The Journal Times Online - Racine, Wisconsin

Liberal Tactics Part 2

Todays Behavior Explained

I have noticed in recent times that liberals don’t seem to practice what they preach. They are of a “Do as I say not as I do” mentality. If it weren’t for the irony that these are the same people who, back in the turbulent times of the 60s, were fighting the system and telling everyone not to tell them what to do, they might seem comical. But they are far from comical as they spew their vitriolic platitudes and malign anyone who gets in their way a la Sarah Palin. So where do these tactics come from? From whom do they get their marching orders? Here is one such possibility.

The person of most influence in recent times would be Saul Alinsky. Noted for his book, “Rules for Radicals”, there is little doubt that Alinsky helped shape the political landscape we see today. In his book, Alinsky lays out a roadmap to debase and demoralize political opponents. On page 126 of his book he says, "Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." What’s most astounding is how open he is about his objectives and how easily this information can be found but not a lot of people know about his political and social philosophy or his extensive influence. You need look no further than the 2008 campaign to see this influence when President Obama told Joe the Plumber that his objective was to “spread the wealth around”.

Below are the 13 rules Alinsky lays out for the modern radical:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Obama has pulled this idea off with the implementation of czars to handle issues traditionally taken care of by cabinet members and Congress. These czars answer only to Obama, they have no Constitutional authority and do not answer to Congress. Up until this week this action has been unchallenged however, the Senate may take this issue on soon. Most people do not realize that this is a power play to control more of the government than what’s allowed by the Constitution and throws off the system of checks and balances making the Executive Brach larger and more powerful than its counterparts, the Judicial and Legislative branches.

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.” An organization under attack often wonders why real issues aren’t addressed by the radicals. It comes down to….the radical doesn’t necessarily know what the issue is and avoids it.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.” Organizations under attack are often blind-sided by irrelevant arguments that they don’t fully understand and are forced to address.

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." This is why we see the double standard in treatment of Conservatives versus Liberals. Since the Democratic party holds no allegiance to family values, for example, nor do they profess to cherish them as the Republican party does, it makes it that much more difficult for Republicans when they are caught in a compromising position.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."  There is no defense to this tactic. Can anyone spell potato? I mean- potatoe?

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." When the ‘radicals’ or supporters of your cause enjoy doing an activity, i.e. protesting, they will not have to be prompted to do so. They will engage in that activity on their own accord.

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time." The left will undoubtedly prove this one correct as they continue to hound Sarah Palin even after she has resigned from public office. Avoid becoming ‘old news’.

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose." By constantly bringing up new tactics you can accomplish two goals. 1- you keep the enemy off balance. When they master counteracting one form of attack hit them from another side with a new tactic. And 2- it never gives the opportunity for the organization to regroup, rest, recover or re-strategize.

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Leaving it up to imagination and ego will cause the opposition to dream up more than the activist is actually doing. This wastes time and resources while the organization creates its own collective mind of conclusions and in a sense creates a different world view.

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." It is my contention that this tactic was utilized to drive Sarah Palin from office. Once she was named as the Republican Vice-President nominee, a bevy of reporters and political strategists descended on Alaska with the intent to dig up as much dirt as possible to use against the Governor.

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." When one side pushes hard enough it can incite violence from the opposing side. This was a tactic used by unions who would peacefully demonstrate and suffer a violent backlash from management that generated public sympathy for the unions.

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." If you’re caught without a solution to a problem the opposition scores points. The agenda for the activist organization is to create a place at the table where they can wield their power and make their demands.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen’. Go after individuals not corporations or organizations. People are torn down easier than the institution itself. Mean but effective.

A community organizer needs to be flexible, changing with the flow of the political and social landscape. When appearing on the scene for the first time, the first thing an organizer does is mix things up. Creating discord allows the organizer to gather all sides of an issue together and begin talking about the issue. It is my contention that by calling together members of different organizations since being in office, this is exactly what President Obama is attempting to do. From banks to the automotive industry to health care providers, Obama is practicing the tactics set forth by Saul Alinsky. By setting the tone for discussion an organizer can choose his or her own path and direction. This is supported by Alinsky on page 6 of his book.

"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."

