Politicians and lying – and Alinsky revisited
In a recent thread I mentioned that Beto O’Rourke lied about how leftist he was when he was running against Cruz for the Senate, and that he’d been following the principle “Lie until you get in power, and then do what you want.”
Here’s a response from commenter “OBloodyHell”:
Isn’t this true of most politicians? Some more, some less, but I’d say one of the more significant things about Trump is that he has at least attempted to do much of what he claimed before being elected. He’s been stopped more often than not, and yes, in some cases, I’d suspect he fully expected he’d be stopped… but he tried, and that’s a lot more than most of those bastards ever do…
I’m in agreement about Trump keeping his word. Sometimes slowly (as with the Wall) and not in every detail (Mexico isn’t paying for it). But more than most or maybe than any politicians in recent memory.
But what I want to write about now is the entire concept of politicians and lies. While it is true, as OBloodyHell writes, that most politicians lie, I submit that until recently they haven’t tended to lie about their most fundamental political agendas.
Yes, there’s been corruption and graft. And yes, there are philanderers such as Bill Clinton who lie about sexual matters. And they don’t always follow through with promises. Or they change their minds (for real) while in office. Or other pressures arise, as with George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips” or the changes that 9/11 wrought in his son George W. Bush when he was president
But Barack Obama was the first president I can recall who lied in a fundamental way about who he was and what he intended to do politically. And when he didn’t literally lie, he used generalities such as “hope and change” to mask what he intended, which was to be far more leftist than he let on.
Obama also lied very directly and purposefully – for example,about the specific issue of gay marriage, which he initially pretended to be against. I can sum it all up by saying that Obama was the the first Alinskyite president. And he showed the way for the Big Lie and how it could succeed in America.
Now it seems the Overton Window has shifted enough that we see a few people in politics on the left such as AOC, who don’t seem to lie that much about their leftist intentions (unless, of course, she has even worse planned than she’s already told us, which is certainly possible). Not that they wouldn’t lie if and when they feel the need to do so. But they don’t seem to see as much need right now to hide their fundamental leftism. In that sense, Obama was a transitional figure.
I mentioned Alinsky, who was central rather than tangential to Obama’s approach. It occurs to me that we could use a little review on that, because it still seems very relevant. The following is from a piece I wrote in 2014, which in turn was based on a David Horowitz article from 2009. These are a series of quotes from Horowitz:
The Alinsky radical has a single principle – to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots. What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism – a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the “people” …the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process.
The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words the cause – whether inner city blacks or women – is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.
Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.
Unlike the Communists who identified their goal as a Soviet state – and thereby generated opposition to their schemes – Alinsky and his followers organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve – socialism, communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future, they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system. By refusing to commit to principles or to identify their goal, they have been able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the left who were previously divided by disagreements over means and ends.
After Obama became a U.S. Senator, his wife, Michelle, told a reporter, “Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.”
Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy – an impossible dream – the radical’s only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist…I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America and why they would want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. The answer to this question is that radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth – the kingdom of social justice and freedom – they think they are building.
Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals, the war is real. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and “Islamophobes.” It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not (“liberals” for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy.
The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is to lie to their opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals.
Alinsky’s advice can be summed up in the following way. Even though you are at war with the system, don’t confront it as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column from within. To achieve this infiltration you must work inside the system for the time being. Alinsky spells out exactly what this means: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.” In other words, it is first necessary to sell the people on change itself, the “audacity of hope,” and “yes we can.” You do this by proposing moderate changes which open the door to your radical agendas
No matter what Alinsky radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors in the political arena are not at war.
There is no real parallelism in the war which radicals have declared. One side is fighting with a no-holds- barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism. This is the Achilles’ heel of democracies and all radical spears are aimed in its direction.
What makes radical politics a war is the existence of an enemy who must be eliminated. For Alinsky radicals, that enemy is the “Haves,” who “oppress” and rule the “Have-Nots.”
Lenin once said that the purpose of a political argument is not to refute your opponent “but to wipe him from the face of the earth.” The mission of Alinsky radicals is a mission of destruction.
In contrast to liberals, who in Alinsky’s eyes are constantly tripping over their principles, the rule for radicals is that the ends justify the means. This was true for the Jacobins, for the Communists, for the fascists and now for the post-Communist left. This is not because radicals begin by being unethical people. On the contrary, their passion for a future that is ethically perfect is what drives their political agendas and causes many to mistake them for idealists. But the very nature of this future – a world without poverty, without war, without racism, and without “sexism” – is so desirable, so noble, so perfect in contrast to everything that exists as to justify any and every means to achieve it.
Writes Alinsky: “The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem.” In other words, Alinsky’s radical is not going to worry about the legality or morality of his actions, only their practical effects. If they advance the cause they are justified. “He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”
Lying is not all that recent. Wilson did it when said “He kept us out of war” when he knew he was about to enter the war, Roosevelt did much the same in 1940, knowing he was maneuvering us into war. Lyndon Johnson certainly did. I agree that Obama is the most recent flagrant example. Certainly about his health care bill.
