What's Wrong With Saul Alinsky?

[daenku32]

Crooks and Liars has a good article on this, regarding the Fox News treatment of Alinsky.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/billo-should-take-president-obamas-alinsky-

Bill O'Reilly isn't a fool. He knows this. But as long as he can keep the audience terrified of the name Alinsky without actually pointing out that the man was not some kind of radical socialist but one who believed in the power of communities and the disempowered to self-empower, he keeps the lie alive.

and

Now here are Alinsky's tactical rules, straight from the book itself:

Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
Never go outside the experience of your people.
Wherever possible, go outside the experience of your enemy.
Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
Ridicule is man's most important weapon.
A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
Keep the pressure on.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

 

[Lurker]

So if they have such effects, they are equal to the Alinsky method, regardless of whether the method is the same or different?

No.

The phrase "Alinsky method" implies there is a method and that it has attributable characteristics identifiable by said phrase "Alinsky". One would presume these were laid out in a book by Alinsky entitled "Rules for Radicals".

Well, I presumed that what was posted was excerpted from that book and I found nothing objectionable. Most protests would follow those methods. Now, if you have something from the book that you think is objectionable I would be interested in hearing it as I have not read the book and am also curious to know why the right hold Alinsky in such disregard. I say this with an open mind having really no opinion on Alinsky whatsoever.

 

[A'isha]

But I've been totally open about my intentions in my posts, namely a willingness to discuss the book which contains the answer, and no willingness to "give out the answer".

Very un-BAC like.

Except the book doesn't contain the answer to the specific question being asked.

EDIT: Not the complete answer, at least.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Not by way of a chapter that only deals with the emotive extensions of four words. But to apply his logic to the word "liberal" is not to consider it demeaning and to slither around it, but to embrace being "a liberal" and use the word explicitly...as a "strong word" and without regard for the negative connotations. By this theory, you'd not dance around a subject like "redistribution" but walk right in and state you want to take from the "haves". The study of how words become emotive hot buttons is not a right or left wing dichotomy. Yes it is allied with propaganda techniques and with linguistics.

Alinsky notes correctly that self-interest usually is behind avowed statements of public good or varieties of altruistic statements. This is of course just a prelude to his blatant justification of "the ends justify the means".

This is a gross misrepresentation of Alinsky's point with regards to ends and means. His point isn't that the ends justify the means, it's that to those using the means to achieve their ends, they are justified. This is an important distinction and to characterize it in any other way is a misreading of Alinsky at best.

But to argue that conservative talking heads are Alinsky radicals as used in the book would imply that they were engaged somehow in "community organizing" as that phrase is used in the book. Incidentally, the phrase has no other common usage than I am aware of other than this book's definition. It follows then a level of profound ignorance is implicitly in a statement such as "Obama was a community organizer. So what did he have to do with Alinsky?"

It is of course true that if the concept of "Alinsky method" could be diluted or watered down such that it applied equally to party A and party B then, one might think, it's negative coloration on party B would be minimized. Misinterpreting or flat out lying about what comprises the Alinsky method would allow that and be in line with the Alinsky method.

Thank you for providing an example of the method.

My intent is to not create some grand tu quoque. I realize that it probably came off that way. My intent is to say that if one utilizes a loose or weak enough definition of "Alinsky radical," it becomes quite elementary to define any person of any ideology as an Alinsky radical, provided that they simply want to change the current state of things. It would be incorrect, of course, but simple to do.

Well, I presumed that what was posted was excerpted from that book and I found nothing objectionable. Most protests would follow those methods. Now, if you have something from the book that you think is objectionable I would be interested in hearing it as I have not read the book and am also curious to know why the right hold Alinsky in such disregard. I say this with an open mind having really no opinion on Alinsky whatsoever.

For the most part, Alinsky's "method" is rather agreeable to any protest movement--even the Tea Party learned from it--and is rather logical. One of his main points is maintaining an image of synthesis and coherence. For example:

The picketing lawyers threw away a beautiful opportunity to create a nationwide issue. Offhand, there would seem to have been two choices, either of which would have forced the judge's hand and kept the issue going: some
one of the lawyers could have stepped up to the judge after the voice said, "F--- you, Campbell," said that the lawyers there did not support personal obscenities, but they were not leaving; or all the lawyers together could have chorused, with one voice, "F---you, Campbell!" They did neither; instead, they let the initiative pass from them to the judge, and achieved nothing.
Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing. In short, radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.

