Excerpts From Hillary's Wellesley Thesis, "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT... An Analysis of the Alinsky Model"

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory.
-- Hillary D. Rodham
.

* Updates *

Welcome, Free Republic & Pajamas Media readers.
Read Dymphna's "Open Letter to Hillary Rodham": When you were writing your thesis, I was living within walking distance of your dorm....
View or download the entire thesis here. And for pete's sake, people, after you've decided you're going to comment on it, remember the difference between a push broom and a fine-toothed comb. (Use both, but remember the difference.)
  New analyses from Edward Cline and Andrew Waldman.
.

If what I have received is a true and accurate copy, then here is one of the most anticipated revelations yet of the 2008 presidential election: Hillary Rodham's 1969 senior thesis at Wellesley College.

Back in 1993, shortly after she acceded to the role of First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband requested that Wellesley guard her thesis from public scrutiny -- a request to which the college administration assented. Since then efforts to gain access to "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT" have proven less than successful. If what I have received is, however, a true and accurate copy, then public access to the Democratic presidential candidate's initial intellectual formation has finally arrived.
.

.
The nearly 100-page inquiry into the thought and activism of radical leftwing organizer Saul Alinsky can be considered, until proven otherwise, young Ms. Rodham's first complete set of intellectual fingerprints -- her first carbon (her first carbon copy, that is) intellectual footprint. Depending on how capably readers evaluate the 1969 document and trace its influence, "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT" might prove one of the most authoritative standards by which to  judge Hillary Rodham Clinton's subsequent record -- her professional, political, and even personal record.

* * *

Below are some excerpts, Gentle Reader, so that you may begin to take a better measure of Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Themes that emerge include:
.
* a lifelong dedication to fashioning a new American radicalism by braiding together previous strains of political protest and philosophy in a bid to accumulate power (power -- which Alinsky terms the very essence of life) (pp. 4-7);

* cynically cloaking self-interest beneath an external show of morality, all the while expecting redemption through a radical faith in the eventual manifestation of the goodness of man (p. 10);

* conflation of the rule of American democracy with the realization of egalitarian -- even socialist and revolutionary -- agendas (pp. 10-11);

* a need for rethinking the idea of community* and devising new strategies to achieve democratic equality (p. 65); and

* commitment to the eradication of powerless poverty and the injection of meaning into affluence. [Alinsky's] new aspect, national planning, derives from the necessity of entrusting social change to institutions, specifically the United States Government (p. 73).

*: Communitarian theorist Amitai Etzioni, along with Bill Clinton the subject of that link, is referenced on p.65 of the thesis
.

* * *

Related: Fausta's Blog's
"Hillary's Stripes On Parade Again - In the '60s, A Future Candidate Poured Her Heart Out In Letters"

JMK's entire "Hillary Watch" category, including:
"Southpaw Hillary Throws A Sucker Punch" and
"C'mon, Hillary, It's ... Chinatown"

Also, please vote for Jeremayakovka for Best Political Blog. Thanks!

* * *

"Acknowledgements":

.
"Table of Contents":

.
From "Chapter I" (9 images):

.

From "Chapter IV" (2 images):

.

From "Chapter V" (3 images):
.

.
# # #

Comments

[CarpeDiem]

This is great! Please print as much as you can. Thanks.
Saul Alinsky = Big trouble.

[Mr X]

The entire thesis is now available here:
http://gopublius.com/hillary-clintons-wellesley-thesis/

[JMK]

Thanks. Linked you.

[Jason Lee Jones]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but this is already relatively old news. Hillary has even been interviewed on this subject.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

It's also important to mention she was president of the College Republicans at the time she wrote this. People change - you're a good example of that.

[JMK]

Perhaps you missed my first post on the subject - back in March? (btw, Here's a post that raises concerns about the timing of MSNBC's piece: http://tinyurl.com/2lc2zf)

Naturally most Democrats will speak well of her, her thesis, the circumstances in which she wrote it, etc. I'm looking forward to smart and sharp disagreements.