Trump, about Mexico paying for the wall ,probably planned to tax remittances to Mexico but that would require legislation. Paul Ryan is a recent example on the other side.
I would encourage all followers of this blog to read the recently-published autobiography of the brilliant David Horowitz entitled Mortality and Faith: Reflections on a Journey through Time. Not only is there much to be learned about a gradual political conversion from left to right, but also (more importantly) much about what truly matters in life.
You say whatever you need to say to get elected, then once in power you see this as a totally different circumstance.
It seems contradictory to me to base a political movement on lies — or rather, on denying the issue of truth and falsehood. Perhaps I am more naive that I admit to, but it just seems to me as if the social contract is shredded if there is no adherence to truth and honesty. This is probably addressed in game theory, about which I know nothing, but it just seems beyond the pale that a leader could make a promise knowing it will not come to pass. How long before people come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with such a person/party is armed resistance?
Note that Obama’s health bill, which was a bill written by Congress, was modeled after bills written and approved by Republicans [Romney in MA]. As a health bill it was more conservative than Truman’s or Nixon’s proposals which included something closer to a public option. As a health bill it’s hardly as leftist as Bernie Sanders’ proposals.
Obama’s stance on gay marriage was more than flip flop. He was for it in 1996, against it in 2008 and then for it again. No double he was playing politics. But to voters when the option was Obama or McCain or Obama and Romney… well, you understand. There are only two options. Should voters completely change their vote because they choose to focus on one set of lies by one candidate but ignore the lies of the other? Look at the last election. Plenty of people hated both Clinton and Trump. But no Republican was going to vote Hillary and no Democrat was going to vote Trump no matter what either of them said. So many ended up voting to keep the other side out of the White House.
Also every politician plays to the crowd. Beto [who has a whopping 3% of the Dem vote] has strong opinions on guns and churches because strong opinions get applause. He is hoping to get the same bump Trump got. Remember Trump began to distance himself from the other candidates when he talked about Mexican illegals as people being ‘sent’ by the Mexican government and bringing drugs and crime and being rapists. And that he would build a wall the Mexicans would pay for. Strong words. Conservatives ate that up. Even if they knew it was not all true it was rhetoric used to get attention. It worked. But most Democrats aren’t buying what Beto has to sell. Warren and Sanders appeal a little more to Democrats and at least they show their cards as leftists. Will be curious if they go back to moderate if they get nominated.
Montage:
I dealt with the arguments you’re offering in your comment here many many times in the past. Interesting that you’re trying to retread them now. Obamacare was fundamentally different than those bills proposed by the right. And Romneycare was the ever-so-slightly more conservative solution to the even more leftist bills that the Democrat-dominated Massachusetts legislature was wanting to pass at the time. Plus, that legislature stripped away all the protections Romney tried to build into it.
I described all of that in great detail in many posts at the time. I’m not going to waste my time doing it again. Do some research here if you’re the least bit interested in learning where you err. I’ll help you out a bit by suggesting you start with this.
Montage:
Oh, and read the link I put in the post on the words “issue of gay marriage.” It’s about Axelrod’s admission that Obama lied about his stance on the subject.
And actually, Obamacare itself was a sort of lie. The right was well aware it was just a stalking horse for a later move to some sort of single payer or Medicare For All.
On Obama ‘s health bill, it was written by insurance company lobbyists and 25 year old left wing, Ivy League lawyers. The perception was that Hillary made a mistake by excluding the insurance companies. She excluded everyone who knew anything about delivery of health care, of course. I was at Dartmouth that year getting a degree in health care policy and the Dartmouth boys were all excited thinking they would run it. None had any experience with private care, other than a university clinic.
When Pelosi and Reid decided to try again, they decided to reverse Hillary’s error and have the insurance companies write the bill. One important fact is that insurance companies HATE health insurance because it is prepaid care, not insurance.
What they do like is called “Administrative Service” which means processing claims which someone else will pay. That is why they are fine with employer plans. They process claims which constitutes probably 30% of the claim since so many are small claims. They were happy to write Obamacare because they expected the old US of A to pay the bills. Furthermore, the law would make insurance mandatory. Remember employer plans were supposed to be rolled into it to help with the cost shifting.
Then the Democrats chickened out on the employer plans after the disastrous rollout of enrollment and they feared the unions would be hunting Democrats with dogs if they tried to take their plans away after years of negotiating them with employers.
There is no sensible reform proposal under review at this time. I have studied this and have some ideas at my own blog.
Plus, that legislature stripped away all the protections Romney tried to build into it.
Yes, I defended Romney on that issue. The Mass Legislature is farther left than Warren. After Romney left office, Deval Patrick left the provisions vetoed by Romney and over ridden by the Legislature, in place.
I think the real tell in the Alinsky primer you conveniently posted, is that these people view politics as true war. Though, at this point in time, without the killing. In war you are supposed to deceive your opponent. You are supposed to use psychological tactics to demoralize the opponent, etc. Couple that with their goal of “heaven on earth” and it really explains everything they do. Kurt Schlichter is correct when he says they want us dead, metaphorically and in reality, and they will use any tactic available and have no qualms about it. And with something like 30% of the population taking that view, no wonder people are predicting CWII.
Whenever I read those words from Alinsky, I’m reminded of the horrible things that have happened when the ends justify the means. Once the restraints on human beings are lifted, bad things happen — especially if you undermine or politicize the justice system.
In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn quotes Nikolai Krylenko, People’s Commissar for Justice of the USSR:
“A tribunal is an organ of the class struggle of the workers directed against their enemies” and must act “from the point of view of the interests of the revolution.”
“No matter what the individual qualities [of the defendant], only one method of evaluating him is to be applied: evaluation from the point of view of class expediency.”
“In our revolutionary court we are guided not by articles of the law and not by the degree of extenuating circumstances; in the tribunal we must proceed on the basis of considerations of expediency.”
Solzhenitsyn continues: “That was the way it was in those years: people lived and breathed and then suddenly found out that their existence was inexpedient.”
Also every politician plays to the crowd. Beto [who has a whopping 3% of the Dem vote] has strong opinions on guns and churches because strong opinions get applause.
Doesn’t speak well of Beto’s audience.
Neo,
For what it’s worth the ACA ‘Obamacare’ is supported by more Americans than opposed by all the polls I’ve seen. More popular than the recent Republican tax cuts. That said, Obamacare is still fairly moderate by comparison of what Nixon wanted. Your post seems to indicate it’s leftist. In fact it’s not as left as Medicare and most Republicans are not ready to scrap that.
Obamacare could be a stalking horse but that’s different legislation for another day. Let the future politicians decide. Or voters decide which politicians they want.
Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.
You know him. He is a fascist.
Bill Clinton ran on being a “third-way” politician who cared about a strong economy and knew how to do something positive about it. He was a member of Al From’s Democrat Leadership Council, and campaigned repeatedly on a middle-class tax cut as an economic stimulus. This whole bundle was a fundamental part of his campaign.
About a week or two after he was inaugurated, the White House spin was “Oh, gee. The President didn’t know how terrible the federal balance sheet was. Not only can we not afford a tax cut, now we need a tax increase.” The GOP spent about 5 minutes talking about how Pres. Clinton is just another flippin tax-and-spend Democrat, and that was that. Move along.
To be fair, the tax increase wasn’t huge and the totality of Clinton’s 8 years were pretty good for the economy. Though the Gingrich congress had much to do with some of that. Clinton’s whole record on the economy was massively better than Nixon’s which was stupid, destructive, and very leftist in many regards. Something else Montage can’t or won’t grasp.
I think that a larger portion than in the past of the “audience” today is more coddled, and a lot less experienced in the world, less tough, and less practical, a lot less educated in the actual basics of our History and Constitution, is less acute in it’s perceptions, thinking, and analysis (and many of them likely a lot more stoned than in the past), is less patriotic and steadfast in it’s devotion to our traditional norms, is less realistic in it’s expectations, and that—sizing up this audience, it’s weaknesses and its credulity—today’s politicians are much more likely to let the mask slip, and to try to brazenly sell lies that earlier generations would have had a far easier time seeing through, and more of the guts necessary to reject them.
Bottom line, our Educational System and the MSM have made many in today’s audience much more easily fooled and led.
I also think that today’s politicians also realize that, as the good times have rolled on, decadence is starting to take it’s toll, and that they can now more successfully just outright bribe constituents (many of whom seem to think that there really is a “money tree” to be shaken) to vote for them, by making naked offers to them of supposedly “free stuff,”—now, for some Democrat candidates, approaching “free everything.”
j e: “I would encourage all followers of this blog to read the recently-published autobiography of the brilliant David Horowitz entitled Mortality and Faith: Reflections on a Journey through Time.”
Thank you. I didn’t know about that but will definitely get it. Several years ago I read his A Point In Time, which I would also recommend very strongly. A brief but profound and moving book. It surprised me–at the moment I can’t remember how it came to my attention, as I think of Horowitz as mainly a political pugilist and don’t generally read books of that sort. Radical Son of course is also very good.
All this stuff is scary, the Alinsky stuff as warfare is well underway and the good old boy system, with a few good old gals, democracy as we think we know it might already be mortally wounded, bleeding out, and they killed it off while we were not even paying attention.
I think Trump being elected was an incredible bit of good luck or perhaps even an act of God, I am old and confused because I am still, in my mind, living in the “Leave it to Beaver” world that I grew up in where the politicians mostly played by the rules and only lied and stole for their own personal benefit.
This lying and setting stuff up for the “Better Good of Mankind”, while they personally benefit, is scary and it will probably in the next few decades, lead to some sorry sad wakeup for all of us “common folk”.
TommyJay
LOL, I liked your comment there for a bit. You were fairly honest that Clinton’s 8 years were pretty good for the economy. But my comment about Nixon was not directed toward your view on Nixon since I don’t even know you or your views. I was no fan of Nixon but he was the Republican candidate for president and he won twice so it would stand to reason that he stood for what Republicans between 1968 and 1972 stood for. So in my example I noted his health bill. He also rolled out the EPA. Political parties change over time. Nixon by today’s standard was a moderate. He was also an opportunist, which makes sense. He stood more on what he believed – in the world after LBJ – would win him votes more than on – say – a Barry Goldwater platform, which was disastrous for winning in that era. But recall that even Reagan signed a bill increasing Social Security benefits in 1983. He was no leftist but saw an opportunity to be bipartisan.
Obamacare is still fairly moderate by comparison of what Nixon wanted.
You’re not very good at this sort of gamesmanship, and these boards are definitely the wrong audience.
By the way, here’s a precis of Nixon’s ideas from a pair of NGO types.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/lessons-universal-coverage-unexpected-advocate-richard-nixon
For what it’s worth the ACA ‘Obamacare’ is supported by more Americans than opposed by all the polls I’ve seen. More popular than the recent Republican tax cuts.
You are seeing polls loaded with the beneficiaries who are Medicaid, including the new expansion of Medicaid. The purpose of Obamacare was to shift the cost of paying for Medicaid, including the expansion, to those who were already insured, 85% of the population. Those who had small group or individual policies were the hardest hit,. They have useless “insurance” with $7,000 deductible and $1500 a month premiums.
If the Democrats had tried to drive the employer plan members into Obamacare, they would have been wiped out in the 2018 election.
As for the tax cuts, the gullible have been convinced by lies that they did not benefit. We’ll see how well those lies work next year.
“… he [Nixon] won twice so it would stand to reason that he stood for what Republicans between 1968 and 1972 stood for.” — Montage
It’s a nice left wing talking point (such things need to sound obvious without actually being accurate), but no. Not many Republicans outside the Rockefeller group thought that they stood for Nixonian economics. One would struggle a little to call Nixon as a whole a moderate, even in his day, but economically he was a left-wing train wreck. And health care plans are fundamentally economic plans, or at least should be.
Probably Montage is not a leftist, but we all absorb big hunks of left wing propaganda and spin because we simple cannot avoid it (in the media), in varying degrees. The older stuff that we absorbed from our youth is perhaps the worst, for a variety of reasons. I’m really not trying to bust your chops, it just took me a longer time to figure out how terrible Nixon was as a president, entirely separate from Watergate. Just look at the stock market record with or without a 6 to 12 month cause and effect response time.
Dependable political polls were invented and perfected during the 1940s and 1950s. Before then there was no real way to tell the difference between, say, a 60% to 40% split and a 50% to 50% split in public opinion. Hence politicians who wanted to lie did not know which lie to use, and often ended up sounding rather wishy-washy, usually losing to those who had real convictions. Once polls were perfected, however, liars knew which lies to tell, ending up with a decided advantage over those who were “burdened” with genuine political convictions.
The solution is obvious, of course — the public has to start lying to pollsters on a routine basis, once again making it impossible for politicians to know what we really want short of holding an actual election. Once again lying politicians will be at a genuine disadvantage when running against the non-liars.
I am waiting for the first politician in a close race who instructs his followers to start lying to pollsters about who they plan to vote for. At that point the entire media-political establishment will have to find a new game to play. Why should he do this? His opponent will no longer know what lies would fool some of his voters into switching their vote.
Clinton’s years were good for the economy because of the computer revolution, dot com era and Newt’s Contract with America. Amazing how short people’s memories are. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with any of that with the possible exception of staying out of the way.
@TommyJay
No US president outside of wartime had to face anything like the OPEC embargo that Nixon had. It caused a total dislocation of the US economy. TOTAL. Theoretically, I didn’t agree with his wage and price controls, but he was dealing with a lot of unknowns and there were few/no alternative short-term energy options open.
You probably didn’t live through it. Nixon did about as well as anyone could have.
Mike K on October 21, 2019 at 7:02 pm : +1
I can’t read your own posting at the moment, but the tab’s opened to it and I’m ready to go!
. . .
Thanks for the recommendation of David H.’s latest memoir. I’ve been a huge fan of his ever since I first saw him on TV, just a few days after 9/11. Prodigal Son IMO is a fine book. A page-turner, a good description of his move from New Left to right, a good telling of the New-Leftian tale and its consequences, ditto Communism….
Not everyone is all that concerned with trying to find the truth through the observation of actual reality, and acting in accordance with it. I admired and admire David most of all for being one of those.
Neo, I’ve read most of David’s articles; many of them I have. I wish more of them were still available on-line. Anyway, thanks very much for posting so much of this one.
.
Some years after 9/11, on TV David mentioned his belief, which he’d explained many times, that the way to treat the Left was to use their combative methods against them (my paraphrase): “Let’s see how you like it when we do it to you!” (We all know that he can be confrontational! *g*)
Anyway, on that broadcast, he gave a bit of sheepish grin and said, “maybe I was wrong about that.” (I’d say right in theory, wrong in practice, because the Enemy wasn’t about to let a few insulting remarks stop it. — Which was and is David’s point, of course, when he keeps saying “The Republicans are too nice.”
