has left me with a few impressions. I didn’t find anything particularly problematic in the introduction. It appeared to be a fairly academic paper. But, the conclusion leaves an altogether different impression.

“Granted that one city is not a nation, the experience of New York may yet suggest a new solution to this critical problem.” So she seems to be have sympathy for the fact the socialist movement failed by her standards.

Then, on page 130, “The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America….”

Wow.

“Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”

Look for the usual excuses of youth, inexperience, and living in a different era. That is a pretty astonishing passage. This development will make for an interesting confirmation hearing.

I’m really not a conspiracy theory type person, but this is out of control. Obama wants to be judged by the people he surrounds himself with, and the people that keep popping up around him all have the same background, and it involves socialism.

At what point will conservative Democrats wake up, and realize there is no place in the current Democratic party for them. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for liberal/socialist ideas. These conservative Democrats in PA, WV, NC, TN, need to stop hating Republicans, and take a look at what their own party has become.

I found no unique value in this beyond this passage, in her own words on pg. 134, the conclusion:

The story is sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than a half century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.

This paper was solely about the American Socialist movement in NYC in the early 20th century. There is no basis for including the “half century later” allusion as it has absolutely nothing in common with the preceding 133 pages except one; Ms. Kagen wanted to be identified with the Socialist movement of the current day.

Not that it really matters much, especially when Republican Senators have praised her:
Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.).

That McCain decided NOT to call Obama out for his associations.

Her use of the third-person plural (they, their, etc.) indicates that she was writing about socialists, not as one. Cleverly veiled wording worthy of her appointer!

“Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc,
whose involvement lin radical causes led me to explore the
history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my
own political ideas.”

What freaks even know what socialism is in undergrad? I was chasing skirt and playing sports. Only weirdo outcasts get involved in fantasy alternate universes.

Now we just need to find some Senator with enough guts to drag this out into the open!

now more than ever. We know that she’s a Red, the American public will soon know that she’s a Red, and more importantly, Anthony Kennedy (the “swing vote” in the Supreme Court) will know she’s a Red. Her ability to persuade others on the court goes down with every person who sees or hears about her thesis.

Other nominees will be just as socialist, but in this case, we can definitively show that she is one, and that, plus her laughable inability to persuade, will give us a de-facto strict constructionist majority (the original four + Anthony Kennedy). Diane Woods and Cass Sunstein I worry about. Kagan? Not so much.

As a side note, who’s *actually* surprised that she’s a Marxist washup? Put your hand down, David Frum.

she proves that Socialist are the true racists. The early 20th century Socialist Party leaders thought Italians were too religious to conform to Socialism; the Irish had acclimated to American political and economical life (ie. Capitalism) and weren’t interested in Socialism; and the “radical Germans” stayed in Germany while the one who came to America had “little interest in radical causes”. Ya’ think?

What she is describing is socialist leaders preying on new immigrants to join their socialist unions. Hmmm. Funny how history really does repeat itself. It makes me very curious as to Kagan’s views on illegal immigration and amnesty.

certainly not a supporter of the free market or of the constitution. The whole narrative that the left did not like her was just a diversion, they really like her.

Elena Kagan looks like a stealth Anita Dunn now …. total game changer …

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]

“During this time however the SP (Socialist Party) did manage to establish itself as a visible, and even MORE important, an expanding political party”

Right off the bat this Socialist is excited by the expansion of the Socialist Party.

If the Republicans do NOT FIGHT this woman at every turn and STOP HER from being seated on OUR beloved Supreme Court they will have FAILED AMERICA!

You should keep this pinned to the top of the page for the next two weeks.

What can I say upon reading this thesis? It’s really an enormous task just to think about where to begin. Big questions come to mind like: “How have we reached this point? Why have we allowed it to happen?”

The best place to start, though, would be to say this:

Any Republican who doesn’t question Kagan about her Socialism thesis during her confirmation hearings, and make it the most persistent line of questioning they use, repeat and keep repeating until she withdraws her nomination, does not deserve to be in the Congress.

I imagine that’s the reason he won’t release any of his papers, records, or transcripts.

this thesis didn’t “disappear” like all of Obama’s pre-autobiographical writings and Michelle my Belle’s Princeton thesis?

Just move along people.
Nothing to see here.
Move along people.

was a statement made about her opinions of Presidential authority. Does this mean she believes the President should have totalitarian authority to bypass the both the judicial system in this country any time he chooses? Does it mean she believes the President should be allowed the right to over-ride the Constitution every chance he gets?

That’s like feeding the flames of a presidential ego and power that is already beyond pale.

More info at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/

Based on her then-recent experience in the Clinton Administration, she explains that a progressive President needs control over the agencies to press his agenda. “Where once presidential supervision had tended to favor politically conservative positions, it generally operated during the Clinton Presidency as a mechanism to achieve progressive goals. . . . Clinton showed that presidential supervision could jolt into action bureaucrats suffering from bureaucratic inertia in the face of unmet needs and challenges.” (2249).

cross reference Kagan with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals teachings and tell me when your ah ha moment hits,

and tell me if having a Saul Alinsky Socialist;
the diametric opposite to Capitalism ,
the diametric opposite to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,
the diametric opposite to the Declaration of Independence,
the diametric opposite of the US Constitution

will now rule what the Constitution means to Americans.

you better be afraid if Kagan is on the SCOTUS.

Filibuster this Socialist bitch.

1. Unless you get enough to get Collins, Snowe, Brown, and probably Graham, and perhaps others on board, there aren’t the votes for a filibuster.

2. AT MOST we will be able to successfully mount ONE filibuster. If we block Kagan, look at Obama’s short list. You KNOW the arrogant jerk will send up a known extreme lefty like Wood or Thomas, so what do we gain? Kagan is not known for being an influential or persuasive legal thinker, she will have Stevens’ old seat and vote as he always did. Note to conservatives who sat out 2008: elections matter, mmmkay?

If you believe we could mount TWO successful filibusters IN A ROW, you are dumb enough to qualify for an illegal fund-raiser for J.D. Hayworth (motto: “Hayworth – because crooked lunatics deserve a voice, too!”) . . .

Kagan is probably descended from the European Jewish intellectuals who supported Revolution in Russia and worked side by side with Lenin and Stalin to make it happen. Many of them fled the new Soviet Union when Stalin starting murdering them. They left the rest of the people behind to face the gulags and prisons and all the other nice things that socialism offers.

These Mensheviks, called communists in the US, fled in great numbers to NYC. They did not abandon their fervid faith in the beauty of socialism, and their own righteousness but taught it to their children, who taught it to their children. Ruining one country was not enough for these people. Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren form part of today’s hard-core Democrat left. T
And here is another lesson for us from the Kagan school of socialism. The odd thing about the Menshevists is that the word indicates they were a “minority,” while the Bolsheviks were the majority. Lenin, however, saw that a “lie repeated often enough becomes the truth” and he took for his minority faction the name of “Majority” and dubbed the others “Minority” — on the basis of a single motion on which Lenin’s faction won. In reality the Minority (Menshevik) were the majority and the Majority (Bolsheviks) was the minority. But Lenin was a helluva lot smarter than the majority, and he ended up leading the new totaliarian state.

I have a friend who happens to be Jewish. Her father was the child of such immigrants, and he was raised to the left of left, grew up to work for the unions, and refused to fight in WWII because the Socialist International had declared that nobody should fight. How ironic that this man was safe and sound while mainly non-Jews died to liberate his fellow Jews in Europe. And that the progeny of the surviving Jews (as well as my friend and her sister) are in most cases now active supporters of the party that is most appropriate to their socialist views, i.e. the Democrat Party. Kagan is a perfectly natural selection for socialist Obama.

First, to invest all the time of scholarship in this topic indicates a peculiar love of it, and, even with general nonpartisanship, the author’s wording reveals a longing, e.g., “impressive growth”… “impressed socialists and non-socialists alike.”

Also, the actual point of the thesis is to ascertain the reason for the death of the New York Socialist Party, in determination of the reason for the decline of the national SP. It is noteworthy that the class warfare that Socialism purports to remedy is ultimately determined to be the reason for the death of the Local New York – internal class warfare, that is. It is also very telling to read the part about the leaders of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union going against the wishes of the members in negotiations with manufacturers. Hmmm, union leadership that works contrary to the benefit and wishes of its members – seems like I’ve heard something about that before.

As I re-read, I see again things I find especially distasteful, such as the appreciation for the majority socialist Jews (read bamron post above), while Kagan’s writing expresses open derision for the Italian immigrants who eschewed Socialism: they were the “‘weakest in organization,’” their “Old World traditions and experiences had not prepared them” to “participate in party life,” perhaps because “[u]nlike the Jewish artisans, the Italians carne to the U.S. from backward agrarian areas,” or maybe they just “found stability in the New World not through political organizations or trade unions or workmen’s circles, all of which seemed alien institutions — but through family and village ties.” I guess it’s not that hard to see how the collectivists can so easily cast away their family and neighbors.