 

[mhaze]

This is a gross misrepresentation of Alinsky's point with regards to ends and means. His point isn't that the ends justify the means, it's that to those using the means to achieve their ends, they are justified. This is an important distinction and to characterize it in any other way is a misreading of Alinsky at best.
...

I agree that if you read IIRC the first chapter in isolation on "means", then this is true. But the most common phrase in the book is "tactics", and that is of course nothing other than "means".

Hence, I stand by my comment that to Alinsky, in his suggested methods "The means justify the end".
"The ends justify the means" (corrected) Nothing could be more true.

....My intent is to say that if one utilizes a loose or weak enough definition of "Alinsky radical," it becomes quite elementary to define any person of any ideology as an Alinsky radical, provided that they simply want to change the current state of things. It would be incorrect, of course, but simple to do......

Not incorrect, but just lying. For example, organizations were set up to teach Alinsky's method (Yes, the Bamster was involved with them). They did not teach something other than Alinsky's method.

And the method is well outlined in the book.

So no, not without outright lying is is possible to "define any person of any ideology as an Alinsky radical". Which takes us back to my specific original comment on the OP. That Gingrich's remark about Obama being an Alinsky radical is easily substantiated by the book "Rules for Radicals", and isn't a slur or smear but a factual statement.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I agree that if you read IIRC the first chapter in isolation on "means", then this is true. But the most common phrase in the book is "tactics", and that is of course nothing other than "means".

Hence, I stand by my comment that to Alinsky, in his suggested methods "The means justify the end". Nothing could be more true.

I believe you mean that the ends justify the means, but certainly that is something he would agree with. His whole point is that people do what is necessary to achieve their ends, then retroactively justify the means. He's not saying that this is correct, but rather that it's just what people do, and therefore is something that should be taken into consideration when working for change.

All in all, it's a rather unassailable position. By saying that no matter what the means or ends are, they will be justified by the ends to the people working toward those ends, Alinsky establishes a conceptual base that can be extrapolated into any action, anywhere, and be correct--provided you accept his premises. His example is Gandhi, but they easily could be applied to Xerxes, the Conquistadors, or (gasp) Hitler, and so on. Their ends justified their means...to them.

In a sense, then, everyone is an Alinsky radical, provided you accept his premises (I understand that this is a small subset of his methods, and am more than willing to discuss other portions of it with you if you would like). I suppose what I wonder about is what the perceived ends are that Obama is working toward.

I assure you I'm not trying to "win" this argument--it's not often that I get to discuss this with someone who disagrees with Alinsky but actually knows of his work other than what Glenn Beck has told them. I don't know/care if you actually have a copy or if you're reading a pdf of it, it's clear that you actually have access to the text and it's nice to hear the thoughts of an ideological opposite on a work that's become a talking point over the past few years.

 

[mhaze]

Well, I presumed that what was posted was excerpted from that book and I found nothing objectionable. Most protests would follow those methods. Now, if you have something from the book that you think is objectionable I would be interested in hearing it as I have not read the book and am also curious to know why the right hold Alinsky in such disregard. I say this with an open mind having really no opinion on Alinsky whatsoever.

I happen to be completely UNINTERESTED in second and third hand renderings of "Alinsky" to specific audiences of one or another persuasion, and in discussing such excerpts.

 

[Lurker]

For example, organizations were set up to teach Alinsky's method (Yes, the Bamster was involved with them). They did not teach something other than Alinsky's method.

Can you provide examples of these organizations and evidence to support this claim?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Can you provide examples of these organizations and evidence to support this claim?

As to the organizations, they certainly existed--IIRC, Alinsky actually dedicates large amounts of text to describing his experiences in them. They were more workshops than organizations, as I understand them. As for whether or not Obama attended them, I couldn't really care less, so that's up to someone else to find evidence for.

 

[mhaze]

As to the organizations, they certainly existed--IIRC, Alinsky actually dedicates large amounts of text to describing his experiences in them. They were more workshops than organizations, as I understand them. As for whether or not Obama attended them, I couldn't really care less, so that's up to someone else to find evidence for.

Exactly, that's part of "the method"....setting up the organizations.

If the Bamster attended classes and workshops that taught the Alinsky method, and later taught those same classes, a reasonable person would thing that Newt's comment that "Obama was a Saul Alinsky radical" was well grounded in reality.

And that's without an examination of the factual evidence regarding the manner in which the Bamster followed the principles and methods of the book.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Exactly, that's part of "the method"....setting up the organizations.

If the Bamster attended classes and workshops that taught the Alinsky method, and later taught those same classes, a reasonable person would thing that Newt's comment that "Obama was a Saul Alinsky radical" was well grounded in reality.

And that's without an examination of the factual evidence regarding the manner in which the Bamster followed the principles and methods of the book.

I'm honestly not particularly interested in whether or not X person or Y person is an "Alinsky Radical." I'm far more interested in whether or not being one is a bad thing, and why it has come to be associated with being a bad thing.

 

[mhaze]

I'm honestly not particularly interested in whether or not X person or Y person is an "Alinsky Radical." I'm far more interested in whether or not being one is a bad thing, and why it has come to be associated with being a bad thing.

Probably a good direction for this thread to go in, such "Is Obama a 'Saul Alinsky Radical' is not going to be much of a discussion.

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.

Wait....

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Probably a good direction for this thread to go in, such "Is Obama a 'Saul Alinsky Radical' is not going to be much of a discussion.

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.

Wait....

This is awfully specific and not a conceptual deconstruction at all!

 

[Cleon]

The real Saul Alinsky radical - Newt Gingrich.

 

[DJW]

Borrowing the Alinsky quote that A Laughing Baby used in post#152 with bolding mine now:

Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice. Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous. To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open, questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general welfare."

IF we allow that President Obama is an Alinsky acolyte, "the human spirit" glowing from "that small inner light of doubt" must offend the Speaker, since his god is being compared to uncertainty. Is Mr. Gingrich upset that the uncertainties we confront as a species are explained by doubt rather than faith in a god? If so, might then President Obama's association with Alinsky be at odds with Newt's Catholic faith?

Supposing that Newt believes his own ideology, and given that, IMO, the Catholic Church has become dogmatic, then Alinsky's belief that "complete certainty" is "causing cruelty, pain and injustice" is another indictment of Gingrich's ideology. Furthermore, Mr. Gingrich may desire that the darkness that Alinsky blames on dogma be placed instead on, perhaps, Satan. I don't know.

Same quote to keep context, new bolding mine:

Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice. Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous. To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open, questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general welfare."

If I'm interpreting this correctly, an Alinsky radical would believe the Judeo-Christian ethic should not be a foundation for a society and is a danger to the general welfare. Newt's belief that President Obama is an Alinsky radical would align with his perceived threat to the country.


Snipped portion of the same quote, highlighting (because I can) mine:

Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous.

No derail desired, his use of "enshrine" is interesting, but having read very little of Alinsky's work, I'm uncertain of what he meant exactly. Maybe it's a condemnation of communism or a welfare state...but I don't know.

I had fun thinking about it, so thanks for the thread.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Alinsky stresses that to be a radical (and in modern times, I would take this as being an "Alinsky radical") doesn't mean that you agree with him, but rather use his methods to affect change. He has his own ideals but it is stressed throughout his work that his methods can be used by any group seeking change. There are Alinsky tactics that were successfully employed by the Tea Party, for example.

And actually, Alinsky mentions Judeo-Christian ethics in specific:

Believing in people, the radical has the job of organizing them so that they will have the power and opportunity to best meet each unforeseeable future crisis as they move ahead in their eternal search for those values of equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judaeo-Christianity and the democratic political tradition. Democracy is not an end but the best means toward achieving these values. This is my credo for which I live and, if need be, die.