.
Good posting altogether, and a good discussion. Especially about Obamacare and so-called “RomneyCare.”
One thing: The Sith’s explanation that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Now that is absolutely false as it turns out, but I’m not sure it was actually a lie at the time he said it. Obama lives in the land of beautiful poisonous unicorns and lovely evil fairies, don’t forget, and it’s not clear to me that he looks too carefully at the logic of his theories as they would work in Not-Obamaland, a.k.a. the real world. Also, he could argue that he didn’t mean that the LAW would specify directly what docs you could or couldn’t see.
I hope nobody thinks I’m bloody endorsing or defending this sorry excuse for a human being. It’s just that if we say “Our enemy did/said/thought X,” and it turns out that there are reasonable arguments that he didn’t, then we risk coming off as liars, muckrakers, or worse.
That, of course, is precisely the risk the present-day (at least) Dems have decided not to worry about AT ALL, which is why we are too “nice.” A lot of us are trained to try to be civil and to treat our fellow man decently, come what may, along with our dislike of looking like fools or knaves.
Anyway, “…And the truth shall make ye free.” Well, I think most of us believe that, although I’d argue that it’s not all that obvious — at least for some value of the word “free.”
@Julie near Chicago
Jonathan Gruber. Remember him? Check out his videos if you’ve forgotten and it’s “not clear” to you. Obama knew exactly what Obamacare was about and he absolutely knew he was lying from the get go.
Read Debunking Howard Zim by Mary Grabar. Perhaps the leftist wall will crumble down, one person at a time.
Anyone who followed Obama’s activities before he was elected to any office will recall that he taught Alinsky tactics as part of his community organizing efforts. It wasn’t surprising that he increasingly kept his real goals under cover as he became more known as a public figure, particularly when people began to think of him as a possible presidential candidate.
I have known since early on that to rely on either the internet or electronic storage devices to retain content is foolish. Yet we all do it, because everybody knows the sword won’t fall tomorrow.
(Why are you fixing the roof? It’s not raining!)
Unfortunately David’s 2009 article is not available via the link, not even with help from the Wayback Machine. (It shows hits in blue since 2014, but does not result in a link: nothing happens when you click. I have noticed this elsewhere in Wayback results lately. Be honest, Wayback. If the link is dead, don’t show it in blue.)
Fortunately, it does exist (in a 56-pg pamphlet) on Scribd. You can read the pamphlet free online — scroll all the way down — or download as a pdf file if you have a Scribd account. I have an old one that I haven’t used in years, so tomorrow I’ll see if it works.
https://www.scribd.com/document/61087685/Barack-Obama-s-Rules-for-Revolution-the-Alinsky-Model-by-David-Horowitz-pub-2009
Astonishing insights by Horowitz, corresponding to objective reality, the implications of which are so often politely declined by polite people.
Actually reading Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” — as opposed to reading bits out of context and paraphrased by a disillusioned leftist (as much as I admire David Horowitz) — is a different experience than you might imagine.
Far from a shadowy Mephistopheles or a fiery Lenin, Alinsky emerges as a cheerful, idealistic yet practical fellow. speaking clearly from his particular trenches. He doesn’t sound crazy or fanatical or evil. For instance, take his most notorious rule.
_______________________________________________________
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled as the target and “frozen.” By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant and somewhat legitimate pass of the buck. In these times of urbanization, complex metropolitan governments, the complexities of interlocked corporations, and the interlocking of political life between cities, counties and metropolitan authorities, that that threatens to loom more and more is hat of identifying the enemy. Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks. One big problem is a constant shifting of responsibility from one jurisdiction to another–individuals and bureaus one after another disclaim responsibility for any change to some other force….
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy–purposeful and malicious at times, other times just for straight self-survival–on part of the designated target. The forces for change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely. If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.
–Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals” (1971) pp.130-132
___________________________________________________________
Perhaps Trump supporters, in the midst of their current war with the Deep Swamp, might have a little “sympathy for the devil.”
So, of course:
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
–Rolling Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil”
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=uWepTCBBnLo&list=RDAMVMuWepTCBBnLo
Huxley @12:37AM –
Perhaps Trump supporters, in the midst of their current war with the Deep Swamp, might have a little “sympathy for the devil.”
We Trump supporters, in the midst of our current war with the Deep Swamp, have zero sympathy for quislings. Cannot get below that for anybody else.
Trump is our Alinsky.
He fights.
huxley @ 1:00AM –
Trump is our Alinsky.
He fights.
Then why suggest sympathy for Alinsky?
Why not also suggest that defense of George W. Bush is essential?
Maybe Carly?
What is the value of profundity, or acceptability?
Tonawanda: No idea what you’re on about here.
I’m an ex-leftist who supports Trump. I see things from both sides. And one thing I see quite clearly is Trump’s playbook shares much with Alinsky.