I see the value in knowing the enemy, but I think maybe I have already read enough of this tripe.

to hang herself. Her conclusion states: “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”

Obama is consistent in that he ONLY appoints radicals. If Van Jones weren’t enough already–conservatives need to do everything possible to expose her for what she is. She may (and will) deny that she’s a socialist, but she cannot deny her sympathy toward the Socialist Party.

I question who backs the Newspapers? If this whole extremist group had been exposed during the campaign, we would not be at this point. But the papers lauded him and mislead most of America. Installing the Democratic congress to tank the nation during the last two years of Bush in office and then blaming him. Why wasn’t he more vocal? The movement seems to be fueled by hatred of the common man. They question how could love and tolerance propelled us to be te greatest nation. The Socialist movement seems like a snake slinking in the background always ready to strike, just for the sake of hurt.
She cannot be put into the supreme court with her background of what is right and what is wrong. As a judge she would of been disbarred. Notice she probably already knew that and did not take that path.
Any Republican who goes along with her nomination is not a Republican and will be voted out of office. This part of history is never told or taught in our schools. Again all unionised teachers. I know not all teachers think this way, but they are in the minority. This is scary.

I have read the “dedication” and preparing to read the thesis itself… if the “Dedication” reminded me of an interview with then Sen Obama as he described those individuals he sought to associate with while going to school…

For now, I will leave you all with the below quote from Norman Thomas (1884-1968), who was interviewed during one of his US Presidential Campaigns in the Forties… Google it!

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Speaking of’ better than you’ Pay attention to Obamlini poses.
BENITO MUSSOLINI

KAGAN WROTE:

“Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”

SUPPOSE WE APPLIED THE SAME STATEMENT TO THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT?…

“[THE TEA PARTY IS AT RISK OF] succumbing to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if history of [AMERICA] shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”

In this context, the statement seems perfectly reasonable. While it’s not entirely accurate to characterize the Tea Party movement as “American radicals,” its supporters are definitely in favor of radical change of the status quo.

The point is that her statement alone is not an explicit embrace of socialism and on the surface, seems to be stating the obvious. HOWEVER, as a thesis, it is intended to have deeper meaning than just what appears on the surface. It will require serious inquiry and an explanation (especially when viewed within the context of the Cold War), but it seems highly unlikely it will be the one thing that torpedoes her nomination.

The thesis examined socialists in New York City, and their eventual disintegration into irrelevance. It didn’t promote them. To try to label Kagan a socialist for that essay is an exercise in willful stupidity, something the far right wing in this country has never shrunk from.

I find it humorous that Eric would take the copyrighted work of another and distribute it freely to the public – *in order to claim that she is a socialist*.

Private property rights used to be a “conservative” value, dude. Man up and apologize. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like her, it’s not ok to take her copyrighted work and post it.

-Walt

I have read sections of Kagan’s paper and read the whole of the chapters on the Socialist-Communist split and the Socialist-Communist conflict within the New York unions, especially the ILGWU, as well as her conclusions.

What is most striking about her views is not so much that she lamented the failure of any form of radicalism to take root in America due to the “devastating bane of sectarianism.” Rather, it is that she clearly was sympathetic to one group of sectarians in this inter-necine quarrel o the left — namely, the Communists.

The whole point of the paper was to demonstrate that the Socialist leadership of the unions, specifically the ILGWU was at odds with its worker members and that the Communists within the ILGWU and the other New York needle trades unions were more dedicated to the workers’ interests. She regurgitates at almost every point what were essentially Communist Party polemics directed against Morris Hillquit and the rest of the “right wing” leadership of the Socialist party and the unions, asserting or implying that Hillquit, et al. were in league with the bosses. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the ILG’s history and that of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers would know this is pure poppycock.

While the Communists of the 20s and 30s were interested in using unions as a weapon to foster worldwide revolution, most unions and union members wanted better contracts, not chaos. UnderHillquit, Dubinsky and Sydney Hillman, the ILGWU and the Amalgamated became huge and highly successful unions with more than a million members at their peak. These unions were part of the fabric of NYC life and politics. They provided much of the framework in which millions of European immigrants became middle class.

Even more remarkably, Kagan takes the Communist line about garment industry violence, casting it as having been exaggerated or a matter of both Socialist and Communist sides deploying “thugs.” The truth is that Communists sought many times to disrupt Socialist and union meetings and ILG and Amalgamated leaders had to carry pistols to protect themselves against assassination.

Perhaps she was just trying to please her professor, but it seems unlikely that she would have had to take the Communist side of this historic struggle to do so.