Saul, Barack, and Me – Part III
Date: January 2nd, 2010
Category: Ideology of Freedom
By Robert Ringer
Saul Alinsky was well aware of the advantages of living in a reasonably free society like the U.S. In Rules for Radicals, he said:
“Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system, with all its repressions, we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That’s more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the ‘cultural revolution’ and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let’s keep some perspective.”
This is the Saul Alinsky I respect. He was not a wild-eyed, flag-burning, firebombing Bill Ayers type at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. As I have previously pointed out, he was pragmatic to the core.
But at this juncture, my question to brother Saul would have been, “If we already have the freedom to speak out and denounce those in power, if we are allowed to politically oppose them, why would you want to change the current system?”
Based on his words in Rules for Radicals, I believe that Alinsky’s answer to that question would have been that there are still injustices in America that need to be corrected. But his idea of “injustice” was kind of fuzzy. Like all crusade leaders, he clearly had a huge ego – an ego that made him comfortable in the role of arbiter of right and wrong.
Universal health care, environmentalism, and all redistribution of wealth schemes are examples of crusades that cry out to self-anointed moralists to take charge and make things “right.” This is the Saul Alinsky I do not respect – the man who constantly spoke about righting wrongs. On the surface, “righting wrongs” seems like a noble objective. The problem lies in people’s differing definitions of right and wrong.
In this vein, I find the following words from Rules for Radicals to be helpful in psychoanalyzing Saul Alinsky:
“Men don’t like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives – agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate.”
My question is: If people’s lives are so miserable, why the need to “create disenchantment and discontent?” It is at this point that I began to see the fuzzy, not-so-intellectual side of Alinsky. Like true believers throughout history, he seemed to be a man in search of a cause. He wasn’t in search of a cure for cancer or for some kind of spiritual awakening. He was in search of a following to carry on an ill-defined campaign against the power elite.
To be a community organizer is to be a non-productive citizen – an “agitator,” to use Alinsky’s own word. His future student, BHO, succeeded at becoming a master agitator who emphasized “change,” which ultimately led to the empty slogan “Change you can believe in.”
But there was one huge difference between Alinsky and Obama. In his book, Alinsky clearly comes across as a warm, deep-feeling, albeit misguided person, whereas Obama comes across as a man without a soul. To speak of him as simply “misguided,” as so many conservatives naively continue to do, is to believe that his intentions are well-meaning. Let me assure you that he is not misguided; he is, in fact, soulless.
It is ironic that a soulless individual like Obama would be handed the Alinsky torch to carry on the fight against “injustice.” Clearly, Alinsky did have a soul, and showed it when he said, “I salute the present generation. Hang onto one of your most precious parts of youth, laughter. Don’t lose it as many of you seem to have done. You need it. Together we may find some of what we’re looking for – laughter, beauty, love, and the chance to create.”
In Obama, I see no laughter, no beauty, no love, and no creativity. But I do see an understanding of Alinsky’s views on power. Though naïve and, to a great extent, passé – Alinsky summed up the central philosophy of Rules for Radicals and the subject of power thusly:
“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. 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.
The whole notion of playing musical chairs with the reins of power is, of course, a yawner, because the result is always the emergence of a new power elite. Since Alinsky was clearly aware of this reality, the fact that he spent his life playing this nonproductive game could only have been driven by ego.
I say it’s a yawner, because George Orwell, Alvin Toffler, and many other great writers and thinkers have written about this never-ending game of role reversals between the Haves and Have-Nots, which I’ll get into in more detail in Part IV of this article.
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
To comment on “Saul, Barack, and Me – Part III”, please login below:
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:28 am
Allow me to quote another radical who understood and succinctly summed up the quandary with any society or nation that allows their government to become their masters….
“Meet the new boss….same as the old boss.”
Agitators and radicals come and go. Always malcontents with the the status quo, no matter on which side of the political spectrum their sympathies lie.
Nature is self correcting. Human nature,and it’s aberrant ego driven mis-perception of the way the world SHOULD BE, is dysfunctional. Radicals and agitators who try to remake the world in their idealistic fantasy of what the world should be, have been the cause of million upon millions of innocent deaths since the beginning of recorded history.
There is no such thing as a “perfect society” as we are all imperfect creatures driven by irrational emotions and egotistical ideals based upon unrealistic
expectations of what constitutes justice and fairness.
The human race has not evolved far enough yet to overcome our own inherent human nature weaknesses. The only hope we have is that we do not destroy ourselves first, before we acknowledge this and then begin to think and act accordingly.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:48 am
Robert,
Excellent article. I so appreciate the effort you go to in order to write these very clear articles. I have read each to gather a clearer understanding of why our President is who he is. It is clear he is infected by the Alinsky writings, unfortunately he did not get the infusion of the understanding of what is good within this system. Like Sir Winston churchill noted this is not the best system of government, but it is far ahead of whatever is in second place. BHO would do well to understand this sentiment from an outsider.
Ken
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kmwallin
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:28 am
“The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.” ….Saul Alinsky.
Saul’s above statement reminds me of the cunning calculations of Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. And that’s not the only statement: I could fill an entire page with his evil thoughts. Was Saul really misunderstood? “Did [he]have a soul? Let’s dig a little deeper.
The following paragraph was taken from David Horowitz Freedom Center: “Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: ‘Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories — some true, many embellished — from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.’”
Don’t be a fool that’s fooled by Alinsky’s euphemisms in his book “Rules for Radicals.” Saul Alinsky(aka professor Moriarty) was an archenemy of Liberty, and he wanted to ruin America then just as much as Osama Bin Laden does right now. The goal of these types of evil geniuses is the same, but it is just the means that are somewhat different. Why I’d sooner sit down and have lunch with Al Capone, than with Alinsky. All this nonsense about him having a “soul” is the result of some important facts that have escaped somebody’s notice.
Even Jesus himself warned about evildoers that express love for their families. Just because Saul encourages laughter and love does not mean that he has a soul. The mob goes to church and hypocritically presents itself as something that it’s not. Ditto with Alinsky.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
It is in the nature of Man to resist change. Most would prefer to grumble about their plight, rather than do something to change it. Hence, the need for the “rabble-rouser”, for it is only when emotions are roused that most people will act. It is also true that few will take action unilaterally, but too many will react in concert with a group. (Unfortunately, that often results in a mob mentality) In order to create a group through which the meek can feel powerful, we need “community organizers”.
The difference between the two terms is determined by the observer. The Romans thought Jesus was a rabble-rouser, but his followers would have no doubt preferred the term, “community organizer”.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
What Alinsky – and many others – fail to realize is that a “People” is not just anyone who happens to be around or who just sneaked in under the fence. Only a society of men with shared values can form a government that works for the whole people, not just for itself or a favored group. Even – or especially – the leaders have to work for the whole. And every man has to work for every other man and the whole. “Diversity” in values is death for a society. And even those who manage to get rich can never relax until they find a society that includes them as a working contributor, a truly productive man. Remember, the bees kill the drones after they contribute their only product, their genes.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:30 pm
In another life – too many years ago – I was a co-founding Pres. of a Chicago coomunity organization
that still exists today but with a different name and purpose. The organizers were with Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. They were, mostly, middle class, businesslike, family men who acted with the blessing and sponsorship of the local religious leadership. Alinsky trained them not to “create” issues but to “rub raw the sores of existing discontent”, which in Chicago was the Daley “machine.” I heard Alinsky say more than once
that a community organization goes through 3 phases:
1. Idealistic commitment, 2. A business, and 3. A racket. I don’t remember if he wrote it in “Rules” but when he spoke it he said with skepticism and melancholy. He was a complex, well meaning person who, in that time and place was anything but misguided. Today, History proves him wrong in many ways except in his commitment to empower the human person; which current events proves him right.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
Now this is the Robert Ringer that wrote Looking out for Number #1. Calm and rational, not a wild eyed right wing fanatic, by the way I am starting to agree with him on BHO. He talks like a working man but all his freinds ar emillionaires and he takes care of them first.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Obama? A “sock it to the rich” wealth-redistributing socialist out to destroy America?
Don’t make me laugh.
Obama is in the same corporate pockets as GWB.
He approved and hawked a 10 TRILLION dollar redistribution of taxpayer wealth to banks, investment houses, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. He’s continuing GWB’s TWO wars, even talking like GWB when he blathers on about “evil” and having to fight it.
If you really want to fool people, hold up the imitation or illusion of a difference between two choices, each of which, in this case, lead to fascism: the marriage of corporations and government to the detriment of the rest of us.
Robert, you aren’t seeing reality clearly on this one.