Hard-core Trump supporters have as much difficulty seeing that similarity as hard-core leftists from the other direction.
Alinsky was no more the Great Satan than Trump is. Alinsky was a clever fellow who found unorthodox ways to disrupt his opponents just as Trump has.
Alinsky wasn’t concerned with the “Marquess of Queensbury” rules anymore than Trump is — only Trump supporters are proud when Trump does it, though they spit on the floor when it comes to Alinsky.
Alinsky was passionate about the Have-Nots in his life, who were indeed being treated unfairly then, just as Trump’s devotion to average Americans, who are indeed getting a raw deal today.
I love this goddamn country, and we’re going to take it back.
Alinsky said that then. Trump is saying it now.
Wow, what great Alinsky quotes from David H. Makes me want to read more of both (but then how would I have time to rant here?)
Trump haters often call him a liar liar liar, yet most folk have trouble coming up with any specific lies of his that are worth specifying.
(Regrets.
I’ve had a few.
But then again,
Too few to mention…)
Mexico will “pay for the Wall” is the clearest Trump lie I can think of that’s worth mentioning. Most were true statements, like “I was wiretapped”, which the lying Dem media called lies. Or in other ways the Dem media misquotes or misstates what Trump actually said, into something close which is not true. Like him supporting Nazis because of Charlottesville (“good people on both sides”).
The “pay for the Wall” was more a campaign promise, not yet fulfilled(?) / broken, more than a lie. Breaking promises is a bit different than lying, tho related.
It’s a lie if, like in Obama’s “keep your doctor” case, you know that it’s not true as you’re saying it. It’s less of a lie, like Bush’s WMD accusation against Saddam, if you think it’s true when you say it. Both turn out to be false, but the intent from Bush was to be true, while from Obama it was to get power and pass the law.
Trump’s been doing great on keeping, or trying to keep, campaign promises. He also exaggerates so much and so often that, since the exaggeration is not accurate, he can be and is accused of lying. Yet few Trump-haters will give an exaggeration as an example of his “lie” — since each specific exaggeration / inaccuracy is so trivially unimportant and is more to make a point.
Those who hate Trump’s exaggerations think that’s a style which is very very
.
.
.
icky.
“…shares much with Alinsky…”
Maybe.
But not this:
“The mission of Alinsky radicals is a mission of destruction.”
The question then is does it make much of a difference….
(To be fair, some might claim that defending against the destroyers automatically makes one a destroyer oneself—or as bad as the destroyers one is protecting against. Some….)
“. . . was passionate about the Have-Nots in his life, who were indeed being treated unfairly then . . .”
Granted then.
And due to Alinsky’s considered policies as a political theoretician the ranks of these unfortunate Have-nots have: 1) been diminished to near extinction owing to self-ownership, commercial enterprise and practicing civic virtues; 2) grown ever larger and more dependent on the state for their daily sustenance, due to a radical transformation of their condition; or 3) remained proportionately roughly the same owning to a residual human nature Saul’s inadequate teachings could not eradicate?
Looks to me as though Alinsky didn’t understand what Machiavelli had in mind, at all. But little surprise there. Machiavelli was a winner. His enterprise (which Alinsky wholly mistakes) was — or is more like, since it endures into the present — a roaring success.
“Mexico will “pay for the Wall” is the clearest Trump lie I can think of that’s worth mentioning.”
I admit that I take your point- sort of- but as an early (and reluctant and surprised by my support) Trump voter I always thought that claim was merely a laugh line that no one could actually take seriously, anymore than anyone could take seriously an assertion that a room was “freezing” because the temp was slightly cold.
Yet lately I’ve seen it noted that as a result of Trumpian policies Mexico has deployed thousands of troops at their southern border to prevent the influx of various migrant caravans with the ultimate intent of reaching Uncle Sugar’s Glorious Welfare Paradise.
Whose paying for that, Trump haters?
Spoiler: It ain’t us.
“Mexico will “pay for the Wall” is the clearest Trump lie I can think of that’s worth mentioning.”
The term ‘lie’ does not mean what you fancy it means.
Alinsky was brilliant in defining the strategies with which to destroy decent societies. He also played well-meaning people like suckers for his own personal gain. I saw this firsthand in Rochester NY way back in the 1960s, after the blacks rioted and burned down most of their ‘hood.
Alinsky dedicated his “Rules For Radicals” to Satan, whom he termed the first radical.
Q.E.D.
No US president outside of wartime had to face anything like the OPEC embargo that Nixon had. It caused a total dislocation of the US economy. TOTAL. Theoretically, I didn’t agree with his wage and price controls, but he was dealing with a lot of unknowns and there were few/no alternative short-term energy options open. You probably didn’t live through it. Nixon did about as well as anyone could have.
The President and Congress did not. The appropriate response to the challenges faced between 1968 and 1975 would have been as follows:
(1) Suspend the convertability of the dollar into gold and allow floating exchange rates,
(2) make use of the discount rate and open-market operations to limit the rate of increase in the monetary aggregates,
(3) align tax rates and spending so that the budget was balanced over the course of the business cycle and the size of deficits correlated with capacity utilization,
(4) fix the minimum cash take home pay for employed persons at 1 / 10th of mean compensation per worker in the economy as a whole, providing for annual adjustments (nominal compensation being what it was in 1971, that would have meant $0.44 an hour for wage-earners, $3.43 per day for per diem employees, and $70 a month for salaried employees),
(5) institute cost-of-living-adjustments for Social Security benefits,
(6) replaced the re-imbursement formulae for Medicaid and Medicare with dollar values adjusted annually pari passu with nominal compensation for physicians and limited Medicare and Medicaid spending to a given level of gdp by instituting deductibles adjusted annually.
(7) replaced a bevy of welfare programs with matching funds for earned-income delivered through tax rebates,
(8) Amend the personal income tax as follows: a person’s liability would be equal to the following formula: (0.12 x a) + (0.37 x b) – (m x c), where ‘a’ would be any income you had below a certain thresh-hold, ‘b’ any income in excess of the threshold; ‘m’ the sum of yourself, your spouse (if any), and your dependent children; and ‘c’ the $ value of a general credit. The nominal value of the income thresh-hold would be adjusted annually according to the change in nominal compensation per worker and the nominal value of the general credit would be adjusted annually according to the change in nominal personal income per capita. Many people would in those circumstances have a negative liability. The value of the income thresh-hold and the general credit in 1971 would have been around $16,000 and $180.
(9) Instituted and maintained NO price controls on any good or service not produced by the federal government (and pricing those so produced on an average-cost basis).
(10) Amended federal labor law to require incorporated enterprises which were (a) subsidiaries of foreign companies or (b) employing people outside the state which issued their original charter (some itinerant sales people aside) to gradually institute statutory bonuses for their employees. Such a bonus would be equal to a fixed % of quarterly earnings (defining labor costs as those paid out aside from any bonuses) which would be distributed among all employees who had passed a six month probation; each employee would be assigned a fractional value and his bonus would be calculated as follows: T x f / S, where “T” is the total pool for bonuses, ‘f’ is the employee’s fractional value, and ‘S’ is the sum of fractional values of the whole body of employees. Bonuses would be declared quarterly and paid out in installments over the quarter.
(11) Let the chips fall where they would, weathering any recessions induced by price shocks or by restrictive monetary policy. No U turns.
Alinsky dedicated his “Rules For Radicals” to Satan, whom he termed the first radical.
Q.E.D.
Cicero: Alinsky was no more a Satanist when he wrote that than Mick Jagger was when Jagger wrote “Sympathy for the Devil.” Alinksy, again like Trump, had a sense of humor and rejoiced in tweaking people to get reactions.
Alinsky was not a sinister mastermind with infernal intentions to destroy Western Civilization. He was not a big-idea person at all. He was not a Marxist, a Leninist, or a Communist. He was deeply skeptical of any rigid belief system.
“The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
Alinsky was simply a shrewd organizer who put together a pragmatic toolkit for Have-Nots to push back.
My problem with Alinsky is, as Horowitz noted above, is the Have/Have-Not framework is valueless, therefore dangerous, once you get beyond Have/Have-Not.
I wouldn’t want to live under unfettered Alinskyism any more than I would want to live under unfettered capitalism. Unfortunately, progressives today have chosen to run with unfettered Alinskyism.
I submit that until recently they haven’t tended to lie about their most fundamental political agendas.
I will grant you that, but this is debatably a difference in degree, not in principle. I guess you could argue the extent of Obama’s lying represents a “phase change” that equates to a difference in principle, but I’m squishy about that one.
I mean, you go back quite a ways, and you’ll still find fundamental differences between what they say and what they do… part of it is that people didn’t tolerate it when politicos lied… “Read my lips, no new taxes” cost Bush substantially with his own base… possibly enough that he lost the re-election because of it.
A clip of FDR’s campaign appearance in Boston (October, 1940), where he promised the crowd, “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfSU-VGixjM
Some other interesting articles regarding Obama and Alinsky:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
Barack Obama and Alinsky’s Rules for Psychopaths
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/barack_obama_and_alinskys_rule.html
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Saul Alinsky, and Their Influence on Obama
http://www.floppingaces.net/2011/07/30/the-cloward-piven-strategy-saul-alinsky-and-their-influence-on-obama-reader-post/
And just because it fits in with the topic of “Obama” and “Great articles by American Thinker”:
Stop It Already — He’s Not So Smart
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/06/stop_it_already_–_hes_not_so_smart.html
Plus Hillary and Alinsky:
Reading Hillary Rodham’s hidden thesis
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17388372/ns/politics-decision_08/t/reading-hillary-rodhams-hidden-thesis/
Her adherence to Alinsky explains all the lies weve heard from Hillary over the years. I even recall when Bill was pres & getting some flack over something she would give us that annoying laugh & accuse the vast right wing conspiracy, using ridicule to put down a request for a serious explanation. Alinsky espouses ridicule in his “R for R”
OBloodyHell.
