama's community organizing experience could not have shaped his current thinking because he saw its shortcomings and chose to leave is extremely thin. The community organizing experience is eye-opening in ways much other public life isn't (Obama's statement that he learned more organizing than in law school makes perfect sense to me). One of the ways it is eye-opening is in revealing major social problems that stand in the way of average citizens wanting to improve their communities--something they can't teach in law school. Another of this article's glaring weaknesses is its dependence on a very restrictive idea about what community organizing is. This idea that ALL community organizing avoids politics and charismatic leaders is really a fabrication. Many community organizers find it in their interest to restrict themselves that way, but many others don't. An easy example is the civil rights movement, which both pursued political goals (with some very savvy inside-the-beltway politics at several points) and involved the rise of several super-charismatic leaders.

- chris

September 7, 2008 at 1:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I usually despise this newspaper however this is one of the best critiques of Obama I have ever heard. But I think the sad part that this journalist should not forget is that a large constituency of conservatives are opposed to Obama for absurd reasons like the belief that he will raise taxes for the working class or worse, that he's a Muslim conspirator. If more conservatives judged him on the level that Mr. Judis has, political discourse would really be something much less depressing.

-

September 7, 2008 at 2:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article seems to overstate when it says that Obama's politics are now the "exact opposite" of his organizing ideals. Aren't you saying that Obama envisions a kind of politics that works with community organizing? Maybe Alinsky thought so, but I'm not sure that these 2 things have to be mutually exclusive, in an ideal sense. I guess the people who think he's all "vision" or all "talk" don't think he can carry the goals of community organizing into political life.

- zita

September 7, 2008 at 3:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I haven't read his autobiography, so it's nice to know his efforts are genuine. His father pursued the same goal to correct corruption, but failed. I hope he doesn't. As the adage goes... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In this case, it is a good thing.

- youmightberight

September 7, 2008 at 5:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A well written and thoughtfully presented article. Thank you.

- JEM

September 7, 2008 at 5:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a proud Republican mom so I want to make something clear; we will win this election because we know how voters think!! It is true that we have been in control of Congress for 22 of the last 24 years and we had the Presidency for the last 8 years. Nevertheless if we say that voting for us again you will get change than you have to believe it and you will get change. It is true that Sarah Palin never had a passport until 2006 and visited 4 countries abroad in all her life but if we say that she has enough international experience than you should believe us. She does not believe in Theory of Evolution; it is just a theory like the theory of Gravity. The fact that we all have a weight and walk on earth is not proof that Theory of Gravity is correct as all the sediments and fossils are no proof enough of the Theory of Evolution. You elitist liberals should accept it; there is no conclusive evidence of either theory and I want a Vice President that does not believe in them It is true that McCain is the oldest ever candidate and had cancer but if we say he is fit enough to lead the Country than you have to accept it. I never liked him because he was not conservative enough but now he says he is and that’s enough for me; I believe him and I have noticed that he has voted over 90% of the times with our current President, who is a great guy, so I think he will continue along the same lines. Finally please leave out of the campaign personal family issues like a pregnant 17 years daughter. It is clear to me that she had no choice but to keep the baby. I am ok with that and I hope that is Sarah Palin becomes President she will put a law in that obliges all girls to keep the babies, no matter if they are teenagers or have been raped. A life is always sacred and, as Sarah correctly says, you should have thought about it before becoming pregnant. WOMEN VOTE GOP!!!