Hardly matches what sort of thing is typically insinuated by the name Saul Alinsky nowadays, no?


ETA:

No derail desired, his use of "enshrine" is interesting, but having read very little of Alinsky's work, I'm uncertain of what he meant exactly. Maybe it's a condemnation of communism or a welfare state...but I don't know.

What Alinsky is getting at in that section is that it's not necessarily the specifics of a belief system that are dangerous (though it is certainly possible). What is most dangerous is for ideology--a changing, adaptable thing--to become dogma--a static thing, an unchanging claim to truth:

This is not an ideological book except insofar as argument for change, rather than for the status quo, can be called an ideology; different people, in different places, in different situations and different times will construct their own solutions and symbols of salvation for those times. This book will not contain any panacea or dogma; I detest and fear dogma. I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to
be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic. Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement.

This would have been clearer to you had I provided the broader context, for which I apologize. The important thing to remember when considering Rules for Radicals is that it is not so much an ideological work as it is a conceptual one--it quite literally lays out rules for radicals (defined simply as people wishing to change the status quo) to follow if they wish to most effectively bring about changes.

 

[mhaze]

Borrowing the Alinsky quote that A Laughing Baby used in post#152 with bolding mine now:




IF we allow that President Obama is an Alinsky acolyte, "the human spirit" glowing from "that small inner light of doubt" must offend the Speaker, since his god is being compared to uncertainty. Is Mr. Gingrich upset that the uncertainties we confront as a species are explained by doubt rather than faith in a god? If so, might then President Obama's association with Alinsky be at odds with Newt's Catholic faith?

Supposing that Newt believes his own ideology, and given that, IMO, the Catholic Church has become dogmatic, then Alinsky's belief that "complete certainty" is "causing cruelty, pain and injustice" is another indictment of Gingrich's ideology. Furthermore, Mr. Gingrich may desire that the darkness that Alinsky blames on dogma be placed instead on, perhaps, Satan. I don't know.

Same quote to keep context, new bolding mine:




If I'm interpreting this correctly, an Alinsky radical would believe the Judeo-Christian ethic should not be a foundation for a society and is a danger to the general welfare. Newt's belief that President Obama is an Alinsky radical would align with his perceived threat to the country.


Snipped portion of the same quote, highlighting (because I can) mine:



No derail desired, his use of "enshrine" is interesting, but having read very little of Alinsky's work, I'm uncertain of what he meant exactly. Maybe it's a condemnation of communism or a welfare state...but I don't know.

I had fun thinking about it, so thanks for the thread.

Ah....No, I don't think the book supports this. Alinsky referred to DOGMA in general. It could be the dogma of "idiots of the left" repeating the latest talking points, dogma of black inner city people, dogma of a church, etc. You can't read an anti-church or anti-religious sentiment into this.

I suspect but can't prove that Alinsky viewed church and religion as cultural manifestations of power and control, serving various social functions (which is much what I do). In that respect he might have criticized one religious person for being dogmatic, while praising another for being open minded....and have done the exact same with two communists.

 

[Travis]

I'm still waiting to hear how anything Alinsky proposed was bad.

After we accomplish that then we can move on to whether Obama is connected in some way.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Ah....No, I don't think the book supports this. Alinsky referred to DOGMA in general. It could be the dogma of "idiots of the left" repeating the latest talking points, dogma of black inner city people, dogma of a church, etc. You can't read an anti-church or anti-religious sentiment into this.

I suspect but can't prove that Alinsky viewed church and religion as cultural manifestations of power and control, serving various social functions (which is much what I do). In that respect he might have criticized one religious person for being dogmatic, while praising another for being open minded....and have done the exact same with two communists.

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.

 

[mhaze]

Alinsky stresses that to be a radical (and in modern times, I would take this as being an "Alinsky radical") doesn't mean that you agree with him, but rather use his methods to affect change. He has his own ideals but it is stressed throughout his work that his methods can be used by any group seeking change. There are Alinsky tactics that were successfully employed by the Tea Party, for example. ....
Hardly matches what sort of thing is typically insinuated by the name Saul Alinsky nowadays, no?

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.