The London riots are already being compared to the Los Angeles riots of 1992. It so happens that the nineteen-year-old L.A. conflagration also gives us a quick but intriguing glimpse into the beginnings of President Obama’s political career. About a month after the riots in Los Angeles petered out, Obama opened the public campaign for Project Vote, the voter registration drive he’d been selected to run in Chicago. This was just a year after Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. It was his first real political job.
The London riots have already kicked off the latest version of the seemingly never-ending debate over whether such events should be seen primarily as political protests by the powerless, or as out-and-out lawbreaking and vandalism. Back in 1992, Obama clearly leaned toward the former.
I found the press release Obama issued to get Project Vote rolling, in the ACORN archives at the Wisconsin Historical Society. (Obama worked closely with ACORN on this campaign, his later denials notwithstanding.) The release quotes Obama explaining the need for Project Vote by pointing to the rioting in Los Angeles. Said Obama in 1992: “The Los Angeles riots reflect a deep distrust and disaffection with the existing power pattern in our society.” That’s Alinsky-speak for “We’ve got to use the power of the angry underclass to put capitalism in check.”
Naturally, we’ll continue to disagree about whether Obama’s leftist past was a convenient pose, or something that guides his policies to this day. I certainly don’t think President Obama would openly speak about events in London the way he spoke about the L.A. riots nineteen years ago. What he thinks to himself is another matter. Of course, a quick statement like this is much less important than the context provided by a systematic look at Obama’s overall political development. Nonetheless, direct quotes from Obama’s early political past are few and far between. This one is particularly intriguing.
Obama might have SAID something to defend the criminals, but Comrade Bush The Father DID something to declare with official force that the criminals are the good guys. He violated the plain prohibition against double jeopardy and retried the cops who had beaten Rodney King. For Comrade Bush The Father, only cops can be criminals, and no contrary result could be allowed to stand. He was willing to retry the case forever until he got the CORRECT result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find your comment very interesting. The accused officers were acquitted because it couldn't be proved that they were the ones who beat King. If they were the ones who did it, as your comment suggests, then the 'correct' result would have been to find them guilty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere was never any doubt that the accused officers were the ones who beat King. Their fellow officers testified to it, and they admitted it in court.
The case came down to the claim that the beatings were excessive. When shown the entire video, plus police testimony regarding what happened prior to and after the video, the juries rightly found the officers not guilty of using excessive force.
For example, every time King laid down, the beatings stopped. When he tried to get up, they started again. When he laid down again, they stopped.
Unfortunately, most of the country had been conditioned by seeing a few seconds of the video, played over and over again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The London riots have already kicked off the latest version of the seemingly never-ending debate over whether such events should be seen primarily as political protests by the powerless, or as out-and-out lawbreaking and vandalism."
There's an easy way to tell: rioters fold like a cheap tent in the face of a strong police presence, while protesters mostly stand their ground. Given that dynamic, I'm guessing things will be much quieter tonight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven recent history, "strong police presence" is an oxymoron when it comes to Great Britain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou forgot to plug your book.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe knew that you would do it for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“The Los Angeles riots reflect a deep distrust and disaffection with the existing power pattern in our society.”
I still can't quite believe we elected as president a man who intentionally used a phrase like "existing power pattern" and thought it was insightful.
Ahhh, the rot of po-mo academia...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou need a hobby. Something other than conjecture based on what someone said twenty years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStanley, when you cherry-pick one sentence from a 20-year-old memo that doesn't support your hypothesis, simply saying "that's Alinsky-speak" doesn't make your hypothesis magically true.
I can't believe we lost the House to you guys.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou need a hobby. Something other than conjecture writing based on something someone said twenty years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow! I am truly ashamed for your. As a life time conservative, I find the use of such spin tactics to be highly unethical and immoral. You've taken snippets from a 20 year old press release and put them in Obama's mouth.
In doing so, you have done what would have expected of Pravda as it used to destroy Soviet opponents.
Conservative intellectualism once held a strong, respected place. Now, as you've proved, it seems to be lost, replaced by a thuggish intent to smear opponents.
What has become of honor and integrity? When did they shrivel and die, only to be replaced with a ruthless pursuit of winning at any cost?
As I raise my children, I find it hard to point to many conservatives as role models. Often, I hear them lie and dishonestly disparage opponents. As a Christian, how can tell my children to admire men and women who have little adherence to the values that I admire and desire to teach my daughters.
I don't exaggerate when I say that I find the presidential candidates dispiriting. Romney changed his positions so often in the 2008 campaign it made my head spin. Michelle Bachman..Lord help her, FactCheck.org must have a terabyte of her falsehoods. Rudy Giuliani cheated on two wives. Newt Gingrich cheated on two wives. Rick Perry...
Where is the strong man or woman with solid integrity who can fight for conservative values with honesty, compassion, and toughness?
Forgive my ramble, but after watching the mess in Washington, I find myself deeply affected. It seems that common sense is lost. There is no common will to save this country. Instead, ideological wars are tearing the country apart, dooming us to another recession and needless human suffering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "Conservative intellectualism" whose absense you lament, in fact, disappeared about half way during the George W. Bush administration. Juicy talking points are now far more important than objective fact-based analysis. Most of the preposterous attacks against Obama fit into this category as well, from the birth certificate nonsense to the "Kenyan Anti-Colonialist" BS: This has become a meme on the right: Don't worry about how idiotic your argument might be. Just SAY IT, and so long as it is something that your fellow righties WANT to be true, they will assume it to be true.
Frankly, what we need is not the "Conservative intellectualism" that you note, but "Intellectual Conservatism" . . . of the sort that WFB advocated, which no longer exists at NR, let alone NRO. A shame, say I.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm curious, did the death of "conservative intellectualism" occur before or after the liberal intellectuals accused Bush of working with Mossad to blow up the WTC and fire a missle into the pentagon?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for such an honest answer to this absolute garbage of a column. I am British and am weeping over the destruction in my homeland and to have this intellectual midget use it as fodder to smear the President is just beyond the pale.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you, intelligent National Review readers, for calling this ridiculous garbage what it is.
Did this actually appear in the NR? If so, how embarrassing for its editors! The author is obviously beyond shame.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Kurtz brings up a good point. The Left will look at these London riots, and, combined with all the other European riots, come to the conclusion that this is a reaction to the austerity processes(which some are) and a reaction to capitulation to capitalism in general. This will make them very afraid of doing any sort of austerity measures here, or appearing sympathetic to any businesses. The results are not good. Truly the need for Republicans (guided by the Tea Party) to take all three houses has never been greater since the time of the party's creation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, how low can you go?
Have you no shame, because you clearly have no honor.
Let's go back and take your yearbook quote and tie it to socialism/communism - I'll bet I could make more of a cogent argument than the garbage presented here.
Who is the enemy of America? Perhaps you should look in the mirror.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYear book quote? You appear to be trying to imply that Mr. Obama's comment was some kind of 'youthful indiscretion' -- as if it is a function of some radical political views he may have once had but has since 'grown out of'.
However, the L.A. riots were less than twenty years ago. Nineteen years ago Barack Obama was 31 years old.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, 1st Amendment and everything, but you can add up all of the defamation and libel exceptions and still not be able to mount a legal defense of this scurrilous garbage. No matter how you view freedom of the press, this is clear bunk with knowledge aforethought of its inherent mendacity and there should be legal means for punishing this atrocious behavior.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse