What's Wrong With Saul Alinsky?

[A'isha]

Quite a nice bit of specious reasoning there. I wonder how it would work if we apply 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?

That apparently he stores vast chunks of Alinsky's writings in the brain space normally used to remember one's wedding vows.

 

[angrysoba]

Huh? That's the book you have the image of. Please don't tell me now you know as little about The Puppet Masters as Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Yeah, yeah, I get it but the hag-ridden victims is supposed to be a metaphor and I'm just wondering who it could apply to today. Those who simply want clarification of Newt Gingrich's talking points or those who parrot the talking points while not bothering to demonstrate they understand those talking points?

 

[jj]

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.

He does more than that, he's adopted Alinskist strategy completely, and is working conciously toward the demise of the USA so that he can replace it with the new South, and finally win the civil war.

Yep, he's a historian, alright, and he wants to go back to 1840.

 

[SezMe]

What conclusions can draw about Newt based on that fact?

That he can quote from the back of a condom package from memory?

 

[AlBell]

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.

I tend to agree.

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.

Newt's base understand (perhaps mistakenly) that status quo change will be at their or their childrens' expense. I'll go with Obama is a radical.

 

[SezMe]

Conversely, Newt's base doesn't understand that his change will hurt themselves.

 

[A'isha]

Every single Republican candidate in this race, past and present, has been campaigning on radically changing the status quo.

 

[AlBell]

Nope. Changing it back to what was the status quo.

 

[A'isha]

Nope. Changing it back to what was the status quo.

"They don't don't want to change anything, they just want to make it entirely different from the way it is now!"

Never mind the fact that most of the "status quo" they want to return to never actually existed, and the rest hasn't been that way for the last forty to a hundred and fifty years.

If the "status quo" you want to return to would now be worrying about menopause or regular prostate exams, if not dead of old age, if it were human, you can't really call it the status quo any more.

 

[johnny karate]

Nope. Changing it back to what was the status quo.

How has Obama changed the status quo?

 

[angrysoba]

Every single Republican candidate in this race, past and present, has been campaigning on radically changing the status quo.

Nope. Changing it back to what was the status quo.

You're agreeing with ANTPogo then.

Was it "Bob Roberts" which was a film about a Republican folk singer-politician who sang songs such as "The Times They are A-Changin' Back"?

When was this Golden Age that they would like to return to?

 

[mhaze]

"They don't don't want to change anything, they just want to make it entirely different from the way it is now!"

Never mind the fact that most of the "status quo" they want to return to never actually existed, and the rest hasn't been that way for the last forty to a hundred and fifty years. .....

Sure it has.

We're talking a status quo where the prez and the party in power isn't in favor of blowing 5T in two or three years, where the currency and the fundamental relationships of the government to the governed are stable. Where there is a fair certainty about what taxes and responsibilities of the taxpayer to the government will be tomorrow. Where we ARE NOT spending the next generations' money today for political votes.

The Alinsky radical would destroy the system to then rebuild it in contrived "crises". This is well explained technique in the book. And quite a few conservatives believe that we are headed toward the destruction of the monetary system in the US. Of course that would be an example of "letting no crisis be wasted".

All in line with the argument and phraseology of the "haves and the have nots" which is right out of the RfR book.

And I'd mention to A Laughing Baby, that just as there is a distinction between the general theory as laid for in the book RFR and the behavior (often QUITE hateful) of Alinsky, similarly there is a distinction between the behavior of Bamster when he was teaching Alinsky methods, and his current behavior in implementing certain agendas using those methods.

 

[A'isha]

Sure it has.

We're talking a status quo where the prez and the party in power isn't in favor of blowing 5T in two or three years, where the currency and the fundamental relationships of the government to the governed are stable. Where there is a fair certainty about what taxes and responsibilities of the taxpayer to the government will be tomorrow. Where we ARE NOT spending the next generations' money today for political votes.

What year do you feel best represents this previous "status quo" which we used to have, which Republicans are trying to return to and which had all of the qualities you describe above?

The Alinsky radical would destroy the system to then rebuild it in contrived "crises". This is well explained technique in the book. And quite a few conservatives believe that we are headed toward the destruction of the monetary system in the US. Of course that would be an example of "letting no crisis be wasted".

All in line with the argument and phraseology of the "haves and the have nots" which is right out of the RfR book.

So, these "conservatives" are following Alinsky's plan?

 

[mhaze]

What year do you feel best represents this previous "status quo" which we used to have, which Republicans are trying to return to and which had all of the qualities you describe above?

So, these "conservatives" are following Alinsky's plan?

Going from memory on this, all of the years except for a couple during WIIW qualify regarding the economic health of the country as per my mention. The rest of your post, do you have some kind of point?

The next election is going to be able the economic health of the country.

As A Laughing Baby mentioned, you may well see an increased level of activism or "Alinsky-Lite" on the conservative side, because they are not going to sit idly by while goofballs with a political mandate spend the wealth of future generations. I'm sure you will also see more of the "pure Alinsky" sort of activism...

Occupy---Fail.

 

[A'isha]

Going from memory on this, all of the years except for a couple during WIIW qualify regarding the economic health of the country as per my mention. The rest of your post, do you have some kind of point?

So, your idea of returning to the "status quo" is to return the country to the way it was before my parents were born?!

As A Laughing Baby mentioned, you may well see an increased level of activism or "Alinsky-Lite" on the conservative side, because they are not going to sit idly by while goofballs with a political mandate spend the wealth of future generations.

That's odd, considering that "conservatives" certainly sat idly by, and in fact actively participated, every time that was done before.

 

[SezMe]

Going from memory on this, all of the years except for a couple during WIIW qualify regarding the economic health of the country as per my mention.

Good. Top tax rate of 91% which promoted reinvestment in plant, equipment and manpower. Excellent.

 

[TheAnachronism]

Did anyone catch the Alinsky shout-out by Newt at the CNN debates tonight? Seeing as my only frame of reference for this character is from this very thread, I thought it might be worth mentioning. I wonder what he's trying to develop this into...

 

[Travis]

Nope. Changing it back to what was the status quo.

Because going back to the bad old days is so much to aspire to.

 

[mhaze]

Good. Top tax rate of 91% which promoted reinvestment in plant, equipment and manpower. Excellent.

Yes it did. Given that it was coupled with massive loopholes and exclusions, it fell into the general category of years in which tax collections averaged 18-22%.

How much did people ACTUALLY PAY?

But you don't quote the "net effect". Or the overall ratios of spending to revenue. Picking one statistic out of the air to show a "have vs have not" point leads to the OPPOSITE of understanding.

So you what, have no point?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

And I'm still not sure whether **** or get off the pot is antithetical to Alinskyite tactics or avoiding ******* or getting off the pot is itself an Alinskyite tactic.

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".

So. Based on my reading of the last day and a half worth of enigmatic responses by mhaze, the confusion remains.

I will give him credit on trolling though. Evading an up or down answer for hundreds of posts is a pretty masterful exhibition of that skill.