Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

The Alinsky Tactics – Rule by Rule -Part 7 – The Eighth Tactic

February 27, 2011 7 comments

Rule 8:  “Keep the pressure on with different tactics, and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”~Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

All of the Alinsky tactics dovetail together, and until you fully appreciate that, you can’t unequivocally understand the Alinsky model, but if there is one central concept around which all the others orbit it is the overarching theme that the application of pressure is the only thing that will create change, and change is always the goal.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” ~Rahm Emmanuel

To the average sensibility, this quote from Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel seems oddly detached from our normal emotional reactions in times of tragedy. The word psychopath leaps to mind, but Rahm is no psychopath. He is just so fully immersed in the teachings of Alinsky that applying Alinsky principles is a reaction that requires no thought, and so any natural consideration of humanitarian concerns simply becomes irrelevant as it dissolves into “the greater good”. Of course, whose definition of “the greater good” we’re using would seem to be a pertinent consideration, and will be the subject of future posts.

As I explained previously in The Alinsky Reaction Chain, the principle purpose of all the tactics is to keep the pressure on your opponent. This requires a litheness and fluidity of approach that means even the tactics themselves are subject to change or abrogation if the end can be accomplished more quickly, or more easily by some other means. We will investigate in later posts just how important this issue of means and ends is in the Alinsky paradigm.

So the object is to keep the pressure on; be relentless; be ruthless if necessary, but win at any cost. No tragedy or misfortune is out of bounds if it can be employed to achieve your end goal. If you are utterly and completely convinced you are correct then surely you should leave no strategy untried to attain such noble goals. In this context, it is easy to understand the corruption, sell-outs, and backroom deals concomitant with the ramming through of Obamacare, as well as the seeming inconsistencies between noble goals and amoral means used to attain them.

Obama demonstrated his fidelity to Alinsky tactics over and over throughout the Presidential campaign of 2008, and continues to use them in the White House.

During the campaign Obama applied Alinsky tactics repeatedly; here are a few examples of his use of the eighth tactic:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” ~Barack Obama

“I want you to argue with them, and get in their faces.” ~Barack Obama

The general intent of the eighth tactic is this: if you’re convinced you’re right, and the consequences of your opponent winning are too dire for you to consider, you are obligated to do whatever is necessary to ensure that your side wins. The messy, corrupt process of passing Obamacare stands as a stark reminder of what Alinsky tactics look like when used to Govern. This isn’t just politics as usual. This is politics without even a consideration of the possibility that the morality of means might be relevant in the process of bringing about change.

Go to part 6

A Brief Defense of American Exceptionalism

December 28, 2010 4 comments

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]


There is a lot of confusion surrounding the topic of American Exceptionalism these days, and much of it stems from the remarks of two Presidents.

Reagan referred to American Exceptionalism with the following profound words:

…I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still…

Contrast this with President Obama’s response to a reporter’s question about American Exceptionalism at a news conference in Strasbourg, France, in April 2009. The President’s response was, “”I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” Clearly the two men see a different America.

So what it so exceptional about America anyway, and are we being egotistical to laud this land as a beacon beyond any other?

I would encourage you to read the full entry at because it presents many of the gray areas, and contrasting views surrounding the use of this language, but I present here only the first paragraph of that article to illustrate the way most Conservatives view American Exceptionalism:

American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from its unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom.

To many of us, this great experiment in Liberty continues to be that shining city on a hill of which Reagan spoke, and it continues to be the last, best hope for a free and prosperous world. Those who are quick to see America’s faults, but somehow miss her greatness do not see it this way.

It would seem that Progressives see America and her faults, and ask, “How dare she call herself Exceptional?” Conservatives, on the other hand, see America and her faults and ask, “How dare we allow America to be less than Exceptional?”

A Conservative Warning: When the Primary is Over, You Only Have One Choice

June 10, 2010 1 comment

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

If this is your only choice - is there any doubt?

I would certainly consider myself pretty damn  far to the Right, and anyone who knows anything about me knows I’m no friend of the Left or of the Obama agenda, however occasionally the enemy of the good ends up being the pursuit of the ultimate “Non-Rino”.

