Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals explored by a conservative

Posted by Clyde Middleton on Aug 25 2009 Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

I’ve read all I need to read of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s a cute book, in the same manner in which a ferral cat at a distance is cute until it gets closer and you see the froth dripping from its mouth and the odd stare in its eyes, when the limp you thought was a war wound from living in the woods turns out to be a unscathed rear leg it is dragging because its synapses ain’t firing like they used to. Your conclusion is immediate and without emotion: Everyone and everything will be better if you steady your hand to get a clean head shot. It’s so bad that after you kill it you realize that you need to burn it so that no remnants remain.

So as I read, I tried to put myself into the shoes of people like Obama and Hillary that soaked this book into themselves like water to a parched man. I felt dirty. I just don’t think as Alinsky thought. Or as Hillary or Obama presently think. I start with the assumption that we can work it out together, that mutually agreeable solutions are out there, and that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

Let’s cut to the chase scene and review the point of the book: The Rules.

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from two main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

A common commentary on the net to this rule is – These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.

The concept of false power is perfectly fine – it’s used all the time in negotiations. I am struck, however, by two words in this rule: Enemies and Have-Nots. Call yourself what you like, but when you label the target of your negotiation an “enemy” you have already lost. I negotiated contracts for many years and then became a litigator. In both situations, I was successful when the target felt comfortable walking with me, when I took as much as I gave, and when I was respectful throughout.

Further, the divisive “have-nots” label is trite – is now and was when he wrote this book. All it accomplishes is creating walls between people. The objection seems to be requiring the “haves” to toss food and ammunition over the wall to fortify the “have-nots.” It obviates any ability to merge, to become one, or to recognize the other’s grievances. Things are taken but not given.

If I am a “have” and worked hard for it, then I want to keep what I worked hard for and am not impressed by having it taken from me, particularly if it is given to someone that sits around all day with their $500 gaming system. If I am a “have-not” and am that way because my abilities have been ignored or the fruits of them stolen, then I am angry.

So are the “haves” all greedy and the “have-nots” all lazy? Of course not. But when you divide people into camps and erect walls between them, someone gains the ability to characterize the other side by the exceptions therein. Not productive.

Oh yeah, and when the economic lens through which all corps and government view life results in cash to you, you learn to adjust your goals rather than your situation. Don’t give a man a fish, teach him how to fish. Good rule.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

In other words, radicals avoid the real issues because they don’t know what they are talking about. They’re just making noise until the economic satisfaction comes. Interesting admission, Saul.

I remember watching children act out in stores: Screaming, doing the spasm-dance thing on the K-Mart floor. I swore my kids would never do that – and then one did, and I had to respond in some fashion. Am I going to reward deviant behavior? Maybe it’s my trial-attorney blood, but my answer came back – “Hell, no.” I left my cart in Aisle 3 Housewares and walked out. Didn’t have to do it too often to correct the bad behavior.

I don’t let anyone set a false agenda. And that has been the singular failure of corporate and government America. They’ve empowered professional agitators to use Rule 2 to create noise and in the process avoid the true issue.

By succumbing to economic extortion, they set themselves up for the next round when, again, a false issue would be raised, temper tantrum thrown, and more concessions made. Remember this: Emotions mean nothing in business; let’s identify the real issue, and work towards a solution.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

Laughing. This is the purest and cheapest theater. Irrelevant arguments are just that, irrelevant. Alternatively, if I have a gap in my knowledge, let’s fill it. I agree completely that if my company may not have understood the environmental impact of some by-product we kicked out with a half-life measured in millennia (like Twinkies), then let’s correct it. But when Saul’s Soldiers start making noise about plastic-instead-of-paper without the science behind it, and corps buy into it, then we are in trouble. Now we have so much plastic floating around it breezes past pitchers in their wind up on MLB. Thanks, drones.

There’s one hallmark of an honorable negotiation: Competency on both sides. When one side is merely bullshitting their way through, as Alinsky suggests should be done by design, then the end result is like a house built on sand. Yeah, a Bible reference; deal with it.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Saul, I love you like a brother, but this isn’t worthy of a rule. It works once, then the organization adapts to the new reality. C’mon, you’re better than this, aren’t you?

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Act irrationally. Seems like a theme. It’s only infuriating, by the way, if the target allows it to be. An emotional response to an emotional stimulus is precisely the wrong thing to do. Never, ever let someone else set the agenda. Jesse Jackson did nothing but threaten. It works for a while. Anyone hear anything from Rev. Jackson lately? Build bridges, not fields of land mines. Works much better in the long run.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Um, OK. Is this where we hire ex-cheerleaders to brain storm? Between us dudes, Saul, this is a rather pathetic rule. Do we BBQ? Line dance? C’mon, they carry signs with some a-hole on a bullhorn, and then the box lunches come in. The whole “fun” thing seems to be lost since your passing in 1972 of a heart attack at age 63. How about we pass out little cards with each sign that read:

That would be fun, right? Just to show you that I’m not as white as those suggestions might imply, I know full well that when someone says, “That girl has a nice donkey” that it has nothing to do with having a tethered equus asinus in her proximity.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Keep it fun! Jeez, Hillary, this really enthralled you? Are you this simple? Bring in the cheerleader-brain-trust again. Whew.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Saul, you mean, “keep trying new things to keep your amateur agitators amused (see Rule 7).” But then again, this is also a variant of throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks. This is, I feel the heart of agitation. Do not try to solve problems, just cause them – and let the target solve them by throwing ever more money at it. How shallow.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

Perception is reality. Let the target twist in the wind, feel the perception of public ridicule, and they’ll beg to be cut down. I have lost all respect for this fool. I’d love to play poker against him. Yeah, I have a cruel streak – but it’s defined by letting those around me being hoist by their own petard. I am a very patient man, and I never forget. And more importantly, I don’t speculate.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

These statements conflict, Saul. Sure, push anything long enough and it becomes perceived fact. Perception is reality – Rule 9 – got it. Agitate enough on my private property, and I’ll have security remove you. So, ah, there you are! Encourage your agitators to trespass, get removed by involuntary means, and then repeat the violence mantra. It’s a cute ploy. But just that, Saul, cute. The failing is that many corporate geeks are weak. They want to avoid all but the smoothest of sailing. So they pacify the noisemaker. It doesn’t solve anything. And as we learn here, only empowers you all.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

This is where your devotees fall short. All they want is the object of their extortion – personal enrichment. You saved this rule for too late. Read the several before. Your people are too busy making noise and being amused to have a “constructive alternative.” In fact, that is the singular failure of today’s agitators: They have no solutions. None. And the ones they do offer suck. Plastic, corn-based ethanol, wind farms. Mindless claptrap that has in each case been proven more detrimental than the base problem.

Saul, did you know that a Prius does more harm to the environment than a Range Rover? By the time you add up the India-to-China-to-Japan footprint to manufacture the batteries, let alone disposal afterward, the environmental impact of a 10 MPG hog is less than your vaunted Prius. Go figure. Idiots.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

No you’ve showed your soul, or lack thereof. Destroy people. This is why I look at how Obama and Hillary operate and cannot find within mw any sympathy for their goals. They are willing to destroy other people to reach their objective. How incredibly pathetic. You all wear this “Let’s make society better!” t-shirt, yet will do anything necessary to fulfill your personal vision. This is not John Locke’s vision of a cooperative society. This is the Russia retreat as Hitler advanced, destroying the homes and fields. This is Genghis Khan wiping any trace of conquered villages. You people are, collectively, just one very large a-hole.

I’ll be honest, as I started to read Alinsky, I hoped that I would find a different perspective. One I have not adopted for myself, but a valid one nonetheless. Instead, I have found a soulless, empty philosophy. As this is comer into focus for America, Obama’s poll numbers drop. This will only intensify as the self-hating Jews Rahm and Axelrod come into the public lens.

Sigh …

Share

Save

Related Posts

1. Alinsky’s Rule 12 Wearing Thin
2. Alinsky Perfected Part III
3. Happy 100th Birthday…Saul Alinsky.
4. Voight: Is Obama creating a Civil War in America?
5. Tea Party radicals gear up for 2010 elections. Radicals? Who you calling a radical, hippie?

Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=5982