A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
December 19, 2005Hillary Clinton's Bachelor's ThesisBelow is an article I wrote for one of my journalism classes at Boston University. This is its first publication.
In her thesis, Clinton analyzed the career of a man who she described in a section heading as, " Saul David Alinsky: An American Radical." Alinsky was a community organizer who came to public attention in 1939 by helping to create the Back of the Yards Council in the Chicago neighborhood that was the setting for "The Jungle," Upton Sinclair's novel exposing the meatpacking industry. Alinsky was known as a showman and self-proclaimed agitator who used publicity stunts to inspire people in low-income neighborhoods to demand improved public services. Yet Alinsky recognized the Roman Catholic Church as a partner, and was supported by the Bishop Bernard Shiel of the Chicago Archdiocese. Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation was supported by Chicago retail magnate Marshall Field III.Posted by rickheller at December 19, 2005 11:36 AM Comments
Rick, I think you are right that this would be bad for Hilary and I think that's a shame. Whatever you think about sixties activism--and I'm not a big fan of it--she was was 22 or 23 years old and she certainly wasn't rioting in the streets. What you wrote actually strikes as a very thoughtful analysis of Alinsky and of Hilary's own views. Compare that to Bush, who probably had trouble putting two coherent sentences together when he was that age--if he wasn't drunk. The thesis is more liberal than I would today advocate--but you have to keep in mind when she wrote it. Frankly, I think it's consistent with Hilary's persona--a liberal at heart, but not a radical, and essentially a cautious person looking for an effective way to effect social change. Of course, the right will use it to trash her, as it did Kerry's statements when he was in his 20s. Of course, Bush's carousing in his 20s was ok because, well, it was Bush. I'm actually quite impressed with this but I think it supports the idea that Hilary has way too much baggage to be elected president. Posted by: Marc at December 19, 2005 12:06 PMIt makes sense to me to give this work weight for the sake of understanding the formative years of a prominent public figure. Just as it makes sense to give it whatever weight it deserves within the context of a person's entire career and personal development. The thesis should be readily available as a public record, and it should be entirely fair game to ask HC to speak to this thesis, and how she has come to feel about it after the benefit of many years of experience working in the private sector, with the law, and in the public sector. My sense is that the public generally seems to be forgiving of public figures' past adventures and misadventures when they hark from the distant past of one's youth. I disagree that this counts as baggage making HC inelectable, at least not new baggage. Some Americans may chose not to vote for HC if they give credence to the notion that this thesis proves that HC is irretrieveably arch liberal and perhaps a godless communist. But among these people, how many might have voted for her otherwise? I really don't think all that many Americans who still want to host crucifixions on the altar of 60s and 70s politics are among those whose votes are up for grabs. It's a virtual certainty that many of the graying partisans of the vietnam era will ask us all to join in re-fighting this battle, and it's up to centrists to opt out an enourage people to look at it for what it is in the larger context. My sense is that there are plenty of 60s-70s liberals who may well be conservative now, and won't voe a witch hunt as reasonable. It'll happen, but it'll be more of a red meat for the faithful thing. The version of the theme that may have legs wil be the "HC is a stealth arch-liberal who has tried to reinvent herself but don't ye be fooled" story. But they won't get sales with a graduate thesis. Posted by: bk at December 19, 2005 12:39 PMPaul Ziff once said to me that his fondest wish was to sneak into the Cornell library and burn his master's thesis... Many people I know feel the same way about theirs... Dunno what to think of this one, though. Certain segments of the public are forgiving about certain things. But I doubt that a significant proportion would be forgiving of defending any kind of radical lefty politics (they'd be more forgiving of radical righty politics I'd think). Still, if she wrote it I rather think it should be public. Posted by: Winston Smith at December 19, 2005 01:06 PMMy first reaction to this: So? My reaction was reinforced by this Compare that to Bush, who probably had trouble putting two coherent sentences together when he was that age--if he wasn't drunk.I didn't care that Bill smoked pot; I didn't care that John Kerry protested the war; I didn't care that GWB go into the National Guard instead of going to Viet Nam. What's with my generation (the Boomers) that we seem to chuckle at what we did at that age but snarl at what a politician did at that age. Posted by: c3 at December 19, 2005 01:30 PMLooks to me that the only people who would be up in arms over this are those who think commies are still under every bed in America. Face it folks, red-baiting and commie bogeymen are sooooo yesterday and the most this will generate is the occasional mention on O'Reilly and other red meat commentators. As for Saul Alinsky, I will have to say that as one who lived through that time that when you had a lot of people who were disconnected from teh halls of power, those like Alinsky were essentially saviors. While Clinton correctly states that at times Alinsky would polarize a particular group here and there into a kind of paralytical stasis, for the most part a lot of social progress was made by people who followed through on the political acitivity of organizers like Alinsky and his followers. Posted by: Marcus at December 19, 2005 01:33 PMI don't understand why anyone would think this document should be made public. Wellesley is a private school, the library won't allow it to be copied and it isn't on the web. It's not something that was ever published anywhere, including the Wellesley newspaper. This thing isn't even a Master's thesis. It's not a public document. I would appreciate it if someone would provide some sort of precident that says this should be a public document and explain why the public should expect to be able to read the musings of a 21 year old undergraduate, even an intelligent, thoughtful one such as the young Hillary Rodham. Just because someone is a public figure in later life, that doesn't mean EVERYTHING they've ever written or done should be part of the public record. Remember GWB set the bar at 25 years when asked about his past. Posted by: tim at December 19, 2005 03:44 PMI just wanted to take a moment to warn all of you that I've been archiving your posts, and should any of you intend to one day run for public office, I will provide your statements to the press, out of context, to make you look like insane radicals. : ) Well, Tim, #1 it's apparently already publicly available, only in imperfect and fragmented form. #2, to answer "why should it be public," I think the answer is "because Hillary's running for President." [yeah, maybe she isn't.] I could care less where GWB declared the bar should be set. If HC no longer agrees with what she said then, I'm willing to listen to her disavowals. If she has the legal right to keep this private, and chooses to do so, she can go ahead, and then we're all free to assume that she has something to hide. I'm curious, I'm a voter, and I want to know. As a prospective candidate, HC is free just like others, to ignore the voters' wishes, at her potential peril. That's how it works. Posted by: bk at December 19, 2005 04:25 PMI think all I have under my bed is dust bunnies Posted by: Marcus at December 19, 2005 04:48 PMRyan, I'm crazy, but I'm not insane! ;-) Yeah, her opposition will use it to beat on her. I won't. What she thought 35+ years ago is pretty damn irrelevant to what she thinks now, unless she has failed to grow at all in that time. And what she wrote isn't necessarily at all what she believed. A scholastic thesis (particularly an undergrad one) isn't an expose of what someone believes, but how they can research, interpret, and defend a topical position. That's a few steps down from asking an attorney to defend a brief they wrote on behalf of a client decades ago. I don't give a hoot that Hillary wrote a liberal thesis when she was 22. I don't give a hoot that Bush was a party boy who hoisted a few on the frat balcony. Give 'em an effin' break, folks. Deal with now, not then. Posted by: Tully at December 19, 2005 04:53 PMBK: Well, then let's make an issue of who she dated in high school. I guess Liberals can get all in tizzy about her stint as a Goldwater Girl in 1964 too. You expect and demand too much. Her record of the last 20-25 years or so should be sufficient for any voter. Making voting decisions on what somebody wrote on a private document at the age of 21 is stupid. Posted by: tim at December 19, 2005 04:54 PMMe too, Marcus. I keep my skeletons in the closet! Posted by: Tully at December 19, 2005 06:41 PMI agree with Tully; I think we all said or did things when we were younger that we would not today. In fact, if you didn't, what's the point of being young? (And I would have loved to have met a woman with left-wing tendencies when I was in college because we know the reputation THEY had.) Amen! I did many things as a youth that I wouldn't want to answer for today, a quarter of a century later. Things I won't tell my kids about until they're past their own indiscretions--if at all. I don't want to encourage them. And school papers? Even a thesis? As an undergrad and grad I was often required as an assignment to coherently defend things I thought were an utter crock. If I did a good job of it, that didn't mean those were my personal opinions, it meant that I was following course requirements and doing my assigned work because I wanted my grade! Posted by: Tully at December 20, 2005 10:00 AMI don't understand the phrase "a young woman then using the name Hillary D. Rodham." Was that not her name? Posted by: Bob Munck at December 20, 2005 10:05 PMMy meaning is that her name was Hillary Diane Rodham when she was a student at Wellesley College, but it's not here name now. It was a bit awkward to write the story calling her "Clinton" when the name on the document is "Rodham." |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
