One of the weirder phenomena cluttering this political season has been the way Saul Alinsky’s name suddenly bloomed on a thousand rightie blogs. I hadn’t thought of him in years, and I suspect many younger progressives had no idea who he was. But suddenly he was, in rightie minds, the evil mentor of all lefties. Not that any of them had any clue what Saul Alinsky was really about, of course.
Phoenix Woman has a nice analysis of Alinsky and the Right, and argues that it’s the Right, not the Left, that is following Alinsky’s tactical playbook.
The constant harping on Alinsky’s Socialist beliefs and some of his more outré actions conceals the basic fact that Alinsky practiced several techniques that are beloved of conservatives but eschewed by many if not most liberals and lefties, both of his era and today. If he were alive, he likely would be scorned as an amoral compromiser by the same people who are confronted daily by conservatives who successfully use his strategies and tactics.
Alinsky pioneered the use of single-issue politics as a tool for working with what we now call “low-information votersâ€, doing better with them than almost any other lefty activist before or since. His method was to first establish a relationship with the group he hoped to organize, and to pick a particular issue with which to create and nurture this relationship; he would keep things simple and distraction-free by focusing on that issue, and only that issue, until success was achieved or it was felt advisable to move on to another issue. …
… The issue itself was often secondary — the true objective was getting the people organized and comfortable enough with the organizer so that he/she could, by degrees, start introducing them to the organizer’s actual long-term goals.
Tea Party, meet the Koch brothers.
Be sure to read the whole post; it brings up a number of interesting points. But it also left me musing about the way the Right can be made to obsess about anyone or anything. We’ve seen figures like Alinsky, or George Soros, or Ward Churchill, or ACORN, or even President Obama’s teleprompter turned into great and terrible bogeymen in the rightie psyche.
All it takes is a quick jerk of the chain, and from thenon the mere mention of a name like ACORN or Soros fills the rightie imagination with frightening visions of evil; Hitler, Stalin, gulags, jack boots. They see into a liberalsocialist future, gray and bitter, in which all shreds of whatever privilege they think they are entitled to are stripped away, and they become no better than the poor, the foreign, and, um, the melanin enhanced.
And the remarkable thing is that these totems of evil exist only in their own heads; the Alinsky, Soros, ACORN, etc. of objective reality are entirely different critters from what righties imagine them to be. Or, like Ward Churchill, they are figureheads with no followers, small things blown up way out of proportion to their importance.
I hope the social psychologists are watching this. It’s a fascinating example of how the Web and mass media enable groupthink. It sounds like a great subject for some dissertations, if it doesn’t get us all killed first.
“Alinsky pioneered the use of single-issue politics as a tool for working with what we now call “low-information votersâ€â€
Well the right certainly has perfected that technique, but lets be honest “low information†the teatards, dimwitted teabaggers, etc are just plain fucking stupid. They are incapable of thinking for themselves, they are just to fucking dumb. Here is a perfect example. Our friends over at Redstate dot hate have to tell the tards that read that drivel who and why to be mad at. If you watch the video that is linked the signs are great, nothing nasty at all, just great snark that politely points out how fucking stupid the teabaggers look to the rest of us regular folks. So again we should dispense with the “low information voter†tag and just call these mental midgets what they are!
I’ve delved a little into this, and have concluded that, yes righties do fixate on any boogeyman they can find. Their nervous little minds need enemies, and enemies they shall have.
However, I’ve read that Alinsky himself said that his ideas would (or could?) be used by the right. I’ve read of paid, educated, 20 or 30 something libertarian organizers instructing the Tea Party. These professional organizers have no doubt read “Rules For Radicals”, at least some of them.
The entire conservative project, from Reagan forward, once it got into high gear with George W Bush, is nothing less than a radical demolition of all the collective progress made in the 20th century and before. The righties who are leading this demolition, are proud to be called radicals, in just the same way that Mao’s Cultural Revolutionaries were proud to be in the revolutionary vanguard that up-turned China in the 1960s. Instead of legions of 20-somethings waving Mao’s Little Red Book, we have our own radicals appropriating “Rules for Radicals”.
When aliens come here, long after we ‘special’ Americans and all others are gone, I just want to have them see a couple of examples of what we could have been, not just as a nation, but as a society:
For government – The US Constitution.
For music – Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Scott Joplin, Ellington, Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, many R&B and Motown artists, The Talking Heads, Dylan, and Simon and Garfunkle.
Art – the cave painings, Egyptian, Roman and Greek art, Russian icons, the Renaissance period, Impressionists, Dada & Surrealist’s, Rothko and Pollack, Picasso, Dali, Grandma Moses, and even Norman Rockwell.
Human rights – The Declaration of Independence, Abe’s ‘Emancipation Proclamation,’ the Sufferagettes, Martin Luther Kings “I have a Dream Speach.”
And then, to explain the end, leave an example of Stewart and Colbert’s rally, and video from FOX News shows like Beck’s, Hannity’s, and O’Reilly’s. The final statement should say, “Look this is what we had to offer in the arts and politics at their best, this is what most people were on board for, and here is what undid it all. ‘When you amplify everything, you hear nothing.'”
Stupid is, as stupid does…
Thanks for the post. One of the most useful things progressives might do after Election Day (win or lose) is to analyze and expose the Right’s propaganda for what it is– propaganda. I don’t see how we’ll be able to fight it effectively unless we do that.
And also, can we all go reread Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” and, armed with it, start figuring out how to sit down and talk honestly with ordinary, non-extremist Republicans? There are a lot of them who don’t like the Tea Party and its allies one bit, but we’re not trying to give them any reason to make common cause with us.
That’s exactly what most of us progressive bloggers have been doing, or trying to do, lo these many years. It’s our primary topic.
Oh, sometimes it is tried, but we can’t break through. The thing is, it is very much in their own interest to make common cause with us, but good luck trying to explain that to them. Most of them are so full of hate and propaganda that reason is impossible.
“but we’re not trying to give them any reason to make common cause with us”
I’ve never met a reasonable republican ever, they have no interest in common cause (have you been awake the last two years, give me a fucking break), if you believe that then I got some land for sale you might be interested in.
“There are a lot of them who don’t like the Tea Party”
If that is true (which it aint) then it is their responsibility to fight the teatards from within, why the fuck do we have to hold there hand and guide them. I don’t need to read anything to figure out what to do about the dimwittedteabaggers, they are a bunch of fucking imbeciles who should be ridiculed and laughed out of serious political consideration. Taking them seriously only encourages them.
Uncledad – I have to go with KS in theory. While you are correct that we have to play hard ball exposing the dangerous ideas of Palin and Angle and Paul, liberals must wise up to the idea that elections are determined by moderates – frequently the ‘low-information voters’. Millions who voted for Obama are moving right. For a significant portion of voters, neither decision to the left or right was an informed choice. It was more like herd instinct responding to the stimuli of noise. Calling them names is not a winning strategy.
Always Remember – the votes of the informed left (a minority) are canceled by the passionate conservatives (a minority) and the decisions frequently made by the voter who wants to do the honorable thing and has NO CLUE what that honorable thing is. This guy doesn’t know who Breitbart is – he doesn’t know what the DISCLOSE act was intended to do or why it failed. This voter doesn’t know shit from shinola and we have to educate him because we need his vote to win.
After what happens tomorrow – the education of the ‘low-information’ voter has to be OUR priority for the next 18 months – because the opposition is working a game plan of misinformation – and deception is easier to package and sell than truth. I don’t have to convince you – or you me. We have to reach the guy who doesn’t know how much he doesn’t know. And make him feel pretty damn smart when he won’t be conned by Beck & Limbaugh.
Barbara – I can only speak for myself – and I can’t thank you enough for being a conduit of information and a guide to other reliable sources. The challenge is how to get SMALL digestable packets of truth to the ‘low-information’ voter who can’t handle discussions like Mahablog? The noise machine IS reaching him – and we aren’t.
moonbat,
Great comment! Perfect analogy with the Red Guard and their little red book. I see a similarity to the Chinese during the Cultural Revolution in the 60’s with their wanting to be seen in public with their copy of Mao’s thoughts to the current Repuglicants wanting to be seen in public with their American flag lapel pins.
The problem with this post is its lopsidedness.
If you think you’re really able to describe the rightie brain, then you should balance it out with the leftie brain too.
Let me give it a try…and I’ll keep it simple to avoid confusion…
Arrogant, dogmatic, rude, hateful, usually-a-bit-socially-awkward, closed minded, angry, and all of this is on top of the fact that they’re about to lose their grip on Washington DC for a couple of years.
All of these attributes can be proven by the fact that if you see a leftie’s comment posted that disagrees with someone, it almost always includes 4-letter words, statements of someone else’s mental incapacity and will include comments abobut how bent out of shape they are that everyone else doesn’t think like they do.
That’s why most people don’t listen to the leftie brains.
Biased, much? Dear, if lefties seem angry to you, it’s probably because they’ve lost patience trying to deal with you. And “arrogant, dogmatic, rude, hateful, usually-a-bit-socially-awkward, closed minded, angry” sums up most teabaggers pretty well, except I think “entitled” or “privileged” is a little closer to the mark than “arrogant.” It’s a subtle difference, though.
And you are different, how, exactly? Seriously, rightie comments hardly ever get approved here because 99 percent of them consist of nothing but juvenile insults and naughty words. I tend to approve them if they make any point at all, but that’s rare.
Frankly, hardly anyone ever hears us. It’s too hard to be heard above all the shrieking idiocy coming from the Right these days.
Mao Man,
Project much?
Check out the comments at some of your most beloved rightie sites, and tell me that’s not what you find.
On top of that, you will find a great big heaping of eliminationist rhetoric. And for that, you can also tune in daily to Rush on radio, and Beck and Sean, on radio AND TV. They all call for lefties to be ‘eliminated’ in one form or another. We lefties don’t want to ‘eliminate’ you righties, we want to change the way you think, which is way more difficult.
A quick test, Mao Man. Let’s see if you can tell the Liberal from the Conservative:
One person tries to change the world through words and deeds, preaching to help the lesser and poorer among us.
Another person wants to change the world through words and eliminating his opposition.
The first was Christ, the second was your pal Mao, Mao Man. Though, it could have been Stalin or Hitler, as well. And no, they weren’t Liberals, despite the words Communitst and Socialist associated with them. The set themselve up as King’s. And that’s about as Conservative as you could get. Just ask our Liberal Founding Fathers who fought to rid themselves of rule by a King. Through revolution, not regicide – since that would be eliminationist, and that is not a Liberal trait.
I know you won’t read this, Mao Man, because like many righties, you hop on here to leave a thought turd, and then run off to your rightie sites to boast about how you embarassed some lefties at their site. Only WE’RE not embarrassed because of you, we’re embarrassed FOR you.
Beside the projection, Mao Man is typical of righties in one other regard — he does not address the substance of the post he criticizes. So what’s with the sudden fascination with Saul Alinsky? Is there another explanation? No, not a word about that. He just hurls back insults.
I sometimes leave comments on other sites, even rightie sites once in a blue moon. But I would never, ever bother to comment just to insult the blogger. I only comment when I want to point out what I think is an error of fact or logic in the post. It’s extremely unusual for rightie commenters here to do that. Instead of addressing my argument, they just write “you stink” or words to that effect.
[I assume troll means Democrats, who are not “lefties”] are about to lose their grip on Washington DC for a couple of years.
Yep, for just a couple of years, because that’s all it’s going to take to remind the electorate of just how extreme the Right is these days. Not to mention hard-of-thinking.
It occurs to me that, if this year’s crop of Republican candidates were pre-1980 centrist Republicans (which is to say generally fair & honorable anti-demagogues), I’d have no problem with them taking back Congress for as long as it takes the Dems to get a clue as to what they stand for. But since the GOP has gone zombie and is trying to eat itself these days, I dread the thought of the party controlling Congress for even a couple of years.
I would never, ever bother to comment just to insult the blogger.
That’s how grown-ups behave.
Regarding Maha’s comment that righties fail to address the topic or argument, look at HCR as an example. What we DID address with HCR was:
46 Million Americans without Insurance (HCR covers 30 million)
An Estimated 45,000 Americans die every year for lack of health care. (Harvard Study 2009)
Insurance companies will NOT deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Insurance companies will NOT drop coverage if you develop a serious condition.
Annual &/or lifetime caps prohibited.
Reduce the deficit by billions the first decade – a trillion in the next.
IN all the ‘discussion’ about the flaws of HCR and the current attempts to repeal HCR – righties either would not discuss or refused to admit the faults and flaws in the old system that was killing more Americans every month than died on 9-11.
In all the current discussions about repealing HCR – they STILL refuse to discuss the problems that they would restore. They have their heads in the sand – or some other place.
That’s true of Wall Street reform, DISCLOSE, global warming, and a host of issues where corporate interests control the GOP and misdirect the fools in the tea party. I will discuss politics with any conservative who can actually ENGAGE on issues – but most are conditioned like Pablov’s puppies NOT to think. This was not always the case but the GOP has driven intelligent discourse from the ranks.