- Grace 34

September 7, 2008 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's reason and claim that his organizing days proves he is ready to be "Commander and Chief of the United States of America" is not quite a well put syllogism. He denounced community organizing and feels that by being a politician he can better advance the improvement and lot for the downtrodden uneducated black communities. He continues to be aligned with all the Foundations that he helped organized or was a teacher for. ACORN has endorsed him and is being investigated for Voter fraud. Obama said in one of his speeches that he felt that most Americans would not be for "Reparations", but ended that thought with, "But there must be Deeds". I see his Olinsky tactics quite well..appeal to "people's interests"...???hmmm Values? Hmmm??? What kind of values is it when organizations unashamedly tout intimidating aggressive liberation theology to get their way? Sounds like Olinskism in reverse. Oh but don't forget that other times truly Olinsky - He's the Messiah that has appealed to his mesmerized followers as the only one who can fulfill their interests? Where are the values he prefers over Olinskism? Obama's values? Lying to one group on the ccampaign trail, while saying another to a different group? Values- believes in partial birth abortion? I don't think that "Thinking Americans" of all races want a man and woman like this in the White House leading our country. He wears flip flips and eats waffles!!! Please enjoy this little Diddy About Obama's Woeful > Week b'cuz of Saracuda > > "It's Supposed to be my Party" ...Obama's > Woeful Week > > It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to > You would cry too if it happened to you > > No one knows where my annointing has gone > But stardom left the same time > Why was she a beholden site in their eyes? > When I’m supposed to be Divine!!!? > > It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to > You would cry too if it happened to you > > Secrets of rad-foundations i orged, haunt me all thru > the night > But leave me alone for a while > 'Til Ayer’s is holding me tight > I've got no reason to smile > > It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to > You would cry too if it happened to you > > John and Sarah appeared on the screen > Like a king with his queen > Oh what an appealing surprise > Sarah is cute and really lean. > > Oh-oh-oh It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to..... > You would cry too if it happened to you > > No one knows where my annointing has gone > But stardom left the same time > Why was she a beholden site in their eyes? > When I’m supposed to be Divine!!? > > It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to > You would cry too if it happened to you > > As long as they brag about Sarah all night > And leave the Ayers thing alone for a while... > Stanley Kurtz's findings are hushed up real tight > I've got every reason to smile!! > > It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to > You would cry too if it happened to you > > Sarah's a Bible Clutching, Gun toting bore > that's what my fans really scream > Oh what a lovely surprise to hear > There's smear, hope it ruins her dreams > > It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to > You would cry too if it happened to you > > Oh-oh-oh It's my party and I'll cry if I want to > Cry if I want to, cry if I want to.....

- Kathryn

September 7, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting essay and background on Obama's community organizing. For the record... "Few candidates could hope to win an election at any level without convincing their constituents that they understand their immediate hopes and fears. Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton certainly had the ability to persuade voters that he identified with their interests. So did Ronald Reagan. Al Gore and John Kerry did not." Candidates don't appeal to me as a function of my "hopes and fears" but as a function of their own integrity and whether or not their view of the role of the federal government follows the Constitution. Bill Clinton never "persuaded" me of a single thing. Gore and Kerry were simply wooden and tedious. "To win their votes, Obama needs to do precisely what he once taught organizers to do: speak to the self-interest of ordinary people." It's gonna be a little hard, at this point, for Barack Obama to connect with the people he described (to wealthy San Franciscans) as "bitter clingers".

- tanstaafl

September 7, 2008 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"At the time, neighborhood organizing was very parochial. ... He could see that the impact wouldn't reach beyond the neighborhood. The change he was seeking was bigger." It would seem Obama's plan for the federal government machinery is to use it to accomplish what he failed to accomplish as "community organizer".

- tanstaafl

September 7, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with P. Eischen. Barack Obama is human, not some kind of automaton. How condescending.

- Dave

September 7, 2008 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The sound bite crowd is hearing contrasting views on Obama's community organizing. The first group listens to CNN and reads Newsweek where Obama is portrayed as a community organizer, working for the Catholic Church for the poor and under-privileged and those holding this view are excitedly pointing out how offended the Catholics, Elks Clubs and other community service organizations are offended about being accused of having no responsibilities. The other group listens to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and says that Obama worked for a committee of the Democratic Party organizing the poor to vote in the Chicago Democratic Machine and for this reason is not talking about his organizing in great detail. Neither group are explaining his disillusionment and why he left. Thank you for showing us yet another dilemma as Mr. Obama faces his past.

- Roger

September 7, 2008 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The tone here is "you don't have to read all of this to understand that Obama has some misguided notions." Like Barack Obama's book title "The Audacity of Hope" might ruffle the racist's feathers this article attempt to suggest that Obama is a dreamer and misses the obvious. Fight for the will of the people's self interest. The problem is and Obama realizes it is that the self-interest is often too narrow and self-serving and does not answer to the needs of the many. So the authors problem is that he sees Obama as having the audacity to presume to know better what the people want than they do themselves.

- TruthSeeker

September 7, 2008 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps Obama's decision to pursue the presidency so early in his political career reflects this overarching desire to accomplish change rather than become a veteran politician. While I would agree that he has evolved as a person, I don't think he ever lost the community organizer's suspicion of politics. Personally, I'm a citizen who's sick of politically manipulative attempts to appeal to my self-interest. I was refreshed when Obama called out Clinton's gas tax proposal during the primaries. It seemed like a plan that was purely designed to pander to voter self-interest (and it was working). Obama took a political risk rejecting it since most Americans weren't going to do the math. This article was very well written. But I would question any insinuation that Obama lost the right to call on his experience as a community organizer simply because he came to reject some of the philosophical principles behind it.

- Matt Mehne

September 7, 2008 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Community oganizers evolve as do their communities; some into politics,like Sen. Obama, and others into careers that can pay the bills. The one thing that an organizer will not lose is the ability to engage others in understanding that when the event occurs to more than a few that "the personal is the political".

- Pat

September 7, 2008 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Understood- I agree. I think Obama's speech on race may be a further example of your point- where he's working on a bigger, more nuanced discussion and we're listening only for provocative phrases and items that will allow us to be offended. ie "He called his grandma a 'typical white lady!'" When I heard that people were latching on to this phrase, I thought to myself "*That's* what people got from his speech?? We are lost!" We have been raised to always take offense. We seek it! We crave it! He gives me a glimmer of hope that discourse is not completely dead in this country. And it may be possible for us to get past the knee-jerk reaction era that has engulfed the US for too long. I fear we aren't quite ready.

- cajafa

September 7, 2008 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yep the story has distortions on organizing, Obama etc., but I was glad for the added information on Obama's organizing days. At least from the story it sounds like they may have made mistakes in Chicago, going after too big a victory early on and then backing down to smaller ones rather than visa-versa.

- Plutodog

September 8, 2008 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I voted for Hillary..... Obama call himself the prophet of change and touts his plan to improve the lives of Americans in jobs ,education and living the American dream. My question is this: Is he planning to improve our dysfunctional education system or give us the resources to pay $20,000. per child per year to send our kids to the same school his kids go to.....? Public school isnt good enough for them. The only change I see is transferring them from expensive school in Chicago to expensive school in Washington DC. Thats what is wrong with this election.

- Linda

September 8, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to HaHa above: how many more rich need to be created (or how much richer do they need to become)before we all get jobs? You say "Vote Republican" to make this happen but we've had Republican for 8 years, we have a ton of rich individuals and record corporate profits (where are all those jobs in gas/oil for example? or jobs in sugar and agriculture where there are lots of subsidies creating lots of rich?) Your ideas do not seem to be confirmed by realty. Unless we're simply not yet "rich enough" to make this happen. I myself, would not like to wait much longer. While I am perfectly comfortable and middle class in Chicago and contribute whatever excesses I can voluntarily to others who help different types of less fortunate (food banks, Smile Train, cancer research at a variety of institutions, etc etc), I can greatly see that people are losing jobs, costs of needed daily goods are going up, rents and taxes are going up, stock market is going down (sorry people retiring in a couple of years), wages are stagnant--yet there have been Republicans in charge for 8 years and lots of rich! I'd say, Vote Democratic and give a philosophy of government helping EVERYONE out (universal health care, taxes on inherited wealth to fund infrastructure repair and development, subsidies for new energy technologies (while decreasing gas/oil exploration ones, and the aforementioned farming and ethanol ones), etc etc.

-

September 8, 2008 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Community Organisers" are merely volunteers that are either too lazy to start a non-profit organization, or cannot handle the scurtiny and legal restrictions that encompass and define a non-profit. So, Obama, which is it? Too lay, or can't handle the scrutiny?

- Mike N

September 8, 2008 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great storytelling. But your article contains a greiviously erroneous assumption; that community organizing equals the Alinsky-style organizing Obama did in Chicago. Seems to me that Obama developed a smart critique of a deeply flawed organizing model. There are examples of more nuanced, progressive, and lasting organizing strategies throughout history - think Underground Railroad (1850) and the Coalition of Imokalee Workers (2008). Obama rejected one kind of organizing - the one offered him at the time - and went in search of a bigger vision. He found politics - others have done the same and found other organizing strategies.

- Siobhan

September 8, 2008 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I get is that he accomplished little in those days. Fits right in with the rest of his life.

- Sam

September 8, 2008 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You might want to check the timeline and the GOP has not controlled Congress for 22 of the last 24 years (that would be back to 1984).

- Sam

September 8, 2008 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Linda, Senator Obama touts policies very, very similar to Senator Clinton who you say you supported, yet you find coming from him they are not appealing? I am sure Senator Clinton sought the best education for her daughter as well, so is that acceptable for everyone except the Obama's?

- Renee

September 8, 2008 at 10:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spin, spin, spin. At least he did not forsake those who needed help when the government couldn't. If any of you heard the unfortunate demise of your father, would you not be disillusion too? Wake up and have a heart!

- SYD

September 8, 2008 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Google Stanley Kurtz Acorn gamaliel foundation woods fund Annenberg Challenge Stealth Senator....read it all for yourselves!! Then come back here and tell us how all those facts tie in what John B. Judas is saying. It will be very interesting indeed!

- kathryn

September 8, 2008 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In Asia, there's a saying that whenever America coughes, Asia will catch a cold. Yes, the poor Asia is dependent on the rich America for their exports. They need a rich America for their job growth. This is on international level. On a national level, the poor is similarly dependent on the rich for their jobs. When the rich get burned in their investments or get taxed heavily, don't laugh ! Because the firt persons who suffer are us the poor. I once got laid off because my boss (you Democrat calls a rich) is not making money because of the high tax and heavy regulation in San Francisco, so he rather closes the business. The point is when he made some profit, he always gave me good bonus. This is the reason I always pray that the rich keeps making money so I can keep my job. Look, government and Democrats are consumers of wealth, and Republicans and the rich are creators of wealth. Give them some respect. In a broadcast interview aired Sunday, Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy. See, if you hurt the rich, you're going to hurt the economy. Your messiah is protecting the rich. Another flip-flop ? He's sounding more and more like Republican.

- Haha

September 9, 2008 at 1:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting enough for those who are curious about Barack Obama's past, but surely no blockbuster. What's the big deal? He was an organizer, then after 3 years (a long time to do a job like that), he decided he could do more by getting into politics. But "those years in Chicago as a community organizer shaped" him, in that he got a close first-hand understanding of poverty and the problems that go with it. Why doubt that it was "the best education [he] ever had," just because he eventually decided to move on from it?

- Jake

September 9, 2008 at 2:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I appreciate this thorough article. It provided more than just a few lines of opposition and "rhetoric." I have to disagree with the idea that he rejected community organizing. It appears he just thought there was a better way to get things done. This is why he has such a high appeal with young voters. In these times of evolving technology, we are looking for ways to get things done better and faster. Without this type of out-the-box thinking we wouldn't have things like the Internet. Sometimes conventional wisdom comes from unconventional sources. I'm willing to take a chance on trying something different because obviously the current way is not working, at least not working for me and my family. Change to some is like feeding vegetables to kids for the first time. Few want to eat them, even though they are good for you. It's time we suck it up and eat our peas.

- jspolitix

September 9, 2008 at 6:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I volunteered as a teacher's aide in public schools when my children were young because I strongly value education and wanted to make a contribution. But I realized I could achieve much more as a teacher. So I went back to school, got my degree and became a classroom teacher. As a teacher I realized the challenges of having volunteers in the classroom. They can be distracting and, because they lack training, are xometimes ineffective. Yes. I was critical of people who were doing the very things I had done. But I also appreciated them and looked for ways to use their skills. I didn't look down on them or devalue their contributions. I hope the author of the article will castigate me despite my efforts as a volunteer and my efforts to achieve more. Sometimes you just can't win.

- Katydid

September 9, 2008 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The job that Obama got right out of college was for 8 Catholic parishes on the south side of Chicago under the USCCB Campaign for Human Development. I'm a 50-ish white gal who was born in Gary, IN and grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago. I find this credential impressive, as did Crain's Chicago Business in the early 90s when they cited this and his voter registration efforts in naming the young man as someone to watch.

- CF/Naples, FL

September 9, 2008 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Because all the groups he was affiliated and mentored also had liberation theology ideology, anti-white, and anti-american. They had aggressive in your face tactics, and that is why Obama called Palin a pig today with that lipstick Schtic! That's why he gave Hilary the birdie!! The man is disgusting. Everyone should copy this and send to everyone in your e-mail list. This acknowledges Obama's successful community organizing! The Real Cause of the Subprime Mess: Government Regulation February 25, 2008 – 2:33 am By now we all are well aware of the crisis in the subprime housing market. Much blame for the mess has predictably been placed on unscrupulous lenders. When do we ever hear that our government may have actually caused the problem? Of course, we just don’t hear that. After all, protocol requires that we blame the private sector for all of society’s problems. To remedy those ills we are told that we need more government regulation of those greedy, blood sucking capitalists lurking everywhere in the business world.No one ever seems to mention legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which made it mandatory for lenders to issue loans to subprime borrowers. Tom DiLorenzo has written an excellent article on the effects of the CRA here.In the midst of all of this fallout Democrat wunderkind Barack Obama has been calling for more government regulation to rein in loose lending practices. This seems to be just a tad disingenuous of Mr. Obama, as he has recently been endorsed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Here’s an excerpt from DiLorenzo’s article that explains how the ACORN doesn’t fall far from the CRA tree:So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds

- cindy

September 9, 2008 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for confirming what his work as a "community organizer" involved: He was just another young, well meaning, radical who made a lot of noise, argued over the tactics and strategy proffered by their radical godfather (Alinsky) and, in the end, accomplished nothing. Palin was right. Even as a small town mayor, she had responsibilities and was accountable. Unlike young Mr. Obama. He would have been better off helping them start a business. Heck, the capitalists at Shorebank did more for Chicago's struggling black community than all the "organizers" combined.

- Raymond in DC

September 10, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This quote sums it up: "But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him "to make major changes in poverty or discrimination." To do that, he said, "you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials."" This is where good-hearted and well meaning folks get it wrong-the assumption that the use government will improve the lives of people. I am saddened, but not surprised that Mr Obama believes this. Wisdom will show that any real improvement does not occur through massive movements, but rather helping others one person at a time. Our friends on the left delude themselves by thinking that government will take care of problems that we as individuals fail at in our own attempts. Government involvement creates more problems instead of solving them beyond the limited permissions granted by the Constitution. Mr Obama has a wonderful heart, but he has no wisdom. A well intentioned leader lacking in wisdom will cause more harm in the process of trying to improve what he sees as deficient. If we want real change, it comes on an individual basis, one person at a time, not through a politician. I can only hope that millions are not misled thinking that a well-intentioned activist-turned politician can solve their problems.

- Cari

September 10, 2008 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CARI.... That hit the nail on the head. The constitution is very clear in what are the powers of the federal government, given to them by us, the people. The States need to do their thing, for their Citizens, not the Messiah "Obama", an organizer like the great JC or that is what the left wants you to think.

- James W. Thomas

September 15, 2008 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a coincidence that the IAF, its founder Saul Alinisky have communist worldviews and they trained ACORN and Obama, yet they emerged as such fine folks who'd never do anything to muck up American politics! They make such a pretty picture in their suits and pictures dont' lie.

- Jeanette

October 16, 2008 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As someone who was raised 4 blocks from Altgeld Gardens, and had family in Roseland until they passed away in the late 90's, And continued to live there from 90-92. I can vouch for the smell. However, the sewage treatment facility is not the cause. Regardless of how often you say it. It's the Landfill, east of the Expressway. Also, those Altgeld Garden homes that should have been upgraded when Sen Obama was an organizer, never have been, even to this day. I still live within 50 blocks of there. The problem is not only a lack of opportunity, but of motivation. When friends of mine pay 20$ a month for an apartment with heating and water, 2 bedrooms, and a bathroom. They aren't motivated to move out. Heck average costs of non-public housing here are 900$ per month. That's why I lived so close to the gardens with my wife and two children until I could save enough for a down payment in the suburbs. $200/month for a 3 bedroom with 1 bath. Just had to put up with the Hookers, Junkies, Crooked Cops stopping by for payoffs on Saturday, people breaking into your car. (So you always own a POS). Militancy? Shoot, I walked down all of those streets, like the lone ranger. I didn't even realize what those children were saying when they tipped their hats to me and called me an "OG." I thought it meant Old Guy. I had taught some of them self respect and discipline, and nobody better harm the children on my streets. But that's called responsibility. Everyone has it. It's up to you to exercise it.

- ApostolicIlx

October 18, 2008 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I too found this to be one of the best analysis of Obama I have seen. When I read his book "Dreams from my Father" my impression was that he was a very conflicted young man and indeed he is. He still has not sorted things out. I do not wish him to sort them out as President. He needs some more growing, less self agrandizing, more understanding, and more humility. He is a long way from understanding middle America. He is running primarily on a charismatic formula, hoping everything will fall into place. Not a good thing.

- hooley

October 19, 2008 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I feel like a complete blank, but what can I say?,

- Matilda

November 4, 2008 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I always get frustrated in any conversation of the limitations of Organizing. I've been an Organizer for ten years and moved through a lot of different models. We do it just as badly to each other. The IAF model has many limitations. So does the Union model. So does the ACORN model. They all have their advantages, too. I don't disagree with Obama about the limitations of Organizing. I don't disagree with any of my fellow Organizers when they site the failing of one model over another. What frustrates me, though, is when people argue that the limitations suggest you shouldn't organize. Or you shouldn't organize one way or another. Organizing does a lot of good. A whole lot of good. But it isn't perfect. Look, Organizers don't like Charismatic Leaders for two reasons: 1) it's not sustainable. You never know when you're going to find one and what happens when they go away. 2) they tend to be flakes. Most people with charisma have too much ego. But, when a movement arises around a Charismatic person, do I think it's awesome? Yes. Like Obama. This is all very, very good. But what do we do in the next 20 years after his time is done? And what do we do in all the little communities where he doesn't have time and space to pay attention. We use a tool we know we can count on: organizing natural leaders. Do we distrust politicians? Of course. Am I happy when there's a good one? Yes. It's just that this all too often gets framed as an either/or. I want to believe that Obama gets that. That he still understands that Organizing does a whole helluva lot of good. But, okay: it wasn't for him. He was better suited to something else. In fact, he was so much better suited to something else that he became POTUS. Which is totally great and I, for one, am proud that a real professional Organizer finally became President. But I'm suited to Organizing, and I'm going to keep doing it. It has its limitations. Politics has its limitations, too. I'll take my side. And, if I ever do give it up... and I might. It's hard. If I ever do give it up, I won't downplay it or disparage it like Kellman. Lots of people try Organizing and most them fail. It's a hard life. It's more a vocation than a job. You've got it in you or you don't. I wish more of the people who don't have it would recognize that they failed, not the work. The work works when someone who can do it does it. It works for what it works for, anyway. Other people can do other things for the the ends that those things work for. Bully for all of them. Just don't denigrate each other.

- BradyDale

November 6, 2008 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the author misunderstands community organizing and empowerment in general. The Alinsky model is the not the only model for community organizing. If the Alinsky model does not work, does that not mean that community organizing does not work. It seems to me that Obama became disenchanted the Alinsky model more so than with community organizing. Community organizing is a limited activity. It needs to be connected with direct service and advocacy. Obama wanted so badly so improve the conditions of south side Chicago, but had limited capacity to do so as an organizer. He realized that he could be most effective as an elected official, there is no shame.

- Jaime

March 26, 2009 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah you have it down. He has a calm, moderating, relaxed personality so he doesn't go nuts with looking for new theory he just goes to work with what he's got. Its boring but true I guess. The reason people say outrageous things about a person with his personality, about as plain as Al Gore mixed with Brit Hume, is because they are upset its that simple.

- Dch004

April 13, 2009 at 4:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close