A Voice of Sanity – RobertRinger.com

By Robert Ringer

To justify his anti-liberty pursuits, Saul Alinsky came up with “a series of rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends.” Most of them are rambling, convoluted meanderings that are based on the age-old progressive habit of anointing oneself judge of right and wrong, but I think it will be instructive if I touch on a couple of them here.

Alinsky’s “second rule of ethics” is worth dissecting, because it gives such a clear picture of how a professional agitator’s thought processes work. His second rule of ethics says that “the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

And he was absolutely right! In the real world, anyone is free to judge whether the ends justifies the means. Thus, I believe Alinsky was just being cynically honest in his statement. Hitler judged whether his actions were right or wrong. Mao judged whether his actions were right or wrong. Saddam judged whether his whether his actions were right or wrong.

But in the judgment of any halfway civilized human being, the means used by all of these men were inhumane. Of course, some intellectuals might argue that it’s really just proof that relativism is a fact of life. Which may also be true, but it doesn’t mean that those who believe in liberty have to accept relativism as a way of life.

I am free to decide what I believe to be right and wrong, but if I choose to use means that involve the violation of someone else’s liberty, I’m stepping over the line. That’s not relativism; it’s aggression. Alinsky, like all progressives, believed that the means necessary to redistribute wealth and power are always justified — at least if they were means that he approved of.

So, in the end, Alinsky’s community-organizing “cause” was a fraud in that it did not promote liberty, but, rather, it promoted one person’s gain at the expense of another person’s liberty. But Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton and thousands of other elitists from our most prestigious universities, bought into Alinsky’s fraud hook, line, and sinker. The progressive believes that virtually any means justifies whatever he deems to be ends that are moral.

It gets worse. In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky stated, “To me ethics is doing what is the best for the most.” Really? And who, may I ask, has the omniscience, let alone the moral authority, to decide what is “best for the most?” Alinsky, of course. Or whomever happens to be in power at any given time.

In theory, our Constitution was supposed to prevent this kind of arrogant thinking from being put into practice. But, as we’ve seen more than ever during the past year, the Constitution can be usurped. If those in power choose to ignore what the Constitution says, who can stop them?

The voters — like those in Massachusetts — you say? Let’s just chalk that one up to luck. Remember, if the old lion of socialism hadn’t passed away, the most anti-liberty piece of legislation in history — posing as a “healthcare bill” — would have been passed into law.

The progressives have already decided what is “best for the most,” even if most don’t want it! Which is why “universal healthcare” will reappear, again and again, until the Alinskyites are either successful in implementing it or are stifled by being relegated to a minority position.

Alinksy’s seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is also worth mentioning here. It states: “Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics.” Again, true in the sense that those in power have the luxury of mandating what is right and wrong.

But just because government mandates something to be right or wrong doesn’t mean that it is right or wrong. If a government mandate calls for the violation of even one individual’s sovereignty, it is wrong in the eyes of Natural Law — or what can also be referred to as the Law of Non-aggression. Aggression is always the sacred measuring stick of right and wrong — period.

When BHO brilliantly deceived Americans into voting him into power, he believed that his success gave him a mandate to throw out the Constitution and make up his own rules — rewarding those he deemed to be worthy of his largesse and punishing those he viewed to be his enemies. He truly believed — and still believes — that he was given a mandate to be the arbiter of right and wrong.

Now that a majority of the public realizes that he is serious about fundamentally changing the United States into a socialist “paradise,” his power base is crumbling. But I’m confident that BHO will follow Saul Alinsky’s advice on what do to do when your plans hit a bump in the road: Be twice as bold, twice as outrageous, and continue to bulldoze your way forward regardless of how hard the other side pushes back. It’s going to get very, very ugly in 2010 — and beyond.

Next: Saul Alinsky on self-interest.

_______________________________________

Liberty Education Interview Series

Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.

_______________________________________

To comment on “Saul, Barack, and Me, Part VII”, please login below: