Rules for Republicans -- The Purpose

The first full chapter begins with Alinsky discussing the fact that all social movements must respect and follow certain realities; this is true regardless of the movement's content.

  • The revolutionary nature of all Social Changes:

The significant changes in history have been made by revolutions.

Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich both understood this.  George W. Bush understood this in foreign policy, but never fully grasped it at home.

The great changes in the relationship between Americans and the Federal Government tend to take place in short bursts of frenzied activity: 1933-36, 1964-66, 1981-83, and 1995-1997.  Unfortunately, we missed one of those opportunities in 2005 and we currently must play defense to prevent the other side from getting one of those moments.  Ultimately, we're laying the foundation now so that we can have one of those moments from 2012 to 2015.

  • The difference between Ideology and Dogma:

I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on.  That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic.  Dogma is the enemy of human freedom.

While I find reports Republicans are "too ideological" laughable, it's still worth keeping this in mind.  While I think there is a natural tendency for success to breed complacency, I still think we're doing just fine in this department.  I'm much more worried about our ability to communicate.

  • The need for resiliance and adaptability:

Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to aviod being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.  In short, radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.

I cannot overstate the importance of this one.  Times change.  While conservatism is naturally skeptical of radical change, there's a difference between healthy skepticism and rigid fuddy-duddery.

  • How to incorporate resiliance at the personal level:

The free-society organizer is loose, resilient, fluid, and on the move in a society which is itself in a state of constant change.

Forget political organizing, this is good advice for day to day life.

  • The Perils of Self-Deception:

The basic requirement for the understanding of the politics of change is to recognize the world as it is....[O]ne must break free of the illustions one spins about life.

Again, this advice goes far beyond politics (single guys click here).  From a political perspective, this means that assembling a majority coalition requires us to communicate wtih people who don't have the time or the inclination to listen to talk radio or follow public affairs on their own.  One of my great frustrations this past cycle was that people didn't blame Alan Greenspan, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the financial meltdown; they blamed President Bush.  I don't know where it is, but that proves something is majorly screwed up in our communications department.

(Sidenote: For those of you who will accuse me of being in denial about the financial meltdown, spare me your snotty comments.  There's been so much ink spilled on this that I shouldn't have to address it in a post on a seperate topic.)

  • Realistic Knowledge of the Arena in which we fight:

Political Realists see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is the rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest....It is a world not of angels but of angels, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles

I can't add much here.  It's still worth remembering that we're dealing with politicians.

  • What "Bi-Partisanship" Means when the Democrat Party is in Charge:

[A] world where "reconciliation" means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation

I don't have a problem with Democrats doing this when they're in charge, but why did George W. Bush have to cave to Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind?

  • The Ongoing Nature of Both Politics and Life:

In the world as it is, the solution of each problem inevitably creates a new one.  In the world as it is, there are no permanent happy or sad endings....We then recognize that for every positive, there is a negative.

Looking backwards, we were victims of our previous success.  Taxes are a lot lower, crime is low, and the Soviet Union (Putin notwithstanding) has been properly assigned to the ash heap of history; hell, even Iraq has become a reasonably stable democracy!  McCain did a terrible job translating our timeless principles to the next generation of national challenges.  Oh well, no use crying over spilt milk.

Looking forward, there's plenty of reason for optimism.  Our policy team is ready to go, we just need the right leader.

  • The Value of Planning Ahead before You Take Power:

Once we accept and learn to anticipate the inevitable counterrevolution, we may then alter the historical pattern of revolution and counterrevolution from the traditional slow advance of two steps forward and one step backward to minimizing the latter.

This is what Obama is trying to do by dining with David Brooks while attacking Rush.  I'm not surprised he tried to do this, I'm just shocked he did it in such a clumsy way.

This was one of the biggest differences between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  As much as the permanent D.C. class (eg. David Rodham Gergen) sucks, the simple fact is that you'll get more done by stroking their egos (from a position of strength and principle) than by unnecessarily antagonizing them.  I think that accounts for a large chunk of the 20 point outgoing approval rating difference for Reagan and George W. Bush.

Moving forward, this minimally means cultivating Jay Leno.  He's one of the few people in the broader culture who gives our side a fair shake.  More generally, this means identify and cultivating those people in the broader culture who will give us a fair shake.

Thoughts/Suggestions?!?

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments