Conservatives Can Learn Something From 'Rules for Radicals'
By Jeff Lukens

"Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off his father in the politics of when to go to bed; He who fears corruption fears life." - Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”

Saul Alinsky is considered to be one of the fathers of American radicalism. His 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals” lays out the uncompromising Machiavellian tactics necessary to organize and to force change upon society. These rules, and their corrupting influence, have come to define methods of the radicals of the Vietnam era, and many liberals of today.

One of Alinsky's rules is to make the opposition live up to their own rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send thousands. Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new tactics to keep the opposition off balance. If one approach doesn't work, keep hitting them with something new until you bring them to their knees. Nothing is permanent. There are no morals, though you may use morality as a means to an end.

For example, Alinsky did not believe Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist in the beginning of this quest for national independence. Instead, he believed that Gandhi realized that pacifism was the most effective approach to advance his cause, so it was the method he chose. If Gandhi had the guns and soldiers to fight, Alinsky believed that Gandhi would have used violent confrontation instead.

Ridicule is also a potent weapon. There's no defense for it. It's irrational and it's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force concessions. Alinsky says to personalize the attack of your opposition, and polarize and demoralize its supporters. Hurting, harassing, and humiliating individuals -- especially leaders -- cause rapid change.

As we read the morning newspaper, does any of this sound familiar? It should. Liberals have had the "rules" in play for years in almost every political issue.

The late Barbara Olson writes in her book “Hell to Pay” that a young Hillary Rodham was strongly influenced by Alinsky's writings on social revolution. Now, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the embodiment of his philosophy in politics.

Olson writes, "Most self-respecting women would have left" after Bill Clinton's repeated infidelities. "Hillary chose to stay . . . Hillary, it seems, long ago accepted Bill Clinton as someone who could advance her goals, as a necessary complement to her intellectual cold-blooded pursuit of power."

Beyond Hillary, we see Alinsky's rules in play while various individuals leak secrets and otherwise jeopardize the war effort while our troops are overseas risking their lives. We see it on anything remotely related to the environment. We see it regarding public expression of religious faith.

We particularly see these rules in play regarding the United States Senate regarding judicial nominees. As their issues have failed to pass in Congress, liberals have found success by appointing lifetime sympathizers to the federal courts while conservative nominees are filibustered and called "Neanderthals."

Many conservatives have tried to reach a middle ground with the left only to be demonized by them anyway. Conversely, Ronald Reagan never cared nor tried to compromise his principles with these people, and is considered the most successful president in the past 50 years.

For George W. Bush and other conservatives the lesson is clear -- play principled but tough. A softer, gentler tone requires principled participation by both sides. When one side exempts itself from principle, civility may not be possible.

The way for conservatives to win is by logically articulating their positions. President Bush is always at his best at the podium using simple, heartfelt language to define traditional American values. Leadership such as his, aptly demonstrated in the aftermath of 9/11, showed the superiority of conservative ideas over those offered by the left.

While they shouldn't co-opt Alinsky’s rules for themselves, conservatives shouldn't be surprised when they occur, or by the lack of scruples of those who use them. Articulating the truth sets us free from the tactics of the left. Conservatives win every time the chanting and name-calling die down and the rational discussion begins.

011404