What Would Saul Alinsky Do?, or How to Rule With Fear

Saul Alinsky, 1909-1972

The name Saul Alinsky was known in the past but it has gained a prominence in the public sphere thanks to President Obama.  At the beginning of Obama’s first campaign, commentators (mainly of conservative persuasion) have often wondered “who is Barack Obama?”  I would venture a guess that liberal counterparts have asked the same question but in an effort of “sticking with the group,” and defeating Republicans, they have remained silent. 

Where does Obama come from (metaphysically, that is)?  Who are his influences?  An answer to the second question, it would appear, is Saul Alinsky.  And so, in order to make any progress in trying to understand Obama, it stands to reason to first explore Alinsky’s thought.

I will admit that this exploration has been attempted before.  Many conservative commentators have “ripped apart” Alinsky, especially by the claim that Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer.  I most certainly believed it, and have dismissed Alinsky rather aggressively.  But, since my own intellectual integrity does not allow me to make conclusions on anything until I have a fair amount of evidence, I resolved to read Rules for Radicals.  (And by the way, the book is dedicated to his wife Irene.  The book itself contains an epigraph—a quote by Alinsky himself, calling Lucifer the very first radical).

At this point, I am not interested in Saul Alinsky’s personal life.  I will only be dealing with his book.  I was intrigued and curious what kind of philosophy Alinsky espouses, especially after I have learnt that famous French Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain had great admiration for Alinsky.  The two became close friends, and Maritain thanks Alinsky explicitly in one of his own books, Reflections on America.  Was Maritain duped by Alinsky or is there more to this man?  But, the unlikely friendship between Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky is a topic for another article.

Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals was published in 1971.*  Stylistically, it is a very dull book.  In the past two days of reading it, I really had to brace myself and remain patient (I found myself making some kind of exhaling noises, along with bouncing my leg, which is not what I generally do). 

It is also a repetitive book—Alinsky could have easily said everything in fifty pages (maybe even less), as opposed to 196 pages.  Philosophically, it is weak, and nihilistic.  And there is also a pervasive cynicism, which is usually typical of most manifestos.

This particular manifesto begins by stating clearly what the objective is: “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” (3).

This opening paragraph perfectly sums up Alinsky’s philosophy.  He recognizes one particular reality of society—the hunger for power—and bases his “rules” on such a reality.  I do not deny that man is fallible and that he wants to maintain power, whether in his ontology, economically, politically or in family dynamics.  But the weakness of Alinsky’s arguments (if one can call them such) lies in the fact that there is nothing beyond the appetite for power.  We may be fallen creatures, we may be selfish, but recognizing such potentials for humanity does not mean that we are not called to a higher moral plane.

Immediate issue with the power struggle between Haves and Have-Nots is that the moment Have-Nots take away the power from Haves, then they (Have-Nots) become the possessors of power, and it follows that there will be another group of Have-Nots who will target the previous Have-Nots, who have now, thanks to the usurpation of the power from the Haves, have become the new Haves.  It is quite exhausting.  The cycle of power continues.  But Alinsky, implicitly, sees nothing wrong with this. 

In his pessimism and cynicism (although he wants to be known for his optimism), he is similar to Hobbes.  But the stylistic similarity stops there.  Alinsky is not a precise thinker, nor does he claim to be.

Another component of Alinsky’s Rules is the complete rejection of dogma, and any type of past wisdom(s) that we have been given by philosophers, thinkers, leaders, etc.  As he writes: “The fear of change is, as discussed earlier, one of our deepest fears, and a new idea must be at the least couched in the language of the past ideas; often, it must be, at first, diluted with vestiges of the past” (108). 

At the heart of his musings is an image of a pragmatic organizer, who never sleeps, who is perpetually impatient, who demands fast action, who is always on call, and who is fully dedicated to change and agitation of the political structure.  At some point, Alinsky even advises celibacy in order for an organizer to devote himself fully to the cause at hand.

Alinsky does have an ethical system but his ethics are purely situational and relativist.  The moral codes change from one age to another, from one situation to another.  In other words, there is no such thing as universal principles.  In fact, a perfect organizer is someone who “detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality, rebels against any repression of free, open search for ideas no matter where they may lead.  He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting.  He stirs unrest” (73).

In this statement, Alinsky assumes that any universal principle lacks truth and freedom, and implies that such a principle is tyranny itself.  An organizer, given the description above, is not a pleasant person.  He is joyless, woefully lacking in a sense of humor, and most of all, a denier of an other’s inherent freedom.  An organizer decides what issues should be important to you as the victim of an injustice.  The organizer decides what the meaning of justice and injustice is.  And ironically, in an attempt to fight the tyranny of the Haves and the corrupt, inhumane political system, the organizer becomes the tyrant himself.

Along with the agitation, an organizer is a master at polarization, what Alinsky qualifies as “a well-integrated political schizoid.”  He writes: “The organizer must become schizoid, politically, in order not to slip into becoming a true believer.  Before men can act an issue must be polarized.  Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil.  He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree” (78).

Alinsky obviously accepts manipulation and dishonesty as an integral characteristic of an organizer.  He has no qualms about such moral corruption and inauthenticity of an encounter between human beings.  The point is to not only treat human beings as masses (not as unique individuals) but also to disorient them.  A successful organizer spreads the lie that one cannot stand alone, and that one voice of truth is irrelevant, or even worse—a societal impossibility.

Another significant aspect of an organizer is an acceptance of ego.  Alinsky makes a distinction between ego and egotism, the latter relating to vanity.  However, upon closer examination, Alinsky’s conception of ego is no different from vanity: “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach—to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God (61).

It is interesting to note, that given the fact that all of society is based on the situational usurpations of power, Alinsky never once mentions what is the pay off that the organizer receives for inserting himself in different situations, which according to the organizer are deemed unjust. Is it the feeling of power?  If one “plays God,” does that not imply that one is interested in psychological reward of moral, intellectual, and even ontological superiority over the other? 

Even God gave us free will.  An organizer does not.

All this talk of justice in Rules for Radicals, and there is never any mention of being servants for one another.  Alinsky may speak of human dignity, however, there is no relationality, there is no dialogue.  An organizer manipulates the language and coerces his target into his own vision of a particular outcome.  An organizer, at its core, engages in the metaphysical takeover of the other.  The instant one lets another human being make decision for one, individual liberty is threatened.  An organizer depends on the quick, passing moment of weakness of the other in order to plant the seed of doubt of reality.  At its core, an organizer is Hobbesian in his pessimistic view of humanity (all is power based), Cartesian in his questioning of everything (universal doubt), and Rousseauian in the emotionalism (which is a way to appeal to the masses).

So, we do know what Alinsky thinks.  He has made it quite plain and obvious.  Do we know what President Obama thinks?  Do these descriptions of a community organizer according to Saul Alinsky apply to Barack Obama given his actions thus far as the President of United States?  You be the judge of that.  Make your own conclusions, arguments, counterarguments.  I have merely presented the evidence of Alinsky’s thought.

As for me, the answer to the question whether this describes Barack Obama, is a resounding yes.

 *All of the quotations and paginations from Rules for Radicals are to be found in this edition: New York: Random House, 1971.