Recently I had a message conveyed to me about the injustices done to ACORN. This was in the context of a class where Social Constructionism is the focus. Her posit is that ACORN's demise is that of a media bias, perpetuated by the wealthy media owners and also greedy wealthy politicians, particularly those of the conservative persuasion. She said that, "This forced closure is an example of how wealthy individuals incited the middle class and Tea Baggers into believing their victimization. This is a result of the efforts of wealthy individuals." That these same wealthy individuals and politicians voted to cancel government contracts and funding, "based on the beliefs that ACORN members are liars, pimps and whores who are a burden on society." She wrapped it up by stating that, "This is another example of William Ryan’s “blame the victim.” Poor people who are trying to better themselves by participating as voters as well as purchasing homes become the “bad guy.” Now I just don't buy it, nor the claim that ACORN is some benevolent institution whose sole purpose is to life the down trodden... Rather, here is my rebuttal:
It is difficult to take the idea that ACORN was really formed to fight for the lower class theory seriously. After all it was formed by individuals who firmly believed and supported the idea that overwhelming the current welfare and entitlement systems was a good thing; bringing collapse to a system already being impacted by ever increasing entitlements.
Is it "class" discrimination that leads to banks not wanting they lend? Having worked in the lending field for a number of years, banks lend based on formulas of, what is the likelihood of this debt being repaid?
You referenced many times that somehow it was just the legislative leaders who lead to the demise of ACORN. You posited that these leaders provoked "tea baggers" as you called them. Where did that term come from? Was it from the same media that you say wanted the demise of ACORN? It seems like the media just wants everyone to be villainized. The assertion that ACORN members are all liars, pimps, and whores is a stretch at best. But the assertion that there are some fundamental and organizational issues with ACORN seemed to be what lead to the demise. Yet the accountability for that is never said. Heaven forbid personal accountability come into play.
It seems to me the "Tea Baggers" as you refer to them represent a movement that is irrespective of who is dipping into their pockets. It seems to me to represent the idea that, a wise and frugal government should, "leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." (Thomas Jefferson)
Walter E. Williams once said, “Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.”
Also the "wealthy elected leaders" who ACORN promoted and aided in the election, including President Obama voted to cancel the funding for ACORN. Is that just the media's fault too? What rational explanation could be offered? The President, who has/had ties with ACORN even sought to distance himself from the institution. Why is that? With a strong majority of the house, senate and the White House being democrats, and the people ACORN represent tending to vote Democrat, why would they cut it off? If anything there would be motivation and desire to strengthen ACORN. If legislative districts are redrawn and the democratic majority that exists can increase its democratic majority, is it really logical to deny such a powerful organization as ACORN? Yet you place the blame again, at the feet of the “owners of media and conservative legislative leaders.” Just doesn’t quite add up to me.
The media magic article was a farce to me when it represents the ideology that, "There is enough wealth in our nation to eliminate poverty if we chose to redistribute existing wealth or income." (p 412) That whole concept has been tried in countries before. It was the ideology behind communist Russia. That everyone get equal pay regardless of what they do and live in the same conditions no matter what. The social impact of that is still felt in Russia decades after the fall of the USSR.
While there is surely some blaming the victim that goes on, I would say that for most, all people are "blamed" for things that are within their control. We all have stewardship over ourselves and for what we do with the time we are given. I would call that our duty. Yet this day and age everyone wants to talk about rights, not duty. Duty is something we DO.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
SPOT ON MY FRIEND! SPOT ON
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI dug your rebuttal brother. I'd be interested in hearing/reading any responses you might receive.
I think what you're referring to when you say “…it was formed by individuals who firmly believed and supported the idea that overwhelming the current welfare and entitlement systems was a good thing…” is Wade Rathke and his open endorsement of the “crisis strategy”. The crisis strategy, in a nut shell, is the philosophy that inundating the system with welfare payments and other entitlements would suffocate capitalism and eventually kill it off. This is obviously and anti-American notion.
As you said, banks lend based on formulas. Their position was that they would lend to anybody that would be able to keep up with the loan and eventually pay it back. For example, banks would like to see two years of stable employment before lending for a mortgage. ACORN argued that this policy was discriminatory against the poor because of the frequent job changing that takes place. With an army of attorneys and a battle plan based on threats of expensive law suits and public humiliation/defamation, ACORN went to work. ACORN succeeded with their tactics of intimidation and effectively forced banks to soften their standards and lend to those that normally would have been considered too risky. This can be considered a “Robin Hood” tactic – it took the money from banks and ‘redistributed’ it to the poor living in inner-city neighborhoods.
ACORN put out a report called "To Each Their Home: Success Stories from the ACORN Housing Corporation" in which they bragged about convincing banks to “lower down payment and closing costs, and to allow family members, churches and ethnic savings clubs to help cover these costs.” They were also able to convince the banks into accepting food stamps, non court ordered child support and other forms of nonconventional and sporadic income when considering a loan. Is it any surprise that foreclosures skyrocketed?!
The Marxist agenda fought for by ACORN had political backing from Ted Kennedy and William Proxmire to name a few. With these “friends” they were able to gain the support of the state in their cause.
The anti-capitalist, Marxist philosophy runs deep in this organization. The tip of the proverbial iceberg has been discussed in regards to ACORN’s corruption and the damage they have done to our economy. It’s interesting, now that we are reaping the benefits of this socialistic scheming, that the perpetrators have the audacity to do an about-face and blame “unregulated capitalism”.
When all is said and done, ACORN was able to use the muscle of government so effectively that they succeeded in forcing banks to make loans based on politics. This doesn’t resemble capitalism in the least bit. When this happens, in the words of Peter Schweizer “you have a system of organized, state-sponsored extortion.”
Great points made by all. Here is my two cents.
ReplyDeleteMarxism’s broad appeal stems from its utopian egalitarianism. After projecting what, in a free society, are natural human, cultural or societal inequalities onto wealth creation or industry, it promises to ameliorate the perceived injustice. By playing on human emotions like jealousy and envy, it fosters cynicism and misanthropy and encourages retributive activism.
Community action in and of itself can be a righteous endeavor, even encouraged when confronting organizationally imposed inequality. The Tea Party Movement is a community action movement which as near as I can tell is addressing the soft tyranny of the federal government and is a similar movement to the American Revolution. Where the Tea Party movement seeks to liberate industry from bureaucratic oppression, ACORN was founded to address the perceived oppression of freedom and free markets, or others’ industriousness, and seeks to use a coercive government to put restrictions on industry.
If you see capitalism, industriousness, as an oppressive system where only others can be successful, then you will view Marxism and ACORN - particularly its relationship with government - as good for society in equalizing outcome. If you see capitalism for what it is, the liberty of personal industry, as good and the only way to really advance civilization, then ACORN, and Marxism are problematic.