Saul Alinsky

And there hasn’t been for some time. Generations of politicians have kicked the budget and spending issues along their primrose paths seeking, as politicians will when not closely scrutinized, to enhance themselves and their hold on power by dispensing largess and favors at the expense of the American people.

Both parties are culpable here… no doubt about it. It’s also plain to anyone with other than a fundamental knowledge of history, that the Democrat Party has been infiltrated and fundamentally radicalized over the last 51 years, beginning in the 1960s.

The Weather Underground - a breakaway SDS group.

As a budding investigative reporter in college, I infiltrated some SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) meetings. It was pretty much pure Marx. Their political activism was along the lines of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals, which is still the mother’s milk of DeMarxists today.

So we have the communists parading as social progressives, advancing more and more socialist aims, with a Republican Party and leadership only too happy to go along to get along with the Democrats and not be seen as the bad guys… A position they seemed to have a congenital affinity for letting the DeMarxist demagogues paint them into.

Now we’ve reached the moment of truth. The truth is that we are sick to death of government at all levels. The Marxist cabal, now calling itself our government, has for two years done every single thing in its considerable power to bring down the economy of the United States of America and its people.

The Marxist cabal is a failure, as all such Marxist schemes are, and the rats are starting to look over their shoulders looking for a place to bail when the crap hits the proverbial fan, which it will do before too long.

But in the meantime, there’s just this one nagging issue. Republicans… hear us well. You helped get us here. You’re only a little less culpable than the leftists. You begged us to help you get elected so you could lead the conservative charge to a smaller, fiscally responsible government with less business-killing regulation.

We won’t take a sellout… not now. The back-blast from a Republican sellout on this issue, by conservatives and patriots, will not be pretty… guaranteed.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2011

Obama is as great a failure as he was a worldwide sensation during the 2008 presidential campaign. Absolutely nothing is going right for the Anointed One. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s hit guy, has served Barack Obama as loyally as anyone could have. Now, it seems, Rahm is having second thoughts, though he roundly denies it. According to sources at the Telegraph, Rahm may be considering leaving the administration because of his inability to penetrate the hard core ideologues that Barack Obama has surrounding him.

Rahm Emanuel

True or not, it’s an indication of the turmoil that is rampant in the administration. The problem with radical ideology is that it prevents objective discourse and is antithetical to anything beyond its narrow focus. Obama’s inner circle have no credentials for running anything at all, much less the country. The Obama administration has introduced policy after policy, right out of ‘Das Kapital’ and Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’.

First of all, Americans aren’t that sold on socialism. We never have been. Americans have a reservoir of rugged individuality that socialism cannot fathom or tolerate. Barack Obama doesn’t understand it either. He has not now, nor has he ever, had a patriotic connection to this country. I wrote yesterday that Obama hates and despises this country. I firmly believe that. A look at the contempt visible on his and Michelle’s faces tell the graphic story. These are angry people with an agenda to remake the society in their own image. These are people who sat in front of a radical black liberation theology (read communist) preacher for twenty years. If you listen to hate spiel long enough it rubs off… and it shows.

Americans in recent decades are said to have been dumbed down, and looking at the political indoctrination centers we call our public schools it’s easy to believe. The problem for the DeMarxists is that America wasn’t quite as glued to the lame stream media as they thought we were. It was our national disgust with Washington business-as-usual on both sides of the aisle that spawned the Constitutional patriot movements.

When Americans came to the party we did so with typical American pragmatism. The patriot movements have gained huge followings and have inspired America to fight back as never before. We’re not taking it from the Marxists and we won’t tolerate it on our side either. Americans have a thing for truth. It’s how we live our lives. The DeMarxists have done everything possible to destroy the civil society and the nation rejected it out of hand. Obama rolled out his world-shaking agenda and America said hell no! Obama managed to pass the health care bill with deceit, fraudulent legislative trickery and bribery. The universal unpopularity of the bill, passed against the will of the people, will prove to be Obama’s downfall. Americans really hate being lied to.

Republicans have been far more effective at blocking DeMarxist programs than their numbers would indicate. The Conservative patriot movement has provided the push-back to the Barack Hussein Obama socialist agenda and Americans are swarming to the Conservative Patriot banner.