Right now, with this president, it is capitalism itself that is under attack. He has shown little wavering while seeking to “change” or as he has said in several speeches “reshape” the United States into something that resembles a European style socialist state. Alinsky states on page 10 of his book, "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Communism, for many, raises an eyebrow and thoughts of conspiracy theories that are too outlandish to believe, I’m sure. Would an American president truly lead us to the oppression of a Communist state? At this stage it would not be difficult as there are a couple planks of the Communist Manifesto already at play and in full force in the United States today. The first being the second plank of the Communist Manifesto which states, “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” To help support the Civil War effort, Congress began the first income tax in 1862. This was the forerunner to today’s system as it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. Relying on strictly internal taxes before the war, the government collected revenue from the sale of distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction and corporate bonds. In 1872, Congress eliminated the income tax reverting back to taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits. But in 1894 they revived the income tax only to have it struck down a year later by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. Then in 1913 the 16^th Amendment was added to the Constitution and income taxes have been a permanent fixture ever since.

The other plank in the manifesto that is existent today is the 10^th plank. “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production”. While the first two points are clear to see that we do have free education K-12 and we have child labor laws which are in agreement with the second point, the third point may seem far fetched at first. The Partners in Education program sponsored by a community organization known as Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce or RAMAC, parallels the idea of combining education with industrial production or the labor force in general. Their website describes the program as this:

“Partners in Education

Partners in Education provides direction and support to both business and educational systems to ensure the development of a productive and contributing workforce for our area.  It:

1)Directs the Youth Apprenticeship Program
2) Implements business/school/community partnerships
3) Informs the business community about Workforce Development and
4) Oversees Excellence in Education, mentoring partnerships and the annual Comparitive Analysis of Racine Schools.”

While this may seem innocuous at first, I mean, who’s not for teaching people how to fish, right? I leave it up to you to decide if this is not exactly the type of program that would fall under this philosophy? “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Karl Marx from 'Critique of the Gotha Program' 1875. Is this the road we are on?

President Obama has demonstrated his community organizer influence in a few of his speeches. He has demonstrated bringing both sides together to reach a compromise in his Acceptance Speech at the Democratic Convention in 2008.

“We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.”

Here, Obama displays the mixing up, debate and compromise tactic Alinsky puts forth in his book. Liberals, for the most part, do not have a problem with abortion unlike their counterparts, conservatives, who do. Obama points out that we have differences in opinion and deflects those differences with the idea of reducing unwanted pregnancies. This satisfies both sides but requires that conservatives allow abortion to continue. He goes on to compare hunters in contrast to gangs. While hunters use their guns for lawful purposes gangs, for the most part, do not. Rather than talking about enforcing laws on the books already there to curb gang violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, Obama again deflects the issue with an admonishment. “….don‘t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals”. And who could begrudge someone wanting to visit a loved one in the hospital even if it’s a lesbian relationship? I personally believe all forms of discrimination are offensive but I also understand there are limits i.e. triad couples or marrying your dog definitely crosses a line for me. Immigration does indeed invoke passions about what to do with people who are here illegally. Obama addresses the human aspect but overlooks the fact that if you are here illegally you are breaking the law to begin with.

In his Inaugural Address, President Obama dismisses the old order of things for the new, but from which stand point is he speaking from? In order to see that his philosophy is radically different from previous presidents we need look no further than a ringing endorsement from Saul Alinsky’s son which was quoted in part 1 of this blog. David Alinsky praises the Democratic convention for its strategy and praises Obama’s obvious implementation of ideals he learned from being a community leader. This would suggest that there is no ‘conspiracy’ but rather a game plan to effect change or a reshaping of the United States.

“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics…..What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government….I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”

In the last few lines above, Obama clearly uses the ideas of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by tearing down the old order and setting up a new one.  Note he does not deny that higher taxes and abandoning traditional values are a goal he shares with many Liberals today, including Alinsky. Consider for a moment that while using platitudes that few would disagree with i.e. families finding jobs at a decent wage and health care that is affordable, President Obama believes that the government should be the solution to these problems and not the free market. There can be no doubt that the idea of collectivism is one that comes from Socialism/Communism/Marxism and not from a free nation that champions the individual.