What's Wrong With Saul Alinsky?

[A Laughing Baby]

I have to agree with that with a couple of exceptions. It would certainly be possible to adopt (say for example....) a subset of the Alinsky methodology that didn't involve extortion of the offices, banks, and other identified segments of the "haves", that didn't involve "Fart Ins", and which were not crude and gross (or threatening).

It's not unlike studying Noam Chompsky for what insight he has into the mechanisms of propaganda, while at the same time being violently opposed to his ridiculous political and anti-American views. Or for that matter, Ayn Rand (Alinsky's section you mentioned on "self-interest" he likely pulled from Rand, although he quotes Nietsche). One would not have to believe in capitalism or be an atheist to understand the world better from Rand's view.

Alinsky's thoughts on self-interest are almost startlingly Objectivist in their premises, definitely. I guess what's going on here is that there has been a widespread conflation of Alinsky's personal convictions and actions for change and his methods--which, in my mind, is what would make someone an Alinsky radical as opposed to just a regular old radical.

In another act of supreme irony, Alinsky's personal ends have been used to tear down his general means.

 

[mhaze]

Check this out:

I agree. It was not the content of dogma with which he was concerned, it was rather the concept of dogma itself. Like I put in my additional edit above, I feel that DJW was presented an extremely limited sample of Alinsky's work and drew a reasonable conclusion from it. I think that having provided a broader quotation, that he/she and others can get a better idea.

Really, what I'm getting at is trying to determine how being an "Alinsky radical" has become a bad thing. It's easy to find people who employed his tactics for stupid or bad purposes, but thinking of it in terms of its core concepts and methods, I fail to see where being an Alinsky radical is anything but...well...intelligent.

No, I got that as the question and it reflects something of the question of the OP...what exactly is wrong with being a "Saul Alinsky radical"...and I answered it offensively, just as Alinsky would have...right in your nose...literally....



I'm sure you'd agree that staging BOTH a 100 person "Fart In" and a 100 person-clog-the-bathrooms-and-don't-let-anyone-in at the next JREF meeting would be perfectly fine behavior.

THAT's why it's ridiculous to ask why conservatives may hate the guy. Because he encouraged doing stuff like that. And I'm being very exact in the above scenario. I've picked the action, and I've targeted the organization, place and so forth (hypothetically). That gives you a visceral feel for the immediacy of the "in your face" tactics that Alinsky proposed.

What you are trying to get to is a sort of "Alinsky LITE" that well, we can call "Alinsky method". But going half way really wasn't what he proposed, was it?

 

[A'isha]

So, the answer to the question "why do 'conservatives' in general and Gingrich in particular dislike Alinsky" is "because if Alinsky were posting here at JREF, he'd be mhaze"?

 

[varwoche]

Can anyone name a specific Alinsky tactic that supposedly is used by lefties more than by righties? Mhaze?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

No, I got that as the question and it reflects something of the question of the OP...what exactly is wrong with being a "Saul Alinsky radical"...and I answered it offensively, just as Alinsky would have...right in your nose...literally....



I'm sure you'd agree that staging BOTH a 100 person "Fart In" and a 100 person-clog-the-bathrooms-and-don't-let-anyone-in at the next JREF meeting would be perfectly fine behavior.

THAT's why it's ridiculous to ask why conservatives may hate the guy. Because he encouraged doing stuff like that. And I'm being very exact in the above scenario. I've picked the action, and I've targeted the organization, place and so forth (hypothetically). That gives you a visceral feel for the immediacy of the "in your face" tactics that Alinsky proposed.

What you are trying to get to is a sort of "Alinsky LITE" that well, we can call "Alinsky method". But going half way really wasn't what he proposed, was it?

Well, maybe. I think that we might be talking past each other just a bit. I recognize and agree that you are keeping things specific and recognizable, keeping things within the experience of your opponent (if you want to call me that), and so on. But I disagree with the idea that the things Alinsky personally did define what composes an Alinsky radical, especially when he wrote a book on how to be one.

I think where our fundamental disconnect can be found is that you are linking Alinsky's personal actions with being an Alinsky radical, and I am purely sticking to what concepts he lays out in RfR. To an extent, I think they're both valid arguments, and if his actions are truly the reason that there is such a widespread dislike (I don't think it's strong enough for words like "hatred" or "disgust") of him, then I can accept that. I disagree with it, but I can accept it.

I am, however, unsure that the vast majority of conservatives who would espouse strong dislike for Alinsky, those for whom the word "Alinsky" would be used as an emotional trigger (like "Soros," as a more fully-fleshed out example), have actually read his work. It's clear enough to me that you have, but I doubt that the average person who hears and reacts to the name "Alinsky" is familiar with his work beyond the fact that he wrote a book with "Radical" in the title. Being only tangentially familiar with the talk radio circuit--I listen to most of the major names about 2 to 3 nights a week on my way home from work--I'm not sure how he has been presented in the character establishment phase to the average listener.

Anyway, full disclosure--seeing just the title of this thread got me to finally get around to reading the damned book, which I think has led to an actual productive conversation with someone that I disagree with 95% of the time. I am glad that we can at least sometimes move beyond dogpiling and asking each other for evidence over and over again. I've learned stuff from this thread and I'm glad it was made

 

[mhaze]

.... full disclosure--seeing just the title of this thread got me to finally get around to reading the damned book, which I think has led to an actual productive conversation with someone that I disagree with 95% of the time. I am glad that we can at least sometimes move beyond dogpiling and asking each other for evidence over and over again. I've learned stuff from this thread and I'm glad it was made

Yep, that's the reason I was playing the little game earlier in this thread, the actuality of the guy's writing goes quite beyond political idiotology and the second hand rendering of excerpts is always inadequate. That's true with many writers, by no means just this guy we are talking about.

But Alinsky is certainly one of the more interesting characters.

 

[A'isha]

Except the "secondhand" is the actual issue here. The question is what, specifically, Gingrich doesn't like about Alinsky, and how Gingrich thinks those aspects, traits, or opinions of Alinsky relate to the current President of the United States of America.

The discussion about Alinsky's book in general is certainly interesting, but it doesn't actually do anything to answer that question.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Except the "secondhand" is the actual issue here. The question is what, specifically, Gingrich doesn't like about Alinsky, and how Gingrich thinks those aspects, traits, or opinions of Alinsky relate to the current President of the United States of America.

The discussion about Alinsky's book in general is certainly interesting, but it doesn't actually do anything to answer that question.

The problem, I think, is that there's a major public disconnect--like I said, not all conservatives are going to be mhaze and actually read the book. You hear the name, you know he's a bad person, you react. Knowing Gingrich, I think it's safe to assume he's read the book, but he almost certainly knows that the base he's appealing to through namedropping Alinsky has for the most part never read or never will read Alinsky's work.

ETA: To me, it's just political expediency. Gingrich knows what I posit in the paragraph above, people hear that Obama is associated with yet another Scary 60s Radical Person, the intended damage is done. I doubt that Gingrich actually believes Obama is any sort of radical, beyond a clinical conceptual definition like I use earlier--someone who wants to change the status quo in any fashion. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part.

 

[A'isha]

The problem, I think, is that there's a major public disconnect--like I said, not all conservatives are going to be mhaze and actually read the book. You hear the name, you know he's a bad person, you react. Knowing Gingrich, I think it's safe to assume he's read the book, but he almost certainly knows that the base he's appealing to through namedropping Alinsky has for the most part never read or never will read Alinsky's work.

ETA: To me, it's just political expediency. Gingrich knows what I posit in the paragraph above, people hear that Obama is associated with yet another Scary 60s Radical Person, the intended damage is done. I doubt that Gingrich actually believes Obama is any sort of radical, beyond a clinical conceptual definition like I use earlier--someone who wants to change the status quo in any fashion. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part.

So, he's just being used as a political boogeyman, with any given mention of Alinsky having pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with anything the man actually wrote or said?

That is, Alinsky is Bad (with no reference to or explanation of why he's bad), Obama is like Alinsky (with no reference to or explanation of why he's like Alinsky), therefore Obama is Bad, QED?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

So, he's just being used as a political boogeyman, with any given mention of Alinsky having pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with anything the man actually wrote or said?

That is, Alinsky is Bad (with no reference to or explanation of why he's bad), Obama is like Alinsky (with no reference to or explanation of why he's like Alinsky), therefore Obama is Bad, QED?

In my opinion, yes. It's not as if that's not a tactic we as a country haven't seen before in dozens of elections.

 

[A'isha]

In my opinion, yes. It's not as if that's not a tactic we as a country haven't seen before in dozens of elections.

Yes, but usually the smear-by-association thing has a bit more to go on than that.

"Obama is a Socialist, therefore Obama is Bad" - well, most people have at least some vague idea of what Socialism actually entails, and so can grasp how Obama being one would indeed be bad.

"Obama was influenced by Reverend Wright, therefore Obama is Bad" - Since Wright's words were all over the media (including interviews with man himself), most people were able to understand what about Wright was Bad, and therefore that Obama listening to him was potentially problematic.

"Obama is an Alinsky Radical, therefore Obama is Bad" - This, though? This is a "wait, who?" kind of accusation, which makes it different.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Yes, but usually the smear-by-association thing has a bit more to go on than that.

"Obama is a Socialist, therefore Obama is Bad" - well, most people have at least some vague idea of what Socialism actually entails, and so can grasp how Obama being one would indeed be bad.

"Obama was influenced by Reverend Wright, therefore Obama is Bad" - Since Wright's words were all over the media (including interviews with man himself), most people were able to understand what about Wright was Bad, and therefore that Obama listening to him was potentially problematic.

"Obama is an Alinsky Radical, therefore Obama is Bad" - This, though? This is a "wait, who?" kind of accusation, which makes it different.