All of us on the Right are crying out for true conservatives to represent us – fiscal conservatives with the backbone to stand up in opposition to this progressive charge towards socialism, but when the Primaries end either the conservatives unite or we run the unimaginable risk of allowing Congress to remain in control of a Party bent on the “fundamental transformation of America”. That transformation is away from the free-market, States Rights, and the individual liberties that set apart this exceptional nation.

The Choice is Clear - Even When it isn't.

The Tea Party has made great strides towards forcing the Republican Party to embrace the tenets of fiscal responsibility, a dramatic reduction in the size and intrusiveness of the Federal Government, and a strong and unapologetic defense of our nation against radical Islam. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking, and there plainly is not enough time to win all the minds and hearts of those who now lean middle-Left, but with some persuasion could lean middle-Right.

The consequences of leaving the House in the hands of the Democrats are just too grave to split the hairs we may have the luxury of splitting after the GOP returns to power. When the primary is over – you know the Primary you poured your heart into in order to get a true conservative nominated? When that Primary is over you MUST let it go, and champion the GOP or conservative Independent that has been nominated for the General Election.

The bottom line is this: fight your Primary battles hard, fight for the conservative, move the moderates Right, but above all, when the Primary is over you must find the steadfastness to support the nominee with the same resolve you showed for the candidate who was your first choice.

Leaving the Democrats in control means a tacit endorsement of the Obama agenda that will lead to an overreach so vast that its reversal may well become impracticable. At the risk of acting as the harbinger of America’s utter destruction over the loss of a single election, either we take back the House (and hopefully the Senate) or get ready for Cap and Trade, The Employee Freedom of Choice Act, The Fairness Doctrine, and about thousand other bills designed to take the power away from the private sector and place it squarely in the hands of a centralized Government.

There’s a name for that. What is it again? Oh yeah, socialism.

Barack Obama’s Six Part Plan to Destroy America

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

The longer version of something I’ve been tweeting for many months – Barack Obama’s plan to destroy America:

1.  Bail outs for banks who help him and to control companies.
2.  Socializing medicine.
3.  Controlling the world’s finances through Cap and Trade.
4.  Allowing illegal aliens into America and granting them amnesty for votes.
5.  Giving rights to terrorists and using euphemisms instead of force.
6.  Suppressing free speech at first by threat and joke and then by law.

No Blame Obama

January 6, 2010 2 comments

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

MSNBC continues it’s decent into old Soviet Pravda territory. Recently, as summarized in this video on MyFoxNation, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, with help from Richard Wolffe suggested that the intelligence community of the United States may have deliberately misled the President. Had we not all witnessed the blatant partisanship of MSNBC, this might be even more astonishing.
MSNBC is, of course, owned by NBC which is in turn owned by GE. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt now finds himself in the cozy position of acting as a financial advisor to President Obama. But just how far are they willing to go to carry water for Obama? It appears they are willing to actually suggest that our intelligence community would deliberately allow the slaughter of American citizens in order to besmirch the reputation of The One. And just where does the curious appointment of Leon Panetta to head the CIA figure into this curious equation?
It is becoming increasingly obvious that this President is genetically incapable of accepting blame for anything. The Main Stream Media (I’d say Lame Stream Media, but Bernard Goldberg has taken a phrase I created and made it his own) grilled former President Bush over his seeming inability to admit mistakes. Where are they now?
Categories: General Tags: , ,

Why Alinsky tactics are no longer Working for Obama

September 2, 2009 5 comments

[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]

They’re still using Alinsky tactics

According to a recent release from a whistle blower at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA),


“Obama has a strong arts agenda, we were told, and has been very supportive of both using and supporting the arts in creative ways to talk about the issues facing the country. We were “selected for a reason,” they told us. We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change. We knew “how to make a stink,” and were encouraged to do so”
(Michelle Malkin’s Web site).

While the fact that the NEA is being manipulated by the President is troubling to say the least, I want to call attention to a specific part of the above quote. It says, “We knew ‘how to make a stink,’ and were encouraged to do so.” This could not be a more glaring reference to Saul Alinsky. From Alinsky’s biography by Sanford D. Horwitt we have this excerpt,

“…Alinsky later recalled with delight the community uproar in Rochester that greeted his suggestions as to what might be the only way for poor blacks to get the attention of the smug, self-righteous establishment: they should purchase a large bloc of tickets to a performance of the Rochester symphony-but, just before arriving, they would all get together for a huge baked-bean dinner so that at the symphony, Alinsky deadpanned their presence could not be ignored”(Horwitt,Let them call me Rebel, p. xv).

And Alinsky himself delighted in the story in his book Rules for Radicals. He says, “Here you could have a combination not only of noise but also of odor, what you might call natural stink bombs” (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals p. 139). In his description of his methods he encourages the underclass, lacking financial resources, to harness numbers and to raise a stink. So I think we can see that the Alinsky tactics have been firmly entrenched into the entire structure of the Obama campaign and Administration – right down to the NEA. Their recent attempts to target individuals and freeze them have been documented in some of my former posts. I will not retread that ground here.

If the tactics were effective enough to get Obama elected, why are they failing him now?

Designed to destroy,not build. There are several reasons, but they all spring from one central concept: Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals were designed for an oppressed underclass (or more appropriately in Alinsky’s thinking, Plebeians – ala Karl Marx) to bring down the Capitalists who were ‘oppressing” them. This is a recurring theme with Obama, his friends, his appointments, and his supporters. Alinsky begins his book with these words,

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be”(Alinsky, Rules for Radicals p. 3).

You may or may not recognize those words from Michelle Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention where she quoted them almost verbatim as coming from the mouth of Barack Obama the very first time she met him. Here’s the video:

The thesis of Alinsky’s book is that the oppressed underclass can use the strengths they have to change America, and they need not simply permit those with the money to trample upon them. In some sense this is an admirable goal, but Alinsky takes it to the extreme. He ceases to concern himself with any sense of morality, and instead chooses to concentrate on change by any means necessary, with the end justifying the means.

Inherently Inconsistent. Alinsky may have started his book with the line about a ‘world as it should be’, but he never gets around to providing a structure or framework for such a new, more just world. He never seems to see beyond the struggle. It’s as though there is no sense that his side could ever actually win. Ironically this violates his own principles and tactics. Again, it is the twelfth rule that always trips up those who use Alinsky; probably because it tripped up Alinsky himself.

The twelfth rule says, ” The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Alinsky never planned for a process or any tactics to follow if victory was achieved. If the enemy actually agrees, Alinsky is stuck with no explanation for his actions.. If suddenly people agree, Alinsky offers no next step. Obama has fallen into this same trap more than once. For a good explanation of how the twelfth rule has bitten Obama recently see The American Thinker article here.

Likewise, the Obama Administration has been left with no ‘constructive alternative’ when everyone agrees that there is a need for improvement in America’s healthcare system, and differs only on the method by which it should be accomplished. Instead the void has been filled by angry townhalls, a traveling teaparty, and a scheduled march on Washington D.C. on September 12.

Regrouping, Rethinking, and Retooling.

Vacation. With Congress in recess, his polls in free fall, and the American people rising en masse against the perceived Government intrusion of the various plans stuck in both Houses, Obama chose to take a vacation. Perhaps not the worst strategy. It seemed that every time he spoke his ratings dropped and the divide over healthcare reform widened. The overwhelming sense was that the President had failed to articulate a clear vision of what he wanted healthcare reform to look like.

A good summary of how ineffective Obama was on defining his message is summed up well in the following video by Cable News’ highest rated personality-Bill O’Reilly:

Counter-Offensive. While Obama is on vacation the strategy has been to organize against the townhall response. The following video catches an Obamacare supporter actually coaching the recruits how to shout down townhall protestors:

So clearly the strategy is to rely on old-style Alinsky tactics for now. Perhaps when the President returns from vacation, a new strategy will have been developed. Whether it departs from the prescribed Alinsky methods used thus far remains to be seen.

One thing seems certain. Unless Obama takes a page from the Clinton playbook and begins to move towards the center there is no way for him to win in the present environment. If he pushes healthcare reform through with ‘reconciliation’ he will only further enrage the already disenfranchised right and the newly disenfranchised Independents. It he fails to get enough for the left, even the so-called camel’s nose under the tent (a small step towards Publicly run healthcare that lays the framework for further action later) the left is not inclined to support the President.

Alinsky would continue to attack, pressure, ridicule, and polarize. Will the President continue that unsuccessful and divisive approach, or will he find a new way to do things? A way that would mean a huge departure from everything that has gotten him this far. It’s hard to say, but the next few weeks and months are certainly starting to look interesting!