In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a text on grassroots organizing titled
"Rules for Radicals" (Prologue). Those who prefer cooperative tactics describe the
book as out-of-date. Nevertheless, it provides some of the best advice
on confrontational tactics. Alinsky begins this way:
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is
to what they believe it should be -- there's that word, "change." The Prince was written by Machiavelli
for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for
the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
His "rules" derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor
people fighting power and privilege
For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and
convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are
linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad
situation, they stop thinking about it.
According to Alinsky, the organizer -- especially a paid organizer from
outside -- must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next
the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments,
fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to
get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb
the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have
simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, "The
first step in community organization is community disorganization."
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to
create a "mass army" that brings in as many recruits as possible from
local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner
gangs, and individuals.
Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he
emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that
are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
RULE 1: "Power is not only what I have, but what
the enemy thinks I have." Power is derived from two main
sources -- money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power
from flesh and blood.
(These are two things of which there is
a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a
difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively
with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "I
never go outside the expertise of 'my people'." It results
in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the
backbone of anyone.
(Organizations under attack wonder
why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why.
They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE
3: "Whenever possible, I go outside the expertise
of the enemy." I look for ways to increase insecurity,
anxiety and uncertainty.
(This happens all the time.
Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly
irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book
of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, I
send 30,000 letters. I can kill them with this because no one can
possibly obey all of their own rules.
(This is a serious
rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at
stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its
commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating.
It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into
concessions.
(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? He
wants to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6:
"A good tactic is one 'my people' enjoy."
They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.
They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
(Radical
activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being.
We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones
that work and bring results.)
RULE 7:
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't let
it become old news.
(Even radical activists get bored.
So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming
up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "Keep
the pressure on. Never let up." I keep trying new things to
keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one
approach, I hit them from the flank with something new.
(Attack,
attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a
chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE
9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the
thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more
consequences than any activist.
(Perception is reality.
Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that
may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the
organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own
collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can
easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE
10: "If I push a negative hard enough, it will push
through and become a positive." Violence from the other
side can win the public to my side because the public sympathizes with
the underdog.
(Unions used this tactic. Peaceful
[albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to
mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of
violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack
is a constructive alternative." I never let the enemy score
points because I'd be caught without a solution to the problem.
(Old
saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a
place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So,
they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and
polarize it." I cut off the support network and isolate the
target from sympathy. I go after people and not institutions;
people hurt faster than institutions.
(This is cruel, but
very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an
opponent into reacting. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in
his reaction will be your major strength."
Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer
for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community
Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years
old, unmarried, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine
African-American community.
Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community
agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of
discontent," in Alinsky's words.
One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who
had
this to say to an interviewer of The New Republic, about Obama:
"He was a natural, the undisputed master of
agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a
rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not
living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be
aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal
questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing
down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they
could make things better."
The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the
"realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the
fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them
to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an
almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations
will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will
cause the harassment to cease.
In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama
had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he
ever got anywhere.
Rubbing Raw The Sores Of Discontent
In order to stop the "bitter" bleeding caused by Obama's
"bitter, bibles and guns," remark, Obama
responded to the Pennsylvania gaff with the following
I found this video very illuminating, as it demonstrates Obama employing the
Alinsky agitation technique of "rubbing raw the sores of discontent." (Alinsky's
words)
Watch as Obama sets up a list of grievances, gets everyone angry and then
leads the choir in an emotional response to Washington's failures -- "they
(Americans) can't count on Washington" -- and ends strong -- he's the answer
to everything he says is wrong with America.
The entire exercise was to change the discussion. Obama never addressed
his condescending remarks. Instead, he got his audience mad at Washington
-- he changed the subject.
Note the
difference between what Obama said in his unguarded moment at San
Francisco's "Billionair's Row," and the cleaned-up version he tried to sell
tonight.
At the Getty Mansion (see picture below -- 4/6/2008):
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
With "the folks" in Indiana:
"So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the
right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in
their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count
on."
Praise From Alinsky's Son
All the elements were
present: the individual stories told by real people of their
situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's
chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and
phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the
political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the
agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had
all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.
Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is
showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and
the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get
the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and
thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making
it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied
successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic
campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we
approach his 100th birthday.
L. DAVID ALINSKY
Medfield
Altgeld Gardens
Obama goes
to work at a Chicago housing project, Altgeld Gardens, where he refines
his skills.
Here, Obama worked as an
ethnic activist, helping the
impoverished black community wring more money and services from the
government. That government money was wrecking the morals of the
housing-project residents seems obvious from his book, but Obama never
comes out and says it. Numerous white moderates assume that a man
of Obama’s superlative intelligence must be kidding when he espouses his
cast-iron liberalism on race-related policies, but they don’t understand
the emotional imperative of racial loyalty to him.
His mentor during this period was the veteran local agitator, Hazel
Johnson, who who
disputes the version of events at
Altgeld Gardens that Obama wrote of in his book and tells audiences at
his political gatherings.
While working as a community organizer, Obama was repeatedly asked to
join Christian congregations but
begged off.
"I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives ..." he
wrote.
Gregory Galluzzo
Using donations for the poor to help power-seeking
politicians attain their ends is pure Alinskyism. One of
Obama’s Chicago mentors, Gregory Galluzzo -- a former Jesuit priest, now
married and Executive Director of the Gamaliel community organizing
network -- was interviewed by a writer to whom he showed the training
manual he uses with new organizers.
"Galluzzo told me that many new trainees have an aversion to Alinsky’s
gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than
realists. But Galluzzo’s manual instructs them to get over these
hang-ups. 'We are not virtuous by not wanting power,' it says.
'We are really cowards for not wanting power,' because 'power is good'
and 'powerlessness is evil.'"
The World As It Might Be
'We don't care about the world as it is, we imagine
the world
as it might be. We want to write
a new chapter,'" Obama told the crowd. "That is the moment that we
are in right now."
One Of Our Heroes From The Past
MSNBC's Chris 'Tingles' Matthews Cites "One Of Our
Heroes From The Past," Saul Alinsky (01:25)
Alinsky's Star Pupil Uses "Rules" As A
Manual For Social Surgery
Paul Sperry says Obama is
fond of using ridicule to frustrate critics. He recently mocked
Republicans for predicting "Armageddon" if health care reform passed.
After signing the bill, he cracked that he looked around to "see if
there were any asteroids falling," only to discover a nice day with
"birds chirping."
Obama has also used the tactic to dismiss
charges that he's pushing a "socialist" agenda, arguing that critics
will next accuse him of "being a secret communist because I shared my
toys in kindergarten."
But the former community organizer also
knows that ridiculing the opposition is an effective tactic taught by
the father of community organizing, Saul D. Alinsky -- a socialist [communist?]
agitator from Chicago whose influence on Obama is deeper than commonly
known.
In fact, the tactic is ripped right from the pages of
"Rules for Radicals" (Vintage Books, New York, 1971), a how-to manual
Alinsky wrote for coat-and-tie revolutionaries.
"Ridicule is
man's most potent weapon," reads Rule No. 5. "It is almost impossible to
counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who
then react to your advantage."
It's just one of 13 rules Alinsky
coached his acolytes to follow to "take power away from the Haves."
The Haves, represented foremost by corporate America, are "the enemy."
They must be identified, singled out and targeted for attack -- and the
more personal the better, Alinsky advised, putting a special bull's-eye
on banks.
His 13th rule -- "Pick the target, freeze it,
personalize it and polarize it" -- is not lost on Obama, who has
targeted "fat cat" bankers, "predatory" lenders, "greedy" insurers and
industrial "polluters" as enemies of the people.
"Obama learned
his lesson well," said David Alinsky, son of the late socialist [communist?].
"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being
applied successfully beyond local community organizing."
Obama
first learned Alinsky's rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals
with the Chicago-based, Alinsky group, Gamaliel Foundation recruited,
hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side
Chicago.
They also helped him get into Harvard Law School to
"learn power's currency in all its intricacy and detail," as Obama put
it in his memoir. A Gamaliel board member even wrote a letter of
recommendation for him.
Obama took a break from his Harvard
studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at
Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for
acolytes. In turn, he trained other community organizers in
Alinsky agitation tactics. In 1988, he even wrote a chapter for
the book "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he
lamented organizers' "lack of power" in implementing change.
David Limbaugh
asks us to remember the popular motto "What would Jesus do?" which
was invoked by many Christians as a moral guidepost for daily living?
Barack Obama more likely adheres to "What would Saul Alinsky do?" as
most recently evidenced by his apparent defiance of a federal court
order on his moratorium on offshore drilling.
Politico reports
that the drilling companies who secured the court order blocking the
moratorium say the administration indeed is going to defy the court
order. I'm quite sure that Alinsky would applaud this move: If at
first you don't succeed through proper legal channels, proceed anyway,
because nothing is more important than the radical ends you seek,
including the means that must be trampled in the process.
Of
course, shrewd Alinskyites like Obama will always have a plausible
excuse for their deceitful tactics. In this case, they are
alleging newly discovered facts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
said he intends to reimpose the drilling moratorium based on information
that wasn't "fully developed" in May, when the six-month moratorium was
imposed. Quite convenient.
The administration is also
sending mixed signals, probably to introduce sufficient confusion to
cover its disobedience. The government's brief filed with the
court insisted, "Of course, until a further order of this Court or the
Court of Appeals granting relief from this Court's Preliminary
Injunction Order, Defendants will comply with the Court's Order."
But attorneys for the drilling companies warn that "Secretary Salazar's
comments have the obvious effect of chilling the resumption of (outer
continental shelf) activities, which is precisely the wrong this Court
sought to redress through its Preliminary Injunction Order."
The
companies' point, notes Politico, is that Salazar's public announcement
that the administration will reinstitute the moratorium will have the
same practical effect as actually doing it because companies are not
about to prepare rigs for drilling when they might be shut down in a few
days. The administration predictably pooh-poohs the companies'
concerns and says these new "facts" present an entirely different
scenario. How convenient. Whenever you can't advance the
football, just move the goal posts your way.
Can't you just hear
an irate Alinsky-schooled Obama behind closed doors learning of the
court order audaciously purporting to limit his plenary executive
authority? "Just find the damn loophole -- or say you did -- and I
don't want to see you again in this office until it's done."
Defying court orders is just one of many ways Obama abuses his
authority.
When Congress failed with its initial efforts to
impose cap-and-tax legislation designed to suppress traditional energy
production and consumption in the United States for the ostensible
purpose of reducing global temperature an imperceptible amount over the
next century, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency just issued ultra
vires regulations to accomplish similar results. It didn't matter
that every literate and intellectually honest person had to concede that
the EPA had no statutory (or any other) authority to issue such sweeping
regulations. What mattered were the administration's radical
environmental goals.
When Obama wanted to secure for his favored
unions a stake in his new General Motors far exceeding their actual
ownership interest and rob secured creditors of their preferred-creditor
status and the value of their investment, he used the power of his
office to strong-arm a restructuring of the company to accomplish his
aims. When Democratic Party donor and super-lawyer Tom Lauria
opposed this plan on behalf of his client, the White House, according to
Lauria, threatened to destroy his client's reputation. One unnamed
source described the White House as the most shocking "end justifies the
means" group he had ever encountered. Another attributed Obama's
negotiating tactics to a "madman theory of the presidency," saying Obama
wants to be feared as someone who is willing to do anything to get his
way. In return for standing up for their legal rights as secured
creditors and not bending to Obama's horrendously unfair demand, er,
offer, Obama maligned the recalcitrant creditors as "a small group of
speculators."
When inspector general Gerald Walpin blew the
whistle on the corruption of an Obama friend and supporter, Obama fired
Walpin and sought to discredit him as a senile misfit -- a charge wholly
unsupported by the facts.
And I won't begin to recite the many
ways (e.g., reconciliation) Obama sought to circumvent the legislative
process en route to ObamaCare.
Alinsky is surely beaming from the
other side.
Obama Following The Alinsky Textbook
John Howting
says In
his Chicago days, Obama spent a great deal of time working with Marxist,
Saul Alinsky-disciples
Mike Kruglik,
Gregory
Galluzzo and
Gerald Kellman. It should come as no surprise
then, that he employs many of the tactics found in Alinsky's Rules for
Radicals in his handling of the BP oil spill.
Here are a few
examples:
"Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside
the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause
confusion, fear, and retreat."
Obama has spent little time focusing on the
specifics of what caused the disaster. Such specifics include the
ineptitude of the government inspectors. And he never acknowledged
that his administration gave the faulty rig a safety award.
Instead, Obama has misdirected attention by talking about such things as
"green reform."
"Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent
weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates
the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
On the occasion of Michael Bromich's appointment as
head of the Mineral Management Service, Obama said, "For a decade or
more, the cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal
agency (Mineral Management Service) was allowed to go unchecked.
That allowed drilling permits to be issued in exchange not for safety
plans, but assurances of safety from oil companies. That cannot
and will not happen anymore."
"Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying
than the thing itself."
"We will keep a boot on the throat of BP," said
Robert Gibbs during a press conference in May.
"Rule 10: The price of a successful
attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by
an opponent or an interviewer who says, "Okay, what would you do?"
This rule of Alinsky’s was paraphrased by the
Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "never let a good crisis go to
waste." Obama has used the oil spill crisis as an excuse to
spew green rhetoric and promote his cap-and-trade bill.
"Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it,
personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract
corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual.
Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."
Alinsky’s most useful tactic involves creating a
good versus evil scenario. It is not about fixing the problem, it
is about blaming someone -- in this case BP and their Chief Executive
officer Tony Hayward. On June 12, Obama told British Prime
Minister Cameron that BP would have to put $20 billion into an account
to pay for "environmental and economic damages" caused from their spill.
Less than a week later, Texas Rep. Joe Barton, of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, blasted Obama for forcing a private business to be
the victim of a "$20 billion shakedown." Barton went on to say,
"There is no question that BP is liable for the damages, but we have a
due process system." Barton raises a good point but "due process"
certainly would not have stopped Saul Alinsky and it will probably not
stop Obama.
