What the Three Peoples Want from Society

The problem for our modern society is that we have three distinct kinds of people living around us, and many of those people are not "us" but "them." When we are confronted by the fact that other people are different and want different things out of life and society, we get mad.

But the beginning of wisdom is to understand why other people are different and why what they want -- and what they do not want -- makes complete sense, if you try to understand a little about what makes them tick. So let us think about what our Three Peoples -- the People of the Subordinate Self, the People of the Responsible Self, and the People of the Creative Self -- want from society and this life on Earth.

The People of the Subordinate Self, unquestionably, what someone to take charge and relieve them from the responsibility of making tough decisions -- that very likely will be wrong decisions -- in this life. But, as Georg Simmel reminds us, though people want to follow a leader they also resent the leader. So I dare say that the more you lust after a leader the more you are likely to rail against him for not providing perfection for you. No doubt people in a hierarchical organization like a big corporation or a government office choose that employment for the presumed safety. But once comfortably tucked up in bed they immediately complain if their needs are not met, and the well-deserved promotion is not obtained. And, of course, the presumed safety is often an illusion, for the safety promised by the organization lasts only so long as the subordinate remains useful to the organization's goals and timetables, and so long as the organization thrives.

Above all, I suspect, the People of the Subordinate Self want to live in a group that approximates the personal relationships of the village, where the Big Man runs things and the men know their position in the hierarchy. In such a world, a man knows who he is and where he stands among his brothers. And if he wants to change things then he has to have the courage of his fists.

The People of the Responsible Self are people that have reconciled themselves to living in the city. They understand that the only guy that's going to look after their interests is them. It is a curious thing to behold, for the main difference between the Subordinate and the Responsible is that the Responsible subordinates himself to the market and society and its norms in general rather than to a leader and his group in particular. The Responsible individual accepts responsibility for making his way in the world: choosing a job or career, a spouse, a home, to insure against the perils of life. And yet, for all that, he probably lives a pretty conventional life, accepting the norms dished out by society without question. One might very well ask: what really is the difference between life as a subordinate peasant and a responsible citizen? In the end they stand and fall by the success of the society and the group they live in.

So what is the difference? I think it is symbolized by the "get on your bike" phrase that made British politician Norman Tebbit famous and scandalized the North London luvvies.

I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot; he got on his bike and looked for work and he kept looking 'til he found it.

The other version of this is "when the going gets tough the tough get going" quote attributed to football coach John Thomas of the Green Hornets. The truth is, of course, that we are all hostages to history, and there may be little each of us can do to change our lives and rise above our misfortunes. But for the People of the Responsible Self the idea that the individual has control of his fate is central to his faith.

If the People of the Subordinate Self are focused on what society should do for them, and the People of the Responsible Self are focused on what they can do for themselves, the People of the Creative Self have a different point of view. What gets them up in the morning is what society should do for them so that they can gloriously transform society with amazing creative innovation.

It's obvious. The entrepreneur wants to amaze us with his amazing startup. But without society right there as unformed clay and willing consumers, the poor chap is just mucking around in his garage. And what kind of a life is that, Steve? The activist wants to amaze us with his activism and his organization of helpless victims into a peaceful protest that will awake the conscience of the world. But unless society is a vast impersonal mass, what kind of scope does this ambitious little Hitler have to wield the power of activism in the world? The artist and writer wants to paint a picture of some imagined world that either evokes timeless verities or imagines verities waiting to be born. What would be the use of living in a little village that does not afford the genius global scope? The politician is just a village Big Man or a local yokel unless he gets to become a United States Senator and hector witnesses from on high, or run for President and direct traffic across the entire world. If you want power you have to have power over something, and the bigger the better.

Let's look at things the other way. Suppose you wanted to rile up the People of the Subordinate Self, what would you do? You would show them the man behind the curtain and show them what they don't want to know, that this world is uncertain and contingent, and the people in charge really don't know what they are doing, and will abandon them when the going gets tough.

Suppose you wanted to rile up the People of the Responsible Self, what would you do? You would force them to contribute to all kinds of government programs and take away their imagined agency. And you would criminalize their religious faith and make life difficult for voluntary organizations. And you would call them racists, sexists, and homophobes.

How to rile up the People of the Creative Self? I know! Enforce the First and Second Amendments. End government subsidies for the arts. Make activists pay for the "hate" they stir up. End government education. Make colleges personally responsible for the "mostly" part of their peaceful protests. And reduce government so that politicians are playing with nickels and dimes instead of billions and trillions.

But there is a serious side to this. The more we understand that there is a good reason why other people are different, the more we will put teeth in the notion "why don't we all just get along."

And in the end, people are people.

Lefties: Getting the Hero's Journey Upside Down

I believe, following the logic of my reductive Three Peoples theory, that the tripartite nature of our modern society requires that the elites realize that each of the Three Peoples really does live in a different world, and that the essence of wise governance is to respect that different People will want and need -- and deserve -- the right the live their lives according to their lights.

Of course if you believe, as I do, that the fundamental nature of the creative person is that they must follow the Hero's Journey, first into the underworld of the unconscious and then into the sacrificial role of exploring the boundary between Order and Chaos, between the known and the unknown, then you will understand this. The Hero is the sacrificial Christ-like figure, reprising the role of the Son, like Marduk, Horus, and Co.

The antithesis of the Sacrificial Hero is what John Ralston Saul in Voltaire's Bastards calls the Egoistic Hero. You can see what is going on here. The man that works on the border between Order and Chaos, discovering new knowledge and power, is a very dangerous person. So it is bad enough if he is a modest sort of chap. But if he has delusions of grandeur, then it is Katy bar the door.

And, if you didn't get the point, the 20th century has produced magnificent specimens of the genus Egoistic Hero, from Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to Mao and beyond.

Our problem today is that the more influential members of our ruling class, as People of the Creative Self, have institutionalized the Egoistic Hero as the best and most wonderful thing in the world, unless he is a businessman or a right-wing politician.

Creatives of all kinds: artists, writers, intellectuals, activists, politicians, gurus; these are celebrated as the highest and best of all humans and deserving prizes, accolades, pensions, and human material on which to experiment. Every youngster from an educated home dreams of a life of creativity; that is what he has been carefully taught.

But I think the opposite is true. I think that young people should be discouraged from a life of creativity. The truth is that most people should just do the right thing and live lives of wiving and thriving. The whole creativity thing just encourages people to shortchange their life on the wiving and thriving front, and this is a great social danger, because Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

You can see the result of the celebration of the creative life. People are encouraged to think contributing to the economy, finding a life partner, and having children is not all that great shakes. They are encouraged to dream up some creative sexual identity for themselves that is a lot funner than the dull routine of selecting a life partner and being true to her through thick and thin. They are encouraged to spend their twenties "finding themselves" in some yeasty urban safe space rather than getting a job.

The truth is that the creative Hero's Journey is, in great part, an anti-social path, which will probably end in failure and misery. Because many are called but few are chosen. He who descends into the underworld of the unconsciousness will probably disappear forever, mourned only by his mother. Only he who can get through the descent into the underworld and learn its lessons can hope to return to the social world and bestow on his fellows the benison of the wisdom he learned in the darkness of the underworld.

In other words: you really don't want to try out for the Hero's Journey. You have no idea what you are signing up for.

The truth, I think is contained in the notion expressed in my latest American Thinker piece:

The Jungians, guys like Jordan Peterson, say that the crux of all religion is the hero, the Christ-like figure, that sacrifices himself exploring the border between Order and Chaos, between the known and the unknown, so that the rest of us get to the Promised Land.

But our lefty creative friends think that they get to go to the Promised Land, and the deplorables get to be sacrificed.

No, no. True religion is not like that, lefties. Trouble is that, so long as you chaps live like Alice in your Wonderland, so long will millions suffer and die for your conceit and your folly. Because that is what happens when an egoistic activist organizes millions of victims and then fails to deliver, as Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Castro and Chávez and Maduro failed to deliver.

Oh and don't forget Barack Obama. He went down to South Chicago for a year to organize the laid-off steelworkers. Only he discovered it was too hard. So he went to graduate school instead.

If you want to be an activist and save the victims; an artist to discover a whole new vision; a writer to describe a whole new world, you should understand that this is hard, much harder than you can possibly imagine.

And at the end of it you must submit to the Sacrifice and become a scapegoat. Because that is the fate of he that toils at the border between Order and Chaos, between the Known and the Unknown.