I consider it a HUGE difference. It was also something I noticed quite early on about Obama.
OBloodyHell:
And that was not a lie of Bush’s. A lie is when you know it’s a lie. That was a promise that he made that he should not have made because he couldn’t keep it (and didn’t keep it) when pressure was applied.
Here’s the way it went down:
A stupid pledge to begin with, then an attempt to compromise with a Democratic Congress, and then the GOP circular firing squad.
I really don’t think it’s a good example of a lie, though.
I see more and more anti Leftists and conservatives become disciples of Alinsky and by extension, Sons and Disciples of Satan.
It’s not a good trend for the war of good and evil, light and dark.
What is the Path of Satan?
it is the Left hand path explained here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-hand_path_and_right-hand_path
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6oiaCDuHpU&t=1043s
https://acim.org/workbook/lesson-26/
For those dealing with fear of the Leftist alliance:
1. It is surely obvious that if you can be attacked you are not invulnerable. You see attack as a real threat. That is because you believe that you can really attack. And what would have effects through you must also have effects on you. It is this law that will ultimately save you, but you are misusing it now. You must therefore learn how it can be used for your own best interests, rather than against them.
2. Because your attack thoughts will be projected, you will fear attack. And if you fear attack, you must believe that you are not invulnerable. Attack thoughts therefore make you vulnerable in your own mind, which is where the attack thoughts are. Attack thoughts and invulnerability cannot be accepted together. They contradict each other.
3. The idea for today introduces the thought that you always attack yourself first. If attack thoughts must entail the belief that you are vulnerable, their effect is to weaken you in your own eyes. Thus they have attacked your perception of yourself. And because you believe in them, you can no longer believe in yourself. A false image of yourself has come to take the place of what you are.
4. Practice with today’s idea will help you to understand that vulnerability or invulnerability is the result of your own thoughts. Nothing except your thoughts can attack you. Nothing except your thoughts can make you think you are vulnerable. And nothing except your thoughts can prove to you this is not so.
5. Six practice periods are required in applying today’s idea. A full two minutes should be attempted for each of them, although the time may be reduced to a minute if the discomfort is too great. Do not reduce it further.
6. The practice period should begin with repeating the idea for today, then closing your eyes and reviewing the unresolved questions whose outcomes are causing you concern. The concern may take the form of depression, worry, anger, a sense of imposition, fear, foreboding or preoccupation. Any problem as yet unsettled that tends to recur in your thoughts during the day is a suitable subject. You will not be able to use very many for any one practice period, because a longer time than usual should be spent with each one. Today’s idea should be applied as follows:
7. First, name the situation:
I am concerned about _________.
Then go over every possible outcome that has occurred to you in that connection and which has caused you concern, referring to each one quite specifically, saying:
I am afraid _________ will happen.
8. If you are doing the exercises properly, you should have some five or six distressing possibilities available for each situation you use, and quite possibly more. It is much more helpful to cover a few situations thoroughly than to touch on a larger number. As the list of anticipated outcomes for each situation continues, you will probably find some of them, especially those that occur to you toward the end, less acceptable to you. Try, however, to treat them all alike to whatever extent you can.
9. After you have named each outcome of which you are afraid, tell yourself:
That thought is an attack upon myself.
I saw this firsthand in Rochester NY way back in the 1960s, after the blacks rioted and burned down most of their ‘hood.
I grew up there. There was never a time in my memory when the slums weren’t there and passably populated. Shabby, but there.
FWIW — I was a third-string organizer back in the 80s. Nothing big. I tabled on street corners, attended demos, worked with my affinity group, volunteered at the Nuclear Freeze office and oversaw Congressional letter-writing campaigns. (How quaint!)
Anyway. I read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” then and thought nothing of it. I still have a copy. I’ve read or browsed books which horrified me — “Mein Kampf” and the Koran for two — but RFR was not one of them.
I just don’t recognize the Alinsky I once read as the Evil Guy Behind It All conservatives are agog about. In the chapter “Of Means and Ends,” which seems to be the basis of the Alinksy lie accusations, Alinsky cites and quotes historical monsters like Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Gandhi for the distance between what they said at one time and something different they said later.
Alinsky chides his readers for expecting something better and advises them that producing political results usually entails things you don’t see in Disney family entertainment. (Though the Disney bit is me.)
Have been off the grid a lot this fall, but this conversation calls out for an excerpt on David Horowitz about his turn from the Left. It’s very long, but it covers a lot of the territory Neo addresses often in her blog. DH is kind of a one-man-band for the Left-Right contest. It also shows that many of the political and social events of current interest are NOT NEW.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/david-horowitz-journey-left-right/
Ends really are inextricable from means.
The rest of his story tells you all you need to know about the Left’s subversion of American institutions. NOTE: DH was more than just a “former believer” – he was a major figure intellectually and a media super-star for the Left, whose change in beliefs was research & reality based, deeply thoughtful, and devastatingly challenging.
Contains what looks like a full bibliography & ample biographical details.