1. the act or an instance of subverting or overthrowing a legally constituted government, institution, etc
2. the state of being subverted; destruction or ruin
3. something that brings about an overthrow
A couple of years ago I became acutely aware of a character from the history of the political left named Saul Alinsky. He was a mentor to Hillary Clinton years ago. She wrote her thesis on him. Barack Obama has been praised by Alinsky's son as an exemplary practitioner of his father's methods and strategies. Alinsky's seminal tract "Rules for Radicals" is a stock training manual for leaders and activists in many labor unions. His name is becoming more well known, but not, I fear, well known enough. Alinsky was, if nothing else, subversive. I think it is necessary to unpack a bit of his ideology. Why? Because the political climate in our country has become utterly poisonous and increasingly dangerous. I believe the single most significant reason for the degeneration of our political system is Alinsky.
I note that there are some key words in the definition above, specifically, "overthrow", "destruction" and "ruin". It is axiomatic that the Alinsky strategy begins with contempt for the power structures of western civilization. But what is overlooked is that in Alinsky there is a contempt for the very idea of clear definitions - there is a contempt not for specific truths, but for the very concept of truth.
“Curiosity and irreverence go together. Curiosity cannot exist without the other. Curiosity asks, "Is this true?" "Just because this has always been the way, is the best or right way of life, the best or right religion, political or economic value, morality?" To the questioner, nothing is sacred. He detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality, rebels against any repression of a free, open search of ideas no matter where they may lead. He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting. He stirs unrest.”
What is striking about the above quote is not that a questioner has questions or challenges orthodoxy, what is striking is the manner in which he does so. "Irreverence", "challenging", "insulting", "agitating", "discrediting". There is a subtext of destruction and contempt. Is it any wonder political discourse has sunk so low in recent years?
But what is to be defied in this contemptuous fashion includes "dogma" and "any finite definition of morality". To understand the political situation today, one has to understand this. Morality itself is not "finite", and is instead elastic. In true preshadowing of the current postmodern context, Alinsky saw those who held to fixed truths as the ultimate expression of evil.
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals
So in the Alinsky playbook, the first principle is that those who hold to "finite" morality and "certainty" must be challenged and discredited. Lest there be any doubt as to the ultimate example of oppression might be and who the inspirational figure for anti-establishment rebellion might be, one need only look at the preface to his "Rules".
“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
This recalls the old statement, "it is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven". It matters not that the kingdom Lucifer came to win was in fact hell. One need not concern oneself with the reality that much of what Alinsky has left in his wake has been something of a hell on earth for those his methods have manipulated. All that matters is who is in charge. As such it identifies the central issue for the radical left - power.
Organizing for power was Alinsky's political end, not political party influence. When he asked his new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with "selfless bromides about wanting to help others," according to Ryan Lizza writing in The New Republic. Alinsky would then "scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: 'You want to organize for power!'" http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/2454-saul-alinsky-a-radical-who-matters
So, with this context of contempt for the traditional foundations of Western Civilization and a thirst to overthrow that structure and obtain power, the method of achieving those goals should come as no surprise.
To acquire power, one needs to "organize", to gather a group of people around a cause. Simply put, community organizing is simply about getting masses of people together, rallied around a cause and voting as a bloc. But causes come and go, and the degree of urgency is seldom sufficient to motivate a large number of people to action. Alinsky solved that problem with this:
“In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals '
In simple terms, the community organizer has to create the conflict. While some may be bothered by a certain level of perceived unfairness, the radical who seeks power will do what is necessary to inflate any strategic grievance to the point where frustration and anger provide the fuel for action.
This is, in essence, manipulation. Problems must be magnified. Issues must be inflated. People must not be merely dissatisfied with aspects of the status quo, they must be angry, motivated for change, motivated for revolution.
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution." http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/obama_alinsky_and_scapegoats.html
How does the mass get to this state of abject frustration? Alinsky is quoted in a somewhat subersive men's magazine:
...the despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We’ll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We’ll start with specific issues — taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution — and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We’ll not only give them a cause, we’ll make life goddamn exciting for them again — life instead of existence. We’ll turn them on. (1972 Interview with Playboy, byline Eric Norden) http://www.progress.org/tpr/interview-with-saul-alinsky-2/
Up til now, one may ask, isn't this what all political movements do? Weren't both Hitler and Stalin both "radicals" in this sense? Or more to the point, aren't conservatives and liberals equally power hungry, amoral actors in a stinking mess called politics?
Yes, politics is messy. But something has changed. And the change has been recent. It has come primarily between the Clinton administration and the Obama administration. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are disciples of the Alinsky school. Lest there be any doubt which side of the political spectrum Alinsky came from, his own words clearly indicate:
Again, note the subtext of destruction and contempt. It is not enough to advocate for a cause, the goal is to "break the necks" of those who want to "conserve" what currently exists.
Two things characterize the political atmosphere of the day. Character assassination of political opponents (as opposed to energetic debate of real issues) and an "end justifies the means" contempt for any sense of truth, decency, fairness or rules. This has become the norm. Bill Clinton famously decried the "politics of personal destruction" even as his own team practiced it. Today it is nearly impossible to debate gay marriage from a conservative viewpoint without being labeled a bigot, to question global warming without being labeled a "science denier" (and if one is a scientist risk losing one's job), or to discuss issues of race as a white person because by the new definition "all whites are racist". Today Christians who simply believe men and women are not the same are labeled misogynist while those who behead Christians, enslave women and mutilate their sexual parts are shielded from scrutiny. The current administration has without question deceived the Congressional Budget Office regarding the Affordable Care Act and deceived a federal court about immigration policy enacted unilaterally by executive fiat and not a shred of remorse or cognitive dissonance is evident.
All that matters is winning and consolidating power. As Alinsky stated clearly, "the end can justify almost any means".
While I don't really like politics and don't have a ton of respect for key figures in either major political party, one thing is clear to me. As Alinsky dedicated his "rules" the the first radical Lucifer, to the extent that the Clinton machine and Obama team have adopted Alinsky's methods, the Democratic party has largely become the party of Satan. The character assassination, the abuse of power, the "creation" of wedge issues, the divisive tactics of class warfare and race warfare, the lies to government agencies, the stonewalling and obstruction of corruption investigations, the punishment of political enemies - all have reached a level never before seen in this country.
If it is true that out country was once founded on principles that were "self-evident" truths and if it is true that a huge swath of our political elite now see "certainty" and "finite" definitions of morality as things to be despised, then our republic is in grave danger.
“The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals
“Let the liberal turn to the course of action, the course of all radicals, and the amused look vanishes from the face of society as it snarls, “That’s radical!” Society has good reason to fear the radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of conservatives.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Reveille for Radicals
No comments:
Post a Comment