Saul, Barack, and Me, Part VIII

By Robert Ringer

In this, the final installment of “Saul, Barack, and Me,” I’d like to discuss Saul Alinsky’s views on self-interest, which he summed up in Rules for Radicals as follows:

Self-interest, like power, wears the black shroud of negativism and suspicion. To many the synonym for self-interest is selfishness. The word is associated with a repugnant conglomeration of vices such as narrowness, self-seeking, and self-centeredness, everything that is opposite to the virtues of altruism and selflessness.

This common definition is contrary, of course, to our everyday experiences, as well as to the observations of all great students of politics and life.

The myth of altruism as a motivating factor in our behavior could arise and survive only in a society bundled in the sterile gauze of New England Puritanism and Protestant morality and tied together with the ribbon of Madison Avenue public relations. It is one of the classic American fairy tales.

From the great teachers of Judaeo-Christian morality and the philosophers, to
the economists, and to the wise observers of the politics of man, there has
always been universal agreement on the part that self-interest plays as a prime
moving force in man’s behavior. The importance of self-interest has never been
challenged; it has been accepted as an inevitable fact of life. …

To question the force of self-interest that pervades all areas of political life is to refuse to see man as he is, to see him only as we would like him to be.

Again, I agree, at least in part, with Alinsky’s assessment. Self-interest (even when it appears to be altruism) is, indeed, an inevitable fact of life. Man is genetically programmed to survive. But Alinsky then went on to say, in a somewhat jumbled and contradictory, if not convoluted, way that man has the capacity to rise above his self-interest.

Thus, one can become altruistic and do the “right” thing if only he becomes enlightened. And what is the right thing? It’s back to Alinsky’s rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends. If you aid in the fight to take power and wealth from those whom Alinsky and his followers would deem to be unworthy and hand it over to those whom he and his followers would deem to be worthy — bingo! — you are acting altruistically.

I wish I could have debated this point with him, because he was dead wrong. In fact, it’s where his street-smart philosophy falls apart. The truth of the matter is that the millions of people who have engaged in class warfare over the centuries have most decidedly acted in what they believed to be their own self-interest.

I should also add that most such people have been true believers who, because of their own lack of achievement, embraced the immoral and perverse notion that they could find purpose in their lives by playing the role of Robin Hood. Could any purpose be more shallow — or egocentric?

There is nothing unique about Saul Alinsky’s message other than the fact that he went to the trouble to devise a very specific set of rules, however morally flawed they may have been, for achieving power. And perhaps one of those “tactical” rules is a good note on which to end this series:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” said Alinksy. He further stated that “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule” and that “it infuriates the opposition, who then reacts to your advantage.” Sound familiar? It is no coincidence that BHO and others in the progressive camp are masters of the ridicule. In BHO’s eyes, everyone who disagrees with his socialist policies is an obstructionist.

Those on the left ridicule Congressional conservatives. They ridicule Fox News, even though it is by far the most popular cable network. They ridicule tea-party protestors. They ridicule town hall protestors. They ridicule those who “cling to their bibles and guns.” Ridicule is their weapon of choice, but, thanks to BHO’s overuse of this clever Alinsky tactic, it has become less and less effective.

In summation, Saul Alinsky was simply a slick, narcissistic, self-absorbed little man who found “meaning” to his life by becoming a professional agitator. Put more candidly, like those who carry on his methods today, he found “community organizing” to be more fulfilling — especially from an ego standpoint — than a real job.

I end this series here, because, for me, the last third of Rules for Radicals falls apart, and one can barely make sense out of Saul Alinsky’s muddled mixture of ramblings and contradictions. One gets the impression that he was simply trying too hard to bulk up his skimpy book.

I am forced to conclude that his work would not be worth reading were it not for the rise of Barack Obama and his fellow progressives in Congress. So, yes, Rules for Radicals is a book that should be read by everyone who values his liberty enough to want to understand who the enemies are who want to take it from him — and how they are, at this very moment, going about doing it.

_______________________________________

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 VIII”, please login below: