The Future of Wade Rathke and ACORN, Part I

(Parts I, II, & III Included)

From:  BigGovernment.com

by Michael Volpe

People that know him, and know him well, have described him as an “organic genius” and a “diabolical genius”. He’s become a lightning rod and a polarizing figure, and he’s at the center of a national debate. Wade Rathke is the former long time CEO, or Chief Organizer, of ACORN, the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now. He’s now running Community Organizations International, the former ACORN International. When I emailed Wade Rathke  Friday October 23rd, I was surprised that he agreed to an interview. I was even more surprised that he was familiar with my work. Yet, he was willing to give me some time on the afternoon of the 26th of October. What follows are some of my thoughts following an interview that lasted about an hour.

The campaign that COI is most involved in, or at least featured on their main page, is the campaign to reform global remittance. Global remittance is the process by which ex patriates send money back to family in their home country. For instance, it’s been well documented that Mexico’s main economic source is actually money sent back home from the USA. According to Rathke, this is an industry that topped $300 billion, and far too many of its players practice predatory lending practices. For instance, Rathke has seen fees up to 20% of the amount to be wired. So, if someone were to send $1000 back home, they would be charged $200 to process this transaction. Rathke stressed that such fees were an “outlier” but fees of 5% are about the norm. In his view, this is far too much, and the poor are being taken advantage of by predatory lending practices in this area. Furthermore, with these rates, it also leads to a black market. That’s what’s happening. Often people send money home with all sorts of strangers because they’re promised that it will get there with no charge.

Furthermore, fees to countries in Africa are often significantly higher than to Mexico and other parts of the world. Rathke told me that he hasn’t seen any evidence that it actually costs Western Union any more to wire money to Africa than it does anywhere else. So, the fees should be the same. Rathke would like to “open a dialogue” with Western Union, Moneygram, as well as several of the largest multi national banks to speak about fees charged for remittance. In fact, Rathke believes that multi national banks like Citigroup could get involved in remittance and not only bring about much needed competition which would bring prices down, but also add another source of income for these banks.

For now, Rathke would merely like to sit at the negotiating table with representatives of Western Union et al. He told me that he didn’t have a percentage in mind. He was hoping to get an idea of how much it costs these organizations to process these transactions and then negotiate a “fair rate”. One individual I spoke with called Rathke a “master negotiator” and so that’s probably a place he’d be comfortable at.

I pointed out that major banks and wire transfer institutions like Western Union aren’t likely to sit down at the negotiating table with Wade Rathke just because he asked nicely. I also told him that I believed that he wouldn’t give up just because the other side wasn’t willing to negotiate when asked nicely. So, how far would he take his protests and how cut-throat would he be in dealing with these banks and transfer institutions? I asked if he was willing to picket outside of these places. Rathke laughed and he told me that he didn’t think that pickets and protests were “cut-throat” and that “if an institution is predatory in their remittance charges you bet we’ll let their customers know it”. Rathke told me that at this stage COI only wants to represent those folks looking to use remittance services and isn’t looking to be a vendor because among other reasons they don’t have the infrastructure for such a venture.

COI is also working on a campaign in India to raise the profile of the issue of Wal-Mart’s entry into India. In India, internal laws don’t allow for retailers from outside the country. So, that bars WalMart from entering the country. Still, Rathke says that it’s inevitable that WalMart will find its way into India in the next five to ten years. He said that in their society there are all sorts of unintended consequences with bringing WalMart in. Currently, retail in India is done mostly by street vendors and the equivalent of our mom and pop thrift stores. Having a big box top store come in and swallow up neighborhoods can create all sorts of adverse effects on such a society. As such, COI is campaigning to have the government in India study and plan for WalMart’s inevitable entry into their market. Rathke has a long history with Walmart. Several years ago, he campaigned for a living wage and health insurance for Walmart employees. When, in 2006, a Walmart employee was left for dead because they were very sick and without insurance, the publicity that Rathke created from this story caused Walmart to relent and begin to provide health insurance to some employees and they cut their generic prescription prices to $4.

The one impression I got of Rathke is his pleasant demeanor. If the pressure and stress of the controversy surrounding ACORN has gotten to him, he certainly didn’t express it outwardly. Several folks told me that to be a good organizer you have to have a pleasant demeanor. I next turned to some questions about ACORN itself and it was at this point that the interview, which was almost exclusively pleasant, became contentious. I asked him what he had learned from his experience at ACORN and how he would try to apply that to COI. He was coy as though he didn’t understand what I was asking though I believe he did. He told me the structure of ACORN is different than the structure of COI. ACORN, according to Rathke, was one corporation while COI was a federation. In that, COI is currently in seven different countries. Yet, each country is its own separate entity. Meanwhile, all of ACORN’s affiliates, according to Rathke, were all part of the same organization. Yet, I pointed out, Rathke was in control of the entire federation.

I said that a cynic would believe that the bank accounts of ACORN Dominican Republic and ACORN Canada (each individual country in COI still uses the ACORN name) would eventually be comingled. Rathke responded that international banking laws would never allow such things. I responded that there were all sorts US laws that were broken by ACORN. At this point, Rathke lost his pleasant demeanor. He told me that ACORN broke NO laws. In his 39 years at the helm, they were audited each and every year and passed each and every time. He told me that I was talking to Wade Rathke and not some right wing ideologue.

There are several points of interest in this exchange. First, if Rathke sits at the top of this “federation”, it’s still unclear to me how each is separate. Without knowing who controls each bank account, it’s still not clear that funds can’t be comingled. Second, and much more importantly, ACORN always claimed that affiliates were separate of each other. Here, Rathke told me what many that want ACORN reformed have suggested, if not accused. That’s that ACORN and its affiliates aren’t separate but all part of the same organization, ACORN itself. What Rathke told me about ACORN’s structure is exactly the same as what many critics of ACORN have accused the group of doing.

I also asked him about the firing of Beth Butler. Butler is Rathke’s common law wife and she was, until recently, the long time head of Louisiana’s branch of ACORN. Rathke thought that it was inexplicable that at this point of turmoil that the hierarchy would fire Butler. The move only added chaos at a time when the organization was already in turmoil. He couldn’t explain it, understand it, or in any way see how it helped ACORN. I asked him what he thought of Steve Bradbury taking over for Butler. The back story here is that Bradbury could be considered a protege of Rathke. He certainly taught Bradbury a lot and Rathke had befriended Bradbury and groomed him for years. By taking over for Butler, this could be viewed as a betrayal. I said none of this, and Rathke was diplomatic. He told me that he read in a newspaper that Bradbury said this move was temporary and Rathke was taking him at his word.

Finally, I asked Rathke about his legacy. Did he think about his legacy? “Mike, I’ve been doing this for forty years, of course I think about my legacy”. He believes his legacy still has several chapters left. In that way, he looks forward. At the same time, he told me that no one is a “bigger fan of ACORN” than Rathke and that he’s saddened to watch them disintegrate so badly. He certainly understood that this disintegration did no favors to his legacy. Several people told me that as much as Alinsky has become an adjective and a verb, that one day Rathke would be synonymous with a style of organizing. With no hint of modesty, Rathke agreed.

Epilogue:

I didn’t ask Wade Rathke about his brother’s embezzlement. When things became contentious, I cut it off and moved on. I did this for several reasons. First, I asked Wade Rathke if he had time to talk about his campaign about remittance. I could have blind sided him with all sorts of gotcha questions about his brother and other alleged ACORN misdeeds. I don’t think that Rathke would have made any stunning admissions to me and of course, that’s not what we agreed on. The week previous to the interview, I wrote about the firing of Beth Butler and I said that moving forward Wade Rathke is the story. That’s the case. What has happened, the embezzlement, the investigations, and the disintegration, is not the story. Wade Rathke is the story, and what he’s going to do going forward is the story. All the other things have been hyperanalyzed, and there’s nothing I could have added to the discussion.

Wade Rathke is trying to do in the world what he did in the US. That is to grow a community to serve the poor and middle class throughout the world. People from all sides of the philosophical and ideological aisle will fill in the blanks on that statement. Ultimately, that chapter has only begun. It is the story now, and that’s why I wanted the interview. What happened in the past isn’t nearly as interesting as what Rathke wants to do in the future.

The Future of Wade Rathke and ACORN, Part II: Tea Parties and Protests

by Michael Volpe

Last Tuesday, I had round two with former ACORN Chief Organizer and current head of Community Organizations International, Wade Rathke. This interview was a lot more sweeping. It ranged from Rathke’s philosophy, his philosophy on organizing, his views on the tea parties, to all sorts of issues surrounding ACORN.

1)What do you think of the tea parties?

It’s important to note that I wasn’t asking about political philosophy or personal preference, but rather as an organizing philosophy.

Rathke is impressed by their ability to organize. As an organizing phenomenon, the tea parties are effective and, as an organizer, Wade Rathke believes they took advantage of a vacuum, stepped in, and filled a void that the president never saw coming. Rathke once referred to the tea party movement as “tea baggers”. He did this only once. He never really took any pot shots at them besides this and so I don’t know that this was a deliberate dig.

Rathke did, however, also point out that often the tea parties fail basic organizing principles.

Far too often, screen shots, photos, and videos show angry people, people yelling, and faces that portray meanness. That’s not the image you want in organizing. As Rathke told me, “the more angry you are, the calmer you have to look”. In organizing, Rathke is always very aware of how a crowd will appear in newspapers, on television, and in photos. This is something he stresses at all times in organizing protests. Portraying anger, in his opinion, turns off more people than it attracts.

Conservatives can dismiss this criticism but they’ll do it at their peril. I processed this as Rathke, not the political opponent, but Rathke the schooled community organizer offering an opinion based on experience. There is a lot of anger portrayed at tea party rallies and that’s what often winds up on television. Image is everything and Rathke, the organizer, understands this.

2) What do you think of conservatives demonizing the SEIU protests of the American Banking Association while lionizing the tea parties?

This is something I have found peculiar myself. When I thought this question up, I thought it was a red meat question for Rathke. He didn’t necessarily react quite as ideologically as I thought.

Rathke simply said that protests are totally legitimate. He said that SEIU has been criticizing the banks for a while. The latest protest was no different than protests they’ve done before. Rathke didn’t take the bait to take a series of potshots at his political opponents to exploit the hypocrisy of folks that lionize one set of protests while demonizing another set of protests. Protests are something that Rathke has engaged in his entire career and he told me that he has no problem with anyone conducting a protest for any issue as that’s something he’s done his whole life.

3) What do you think of conservatives attacking Saul Alinsky all while using his tactics?

Rathke told me he often receives “strange emails” both from folks he knows and doesn’t know that brag about how they have used one Alinsky tactic or another on LIBERALS. This he finds to be delicious irony.

On the issue of Saul Alinsky, he told me that all organizers owe at least some inspiration to Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was able to drive imagination for idealistic youth. He showed people like Wade Rathke that community organizing can be a profession, a calling, and a way of life. It wasn’t something his high school guidance counselor ever told him was possible. Far more than anything he did as an organizer, Saul Alinsky inspired with words, speeches, and several books.

4) How do you build rapport as a white guy in a place like the Dominican Republic, India, etc. Wade Rathke now runs Community Organizations International, a world organizing organization.

I was curious about this because I thought that he goes through a long and arduous process in acclimating himself to new cultures and customs. Instead, I got an education in Rathke’s experience, confidence, and skill as an organizer.

He told me that building rapport, for him, in India, the D.R, or any foreign land is no different than building rapport as a young organizer in the African American neighborhoods of Massachusetts. Wade Rathke is a six foot white guy and that won’t change, but when he goes into any neighborhood he offers the community a “set of skills to build their voice”. He seeks leaders. Most importantly, “it’s not about me, it’s about finding leaders in the community”.

5)What advice would you give current ACORN leadership?

Rathke wanted to stay away from giving advice to the current leadership. He didn’t want to be one of those folks that sat on the sidelines and told his former organization how to run things. In a broad sense, he told that me that ACORN needs to “deeply embed yourself in the community”. Show the community “why you’re valuable”. ACORN is most effective as the grassroots organization that is able to get on the street, build rapport with the community, and identify their problems. In short, go back to the basics of organizing.

6)Did he, in leading ACORN, follow the philosophy of Cloward/Piven and how does this philosophy differ from his Maximum effective participation strategy?

This was suggested to me be a fellow reporter. In fact, I wasn’t totally familiar with either and to be totally frank, Rathke went above my head.

Rathke told me that Cloward/Piven was a strategy for a time and place, the late 1960’s. It focused on welfare rights. It was focused and myopic. As the world has evolved, the strategy has become outdated. At the time, the federal government spent a lot more resources on urban renewal. There are no more race riots.

His own maximum effective participation strategy is much more expansive and in his opinion follows for the times.

In fact, Rathke was being very diplomatic in his description of Cloward/Piven. I spoke with several individuals involved in organizing following the interview. Cloward/Piven is in fact, at least according to them, a way of organizing welfare recipients to demand more and more entitlements until the capitalistic system breaks. What it really is, is a way of reaching the poor. It’s important that without poor there are no rich. Everything is relative. Poor are given all sorts of reasons for why they have a station in life. In this philosophy, the system is blamed for their station in life and you attack the system.

In the view of one, Rathke is more expansive in that he wants to apply a similar philosophy to the world.

On this note, Wade Rathke told me that he’s never met, never known, and has had no contact with Bill Ayers. There are all sorts of rumors, internet and otherwise, that put the two of them together in the 1960’s and the present. Rathke told me categorically that he doesn’t know William Ayers.

6) Did he feel any responsibility for the current travails of ACORN?

Rathke really didn’t feel any personal responsibility for the current problems at ACORN. To put it in Rathke’s words, “if this happened 30 days after I left that would be one thing, but this happened a year and a half later”. He told me he worries about ACORN often. He is saddened and disturbed by their disintegration but he doesn’t necessarily feel any personal responsibility for their current problems.

7) Are the attacks on ACORN legitimate or mostly ideologically based?

He said that without question ACORN has brought many of its problems on itself. He wasn’t going to pretend as though they’d done nothing wrong and that the attackers had no legitimate claims to make. That said there was a certain “neo McCarthyist” streak to the attacks. In his mind, there’s no question that ACORN was being singled out because, “ACORN is the single most effective community organization that works on behalf of the poor and middle class in the country”.

For this, I followed up with another question?

8)If it is ideological, how do you process the likes of former ACORN employee Greg Hall and the ACORN 8 making the same claims. Both Hall and ACORN 8 believe in ACORN’s mission. Surely, you can’t dismiss their criticism to ideology.

Rathke first dealt with Greg Hall. He said he doesn’t know who he is. (Hall is a former ACORN organizer) At any given time, ACORN will send out between six and twelve thousand W2’s in a given year. So, if one individual is unhappy, that’s not something he can speak to.

As for ACORN 8, he told me that within the ACORN board, two factions began to form. There was the “administrative party”. That was lead by Maude Hurd, current President of ACORN. Then, there was the “dissident faction”. That was lead by Marcel Reid and Karen Inman (for full disclosure, I’ve interviewed both), both currently in ACORN 8. The dissidents were caught in a philosophical battle with the administrative wing that started in 2007 and even 2006. They saw the direction of ACORN differently from the administrative wing. In his view, their disagreements are rooted in these philosophical battles.

It was at this point of the interview that I was most exhilarated. The answer was brilliant both in its genius and in its diabolical nature. I knew exactly what Rathke was attempting to do and I was still impressed even as he was doing it. In his own smooth silky manner, Rathke painted the ACORN 8 as ideologues. They aren’t conservative ideologues that see ACORN as bad. Rather they are philosophical ideologues that see the direction of ACORN as wrong and thus their disagreements are rooted in that philosophical split.

Of course, several members of ACORN 8 I spoke with afterwards found this to be, well, hog wash. One said, “what about the embezzlement“…alluding to the million dollar embezzlement by Wade’s brother Dale. Another said that if they are “ideologues”, it’s ideologues that want to see ACORN return to its original mission of helping the poor. If there was a philosophical split, it’s as both told me that they believed that ACORN was no longer helping the poor. It’s the corruption that they saw that was the philosophical split.

Epilogue:

Without speaking to Rathke, it’s really impossible to describe just how pleasant he is. That’s the best description for his demeanor and manner. This is extremely important. His pleasant nature is almost hypnotic. After speaking to him, there’s absolutely no doubt why he’s so effective. It’s damn near impossible to not like Wade Rathke after speaking to him for more than an hour. That makes him effective and also potentially very dangerous, depending on his intentions. It also makes him a lot more complicated than his political opponents would like to turn him into. He’s not anything like the political caricature that opponents make of him. One individual described him to me as “diabolical” and that’s why I thought of the word when he was answering my question, and if that’s really so, he’s also dangerous. He is under no circumstances to be underestimated. Whatever Wade Rathke is, one thing is for sure and that is that he is newsworthy.

