Most conservatives seem to view Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a kind of secret handbook for President Barack Obama’s dark conspiracy to destroy America. Talk radio hosts bemoan “Alinskyite” tactics, conservative intellectuals write a never ending serious of columns and books “exposing” the American radical, and Newt Gingrich seems to have put opposing Saul Alinsky at the center of his campaign.
As with all paranoid, far-right, ignorant, bigoted, reactionary rhetoric, the point is essentially correct. Saul Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s Masters thesis. Barack Obama followed in his footsteps as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. Obviously, conservatives have a vested interest in understanding someone who had a huge impact on the leading figures of the Democratic Party and the larger movement they represent. That said, another tired expose of “extremism” or “radicalism” doesn’t seem to be giving the movement any benefits. If anything, it may be hurting it.
The reality is that conservatives need to break out of the narrative of victory peddled by the nonprofits that surround the Beltway. This narrative tells us that all was Chaos and Old Night until William Buckley arose and created our modern respectable conservative movement. Eventually, this translated into conservative electoral victory, Ronald Reagan became President, and as long as we fight to make sure we nominate “true conservatives,” everything will be all right. The problem is here is that almost no conservatives can point to any substantial conservative accomplishments since 1968, when the era of conservative dominance in national elections really began. The Silent Majority, the Reagan Revolution, and the Republican Revolution all failed, utterly and completely, to limit spending, restrain the federal government, reverse cultural collapse, or cease American’s inexorable shift to the Left. Nominal conservatives may have win the elections more often than not, but regardless of the outcome in November, it always feels like the movement is, at best, forestalling inevitable defeat. We won the elections but lost the country.
Rules for Radicals provides much of the explanation why. The book does not focus on elections, voter registration, or even the outlines of a progressive agenda. Rules for Radicals is about building power in a community. It is about acquiring resources, developing activists, and undermining political opponents. It is about building an activist movement that is not dependent on electoral politics. It’s about building the kind of movement that has been beating us for decades.
Most importantly, Rules for Radicals is written to teach the have nots how to take power from the haves. Behind the suits, the pretentions, the 18 year olds with business cards, movement conservatives need to understand that they are the have nots. They are losing, and they have been losing for a very long time. That will change only when they stop seeing themselves as the defenders of the system and start seeing themselves as the radicals who have everything to gain from overthrowing a it. We should start looking to Rules for Radicals to find out how.
Editor’s Note: To learn more about using Alinsky’s tactics to help your organization, make sure you take Kevin’s training at CPAC this year.