Notice how that updates the notion of the scapegoat in Rene Girard's Violence and the Sacred. In Girard's notion the community chooses a scapegoat as a sacrifice to heal its divisions. In the Jungian Peterson vision the scapegoat offers himself to be sacrificed.

Until you understand that, you understand nothing.

Oberlin: Generals Fighting the Last War

I don't think that the president and administration of Oberlin College is evil for defaming and libeling the good folks at the Gibson Bakery.

I just think they are fools and knaves. And this is a much bigger problem than we think.

Back in the day, in the Cold War, our liberal friends used to virtue-signal about "generals fighting the last war." That was in the days, if you remember, when Pentagon generals were represented in the average newspaper cartoon as cartoon figures with dark glasses, an expressionless and craggy face, and a chest full of ribbons: military robots.

Not that liberals have ever bothered to educate themselves about war and strategy or anything like that.

Anyone that has thought a minute about war would recognize that it is almost inevitable that generals would be preparing the fight the last war all over again. What else are they going to do until the next war actually starts and they find out what works and what doesn't in the new situation?

Moreover there is the bureaucratic effect, for bureaucracies are top-down entities, designed and implemented to get the poor suckers at the point of the spear to risk their lives for:-- something or other. So no bureaucracy, including an army, is going to change unless forced to by the immediate threat of defeat and disgrace.

Now, I think that in the modern world this "generals fighting the last war" applies to nothing so much as all the institutions of the left and the welfare state. If you come up with a plan for reforming anything that deviates from just spreading out more money you come up against a brick wall of opposition, from everyone. The voters don't like it because they have arranged their lives around the status quo. The politicians don't like it because the voters don't like it, and the bureaucrats don't like it because all they know is how the program works right now and they risk getting the blame if anything changes.

So I look at the women administrators at Oberlin College -- Carmen Twillie Ambar, president; Meredith Raimondo, vice-president and dean of students; etc. -- and understand exactly what is going on. These women are idiots that have acquired their positions without a clue about what in the world a college is for and, more important, what it will have to become in the future. They are just bureaucratic numbskulls that have been carefully taught in the current culture of lefty diversity and inclusion and that is all they know.

Now, because I am a sexist, I believe that women are peculiarly ill-adapted to the governance of institutions. Their culture of complaint and their instinct for manipulation are excellent for the primary function of women, which is to keep their kids alive, and for community-of-women relationships. But women very seldom have any strategic sense -- beyond the obvious one of knowing how to manipulate personal and social relationships.

So if you are a woman administrator at a college like Oberlin you really have no idea, beyond performing the rituals set forth by your liberal predecessors. Intersectionality and diversity and inclusion and safe spaces and microaggressions are the meat and drink of a good little girl that has graduated into college administration and she has no idea, and no inkling of an idea, that she has any responsibility beyond the proper observance of the Elevation of the Host during the liberal Eucharist.

When people express their pessimism about the future of America, I instinctively agree, but I also know, because I have studied it, that rulers that have inherited their thrones -- and their courtiers too -- tend to have no idea what they are doing. They go through the motions of the celebrations of pomp and majesty and they punish dissenters and rebels, but really don't understand what they are doing at a deep level.

Now I think that the founders of the left were geniuses. Marx's idea of forming a coalition between well-born rich kids and the workers was brilliant, especially since the middle class then and now is a tolerant and kindly bunch that can be persuaded to be sorry for the folks that do the dirty work and don't get much in return. And it didn't hurt that the working class was the biggest class.

It was also brilliant for the Frankfurt School to realize that the left needed new recruits as the middle class expanded and workers started movin' on up. Thus women and minorities.

But the problem is that lefty politics doesn't really do much for its clients, other than passing out loot taken from the middle class. It is really cool, of course, for the well-born scions of the educated class, who get to staff the bureaucracy and run the universities. Not only that, but the record of the last century is unequivocal: if lefty politics actually results in a socialist state, it ends in ruin.

And lefty politics works by demonizing the middle class as white patriarchal supremacists, or whatever the pejorative du jour is.

You get to the point where the major institutions of lefty supremacy are run by scions, sons and daughters of the dynastic founders, that really don't have a strategic sense of what they are doing, and how the world really works outside their ruling-class bubble.

It is my suspicion -- nay, hope -- that we are at that point now. That the liberal elite really doesn't understand the way the world works nowadays, and that we are gong to see them flailing around helplessly as the world turns.

And so I think we are going to see more Oberlins: clueless liberal administrators flying up box canyons and terrified when they realize that there is no way out, no way back, nothing but the hope that everyone doesn't get killed when the plane crashes into the canyon wall.

Because the joke about "generals fighting the last war" is a pretty sad joke. Fighting the last war is what all of us do. All of us. even well-born liberals. It is only the crazies and the whackos that can see round corners. And usually they are wrong.

The Problem with Legislating Through the Courts

What is the Constitution for? And the courts of law?

It's a good question, and I doubt if anyone has a firm answer.

We can see, however, that the Constitution is still a bloody miracle, and its Electoral College a proof of God's existence. Why? Because the Electoral College is an immensely cunning institution that forces presidential candidates to campaign in the tossup states. So, to win the election you have to put together a coalition of states. And remember this here is the United STATES of America.

The courts of law, I would argue, are for the discovery of issues. Every suit at law is a mess of dashed expectations, and it is the job of the lawyers and judges to try and clear away the brushwood and figure out how to limit the damage.

But our modern elite has decided to use the Constitution and the courts to legislate issues that could not pass in the legislature. It's not surprising. The Founders called the judicial branch of government the aristocratic branch. There's a natural temptation among the best people to push their agenda through the courts because they have the inside track on smart people that have a way with words.

The problem is that judicial decisions aren't really dispositive. Here's an issue that is dispositive. Back in the 1980s, with the rise of the religious right, the religious right in Washington State put up a couple of Initiatives to limit abortion. The Initiatives failed to pass. So abortion is not an issue in Washington State, because the people have spoken.

The problem with Roe v. Wadeισ is that the people have not spoken. Abortion, if you ask me, should be decided in the legislature, not in the courts. See, one thing about legislation is that in order to pass it you have to put together a coalition of interests, and you have to negotiate with all the interests before you cobble together the ugly thing we call a compromise.

Right now, with Roe v. Wade, we have an abortion law that suits the well-born white women that need to control their baby-making so it doesn't interfere with their careers. For lower class women it is different.

Often, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is encouraged by the “sperm donor” who threatens abandonment when faced with the responsibilities of child rearing. The patient is often subjected to family pressure... [to] "make others happy".

What current abortion law does not do it suit the tastes and morals of ordinary middle-class women for whom family and children are the meaning of life. Notice the difference between classes. For the well-born the issue is fitting child-bearing in with all the other things in a rich and blended life. For the lower class it is about deferring to other peoples' needs.

And that is a microcosm of life today in the good old USA. The left is all about implementing its version of the good life, and feeling good about advocating for victims. The middle class is just trying to live its life of following the rules, going to work, obeying the law and wiving and thriving.

And right now the middle class thinks it don't get no respect.

The problem is that the middle class has not really had a say in a bunch of things because they have been decided in the courts, the aristocratic branch of government, rather than in the legislature, the democratic branch of government.

And the ruling class of the better educated and their clients among the traditionally marginalized are terrified that if they lose control of the courts then their whole world view comes crashing down: abortion, gay marriage, diversity and inclusion, government-worker pensions.

Hey, ruling class. Maybe it wasn't so smart of you to found your house upon the shifting sands of the courts rather than the rock of the legislature.

Trump Russia is a Case of Government Operating as Designed

In a piece about the culture at the FBI during the late spying operation on the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump, Victor Davis Hanson asks the question about the culture at the FBI.

[If the culture of the FBI is] exempt from the widespread wrongdoing at the top... where exactly [did] Peter Strzok (22 years in the FBI) learned that he had a right to interfere in a U.S. election to damage a candidate that he opposed.

And

why would an Andrew McCabe (over 21 years in the FBI) think he had the duty to formulate an “insurance policy” to take out a presidential candidate?

The answer, of course, is quite simple. The whole point of an administrative bureaucracy like an army or a government department is to put the chaps in the hierarchy and especially on the front line into a situation where the natural and obvious thing is to follow the orders from on high.

So if someone in the hierarchy decides upon some course of action, it is sensible for everyone under him to follow orders. Indeed, it would be crazy for anyone not to follow orders. That way leads to a quick exit from the bureaucracy and no pension thank you very much.

So the "widespread wrongdoing at the top" is probably merely "the top" following orders from their superiors in the White House -- or perhaps following the nods and winks from the White House.

Plus, given that everyone knew that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, it would be career suicide to start balking at the effort to keep an eye on Trump, just in case. People in the new Clinton White House would know about the problem chappie at the FBI that wasn't on the team.

The unusual thing is for the director of some bureau to ignore orders from on high, as the guy in charge of the Venona project intercepting and decrypting Soviet communications did back in the 1940s.

The only reason that Venona survived, allowing us to later reconstruct the fateful politics of that era, was that the determined Military Intelligence officer in charge of the project risked a court-martial by directly disobeying the explicit Presidential order and continuing his work.

Normally the bureaucrat in question will go with the flow, because that is the natural and physical thing for a guy in an administrative hierarchy to do.

So, before criticizing any government department or program for its failures, one must start from the fact that 97.2 percent of bureaucrats are going to go with the flow and do whatever they are told. Because they know what is good for them.

Thus, it is laughable to criticize, for example, former Nazi officials for "following orders." Anyone saying that hasn't stopped for a moment to think about the nature of an administrative hierarchy. What is remarkable is to discover a mid-level bureaucrat that is not following orders.

And on that front the case of Bruce and Nellie Ohr is instructive.

Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr was perfectly positioned to advance the Russia collusion narrative. He had a rare set of relationships -- ties to opposition researchers and the FBI -- and would use his links to both in 2016 to connect federal law enforcement to those advancing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.

See, his wife Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS, the chaps that were financing the Steele dossier. So

when Steele invited her [Nellie] and her husband [Bruce] to breakfast at the Mayflower Hotel on July 30, 2016. “Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce would put in a word with the FBI to follow up on the information in some way.”

And he did, because he knew FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page. Yeah. So personal relationships can trump the hierarchical relationships of the bureaucracy.

How dare, how dare those scumbags hold that meeting on My Birthday!

And, wouldn't you know, Bruce Ohr never mentioned on his Form 278e Public Financial Disclosure Report, as he was required to do, that his wife was something more than an "independent contractor."

My point is that if you don't want government functionaries spying on political campaigns or putting a word in with a friend among the higher-ups then you shouldn't give government the power in the first place.

Because the mid-level functionary is normally going to "follow orders" from the chap at the top. And the only time he is likely to deviate from that rule is when he has some personal relationship that encourages him to inject that into the bureaucratic process.

That's what happened in the Trump Russia spying operation and that is what will happen next time. Because that is how administrative bureaucracies operate and that is how the guys at the top want them to operate.

Why Have Humans Taught Ourselves to Hate Sex and Ourselves?

One the the benefits of reading Nietzsche is that he throws up ideas as a challenge. He makes an outrageous comment, and he makes you think.

The major thing for me is Nietzsche's attack on Good and Evil and "the priests" that taught us to hate ourselves.

In the old days, Nietzsche proposes, we hated our enemies as good manly men should do. But now we are wimps and last men.

That made me think: What is the point of things like Original Sin? And then I decided that the reason was probably that when people live in large communities, cities even, the men can't go around hating their enemies all the time. The city is about cooperation and the division of labor, in which no man is an island, entire of itself. So quarrelsome men are a problem.

Back-biting women are something else, but we are not talking about that today.

So I would say that, in a city, it is social beneficial if people look at themselves and blame themselves occasionally rather than doing the usual thing and blaming other people for everything. OK, maybe, maybe not. Do you have a better idea?

So now I am reading Robertson Davies' Fifth Business, part one of his Deptford trilogy. (I bought the book at a used bookstore in Coupeville, WA, and the guy in the store wanted to look at the first page: Yes, he said, this is the very book I first read 40 years ago). The first part of the book deals with small-town life in Deptford, near Toronto, and the whole question of dirty sex.

Why, I thought, has this notion of sex being dirty come about? And then I came up with an answer. If you teach women that sex is dirty then they will believe it is dirty like the Good Little Girls they are. And that means that they will have a lot less sex than if they have been carefully taught to look forward to a nightly roll in the hay with hubby. And they will likely have less children. So maybe the "sex is dirty" meme is merely the birth control of olden times. It is curious, is it not, that the modern era celebrates sex-is-fun with the full benefit of the Pill and abortion on demand. OK. Maybe, maybe not. Do you have a better idea?