Watching Obama’s pathetic response to the Gulf oil fiasco is an education in itself. His drilling moratorium may prove to be the anchor around the neck of his administration. Obama’s willingness to use the EPA to shackle the remainder of the US economy, when he couldn’t accomplish Cap and Tax legislatively, has Americans really ticked off.

DeMarxists all over the nation are scrambling to cover their tracks before November. Guess what? It’s too late. We know who you are, and we’ll make sure the rest of the country knows just exactly who you are well before November. We’re going to take our country back.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

I don’t think that by now there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that Obama has the most radical government in United States history. From his cabinet right on through the administration, Obama has assembled a version of himself. Like himself, they are ideologically in lockstep with Saul Alinsky, which is to say Karl Marx.

Obama lecturing Chicago students on Alinsky's ideas.

The crew that was swept into power with Barack Hussein Obama are largely academic theorists and have not themselves run anything other than a classroom. Then there were the party loyalists drafted to support their boss, such as Janet Napolitano. Others are political climbers and opportunists. They have only one real thing in common; a slavish faith that, given enough time and money, the elsewhere failed Socio-Marxist doctrines they wish to impose on us will transport us all to a centrally planned and administered socialist utopia. They are so focused on this that they have failed entirely in reading the mood of the nation.

The DeMarxists know that this is their last hoorah, too. Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. Right now, every DeMarxist member of Congress is distancing himself or herself from Obama and his increasingly disjointed pitches for his agenda. Many of these self-same politicians are trying as much as possible to distance themselves from their own votes in Congress. Sort of like John McCain getting serious about the borders just in time for elections. It may be way too late for most of these people this time around. We’re counting votes out here and we’re remembering who voted for what.

For a while, politicians were able to buy time to hide behind, for making deals on votes that they knew would be unpopular with their constituents. It is an old and dishonorable practice that has been set on its head by the internet and the new media. There were many years where politicians in Washington were pretty much bullet proof. Now they are being called to account and many of us are saying it’s about time!

These politicians, their regulators and agencies have been running roughshod through our lives and we the American citizens are going to stop it. This is the face of the new Conservative revolution. We have an administration which is a failure, coupled to a failed one term Presidency for Barack Obama and a DeMarxist majority in Congress which is going to get its clock cleaned.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

It’s not like, “Oh gravy!” “What’s he lying about this time?” It’s more like which SETS of multiple lies do I start with. While Mr. Mealy Mouth was wowing the kiddies at an elementary school by standing feet above them, looking down his nose at the teleprompters again, Nancy and Harry, with Obama’s direct knowledge and approval, have concocted a complete Rube Goldberg torturing of the legislative process in order to cram that health bill down your throat, 60 votes or not.

They intend to achieve this by a bizarre bait and switch use of the reconciliation process and a total backdoor agreement between Senate and House versions to be enacted by Democrat Representatives, on a promise of signing on to it AFTER Obama signs the legislation and enacts changes agreed to beforehand to satisfy the various recalcitrant factions.

This one is so sleazy, fraudulent and most likely unconstitutional, as to be hard to absorb. It’s almost surrealistic. If the general populace learns of this one they may decide to go the tar and pitchfork route after all. Those Bluedogs? HAMMER THE HELL OUT OF THEM!! They are the Obama, Pelosi, Reid lynch pin on this. So it’s back to the mattresses for Conservatives and Independents. Call, fax, email and contact your local representative’s office. THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED.

Obama, meanwhile, is touting that his stimulus has ’saved or created’ TWO MILLION JOBS. President Obama, YOU’RE LYING THROUGH YOUR EYE TEETH. The Obama administration has been doing everything diametrically opposite of what is required to create new jobs. His assaults on business and the MIDDLE CLASS (this is classic marxism). Assaults on the financial and banking sectors who small business is dependent on for funding and expansion. This is all a direct assault on the middle class because small businesses drive job creation in this country, and SMALL BUSINESS IS THE MIDDLE CLASS!

Now President Obama is going to pull a classic Saul Alinsky right shift and try to convince someone in the ‘middle class’ that he really cares. He is going to claim that the middle class has been under ‘assault’. Yeah Obama, by whom? 15 MILLION JOBS LOST. The worst month for housing sales in FORTY YEARS, down 17% in December. It’s the middle class that buy homes, Obama. It’s the middle class that can pay for them. Remember all that Democratic junk paper? Those are YOUR foreclosures. Those are the poor that you and ACORN forced the banks to loan to, the ones who had not a prayer of being able to repay.

Your public debt Obama: $12,245,872,000,000 – a figure almost inconceivable in its scope, and you want to increase that debt ceiling by another ONE POINT NINE TRILLION DOLLARS, and you’re going to go in front of the country and preach about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?!! You have destroyed those jobs, Obama, you have destroyed them by sucking billions upon billions of dollars out of the private sector. You were speaking about being a one term President, Mr. Obama. From your lips to God’s ears.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Marxism is the extreme of socialism, whereby the state owns and controls all the means of production and thereby the entire economy of the state. Most forms of Marxism share the idea that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production. Marxism takes a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change. Marxist economics is based on the idea that capitalism is by nature exploitative and conflict driven, and will ultimately fail on its own. This failure will be brought about by a worker revolt against the ruling class, with the ultimate outcome being a classless society.

Liberalism in America has, over the last fifty years or so, successfully created the notion that there are two Americas. The haves and the have nots, the greedy rich and the oppressed poor. It is the working definition of class struggle and conflict. Liberalism has taught that the rich gained their wealth on the backs of the poor, by taking advantage of their effort and insuring that they were not able to rise out of their poverty. Liberalism has purported to be the means by which the poor and oppressed will gain equality with the wealthy. However, liberal policies attempt to force this not by adding wealth to the poor, but by taking wealth from the wealthy. If Joe Liberal has $10 and Bob Capitalist has $100, liberalism wants to take $90 from Bob, so that Joe and Bob are equal. Equal they are, but neither is better off. In fact they are both worse off, because now Bob no longer has the resources to invest so that he and Joe can gain wealth, or at least have a chance to gain it. The state is the only winner. Liberalism has been an abject failure in the arena of effective policies that work to elevate the condition of the poor and society in general. But it has been very, very successful in creating the class struggle and conflict which is necessary to move to the next step.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, ultra liberal and radical, with an agenda to remake America. Marxism is big on state ownership of all means of production. So far there is at least partial state ownership of the major banking institutions, insurance companies and  automobile manufacturers. The current push is for state ownership of our health care system, or about 15% of the entire economy. Obama is closely aligned with labor unions (more us vs. them mentality) as is the democratic party in general. He is unashamed of his philosophy for wealth redistribution. (remember Joe the Plumber?) He is friendly with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. He is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. For twenty years he belonged to a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright frequently and openly bashed America. Now he has appointed over 30 czars who are unelected and unaccountable to anybody but him. One of those czars is Van Jones; Green Jobs Czar. Van Jones has an interesting past. He was arrested in 1993 at the L. A. riots after the Rodney King incident. He was arrested again in 1999 in Seattle during the World Trade Organization protests. Note this excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express: While describing his jail experiences, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, this is what I need to be a part of."  Jones already had a job in Washington, DC and had rented an apartment there. He decided to stay in San Francisco even though he already had his plane ticket. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, he and other young activists formed Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, a socialist collective which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.  (emphasis is mine)

Is Obama a Marxist? I don't know. Let me rephrase the question - if it was a felony to be a Marxist, would there be enough evidence to support an indictment against him? Maybe.

Pay attention to what he does, his associations, and his appointments - not just what he says.

Another question - just for kicks, let's say you were a committed Marxist, and that you had a vision of a Marxist America. Let's assume you had the means, the time, and were patient. Just how would you go about making your vision a reality?

More at http://commonconservativesense.com

President Obama rhetorically threw America under the bus yesterday.

George W. Bush gave the same substantive speech (minus apologies) a year ago.

My question is this: President Obama, as much as you quitely continue 43's counterterrorism policies In Iraq, Afghanistan, Club Gitmo, Terrorist Surveillance, and Rendition has the thought ever occured to you that despite your good (as much as it pains me to admit that) actions, your good actions are easily undermined by your words.

You don't understand Machiaveli 101; fear is more important than love.

