Elena Kagan’s College Thesis Surfaces

Yeah, we already knew that Elena Kagan had mentioned Socialism in her college thesis. We knew that she was….a fan.

But until now, I didn’t know how big a  fan she was…

Erick Erickson has dug up the entire thesis.

Doug Ross has excepts up at his site:

Acknowledgements …I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas…

…most historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism’s failure…

…the American socialists· “failure to build a movement that even resembled Sombart’s idealized notion of a class-conscious party–a failure which they shared with most of their European counterparts–did not render their party any less significant. Nor did such a failure render their party any less successful…

[To explain why the] American socialist movement of the Progressive Era suddenly fell apart… we must turn to the internal workings and problems of the socialist movement itself.

…the dissolution of the Socialist Party resulted not from the walkout of the syndicalists in 1912 but from the infinitely more disastrous departure of the communists seven years later…

…[Early on] the [American] socialists divided into two camps: those of “constructive” and “revolutionary” socialism.

…the Russian Revolution set the spark to their long-smoldering rebellion, and the Socialist Party burst into flames. In 1919, the SP split into two, and the New York City communist movement emerged… by the last 1920’s, the socialist movement in New York City was dead.

…The SP’s first priority was to prepare for revolution than to work for reforms — to bring ultimate salvation rather than immediate relief.

Conservative craft unions could not develop the unity and class consciousness that alone would lead workers to vote the socialist ticket. They could not compel a resistant capitalist class to accept an SP electoral victory. Nor could they prepare the workers for the administration of industry in the cooperative commonwealth. According to such left-wing leaders as Boudin and Slobodin, then, the socialists needed to do all in their power to set New York’s unions on a militant path. If that meant interfering with some other “arm”, so be it.

…Most historians have viewed World War I as an unqualified disaster for the American socialist movement…

You can almost picture her weeping hot, bitter, tears during this part….

Here’s  her conclusion:

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United 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… Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?

…[America’s] societal traits… a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy [prosperity]… prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism…

…Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism… to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered.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

…if the 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.

Dealbreaker?

Allahpundit thinks not. Apparently everyone was a radical in college, or something. Who knew? I wasn’t—but maybe I didn’t go to the right school?

The opinion that these folks’ ideas have most likely evolved significantly since their radical college days, I think is a mistaken one. I think many of the Democrat Socialists we see in government, today,  were radicalized in college, (like Hillary), and stayed radical. In Obama’s case…he was radical before he even started college – he sought out the Marxist professors, etc, etc.

Look…I had Obama pegged back in the Spring of ’08, when I noticed his disturbing pattern of friends, associates, and supporters. Hannity did a show about Obama’s ties to radicals in the Fall of ’08, and again last Fall, another one exposing the disturbing pattern of radical appointees in Obama’s administration:

This ain’t rocket science. Kagan is a fellow traveler, and incidentally – Elena Kagan was finally caught on tape saying something important…damn, Barack Obama is awesome.

Yeah, she’s a huge fan of the Bamster, too.

See also:

Verum Serum: Imagine the Reaction if Bush Nominee for Supreme Court Taught a Course on “Presidential Lawmaking”

MORE:

This bit, here is particularly galling:

…[America’s] societal traits… a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy [prosperity]… prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism…

Too much. The fact that Capitalism was working, was almost enough to destroy the Socialist movement, darn it all. But since true Utopia doesn’t take place until complete equality of outcome has been achieved, the Statists kept on trying.

Elena Kagan must have been doing cartwheels the day Obama was elected.

MORE:

Morgan at Verum Serum has found another link to the chain of evidence that Kagan is a raging Socialist::

Last night I discovered that in 2006 Kagan made a maximum contribution ($500) to the campaign of John Bonifaz, who was running for the Democratic nomination to be Secretary of the Commonwealth of MA. Bonifaz, it turns out, is about as far as left as you can get without joining the Bernie Sanders fan club. His opponent in the race actually accused him of being a closet Green Party supporter, which of course is the polite way to accuse someone of being a socialist. But forget labels, here are just a few facts which establish Bonifaz’ far left credentials:

• Authored the 2004 book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush
• His only national-level political endorsements in 2006 were from Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, and Jesse Jackson, Jr.
• Early national board member of the Progressive Democrats of America, whose platform includes ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, establishing single-payer health care, enacting the Employee Free Choice Act, and opposing all free-trade agreements. Current advisory board members include Maxine Waters, Raul Grijalva, Lynn Woolsey, and for good measure SDS founder Tom Hayden.

It should also be emphasized that this was the primary campaign to unseat the incumbent Democrat. Based on Bonifaz’ limited base of support within the Democratic party, and the outcome of the election where he lost 83% to 17%, he really was a fringe candidate. A far left, fringe candidate.