“WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. .... A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man’s illusion that his own welfare can be separated from that of all others.”
Alinsky's book has inspired a slew of books by conservatives that claim to counteract what Alinsky outlined, e.g., Rules for Conservatives: A Response to Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America. The conservative response seems largely oblivious to the fact that much of what Alinsky is fighting for is what most Republicans at least claim to be fighting for.
Republicans hate his guts
That includes concern for the public interest, more power and freedom for middle class and poor people and means to make them more self-reliant. Alinsky himself seems to be more pragmatic than radical liberal, commenting that “Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the extreme right. .... When there are people [radical leftists who espouse assassinations, murders and bombings] .... we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask.”
Regarding freedom, the public interest and self-reliance, Alinsky wrote, “People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all people. .... We are not here concerned with people who profess democratic faith but yearn for the dark security of dependency where they can be spared the burden of decisions. .... Those who can, should be encouraged to grow; for the others, the fault lies not in the system, but in themselves.”
Those comments on freedom and self-reliance sound like Republican talking points. What Republicans probably hate is Alinsky’s concern for the public interest or general welfare. That concept implies there is a role for government, taxes, spending and democracy, which are evil, theft, tyranny and distributed power. That seems to be what terrifies and angers Republicans the most.
On the Haves, Alinsky wrote: “The Haves want to keep things as they are and are opposed to change. Thermopolitocally they are cold and determined to freeze the status quo.”
Ideology, propaganda, revolution & other stuff
Alinsky commented on dogma or ideology: “This book will not contain any panacea or dogma: I detest dogma. .... Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. .... no ideology should be more specific than that of America's Founding Fathers: ‘For the general welfare.’” Unfortunately, it is the case that ‘the general welfare’ is an essentially contested concept. Most elite Republicans hate it, but pay cynical lip service to it, just to keep the faithful deceived and betrayed by a false belief tat GOP elites are actually on the side of their rank & file.
Alinsky commented on propaganda in defense of the status quo: “From the Haves, on the other hand, there has come an unceasing flood of literature justifying the status quo. Religious, economic, social, political and legal tracts endlessly attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious, and against God, country and mother.” IMO, that is still the case today, except the situation is much worse.
Regarding the colossal mistake the Have-Nots made in letting the Haves frame them as communists: “The Have-Nots of the world ..... desperately seeking revolutionary writings can find such literature only from the communists, both red and yellow. Since in this literature all ideas are embedded in the language of communism, revolution appears synonymous with communism. .... Today revolution has become synonymous with communism while capitalism is synonymous with status quo.” The Haves are desperately fighting for their vision of America, which is basically (i) brutal laissez-faire capitalism and its accompanying power and wealth inequality, or (ii) something as close to it as they can buy from government. The more corrupt the government, the closer ruthless rich people can get.
I've written on the awesome but mostly unconscious power of framing here.
Alinsky argues that some or most of the Have-a-Little, Want Mores (the middle class) are stalemated by their own conflict in wanting more but also protecting what they have. He calls this group the Do-Nothings. A doing nothing mindset is a powerful that favors the Haves, and the Haves know it. “These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice.”
Of interest, the Haves, often aided by some or most of the Do-Nothings deploy the tried and true delay tactic, “now is not the time to talk or think about X,” where X is something current the Haves oppose and want to make go away. For them, there never will be a time to talk about it and public attention inevitably moves on to other things.
Alinsky also cites a pile of rules with some commentary. Here are some.
The first rule of the ethics of means and ends is that “one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others.”
“The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment. To the British [the Declaration of Independence] was a statement notorious for its deceit by omission. .... the Bill of Particulars attesting to the reasons for the revolution cited all of the injustices which the colonists felt that England had been guilty of, but listed none of the benefits. [The Founders] knew that a list of the many constructive benefits of the British Empire to the colonists would have so diluted the urgency of the call to arms as to have been self-defeating.”
If that assertion is true, and it probably is, one can believe that right off the bat, Americans came out of the gate in a state of delusion induced by the standard propaganda tactic of being completely one-sided about the framing and truth of an issue. For context, Americans did not want to engage in WWI. A massive government propaganda campaign was necessary to coax them into changing their minds. That propaganda campaign was loaded to the gills with lies, slanders, tricks, smoke and mirrors, e.g., war was necessary to make the world safe for democracy. And, we all remember the deceit and propaganda that was used to coax America into the Vietnam war disaster.
US government pro-WWI propaganda poster
“The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concerns with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa. .... if one lacks the luxury of a choice and is possessed of only one means the ethical question will never arise; automatically the lone means becomes endowed with a moral spirit. .... To me ethics is doing what is best for the most.”
There seems to be some internal conflict in how Alinsky views the morality of politics and power. Everyone claims that what they want does the best for the most. And when there is only one mean to an end, that alone imbues it with morality and justification. Maybe pragmatism requires that belief and maybe it is justifiable because what is best for the most is usually (almost always?) almost purely subjective.
Alinsky’s views on morality raise the question of propaganda, deceit, lies, dehumanizing slanders, motivated reasoning, etc. The American people arguably were tricked into the Revolutionary War. They definitely were tricked into WWI and Vietnam. No one can know how history would have played out if the colonists and Americans later had not been tricked into those wars. It is possible that America, the environment, civilization and mankind generally would be better off.
Another point Alinsky makes that is worth mention relates to compromise and democracy. He wrote: “A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be ‘compromise.’”
Alinsky also lays out rules of power tactics that indicate how the Have-Nots can take power from the Haves by means of doing what is possible and acceptable to those fighting for power.[1]
Questions: When there is no choice and deceit, lies and dehumanization of political opposition is necessary to move people to action (or inaction), is it justified? Does pragmatism really mandate that all means are acceptable in view of inherently moral ends? Pragmatic rationalism as I envision it holds core, semi-universal moral values in fidelity to actual facts, true truths and sound reasoning (as opposed to lies, false truths and motivated reasoning), so does that make it not pragmatic in Alinsky’s moral universe, e.g., is it just semi-pragmatic rationalism at most, or is it neither pragmatic nor rational?
Footnote:
1. “The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. .... From the moment the tactician engages in conflict, his enemy is time.
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks. It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. .... The forces for change much keep this in mind and pin that target down securely.”