I agree with you on a certain level; George W. Bush made us unloved around the world.  God Bless him, George W. Bush rejected the paradigm of appeasement to make sure our enemies feared us.

On the other hand, you really seem to think that by talking to them, our enemies will magically surrender.  Dude, it doesn't work that way.  Pussies are only an inch and a half away from you know what.

President Obama, America has not done anything wrong (except for raising taxes in 1990) over the past thirty years.  Given that you're speaking at Normandy later this week, before you throw America under the bus again, consider America's True Greatness.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

This chapter concerns accpeting reality and advancing an agenda within reality.  It discusses words related to social organizing and instructs the reader to their proper use in the real world.  Alinsky's views on this topic can be summed up thusly:

Nowhere is the prevailing political illiteracy more clearly revealed than in these typical interpretation of words....Power is the right word just as self-interest, compromise, and other simple poitical words are, for they were conceived in and have become part of politics from the beginning of time.  To pander to those who have no stomach for straight language, and insist upon bland, non controversial sauces, is a waste of time....[Quoting Neitzsche] Why stroke the hypersensitive ears of our modern weaklings....To travel down the sweeter-smelling, peaceful, more socially acceptable, more respectable, indefinite byways, ends in failure to acheive an honest understanding of the issues that we must come to grips with if we are to do the job.

As those of you who follow this blog know, I have no patience for those who whine about hardball politics.  As this chapter makes clear, Alinsky doesn't suffer these fools either.

Power

Alinsky starts this section by explaining why he uses the word power and why it's important:

[i]t is a determination not to detour around reality....I do not propose to be trapped by tact at the expense of truth.

In other words, you need to have power to affect social change.  There's no way around this reality.  On a practical level, it means you need a certain amount of economic, political, and cultural power.

For our purposes, it means we need to start winning elections again.  There's no way around this reality.  We couldn't stop the stimulus.  We're not going to be able to stop any of Obama's judicial nominees.  We need more power.

Alinsky then continues to discuss power, ultimately reaching the point that:

Power is the very dynamo of life....It is the power of active citizen pulsating upward, providing a unified strength...The power of a gun may be used to enforce slavery, or to achieve freedom....To know power and not fear it is essential to it's constructive use and control [his italics].

This re-enforces the notion that the arena of power politics is where the contest for social change occurs.  We can't be afraid to compete in this arena.  This is made all the more important by the fact that the other side will compete in this arena no matter what we do.  To arms, friends, to arms!

Next, Alinsky hits on one of the main weaknesses of the modern Republican party:

To do a thing well, a man needs power and competance.

While many of the more malicious charges against Republicans aren't true, it's also true that the last time we had power, we had a competance problem.  We're the ones who passed billion dollar farm bills and bridges to nowhere.  We're the ones who covered up a pedophile in the house of representatives.  While Democrat scandals will probably give us a huge leg up in this regard, we still need to demonstrate competance to the voters.

I have one specific suggestion in this regard: during the middle years of the Bush administration, the Republican Congress and the administration didn't do nearly enough to hold each other accountable.  They lost sight of the fact that the legislative branch and the executive branch have different institutional responsibilities even when they're controlled by the same party (something the Dems don't understand right now either).  When the administration loses $8billion in Iraq, Congress should hold the President accountable.  When Congress passes a bridge to nowhere, the President should veto it.

Self-Interest

Stating the obvious:

[t]here has always been near universal agreement on the part the self-interest plays as a prime moving face in man's behavior....To question the force of self-interest that pervades all areas of politcal life is to refuse to see man as he is, to see him only as he would like him to be.

This speaks to one of the major failings of the McCain campaign.  McCain never translated how his broader policy proposals translated into the self-interest of the average voter; he never bridged the gap between the theoretical and the practical.  Bush wasn't great at the self-interest thing either, but he was a heck of a lot better at it than McCain.

That said, self-interest by itself isn't enough.  Self-interest needs to be promoted from within a moral framework:

The overall case must be of larger dimensions than that of self-interest narrowly defined; it must be large enough to include and provide for the shifting dimensions of self-interest.

To illustrate this point, Alinsky describes the flexible nature of American alliances during and after World War II.  To ally with Stalin against Hitler, then to ally with Germany against the Soviet Union, required not just self-interest and also a moral foundation like fighting tyranny.