If you read the document, her efforts to critically assess her subject are apparent. The essential question is how well (or poorly) she did so. This has less to do with judging a Wellesley senior who would be valedictorian than with judging NY's junior senator who would be president.

Inquiring minds have a right and an obligation to ask: How does she pose and tackle intellectual problems? Which values does she affirm (or deny) in her work? Are her conclusions firm, or open-ended? In this document she exhibits both skepticism and fascination with her subject.

The fact that she "changed" matters less than Why and How she changed. To a point I'm sympathetic with some of the pressures and possibilities that must have weighed on such a keenly talented young woman as Hillary Rodham. But in the end I and all the voters must judge her. I want as much information as I can get with which to arrive at my judgment.

Your comments are always appreciated.

[Jason Lee Jones]

I agree completely with your follow up post. Often though I get concerned that we may give too much attention to the teenage self and not the person we're presently dealing with. I do agree, fundamentals say a lot, but this is a teenage Republican we're talking about back in the 1960's. Furthermore, the issues often raised about this thesis are not about how she tackle's intellectual problems (I'd appreciate that nuance); it's often an attempt to attack her policy approach by tying her to Saul Alinsky.

As always, I value and respect your views.

Respectfully,

Jason Lee Jones

[JMK]

Jason,

Most of your last comments are just what Bush and Cheney supporters feel when others revive charges of "chickenhawk" or "oil men" or "drug addict" ....

Four years ago I listened gratefully as you spoke with conviction about being a liberal. Talking points you made about Wes Clark I included when campaigning for him. I remember well the joy and conviction and sophistication that all his supporters, whom I took the opportunity to know, expressed. It was a good way to come back from the fringe, back to the center.

2003, 2004, and 2005 turned out to be a kind of transition. Afterwards, certain (more "conservative") values and concerns emerged. They joined or overtook ones we had shared. It's somewhat of a burden, feeling compelled to "move on" from an affiliation. Yet it's also happy, or at least optimistic, because it's not out of bitterness. If anything, I feel responsible to you and others: to do the right combination of soul-searching and homework to explain myself, and persuade others along the way.

That said, Hillary Rodham's thesis is fascinating. My skepticism it is tempered by sympathy for its author -- with what it was like to be her, wrestling to get a grasp of the material, of history, of society, and of how she would determine to make her way in it. At her age I too was immensely fascinated with how to effect radical change in American society. Immensely. But sympathy for that 21 year old is different from the sterner evaluation I want to make now.

I'll bet that the best conservative criticisms of her thesis and of her generally will come from disciplined ex-leftwingers.

It's good to swap thoughts with you in this public forum.

[JMK]

ftr, Peggy Noonan said it very well a couple of years ago in her case for a searchingly researched biography:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006855

It's where she called the college thesis "the Rosetta stone of Hillary studies."

[Andrew Walden]

This thesis was written long after Hillary Rodham had abandoned the College Republicans. She was exactly what she wrote--a leftist radical.

A read of it will show that this is indeed the life plan which we have all been watching Hillary implement for years. This is why Hillary's supporters are so eager to obfuscate the facts and discourage interest. (Now that their efforts at censorship have failed.)

[JMK]

Fascinating. All of it.

[Existentialist Cowboy]

My introduction to Alinksy was found in a GOP CAMPAIGN MANUAL in which Alinsky's METHODS were espoused, supported and advocated.

The manual specifically ESPOUSED Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and offered concrete suggestions about how Alinsky's methods might be utilized to great effect in GOP and conservative campaigns.

I would suggest that the GOP has gone much, much further than Alinsky. The GOP has pioneered the techniques of CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, PERSONAL DESTRUCTION --neither of which have I found in Alinsky's "Rule for Radicals".

I would suggest that the GOP simply picked up where Alinsky left off.

Another possibility --Hilary is simply a NEO-CONSERVATIVE in Democratic 'garb'.