Another interesting meme in Fifth Business is that the women -- in 1908 -- run the village, mainly because the men do not want to ruin their home lives by disagreeing with their wives. Hello patriarchy?

Do you men connect with this? That it is just not worth proving your point with your wife? Because domestic tranquility? I talked with a guy 15 years ago that spoke about The Catalog. Every time he and his wife had a disagreement his wife would recite The Catalog: all the bad things he had done since they had first met.

OK. I admit I am not impartial in this. I take the position that everything the left proposes is a Bad Idea. The only question is to determine Why.

So there you have it. We think used to think sex is dirty because it helped control over-population, and we hate ourselves because it helps us live in a city of strangers.

There is more stuff like this out there. I know it.

The Left's Practice of Politics

Let us try to understand what the left is doing with its political practice.

I maintain that politics is all about protection. The only warrant for government is existential peril, meaning usually that "our people" are threatened by some invader and conqueror. A people thus threatened are going to coalesce around some leader that promises to protect them from the invader.

When I say "our people" I invoke my theory of "fake tribalism" from my reading of H.R. Hallpike in How We Got Here and On Primitive Society. Hallpike represents modern anthropology as finding that tribalism is a new human invention. The hunter-gatherers didn't have it; members of a hunter-gatherer band that got into an argument with their brothers would just leave and join another band. Tribalism didn't really start until humans started living in villages where they didn't all know each other, and started to coalesce into groups of "we" that protected each other against some "they" in the village. Human tribalism is a recent phenomenon, that probably goes back a mere 15,000 years, max.

In other words, humans in villages that exceeded about 2,500 inhabitants organized themselves exactly like a modern city of immigrants that sorts itself out into ethnic neighborhoods. So I interpret the ethnic neighborhoods of modern cities as people of a previous political entity coming together in a strange land for self-protection.

So I maintain that if you are a would-be leader your task is to define a threat and organize an "our people" to fight that threat. Equally, if you are a group of people that find yourselves under threat then you need to find a leader and a means to forge common identity and interest and use that as a basis for organizing a new tribe.

I propose that the formation of nation states in Europe was a response to a threat, that if the groups of principalities in an area did not combine into a nation then they would be vulnerable to conquest and domination by the neighbor that was so organized.

I argue that the fundamental invention of the left is to convert this notion into organization of sub-national tribes. Thus Marx proposed the tribe of "the workers" that needed to combine under the leadership of vanguard intellectuals and activists in order to avoid being annihilated -- "immiserated" --by bourgeois capitalist predators. I am not arguing here about whether Marx was right in his analysis, but that he certainly succeeded in persuading a bunch of people that he was right.

Notice that there are two possibilities for the emergence of a tribe of "the workers." First would be the spontaneous eruption of a sense of threat among the workers resulting in a search for a leader to protect them. The other possibility is for someone wanting to lead the workers reaching out to them and teaching them to experience themselves as a group under threat.

In my judgment the spontaneous organization of the workers would only occur in a period when the workers were experiencing serious existential peril, such a decline in their industry that would encourage their employers to cut wage rates, or in a general economic crisis. The first kind of action has historically occurred in riots of "saboteurs," or workers making "sabots," or in the riots of agricultural workers in England during the "Captain Swing" riots in the 1820s when landless agricultural laborers were finding themselves replaced by threshing machines. A general economic crisis involving universal suffering tended, in olden times to involve "bread riots," or the lower orders looting food to stay alive.

Leftists have amended and extended the Marxian notion into a general politics of victimhood, in which well-born activists scour the world for a new victim class to represent. This usually involves actual outreach by the activist in question and "raising the consciousness" of the individuals in the target group to teach them how they are victims and how political action would improve their situation. In other words, activists do not wait for people to discover their oppression; it is the job of the activist to discover oppression and then organize the oppressed into a political movement. This was the script being followed by "community organizer" Barack Obama when he went as a young man to South Chicago to organize the laid-off steelworkers there.

Of interest is whether the well-born activist actually helps. Does he identify a problem? Is it a problem that politics can help rectify? Does he propose a solution that would actually help? Will his solution help long-term, or only short-term? And how would he or anyone else know?

We shall return to investigate various left-wing organizing attempts and see whether leftism works.