The Saul Alinsky connection

To Understand the Man, Know His Bible

The View from the Middle

According to Michelle Obama, “Barack is not a politician first and foremost.  He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.”  The President took that statement as a compliment. 

Barack Obama started his community organizer career in his formative years in 1986 at the tender age of 23.  At that time he was hired by Saul Alinsky’s team to organize residents of the South Side of Chicago.  For the next 10 years he mixed school and work with groups like the Gamaliel Foundation and Acorn, which employed Alinsky’s organizing methods. 

Three of Mr. Obama’s mentors were trained in the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation and, in fact, he became a trainer of Alinsky’s methods.  So, if the President is an Alinsky disciple, it is important for us to understand who Saul Alinsky was and what he proposed.  The best way to do that is by reading Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals.  Saul had some disturbing beliefs that might help explain some of the actions and inactions of this administration.

The first problem with the Alinsky approach is his disdain for qualities admired by virtually all Americans like honesty and integrity.  In his chapter called “Of Means and Ends” he positions “truth” as irrelevant, to be used if it is convenient or to be ignored when that is advantageous. 

He has a dedication to Lucifer (yes, Satan) at the beginning of his book, and in a late-in-life interview he said, “Let’s say there is an afterlife…I would unreservedly choose to go to hell, …Hell would be heaven for me.” 

You could argue that President Obama has learned this disregard for truth well from Mr. Alinsky.  Remember, he won the “Lie of the Year” award from Politifact for his famous, “If you like your plan you can keep it,” promise.  You could also argue that the truth has been bent if not violated in the IRS and Benghazi scandals. Do you think it is an accident that “Trust in Government” is at an all time low under this administration?

My next issue with Alinskyism is its focus on power and not on solutions.  Part of his mantra is “power is good, and powerlessness is evil.”  While I don’t think that being powerless is a good thing for anyone, power is clearly not always good.  I guess Saul forgot about Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein.  These guys had plenty of power but were clearly not “good”, at least by my measures.

Many critics of Rules for Radicals have pointed out that while Alinsky was very concerned about the transfer of power from one group to another, he was practically clueless as to what to do with that power once it was acquired.  He rallied people around very general slogans like “for the general welfare” or “hope and change”.  These sound good, but what do they really mean?

President Obama suffers from the same inadequacy as his teacher.  He is great at “running for office”, which is the transfer of power, but weak in “governing”.  We see this in his failed policies.  Even Democrats will readily admit that our economy is not what it should be.  The Obamacare launch was a disaster and our foreign policy is a shambles.  However, what should we expect from a student of Saul Alinsky but success at grasping power and little to no idea about what to do with it.

Finally, my biggest disappointment with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is his rule #5 – Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon!  This may be an effective way to create division and anger or to energize your base, but it is not an effective way to govern.  Governing is about bringing people together and making compromises, but how do you negotiate with someone on Monday after you have brutally and often unjustly ridiculed them on Friday? 

And the President and his administration use this tactic constantly.  If you disagree with them they attack you personally.  You will be called a racist or a misogynist.  They will accuse you of wanting dirty air and water or wanting to throw grandma off the cliff.  Really?

Of course, he’s just following his teacher’s example.  This may be why our first black President might be our most divisive, despite his promise of unity that we all had great hope for.  Remember the vision he painted – “There is not a black America and a white America…there is just a United States of America”.  In fact, our country is more polarized today than when he took office.  Our country is being sliced into small groups and pitted against each other for political gain.

We need leaders who see all Americans as loyal, patriotic citizens who love this country.  We may have different ideas on how to improve it, but that doesn’t make us the enemy and certainly should not evoke ridicule.