Compromise

Alinsky takes the practical view:

[t]o an organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word.  It is always present in the pragmatics of operations....If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead.

This one's tricky and I don't always agree with it.  While there are times you can get a good compromise, there are other times (like now) when such a strategy would be suicide.

Earlier in this chapter, we discussed power.  I think the amount of power you bring into any negotiation determines the quality of compromise you can get out of said negotiation.

Ego

Without getting into too much detail, there is a continuum in life from meek coward through confident courage of convictions to arrogance.  You should seek to be in the middle of said continuum.  This isn't just smart politics, it's also good advice for life.

Conflict

Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.

The only states without conflict are totalitarian states.

Thoughts/Suggestion?!?

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?!?

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?!?

I just began reading Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  It has sooooooooooooooo many things we can learn from it.  This will probably be a chapter by chapter ongoing series.

• First Sentence:

The Revolutionary Force today has two targets, moral as well as material.

For our purposes, that means that free-market capitalism is ultmately about human dignity while also being the best (and only) path to prosperity.

• The Value of the American Flag:

the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America's hopes and aspirations.

This one's obvious, although it's always good to remind yourself of the value of shamlessly wrapping yourself in the flag.

• The timeless value of humor in politics:

there are certain central concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of the scene or time....[H]umor is essential, for through humor much is accepted that would have been rejected of presented seriously.

Two words: Banking Queen!  This is actually something we've done a respectable job of; although we always need to do more.  South Park is the first example to come to mind, though I'm sure there are several others.

• Alinsky's Nixonian contempt for the anti-war movement:

If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psycholgical barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair....My thing, if I want to organize, is solid communication with the people in the community. 

Allinsky, like Nixon, understood how the degree to which the anti-war movement alienated decent people.  On our side, I think that entails creating a network that empowers (I know, I hate that word too) closet conservatives to feel comfortable speaking out in their own communities. 

The key is to relate to people in ways they can understand.  Too often, people are lead to believe that the charactures of us in the drive by's are true, and the drive by's get away with it far too often.  When the drive by's smeared Sarah Palin, people in the Philly Suburbs fell for it.  When you learn that your neighbor is pro-life, that makes it a lot harder to fall for the drive by slander.

• The need to completely demoralize the population:

They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.

This helpless pessimism has been the central theme of Obama's campaign, transition, and Presidency. When President Obama's politicies fail, which they will, we won't have to engage in the sort of pessimism the Dems did under Bush.

• The need to talk to everyone:

If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right.

Substitute left for right, and that's the core of our dilemma today.  For too long, we've written too many voters off as unattainable and failed to ask for their votes (eg. blacks); we need no more of Grover's gypsies.

• The need to organize from the Precinct level up:

To build a powerful organization takes time.  It is tedious, but that's the way the game is played -- if you want to play and not just yell, "Kill the umpire!"

While the internet can aid this process tremendously, we still need to get e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and get people to show up to meetings.  It's not glamorous, but it's essential.

• The inherent superiority of the, admittedly flawed, American system:

Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned to what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns....Let us, in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all it's repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack it's policies, work to build an opposition political base....I can attack my government, try to organize to change it.  That's more than I could do in Moscow, Peking [sic], or Havana.

Just remember, we live in the greatest country on Earth, even if we did just elect an idiot.  We'll get through this.

• The need to work on the hearts and minds of the broader population:

It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceeded by reformation.  To assume that a politcal revolution can survive without the supporting base of popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics....A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values.  They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless.

Essentially, you have to lead people to think the status quo is intolerable and anything will be better.  Give Obama time, we'll have plenty of opportunities.

• The Importance of Organizing around almost Anything:

Remember: Once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move.  From there it's a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.

Every local community has reasons for local citizens to organize around issues of public affairs.  Only you know what will work in your own community.  Still, when something your local government does outrages you, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!

Remember to get e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers.

• Keeping the Pressure On Politicians:

No Politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.

Why do I have a funny feeling we're on the verge of another populist uprising a la immigration and drill, baby, drill?

Thoughts/Suggestions ?!?