Yet Another Sign Of Lowering The Bar On American Political “Debate”

Not a lowering of the bar, just limboing under the bar set by Alinsky.

Thank you Joe. I'm disappointed, more than surprised, in the support this type of action is receiving from those who claim (seemingly?) to support civil discourse and honest debate.

Not a lowering of the bar, just limboing under the bar set by Alinsky.

Saul ALINSKY? Are you serious, Christine? Saul Alinsky died almost 40 years ago! You're holding Saul ALINSKY responsible for GOP operatives harassing Democrats on health care reform at townhall meetings NOW, in 2009?

Kathy,

Please. The Alinsky comment is par for the course. Most of the GOP these days are a bunch of bitter old people who are still angry about the 60's. The mean age of the Limbaugh demographic is post-retirement. Frankly, most of them are receiving generous government benefits right now, whether it is government healthcare (medicare), government pensions, and/or social security. Maybe they're so angry because they aren't independent or self-sufficient like they pretend to be.

I can't support planned rudeness and disruption at any public gathering, but this is hardly something new.

Funny to see you commenting on this Kathy, as you have been on a roll lately with some of your posts. Perhaps you could give us an update on your breaking Palin divorce obsession, which Republicans are the evil monsters today, or why the Blue Dogs are really just Republicans.

I suppose its a good thing to know that those "creeps" you alluded to in this article can now be called hypocrites instead. Raising the bar indeed.

kathykattenburg wrote: "Saul ALINSKY? Are you serious, Christine? Saul Alinsky died almost 40 years ago!"

And I thought CStanley was talking about "the bar set by" Atwater... Lee Atwater.

Lee Atwater is dead, too, but he didn't die before having an epiphany... a look back at who he was and what he had done. Lee Atwater's Epiphany (starts at 00:02:00 for those to busy for the whole 00:03:20) is something we should all listen to and learn from... How much 'Lee Atwater' do we project in our comments and remarks, or is it just the other side that does it?

I guess a lot of you didn't read the memo that Joe linked to- it's from a conservative activist group which quotes from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. And no, Kathy, I'm not holding him personally responsible, but perhaps you are unaware of the influence he's had on left wing activism? Community organizers have held his book up as a manual for their political tactics, and now left wing bloggers are complaining since some conservatives are adapting the same tactics.

And like DaGoat, I'm not a fan of these methods. I do think that when people shout each other down or seek to discredit all opposition, that the polarization becomes more of a hindrance to good policy than a help. But like DaGoat too, I see nothing new here.

"I guess a lot of you didn't read the memo that Joe linked to- it's from a conservative activist group which quotes from Saul Alinksky's Rules for Radicals. And no, Kathy, I'm not holding him personally responsible, but perhaps you are unaware of the influence he's had on left wing activism?"

Unrealistic expectations, sadly (that are not unreasonable in the slightest)?

Unfortunately, many of the people who most need to stop such actions are the same people who are incapable of realizing they engage in them.

My congressional aides can beat up your congressional aides anyday.

To equate Alinsky's writings to this garbage can only be done by the ignorant... or by fools.

The only part the wingnut 'talking point' has right is the first 1/3 of the first sentence:

"In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people;.."

but they conveniently leave out the rest of what he was saying:

"...to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life."

Nutters seem to have also missed the part that said:

"This is not an ideological book except insofar as argument for change, rather than for the status quo, can be called an ideology: different people, in different Places, in different situations and different times will construct their own solutions and symbols of salvation for those times. This book will not contain any panacea or dogma; I detest and fear dogma."

or

I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, Is tragic. Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement.

or

The human spirit glows from that small Inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice. Those who enshrine the Poor or Have Not’s are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous. To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open, questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: “For the general welfare."

I guess trying to have them [nutters] learn something (other than talking points) about the subject that they are spouting off about seems to be asking too much... To quote DLS:

"Unrealistic expectations, sadly (that are not unreasonable in the slightest)?"

It didn't make any sense to me either but it seemed to cover the rights position on this matter.

Um, the quote in the memo that I referred to was part of Alinsky's tactics. Neither the protest organizers nor I claimed that they had the same goals as Alinsky, but rather that they agree that his tactics are an effective way of energizing a group and staging protests. The tactical part of Alinsky's message was stuff like this:
'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'

CStanley wrote:

"Um, the quote in the memo that I referred to was part of Alinsky's tactics. Neither the protest organizers nor I claimed that they had the same goals as Alinsky, but rather that they agree that his tactics are an effective way of energizing a group and staging protests."

Let's see if I understand your comment (I don't want to put words into your mouth :)) Are you saying that goals / morals / values play no part in the debate? Right or Wrong? Lies or Truth? Just let the corporate funded havoc reign?
This whole episode reminds me of a Vonnegut quote:"If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia."I've always agreed with the sentiment... as long as he was talking about angels.

cs, I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile......which is the more exhausting task you have.....raising your small children or having to explain the most obvious of things to liberals here?

You have patience I could only dream of.

casualobserver, I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile... How many years did you have to repeat the third grade?

Steve, people on the left often place equality above freedom as a goal and value, while for many conservatives its the other way around. So to you, of course, there's no justification in using polarizing tactics whatsoever for rightwing protesters, because you disagree with their ranking of values.

Alinsky wrote poetically about those values that you place in high esteem, but he also wrote a manual for instructing people in very divisive, polarizing tactics to acheive those ends. If moderates hate those kinds of tactics and see them as destructive, it ought not be very important what the goals are- the ends don't justifify the means.

SteveK, Alinsky's tactics have been adopted by both the Left and Right. They both do similar things. I would argue that the Right goes further because they have many more threats of implicit violence in their protests (call it the "Mad Bomber" theory of protesting). Why do you think Bush only wanted Republicans, and only Republicans, in his townhall meetings?

But from a purely partisan TACTICAL viewpoint, no, Alinsky's views and morals and intent do not play any part in this debate. It's like chess and both sides like to use Queen's Gambit a lot. The Gambit itself is not good or evil, or right or wrong, and the views of the man who invented it don't really matter...both sides can adopt the tactic for their own purpose, even corporations.

What's all the commotion about? All I see in that TPM doc is encouragement to prepare questions in advance, be vocal (but not disruptive), present yourselves as an important part of the constituency, and resist your representative's attempts to brush your questions off. Which part of that is hitting below the belt?

I'll go further: if more people in public debates challenged each other with actual numeric facts, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

What's all the commotion about? All I see in that TPM doc is encouragement to prepare questions in advance, be vocal (but not disruptive), present yourselves as an important part of the constituency, and resist your representative's attempts to brush your questions off. Which part of that is hitting below the belt?

It encourages yelling and shouting at the speaker to throw him off. I could forgive a little spontaneous crowd reaction such as the one Arlen Specter got recently, but pre-planned yelling and shouting is just rudeness and often makes you look worse. Of course much worse has happened to public speakers before, which is why I don't agree this is a lowering of the bar.

"It encourages yelling and shouting at the speaker to throw him off."

True. But it's such an uneven playing field. A polished speaker with a podium and a microphone has all the power and will generally have no trouble deflecting awkward questions.

Lit3Bolt wrote: "But from a purely partisan TACTICAL viewpoint, no, Alinsky's views and morals and intent do not play any part in this debate."

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one Lit3Bolt. An example of where I'm coming from: I have no problem with the TACTICAL decisions to carpet bomb Berlin during WWII but I am deeply disturbed with the TACTICAL decisions to "shock-and-awe" Baghdad. We had no legitimate reason to be there and therefore it was wrong.
Others may feel differently but I believe that "morals and intent" make a all the difference in the world... in everything we do.

Steve- I actually agree with you in general principle about intent mattering. However, sometimes there are means that are almost never justified, or their use is being rationalized on really thin grounds. The use of thuggery in political activism is like that in my view- because a much better outcome is almost always obtained with peaceful protest and civil debate which seeks to counter bad information with good instead of shouting down opponents. Convincing people rather than conquering them is much harder and takes longer, but ultimately it works out much better (with rare exceptions.)

To be fair, the entire guide was focused around looking at their voting record and collecting statistics, then being disruptive when you feel that they are being disinegenuous. It didn't say "make a commotion if the audience gets on his side," just get them off the talking points that he can't back up.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with that because the information/noise content by politicians is basically zero. If they actually let there be a full response to go into further detail and clarification, then I think it's much more admirable than listening to the normal BS,

The United States political "system" is breaking down. You cannot be all things to all people all the time, if ever. A leader cannot lead if that leader is a jackass.

The former President George W Bush was incompetent, why could we not get him out sooner? The President before that, Bill Clinton, albeit a bit to moderate for my taste, was successful with vital legislation and budgets, why could we not keep him longer? Reverse the parties, Keep Eisenhower, dump Andrew Jackson….what?

If you have a crappy congressman like I have, why can’t popular constituent action remove that congressman before MORE DAMAGE is done?

Well it’s the Constitution of course! So maybe we need to change the Constitution by legislation, referendum and/or state's ratification?

Shame on these right wingers for exercising their rights to assembly and free speech (and even organized free speech at that)!

Personally, I would not participate because I don't necessarily agree with them any more than I agree with the left. But, our country was founded on the belief that those in power ought to govern in fear of the people, not the other way around. If our elected officials set up open town halls on the issue, then it is not only the right, but also the responsibility, of the citizens to make sure their voices are heard.

No where in the founding documents do I see any indication that the founding fathers were concerned about the people becoming too "rude" with their representatives. The tea party (the original one) seems to me to have been a profound act of rudeness from people who believed that their concerns were not being sufficiently heard. How sad a nation we would have become if we had elevated the virtue of politeness over the right to speak freely.