Deconstructing Our Constitutional Republic

Just so we're all on the same page, and have the same (or, at least a similar) understanding of the term "deconstructing", this is a definition:

Definition of Deconstruct:

de·con·struct (verb \ˌdē-kən-ˈstrəkt\)

transitive verb

1: to examine using the methods of deconstruction

2: to take apart or examine in order to reveal the basis or composition of often with the intention of exposing biases, flaws, or

3: to adapt or separate the elements of for use in an ironic or radically new

4: destroy, demolish deconstructing themselves >

For the purposes of this post, I will be using definitions 2-4 (since def #1 is a rather vague, circular, and DTYS generalization) as I see them applied to the demolition of our once-great country.  The successful deconstruction of a Constitutional Republic, such as ours, must be done in the same manner as one would eat an elephant... one bite at a time.  Our current administration is engaged in deconstruction, following the tenets of the Cloward-Piven "Strategy of Manufactured Crisis".

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and many others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had 60 years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unbelievable morons, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I believe they fully understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was created by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.  (e.g., the "Occupy Movement".)

No matter where the strategy is implemented, these are it's hallmark characteristics:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can. (e.g., ACORN)
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits. (e.g. championing illegal immigration)
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse. (e.g., unrestrained government spending, borrowing, and devaluation of our currency)

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975.  Rudy Giuiliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage."  He also "credited" Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

How long can a city - or nation - survive under such socioeconomic stresses?  In 2012 several other large U.S. cities have filed, or are on the verge of filing, bankruptcy. Scranton PA (F), Sacramento CA (F), Compton CA(F), San Diego CA (V), NYC NY (V), San Jose CA (V), Cincinnati OH (V), Honolulu HI (V), San Francisco CA (V), Los Angeles CA (V), Washington D.C. (V) and Newark NJ (V), among others.  Last fall, Jefferson County, AL filed the biggest Chapter 9 bankruptcy in American history. There seems to be a pattern emerging there.  The larger the welfare rolls, the fewer productive taxpayers. The fewer productive taxpayers, the greater the possibility a city/count/state/nation will become bankrupt.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda for little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

"Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, school drop-out rates, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."