Wade Rathke would like to turn his organizing philosophy into an organization that organizes throughout the world. At one time, his organization was an organization of one, Wade Rathke. He grew that organization into a political, organizing, media, and cultural force that has become a polarizing organization in large part because of its effectiveness. Make no mistake, he is capable of doing it. If he does it right, the conservative ideologues  of the world will criticize. If he does it wrong, it will unleash a web of corruption that will interlock the globe and span continents. That makes what Wade Rathke will do going a forward a story that everyone should follow.

(c) Breitbart/BigGovernment

The Future of Wade Rathke and ACORN, Part III: Wade Rathke Wants to Rule the World

by Michael Volpe

Yesterday, I finished the third part of my interview with Wade Rathke. I felt, correctly, or not that after spending several hours with Rathke, that I was starting to understand Rathke, his vision, and his goals. So, I tried to make these questions as pointed and interesting as possible.

1) What can the local, state, and federal government do right now to help the poor and middle class?

The answer that Rathke gave was both surprising and impressive. I expected him to rattle off several laws that could be implemented, maybe a moratorium on foreclosures, and other policy changes that he believed in. Instead, Rathke was practical and pithy.

He said that all government programs: unemployment insurance, welfare, etc. should be streamlined on the internet so that all citizens would be given access to electronic files. By doing this, the government would cut all sorts of red tape and save those in need all sorts of time and energy in receiving these benefits. For the money the government would spend in implementing these systems, the benefit to the people would come back ten fold.

The answer was impressive both in its practicality and in its non ideology. In fact, Rathke is right. The government’s entitlement system is outdated. There’s no reason why people still need to show up to apply for benefits, and streamlining the process through the use of technology would benefit all.

2) When someone calls you a radical, do not care, agree, or disagree vociferously?

“I don’t care”.

Rathke said that he doesn’t see himself in those terms. In fact, he sees himself as an organizer first. This is the biggest misconception of most opponents and observers of Wade Rathke. Most people think he is driven by a radical ideology. The only ideology Rathke is driven by is the ideology of organizing. That’s not only a way of life for Rathke but it’s a way for him to see the world.

Don’t get me wrong. He has political thoughts and opinions. (I asked him those later) They don’t drive him. Organizing drives him. Organizing is the way that he has been able to influence society and make his mark on the world. Community organizing has been mocked and ridiculed by conservatives, but conservatives don’t understand that to be a good organizer means you can do anything. It means you have an army behind you to accomplish any goal. Finally, there’s been very few, if any at all, organizers better than Wade Rathke. (as an aside Rathke said he doesn’t consider himself a radical and believed that his political views were much more pragmatic than people might think)

3) Do you know George Soros and do you believe in one world government?

I asked this because it’s been widely reported that Rathke is on the board of the Tides Foundation and Soros is tied to Tides.

First, Rathke doesn’t know George Soros personally. Of course, he knows who he is but has never met him. In fact, he told me that it was news to him that Soros has any ties to Tides. Rathke told me that he’s been involved with the Tides Foundation for almost four decades. Conservatives have often used the Tides Foundation as a link between one radical in their view, George Soros, and another, Wade Rathke. The truth is a bit more complicated. Rathke’s been with Tides long before Soros ever became involved with them. Furthermore, as a member of the board, that meant attending two the three days of meetings every quarter. In fact, as Rathke later told me, Tides is all a part of a synergy of his vocation as an organizer. (in a previous interview Rathke told me he’s also never met Bill Ayers)

As for one world government, that’s not something that Wade Rathke thought could practically happen.

4) What’s the relationship between Citizen’s Consulting Incorporated and ACORN?

For some background, when I first started investigating ACORN, I was told that CCI was a sort of weigh station for all monies that reached not only ACORN but any and all of its multi hundred affiliates. CCI is also the company that Wade’s brother Dale used to be the comptroller of back at the beginning of this decade.

Wade Rathke characterized it in a much different manner. He said that CCI was contracted by ACORN for “accounting services”. He said they’re a separate organization with its own board and its own business.

I pointed out that when Wade Rathke is head of ACORN and Dale Rathke is head of CCI, how separate are two organizations?

Rathke said that by that estimation that means that because Rahm Emanuel is Chief of Staff in the White House and Ari Emanuel (inspiration for Ari Gold in Entourage) is a Hollywood agent that this means there’s no separation between the White House and Hollywood.

That’s an interesting comparison but not exactly fair. The White House hasn’t contracted out all its film work to clients of Ari Emanuel. The problem with one brother running ACORN and the other running CCI is that CCI relied on ACORN for most, if not all, of its business. There’s a clear conflict there, and it’s unclear that there were any clear firewalls.

He also told me that ACORN is one organization always registered as a “vanilla” non profit. In my first interview, I thought Rathke had made a stunning admission when he said that ACORN is one organization. That’s because those members of the board that were concerned about corruption, most later became members of ACORN 8, felt that ACORN AND IT’S AFFILIATES were all one organization. I initially thought that Rathke was admitting to what they were accusing. In fact, Wade Rathke was only talking about ACORN itself. Organizations like ACORN Housing were organizations that, according to Rathke, ACORN “partnered with”.

All of this is vital to the story of ACORN and it’s also terribly complicated and confusing. Those, like members of ACORN 8, who thought and think that there’s malfeasance at ACORN believed that all these affiliates, as they call them, are all part of the same organization. They believe that money, resources, and human capital all transferred freely between them all. In fact, often, ACORN Housing and ACORN share offices. The so called Kingsley memo said this as well. Rathke maintained that everything was separated and all above board. He maintained that ACORN was fully audited each of his years at the helm and they went through the very forensic audit that ACORN 8 has been demanding.

5) What’s your vision for the future of Community Organizations International?

First, Rathke wanted to clarify. He changed the name of ACORN International in the United States to Community Organizations International to avoid confusion between ACORN and the now called COI. Internationally, this organization still maintains the ACORN name. So, for instance, it maintains a presence in the Dominican Republic and it’s called ACORN Dominican Republic. This name change couldn’t really have been butchered any more if the media tried to report it inaccurately. In fact, Rathke says he still gets calls asking why ACORN changed its name. (once again, ACORN didn’t change its name.)

He sees COI as an organization that goes into each and every urban area with “significant infrastructure problems” (or every urban area) and organizing the community to be “a positive force for change”. He told that his passions are really juiced when he thinks about what kind a force for change COI can be in urban areas that are at the “crossroads of huge populations”.

To be frank, the vision he laid out for COI was inspirational. It’s hard not to believe when someone puts it as inspirationally as that. I’ve said that Rathke is not only charming but hypnotic even and when speaking about his vision, he was at his finest.

6) In our last interview, we got into ACORN 8. Rathke believes that ACORN has done plenty wrong and deserves criticism. He also believes that ACORN’s faults are being singled out and over emphasized by those with an agenda. So, I asked him, “how you process ACORN 8 making the same criticism as opponents”. He essentially boiled it down in the last interview to an internal philosophical dispute. Privately, he told me that his answer wasn’t fully developed. So, I asked him to expand.

If Rathke was at his most inspirational in the previous answer, he was at his most cunning in this one. First, he played a bit coy. He told me that much of what happened, happened following his leaving ACORN. So, he wasn’t necessarily speaking from first hand experience. Of course, one thing I don’t worry about is Wade Rathke knowing about the inner workings of ACORN, even after his departure.

He said that according to his understanding the dispute boiled down to a dispute over power. First, the internal debates that started between those like Marcel Reid and Karen Inman and Maude Hurd (president of ACORN) hardened following his departure. According to his understand, Reid and Inman were part of a thirteen person group set up following disclosure of Dale Rathke’s embezzlement to investigate ACORN to root out future problems. This group included three board members Inman, Reid, and Carol Hemingway, and ten employees of ACORN.

In Rathke’s view Inman and Reid began to make demands for the entire group. In other words, the two of them started speaking for the board in its entirety. This went outside of protocol. So, Carol Hemingway was there to reign them in. Inman and Reid wanted to get the books of ACORN and they wanted a forensic audit. Rathke said that ACORN had gone through this exact forensic audit a few years earlier. Because there was no calming presence (meaning Wade Rathke) there to make sure cooler heads prevailed the confrontation lead to Inman and Reid being removed. Of course, if he were still around, this wouldn’t have happened.

Members of ACORN 8 scoffed at this notion when I spoke with them afterwards. In their minds, it was very clear. They were members of the board of ACORN. They had a right and a duty to see the books. They were never given the books, and instead thrown out of ACORN when they demanded them.

(for the full story from the other side, here’s how ACORN 8 was started as recounted by members of ACORN 8)

7)Do you believe in single payer health care?

Much like one world government, Wade Rathke doesn’t see single payer as any possibility. He believes a robust public option is “very important to providing competition”. He believes that every health care system is different. He believes Canada’s single payer is good but not as good as some make it out to be.

He also said that the public option wasn’t a litmus test for his support. He went back nearly four decades to frame the issue. In the early 1970’s, welfare rights groups he had previously been alligned with were fighting for welfare reform. They wanted a bill that would give a family of four earning less than $5,500 welfare benefits of $5500 when unemployed. The bill proposed $1800. So, the groups opposed the plan. By doing so, they actually joined forces with conservative groups who wanted the bill to give zero. The bill was defeated. So, sometimes, it’s better to get some of what you want than be an ideological purist and oppose unless you get all.

He said that he sees his role as seeing what passes and then organizing to make it better.

Do you believe in free markets and capitalism?

He said he doesn’t really know any free markets. With a plethora of bailouts, we no longer have free markets. In fact, China’s markets are currently much more free than are ours. Ironically enough, on this issue, Wade Rathke made a very intuitive and correct point, and unfortunately, I must agree. (I say unfortunately because I wholeheartedly support free markets)

He said that his role isn’t to see the world through a theoretical prism that he wants. Instead, he works within the framework of the world as it is and organizes to make that framework better.

Epilogue:

After the interview, I came to what I initially thought was a stunning revelation. After I thought about it it isn’t that stunning. To frame it, let’s first play one of my favorite 80’s songs.

It’s true everybody does want to rule the world. We are all struggling to influence society as much as possible. The reason that people blog, give their opinion, and write about politics is in hope that their point of view influences others. We are all through this media trying to rule the world. So, why should Wade Rathke be any different?

I’ve come to the conclusion that Wade Rathke’s goal is to rule the world. If you think about what community organizing is, the whole thing makes perfect sense. A good organizer will organize a lot of people. A really good organizer will organize even more. How do you measure someone’s worth in community organizing? It’s by how many people they’ve organized. It’s by how much influence they’ve had in they issue they organize for. Furthermore, effective organizing means a synergy of media outreach, political outreach, and community outreach. Effective organizing means the ability to reach your tentacles into all levels of society. Make no mistake, the reason that ACORN became a force in our society has everything to do with the organizing genius of Wade Rathke.

Now, think about COI. It’s a confederation of international organizations currently in seven countries. It was started about five years ago. In five years, it might be in seventy countries. Wade Rathke started and founded ACORN (then Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now) nearly four decades ago. Then, it was an organization of one. It grew into an organization that had tentacles into nearly all parts of our politically, cultural, and media structure by the time he left. This happened because Wade Rathke is a unique and remarkable organizer. He was so good at it, that he gained enough influence to become embedded into governments of all levels in the U.S. So, what was his goal in ACORN? It was to rule the U.S. If you think that’s absurd and provocative, think again about what makes a good community organizer, the biggest community possible. The bigger the community meant bigger influence. That was in the U.S.

COI is a world organization. It knows no borders. It can go anywhere but it’s purpose is the same. Remember, Wade Rathke told me himself that he wants to go into every urban neighborhood. He himself told me he wants to rule the world. There’s nothing provocative or incorrect in what I’m saying. He’s a community organizer. His goal is as big a community as possible. His place of business is the entire world. So, in effect, Wade Rathke wants to rule the world.

What makes Wade Rathke different from everyone else? He can do it. He grew ACORN from one person to a force in politics, culture and life in the U.S. Now, he wants to do something very similar in the world. I’ve said it before. ACORN is no longer the story. They’re a dying organization that’s disintegrating in front of us. We’re only paying attention for the same reason we pay attention to a trainwreck.

Going forward, Wade Rathke is the story. He’s an individual that not only wants to rule the world but he’s found the vocation to do it, and he’s effective enough to make it happen. An individual with the means, the capability and the resources to rule the world is a story. That’s one I want to follow. It’s one everyone should follow.

(c) Breitbart/BigGovernment