The "Alinsky Factor" - a Study in Far Right Mendacity

        A recent meme circulating in Social Media (where else??) lists the tenets of one Saul Alinsky. Some of these are radical, some are simply odd. 

The meme, however, then alleges that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton bought into the entire Alinsky philosophy because they researched him and agreed with a relatively small number if his statements. In fact (remember facts?) that is untrue. Mrs. Clinton even refused a job offer from the man because she considered him inconsistent and radical. Obama considered some (some, not “most” or “all”) of his ideas for organizing valid, which they are. Neither espoused Alinsky’s more radical constructs and their performance in public office proved that.

        What I find interesting is that several of Alinsky’s more radical ideas are actually being fostered much more by the right, while it denounces him. What are those?   

“Poverty: increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.” 

 This is hardly a liberal concept. The party that rails against Social welfare and health care is the Right and has been for decades.

“Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and create more poverty.”

Taxes aside, since the most recent “cut” has served purpose #1 more than this one, look at the debt (by which I mean national debt and its effect on the deficit.) Consider which party has been responsible for burgeoning deficits, not in a huge recession, (Obama), or minimal deficit (Clinton) but in a strong economy (Bush 43, Reagan, Trump). Trump is the record setter, all while proclaiming how strong the economy is. Confusing isn’t it?        

“Education: take control of what people read and listen to …”

Now, tell me the Political sentiments of the states and school boards which are the book banners and censors. All “Red.”

“Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools”

Ooh, that’s a hard one, since Mrs. Clinton was a Sunday school teacher, and a regular church goer and sometime preacher while First Lady, and the Obamas attended church far more than the Reagans. Of course, the Falwells notwithstanding, church attendance is hardly a sign or religious morality. If it was, based on rare church attendance, Trump would be the anti-Christ. 

Neither Clinton nor Obama, have ever taken any remotely anti-religion stand. Both have defended the right to personal belief but balked at allowing that belief to be either nationally institutionalized or be an implement of public pressure by believers on non-believers. The difference here is that both believe that allowing one sect to force their beliefs on another is undemocratic (small “d”).

The other thing to note here is that in both cases the Alinsky “influence” (he died in 1976, in California) was that of college students reading political writings. Citing this as fostering a lifelong philosophical drive is simply arrant sophistry, implying that everything one is exposed to in college becomes a lifetime tenet. By that standard I’d still be searching for Gandalf.

So what follows is a brief analysis of how little Alinsky really influenced both Mrs. Clinton and President Obama and in what area.

While Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky's central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to 'rub raw the sores of discontent' and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system." In 2016, reporter Michael Kruse quoted the thesis and describes a centrist theme: “It was clear where this 21-year-old stood: "... as our 'two societies'—the establishment, the anti-establishment—"move further apart contrived conflict serves to exacerbate the polarization.

In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor."

 In other words, while she agreed with some of Alinsky’s broader concepts, like a just society wouldn't allow citizens to starve, she rejected most others, especially his proposed methodology. This is also clearly reflected in her continuing to teach Sunday school classes long after college. The thesis was praised by all four of its reviewers and Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on it. The paper is far more character study (of Alinsky) than endorsement.

So, what did a young Barack Obama take from Saul Alinsky? Those of the right imply and have stated in Far-Right publications that both Obama and Clinton were lock, stock, and barrel believers of all Alinsky thoughts, words and deeds, although their own words and public records prove that to be a gross untruth. What the right would have us believe is that to it is impossible to believe part of someone else’s ideas without believing in and endorsing all of them.

These are the words of Barack Obama: “Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and the money [they raise] around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership—and not one or two charismatic leaders—can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions [and "grassroots" people]. If one has issues with those sentiments, then they need some introspective time

        Finally, regarding Alinsky’s claim that “controlling healthcare is a step toward controlling the people:” Providing health care for all is precisely the opposite of that precept. If all have access to health care and there is no “You can’t afford it, so you have to die” (see Ron Paul) mindset, then that is a healing and uniting factor, not a divisive one.

        Oddly enough, the same Trump supporters who spread this low-grade bullshit, demanding that both Clinton and Obama bought into Saul Alinsky’s every word because they agreed with some few of his ideas, are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Why? Simple, really. They continue to buy into the whole Trump “thing” while accepting, (apparently) that adultery while one’s wife is pregnant, and all the rest of his garbage, must be ok, because, by their own definition, acceptance of anything “Trump” is acceptance of all things Trump.  And if association implies guilt, Then Trump has some Epstein and Harvey Weinstein 'splainin' to do, huh?