When he claimed victory in South Carolina on Saturday, Newt Gingrich declared that, “The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.”
But if any candidate is using Saul Alinsky’s playbook in this campaign, it’s Gingrich himself.
In his seminal 1971 work, “Rules for Radicals,” left-wing community organizer Alinsky laid out his method for instigating change. Many of the tactics he spoke about — such as exploiting resentment and pitting oneself against the establishment — have become a central part of Gingrich’s strategy for securing the Republican presidential nomination.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Gingrich attributed his South Carolina victory to two things. The first was the economic pain that people were feeling. He then continued, “The second, though, which I think nobody in Washington and New York gets, is the level of anger at the national establishment.”
Gingrich’s clashes against the establishment are classic Alinsky.
“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy,'” Alinsky wrote in “Rules for Radicals.” He went on to reveal that, “Today, my notoriety and the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment not only validate my credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.”
Though Gingrich has spent several decades profiting from being part of the Washington establishment, the fact that he’s been attacked by so-called “elites” has become self-validating.
And the way he scolded CNN moderator John King in last Thursday’s South Carolina debate followed Alinsky’s 13th tactical rule, which states: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Alinsky argued that a faceless target such as City Hall, or in this case, the mainstream media, isn’t as powerful of a target as individual person. And by “freeze it,” he meant that whoever the target is shouldn’t be allowed to pin the blame on somebody else.
King, as Fox’s Juan Williams did in the prior debate, allowed Gingrich to personalize his attack on the media. And when King tried to claim that it was another network, ABC, that had aired the interview with his ex-wife that had prompted the question about whether he had ever sought an “open marriage,” Gingrich froze the target.
“John, it was repeated by your network,” Gingrich hollered. “You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else.”
After weak showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, Gingrich’s campaign was on life support. So he resorted to unleashing an aggressive attack against Mitt Romney’s wealth and career at private equity firm Bain Capital.
Many prominent conservatives and Republicans pounced, seeing it as an attack on capitalism itself. Even Rudy Giuliani, somebody who has had harsh words for Romney (his opponent in the 2008 GOP presidential race), likened Gingrich’s tactics to Alinsky’s.
But though they angered many on the right, the attacks undermined Romney’s electability argument — which had previously been his main asset in the GOP nomination battle.
Gingrich has continued his class warfare strategy in Florida, referring to Romney on Wednesday as somebody who was “liv(ing) in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and making $20 million for no work. …”
It may be odd for somebody claiming to be a conservative to employ the tactics of the left, but Alinsky wrote an entire chapter on the arbitrary ethics of when the ends justify the means, noting that, “generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
GOP nomination fights are often described as battles between Rockefeller Republicans and Goldwater Republicans. In 2012, Gingrich has brought us the Alinsky Republican.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
