This is a really interesting chapter. Short version: if you can do something to really hurt your enemy, do it.
The Central Question:
Does this particular [his italics] end justify this particular means?
Alinsky is very pragmatic about this. He has no use for the abstract moralizers who carp and complain on the sidelines. Alinsky is cognizant of the fact that frequently, in life, we have to make the most of a bad situation. Practical men (or women) of action must be willing to make gutsy, unpopular, decisions.
The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.
This is the practical reasoning for what we discussed in the abstract above. In a world filled with bad people, one must act with a certain ruthlessness. Leading social movements is not for the faint of heart.
[C]onscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind....Action is for mass salvation and not the individual's personal salvation.
While this statement contains a justification for both communism and terrorism with which I'm not entirely comfortable, it's also a good reminder that self-rightous moralizing gets us nowhere.
The means and ends moralists or non-doers always wind up on thier ends without any means.
It's funny because it's true!
The Immorality of Inaction:
The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that classically idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical difference between defensive and offensive weapons.
This is another variation on the theme addressed above. Any similarity with the debate over the Iraq war is purely coincidental!
The First Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
[O]ne's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue....Accompanying this rule is the paralell one that one's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's distance from the scene of conflict.
This one is fairly simple. The closer you are to the situation that requires a tough decision, the less tolerance you will have for abstract moralization.
The Second Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
[T]he judgement of the ethics of means and ends is dependant upon the political position of those sitting in judgement....However, in [any] conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory.
On one level, this justifies the notion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We can't help that.
On a different level, however, this also speaks to how we can't let the drive by media to define who we are. We're the people who believe in individual freedom. We're the people who want to return to our founding roots. The left will characature us, but we know better.
The Value of Spin:
In discussing the American Revolution, Alinsky notes:
They also knew that a list of many of the constructive benefits of the British Empire to the colonists would have so [his italics] diluted the urgency of the call to arms for the Revolution as to have been self-defeating....The Declaration of Independance, as a declaration of war, had to be what it was, a 100 per cent [sic] statement of the justice of the colonists and a 100 per cent denunciation of the role of the British government as evil and unjust. Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the devil.
There's a certain amount of truth to what he's saying about how our actual relationship with the British was more complex than it is made to sound in the actual text of the Declaration.
On a more practical level, we must assemble a much better PR operation. While the other team can't beat us in an honest debate, they can win by depressing and confusing the electorate (at least for awhile). We need to come up with much more creative ways to get our message out. I'll have more on this shortly.
The Third Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means....In the Civil War President Lincoln did not hesitate to suspend the right of habeas corpus and to ignore the directive of the Chief Justice of the United States.
See my 7th undeniable truth of life: Guantanamo Bay saved Lives.
More generally, this is a varitation on the earlier theme that if you're going to enter the enter the arena, you had better fight to win. The graveyards of history are littered with those who tried insincere half measures.
The Fourth Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgement must be made in the context of the times in which action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
Alinsky goes on to chronicle several of the historical examples that revisionist historical moralizers love to whine about (Lincoln and Habeaus Corpus; Truman and the Bomb). While those are interesting, I find this reasoning also applies to our history with Native Americans.
In many ways, the American Indians were the Palestinians of their day. There were a group of new comers who wanted nothing more than to live in peace with the natives. Said Natives responded by throwing a childish temper tantrum with inferior weaponry The newcomers responded with superior weaponry. The natives didn't learn their lesson, so the newcomers had to teach them another lesson. Eventually, this cost the Natives a continent.
The Need to Adapt to Changing Circumstances:
Men must change with the times or die.
While conservatism is naturally skeptical of radical change, it shouldn't become rigid and calfied. The dovetails nicely with what he said about Dogma in earlier chapters.
The Fifth Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa....Moral questions may enter when one chooses among equally effective alternate means.
I agree wholeheartedly! The only point I will add is that when you are dealing with bad people, you shouldn't hesitate to inform the public of the truth about them.
The Need to Not Be Afraid of Bullies:
At one point, Alinsky was in engaged in some negotiation with a major corporation. The CEO of the corporation had pictures of Alinsky and his girlfriend that he was threatening to leak to the press. As Alinsky said:
"Go ahead and give it to the press. I think she's beautiful and I have never claimed to be celibate. Go ahead!" That ended the threat.
We all have a personal life. We all have a past. We all have the ability to say something stupid. To err is human; to stand up to the drive by's is devine!
The Sixth Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The Sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
This is a corralary of what was discussed above. It's a function of the fact that a less important end requires less action.
The Seventh Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The Seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics....There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.
It's a well known fact that the winner writes history. Who knows, had Pickett's charge succeeded, Jefferson Davis might be known as the father of a nation!
The Eighth Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
Some means that are acceptable when defeat is imminent might be considered unnecessarily running up the score when victory is near. I'm not really sure how this applies to modern politics. Any suggestions on this topic are welcome.
The Ninth Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
That's why Democrats whined so vociferiously about that Max Cleland ad.
In the short-term, we need to put home state pressure on red state Democrats. They'll hate it, but I don't care. As long as we keep up the pressure, we can get done what we need to get done.
The Tenth Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments....All effective actions require the passport of morality.
Essentially, this states that moral reasoning follows action, not vice versa. All successful social movements know this. Alinsky then goes to show that Ghandi didn't use "passive resistance" due to any pie in the sky moral scheme. Rather, he used it due to certain political realities.
The Eleventh Rule of the Ethics of Means and Ends:
The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare." "Pursuit of Happieness," or "Bread and Peace."
In other words: Strong National Defense, Limited Government, and Traditional Values.
Thoughts/Suggestions?!?
