Why are campaigns so very destructive these days?
Why does the destruction now continue, with the foes not content to win, but only satiated when their opponents are completely destroyed?
One of the best answers is found in the writings of the neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky.
His thoughts in green and red, my thoughts, as usual, in Barney Purple. The Wanderer in Blue
Author: Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky Courtesy the Wanderer
Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).
Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), th
e first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.”
e first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.”In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky says: “Here I propose to present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution.” He builds on the tactical principles of Machiavelli: “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.”
Rules for Radicals is concerned with the acquisition of power: “my aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.
And thus the Left employs wedge issues and fires up the Culture War themes every bit as much as the Right.
“The first rule of power tactics is: power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
What would the Left do without the press, and especially the sons of Thomas Nast, helping on this front?
“The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
No wonder campaigning is so personal now!
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
So explains my commercial!
One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.”
“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
And thus was born the politics of personal destruction in American society.
You all know the old stories. The press would not even touch Jack Kennedy’s amorous lifestyle. Campaigns before the 80’s focused more upon issues and less upon persons.
Enter Saul Alinsky’s neo-Marxist revolutionary methods. Now those in power and those seeking power both attempt to destroy the other, and destroy those soft targets near the other.
I was one of those soft targets, so I have the right, one could argue even the duty, to point this out.
Alinsky’s way is wrong. It is bad for America. It is a rejection of Christian Chivalry.
Here is a much better way of campaigning, the path I urged my own General to take.
From
:
bjb Block Sender
To
:
phillklineks@yahoo.com
Subject
Thoughts
Date
Fri, Sep 15, 2006 10:17 AM
bjb <**@juno.com> Block Sender
phillklineks@**
Thoughts
Fri, Sep 15, 2006 10:17 AM
Ge
neral, I have rarely been asked my advice and yet have given it at time without being asked. Now seems to be the time to do just that.
I believe that Sun Tzu would advise you to drop all negative campaigning and instead praise your opponent for his criminal prosecutorial prowess. He is good, and would make a fine Dept AG over criminal had he not shown himself compromised on the question of underage sex. Admit that he is good, and admit that we hold little bad to say about him. State that negative campaigning and the politics of personal destruction must be put away. Make the news by pledging to go only positive.
Then stress your own prowess as a policy crafter, with the legislature, with civil and the philosophy of your admin. Big changes in Consumer, big advances in Medicaid Fraud, big victories in water, with the HCA conversion, etc. As the new and much improved blueprint reveals, great things have been done on your watch. Stress them. Painting the job as one that is too big for a merely good prosecutor, forcing Morrison to try to sell himself as more than just that.
I simply think that you will gain nothing by rolling in the negative mud with Morrison or trying to paint him as soft on crime. Take the high moral ground. He must go negative to win. We do not. He will look like a bully if you refuse to fight back by mudslinging.
Added benefit....by doing this, by having a public conversion experience about negative campaigning, you may be able to win the XGEN enough that he will stump for you. We need that in JOCO. Without it we may end up in a very hard place come Nov 8.
I will give more advice as and if requested. We are praying for you.
Bryan
You all know the old stories. The press would not even touch Jack Kennedy’s amorous lifestyle. Campaigns before the 80’s focused more upon issues and less upon persons.
Enter Saul Alinsky’s neo-Marxist revolutionary methods. Now those in power and those seeking power both attempt to destroy the other, and destroy those soft targets near the other.
I was one of those soft targets, so I have the right, one could argue even the duty, to point this out.
Alinsky’s way is wrong. It is bad for America. It is a rejection of Christian Chivalry.
Here is a much better way of campaigning, the path I urged my own General to take.
From
:
bjb
To
:
phillklineks@yahoo.com
Subject
Thoughts
Date
Fri, Sep 15, 2006 10:17 AM
bjb <**@juno.com> Block Sender
phillklineks@**
Thoughts
Fri, Sep 15, 2006 10:17 AM
Ge
neral, I have rarely been asked my advice and yet have given it at time without being asked. Now seems to be the time to do just that.I believe that Sun Tzu would advise you to drop all negative campaigning and instead praise your opponent for his criminal prosecutorial prowess. He is good, and would make a fine Dept AG over criminal had he not shown himself compromised on the question of underage sex. Admit that he is good, and admit that we hold little bad to say about him. State that negative campaigning and the politics of personal destruction must be put away. Make the news by pledging to go only positive.
Then stress your own prowess as a policy crafter, with the legislature, with civil and the philosophy of your admin. Big changes in Consumer, big advances in Medicaid Fraud, big victories in water, with the HCA conversion, etc. As the new and much improved blueprint reveals, great things have been done on your watch. Stress them. Painting the job as one that is too big for a merely good prosecutor, forcing Morrison to try to sell himself as more than just that.
I simply think that you will gain nothing by rolling in the negative mud with Morrison or trying to paint him as soft on crime. Take the high moral ground. He must go negative to win. We do not. He will look like a bully if you refuse to fight back by mudslinging.
Added benefit....by doing this, by having a public conversion experience about negative campaigning, you may be able to win the XGEN enough that he will stump for you. We need that in JOCO. Without it we may end up in a very hard place come Nov 8.
I will give more advice as and if requested. We are praying for you.
Bryan
3 comments:
I agree that politics is too negative.
But, your advice to Phill Kline would not have saved his campaign. He was damned from the very beginning. Remember: Kline was the guy who had to go into recount against a placeholder candidate. Any credible candidate would have defeated him in 02. When Morrison announced, it was all over. No strategy would have given Kline a second term.
It's ironic that you tried to get Kline to stay positive. Kline was, in fact, a creation of negative campaign tactics. As a legislator and radio talk show host, he was always attack attack attack. He made a career of smearing moderates. Once the tables were turned, he proved to be pretty thinskinned. The hunter became the hunted.
Thanks.
I guess the question for me ever will be why in the world I rode the Katusha into the wall!
Whether it would have saved the campaign or no, it was still good advice.
Good to see you're still alive and kicking. Merry Christmas to you and yours, Bryan.
Bill Hoyt
Post a Comment