Forgive me for just linking this, but it's a transcript straight from the machine:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/01/25/what-connection-between-obama-and-saul-alinsky

ETA: largely it's ephemeral sorts of things generally related to community organization workshops and the like. They were not exactly pals, and it's absolutely a weak tie. To me, it's a cyclical sort of thing. Obama is tied to radicals, therefore Obama is a radical, therefore Obama is tied to this other radical, therefore Obama is a radical...

 

[mhaze]

So, he's just being used as a political boogeyman, with any given mention of Alinsky having pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with anything the man actually wrote or said?

That is, Alinsky is Bad (with no reference to or explanation of why he's bad), Obama is like Alinsky (with no reference to or explanation of why he's like Alinsky), therefore Obama is Bad, QED?

Oh, first of all, consider the stuff that Newt does. He's a historian. He can in all probability quote entire sections of Alinsky from memory. Since I can easily connect the dogs to validate his statement about Obama, I'm sure he could, if asked, do a much better job. We're talking....EASILY....

Note in this thread we've not enumerated these connections and similarities. As I earlier mentioned, it's so damn obvious it's hardly worth bothering with.

I think what is implicit and worth stating is that Newt in making that comment was warning as follows: Obama is xyz style radical, he has an agenda, he is working within the system to get that agenda, and you may not be aware what it is or how he is going about it. To understand that, look at methods such as Obama taught when he taught Alinsky's methods.

Another way to say it is "don't vote for 'hope and change', look what these guys are really up to".

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Oh, first of all, consider the stuff that Newt does. He's a historian. He can in all probability quote entire sections of Alinsky from memory. Since I can easily connect the dogs to validate his statement about Obama, I'm sure he could, if asked, do a much better job. We're talking....EASILY....

Note in this thread we've not enumerated these connections and similarities. As I earlier mentioned, it's so damn obvious it's hardly worth bothering with.

I think what is implicit and worth stating is that Newt in making that comment was warning as follows: Obama is xyz style radical, he has an agenda, he is working within the system to get that agenda, and you may not be aware what it is or how he is going about it. To understand that, look at methods such as Obama taught when he taught Alinsky's methods.

Another way to say it is "don't vote for 'hope and change', look what these guys are really up to".

The problem is that he's far from the first to do it. I've been hearing Alinsky's name for various things for the past 3 years now.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, first of all, consider the stuff that Newt does. He's a historian. He can in all probability quote entire sections of Alinsky from memory. Since I can easily connect the dogs to validate his statement about Obama, I'm sure he could, if asked, do a much better job. We're talking....EASILY....

And yet, he hasn't.

Note in this thread we've not enumerated these connections and similarities. As I earlier mentioned, it's so damn obvious it's hardly worth bothering with.

That's just begging the question.

I think what is implicit and worth stating is that Newt in making that comment was warning as follows: Obama is xyz style radical, he has an agenda, he is working within the system to get that agenda, and you may not be aware what it is or how he is going about it. To understand that, look at methods such as Obama taught when he taught Alinsky's methods.

No, he was making a flat assertion that Obama is an Alinsky-style radical, and you're repeating that assertion. Neither of you are actually making any attempt whatsoever to back up that assertion.

You know, like this: "Alinsky said that radicals should do X. Obama is implementing X by doing A, B, and C."

Forgive me for just linking this, but it's a transcript straight from the machine:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/01/25/what-connection-between-obama-and-saul-alinsky

Thank you. Even as weaksauce in terms of arguing that "Obama is Bad because Alinsky!" as the O'Reilly thing is, by simply providing the link you've done far more to answer the question posed in this thread than mhaze did.

EDIT:I hope that didn't sound as backhanded as it seems, now that I reread what I wrote. I just wanted to emphasize that a simple website link to a lame argument presented on Fox News is still far, far more illuminating than anything mhaze said about the subject, for all his bluster about the topic!

 

[Cleon]

Oh, first of all, consider the stuff that Newt does. He's a historian. He can in all probability quote entire sections of Alinsky from memory.

Is that a skill most historians have?

Or are you just making **** up?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Is that a skill most historians have?

Or are you just making **** up?

I know that I was totally quoting at length from memory, and absolutely by no means copy/pasting from a pdf copy of the book that I used to read it...

 

[johnny karate]

Another way to say it is "don't vote for 'hope and change', look what these guys are really up to".

What? What exactly are they (specifically Obama) "up to"?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh, first of all, consider the stuff that Newt does. He's a historian. He can in all probability quote entire sections of Alinsky from memory.

Quite a nice bit of specious reasoning there. I wonder how it would work if we apply it to other things we know about him. Like the fact that he's a serial philanderer, for instance. What conclusions can draw about Newt based on that fact?

 

[Travis]

At a rally a supporter asks Newt if he can quote Alinsky.

"I sure can. In his little known book America Needs To Be A Stalinist Police State he talks at length on how freedom needs to be outlawed and everyone's white daughter handed over to black gangs for use as sex slaves. 'The nubile ones would be best handled with the strict ferocity only the Mandingo can muster.' Then he curses George Washington a lot."

"Thank you," said the man, "as an ideologue I will of course not bother to fact check anything you just said."