Lance Fairchok

The Silver Tongued Devil:
Barack Obama & Power Politics
August 7, 2008

“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.” – Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

In Jerusalem, the prayer Barack Obama wrote on the stationary of the King David Hotel and inserted in the stones of the Western Wall mysteriously made its way to the press. The cover story is that a young yeshiva student pilfered it. Yet the prayer’s content made it to several newspapers, reportedly pre-approved by the Obama campaign. It is a humble, sincere sounding prayer, one that contradicts the strident and hateful rhetoric of Obama’s Chicago church. It was written for that exact purpose, knowing that whether from official release or the inevitable pilfering, it would come out. The images of his staged piety were quickly included in campaign videos.

His ball game with soldiers in Afghanistan was staged, a quick in and out photo op. He could not find enough time to visit wounded GI’s back in Germany, nor have a meal with our military men and women. He did not even do the obligatory “thank you for your service” reception line. Obama was back on the plane when the photos were done, it is the pictures on the six o’clock news that matter. Obama knows people will remember those images, even if they have no idea where he stands on issues.

In Berlin a reporter “infiltrated” the gym where Obama was working out, and later wrote a glowing article about his strength and physical fitness. Campaign claims it had been “had” were merely more carefully crafted image making. The US press dutifully reported the Obama campaign number that 200,000 people had heard his speech in Berlin, yet observers put the number at more like 20,000. As in Portland, most of those were there to hear the popular bands that performed for free prior to Obama. In Europe, Obama met with leaders in England, Germany and France in an audacious photo tour to build his mystique and program the American public with images of a presidential Obama; in modern politics, it is all about the image.

Obama arose from the cesspool of Chicago politics were his “community activism” gave him liberal bona fides.  It also allowed him to make connections within the cities entrenched Democrat political machine. He tailored his image early on, carefully cultivating the right people, attending the church with the most connections, joining prominent liberal organizations. He positioned himself, worked on his speaking skills, and became a mover in a cynical and contrived “entitlement” political machine that consumes tax dollars at a rate wildly out of balance with the actual contribution to the welfare of those it claims to help. It is an institution in Chicago and other Democrat run cities, such as New Orleans and St. Louis, where cleverly laundered federal aid money is funneled into left wing causes.

One of Obama’s political inspirations was the father of “progressive” grassroots organizing, Saul Alinsky. To understand how Obama views this country and how he approaches politics, one must understand the influence of Saul Alinsky on today’s left. In 1990 Obama wrote a chapter for a book called; After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois, published by University of Illinois. His contribution, Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City, was the high-minded fluff of an idealistic student and in the years since proven to be as inaccurate as it was naïve, but it articulates the ideal progressive community organizers work toward.  

“…the Developing Communities Project and other organizations in Chicago's inner city have achieved some impressive results. Schools have been made more accountable-Job training programs have been established; housing has been renovated and built; city services have been provided; parks have been refurbished; and crime and drug problems have been curtailed. Additionally, plain folk have been able to access the levers of power, and a sophisticated pool of local civic leadership has been developed.” – Barack Obama Chapter 4 (pp. 35-40) of After Alinsky

Those “impressive results” in 2008 are a murder rate among the highest in the nation, an out of wedlock birth rate well above 70 percent, and poverty and crime at an epidemic level. This despite many millions spent on welfare, social programs, housing, job projects and a race industry endlessly agitating for more money and entitlements. It is a revolving door of ineffective solutions to deep rooted economic and cultural problems, problems more often exacerbated by activism than alleviated by them. Chicago has been the recipient of socio-economic studies by the score, with social science ideologues from universities around the country pontificating theory on causes and handing out sage advice on solutions, all to no lasting effect. Saul Alinsky laid the groundwork for this grand Chicago tradition as the first “community organizer”.

Alinsky was a Marxist from the pre-World War II labor movement, when socialism had not yet taken on the negative connotations of the Cold War. He is revered by the left and his book Rules for Radicals is recommended reading for labor unions, in major universities, elite colleges and, of course, Code Pink and MoveOn.org. Obama is a dedicated disciple in spirit and practice.

In the Prologue to Alinsky’s primer, Rules for Radicals, in the section entitled Accepting the World As It is—Working in the System, we find a central tenet of Obama’s personal political philosophy.

“As an organizer, I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be—it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.

“There is another reason for working inside the system. Dostoyevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system…”

Alinsky taught how to analyze grievances in the context of who could alleviate them or who could be blamed for them, and then targeted those leaders for manipulation and intimidation. Alinsky distilled inequities in community services, employment and equal rights into a perpetual conflict between the “haves” and the “have nots”. By playing the target community with grievances against the “haves” in government and business, Alinsky won concessions that would aid the aggrieved. Obama’s language uses the same images, and follows the same themes. Alinsky understood the importance of clear concise messages and of co-opting the press with staged drama. Obama has learned this lesson well. While Alinsky specialized in below-the-belt dirty tricks to put pressure on his targets, Obama has had to be more circumspect on the national stage, using proxies and peripheral support groups, such as ACORN.

Much of what Alinsky worked for depended on young student activists, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to be the grass roots organizers. He skillfully convinced young idealistic students that rough, even vicious political tactics, demagogic slogans, propaganda, and the outright dishonesty that typified his methods were correct, even morally superior. To do this, he indoctrinated them with new ethical assumptions through “education and training.” In Rules for Radicals, he instructs the would-be “community organizer” on the foundational ethics behind his Machiavellian tactics with blue-collar candor. The “rules of the ethics of means and ends” contains these gems:

“That perennial Question, “Does the end justify the means?” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, “Does this particular end justify this (sic) particular means?”

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

“In war, the end justifies almost any means.”

“Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

“The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluation of means.”

“Success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”

“The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

“Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”

“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

– Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, pgs 24 – 36

Alinsky’s cleverly constructed relativism reinforced his ethical construct, a sort of “to the righteous go the spoils” approach that fits perfectly with the theme of “have nots” taking power from the “haves.” Moral justification is preeminent, yet, in the context of a moral struggle these “ethical rules” are a transparent dissembling of “the ends justify the means,” a repackaging of the ancient “exitus acta probat,” the “outcome justifies the deed.” This ethical framework is as old as the first despot, perfectly post-modern, and disturbingly nihilist. “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times,” Alinsky said, and stretch them he did. Alinsky was a bar room tactician and a political knife fighter; he designed his ethical instruction to be practical, yet inculcate his followers with his skewed vision of justice. One passage in Rules for Radicals illustrates his ethical acrobatics in the 1930s Chicago slums quite well.

“An example occurred in the early days of Back of the Yards, the first community that I attempted to organize. This neighborhood was utterly demoralized. The people had no confidence in themselves or in their neighbors or in their cause. So we staged a cinch fight. One of the major problems in the Back of the Yards in those days was an extraordinarily high rate of infant mortality. Some years earlier, the neighborhood had had the services of the Infant Welfare Society medical clinics. But about ten or fifteen years before I came to the neighborhood the Infant Welfare Society had been expelled because tales were spread that its personnel was disseminating birth-control information. The churches therefore drove out these “agents of sin.” But soon, the people were desperately in need of infant medical services. They had forgotten that they themselves had expelled the Infant Welfare Society from the Back of the Yards community.

“After checking it out, I found out that all we had to do to get Infant Welfare Society medical services back into the neighborhood was ask for it. However, I kept this information to myself. We called an emergency meeting, recommended we go in committee to the society’s offices and demand medical services. Our strategy was to prevent the officials from saying anything; to start banging on the desk and demanding that we get the services, never permitting them to interrupt us or make any statement. The only time we would let them talk was after we got through. With this careful indoctrination, we stormed into the Infant Welfare Society downtown, identified ourselves and began a tirade consisting of militant demands, refusing to permit them to say anything. All the time the poor woman was desperately trying to say “Why of course you can have it. We’ll start immediately.” But she never had a chance to say anything and finally we ended up in a storm of “And we will not take ‘No’ for an answer!” At which point she said, “Well, I’ve been trying to tell you…” and I cut in, demanding, “Is it yes or is it no?” She said, “Well of course it’s yes.” I said, “That’s all we wanted to know.” And we stormed out of the place. All the way back to the Back of the Yards, you could hear the members of the committee saying, “Well, that’s the way to get things done: you just tell them off and don’t give them a chance to say anything. If we could do this with just a few people that we have in the organization right now, just imagine what we can get when we a have a big organization.” (I suggest that before critics look upon this as “trickery” they reflect on the discussion of means and ends.) – Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, pgs 114, 115

This enlightened activism is Chicago’s legacy. Not much has changed over the years if the current poverty and crime rates are any indication. The Infant Welfare Society, by all accounts was doing important work to alleviate a terrible societal problem. Yet to Alinsky it was merely a tool to aid in constructing his organization. This charity was, one assumes, funded and staffed by a sufficient number of “haves” that they were therefore fair game for manipulation in a larger deception. This kind of set-up tactic is common today as distasteful as it is; one sees it constantly in congressional hearings, television interviews, newspaper articles, and political debates. No one actually believes that the Code Pink demonstrators found so frequently in congressional hearings erupt in shouted slogans from spontaneous anti-war emotion, not when their slogans so closely mirror MoveOn.org ads and Democrat talking points. It is political theater right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

It is a simple tactic; if you cannot prevent a General or Secretary of State from speaking, you can make them look bad by association with negative images, such as little old ladies in pink bunny ears wrestling with police officers. One goal is to distract the observer from the substance of the testimony; the other is to spread the image, a variation of Alinsky’s method. “Our strategy was to prevent the officials from saying anything; to start banging on the desk and demanding that we get the services, never permitting them to interrupt us or make any statement.” If they cannot discredit with fact, they will use falsehood. In Alinsky’s redefined ethics, fact and fiction are interchangeable, see “the discussion on means and ends.” “Does this particular end justify this (sic) particular means?” The political tactics developed under such guidelines are simple, nasty and dishonest, but effective if not immediately and powerfully confronted. Here Alinsky has additional guidance for the radical organizer called the rules of “power tactics:”

“Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

“The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

“The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

“The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

“The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

“The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment.

“The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

“The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

“The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

“The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

“The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."

“The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”

– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, pgs 126 - 130

Alinsky preached working within the system to dismantle its power structures, which he saw as responsible for society’s inequities. He was a populist, a hustler, an opportunist and a man of enormous ego. His rhetoric was filled with images of the desperate conditions and mounting anger of whatever group he was supporting and Obama, updated and contextualized, follows the same fundamental methodology.

“I don’t pretend to be a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect President. But I am in this race because I believe that if we want to break from the failures of the past and finally make progress as a country, we can’t keep telling different people what we think they want to hear – we have to tell every American what they need to know. We have to be honest about the challenges we face.” – Barack Obama

The words “failure” and the phrase “finally make progress” are nonsense in an American context, as is most of Obama’s rhetoric, but they set up the same straw man Alinsky used decades ago. Alinsky’s methods do not work well with people who feel in control of their lives, or are already “empowered.” You have to convince them of their despair and victimhood. People are prone to feel sorry for themselves, to blame their woes on others, to find comfort in the delusion that in whatever condition they find themselves, it is just not their fault and they are powerless to change it, that they bear no responsibility for it. This human foible is a central tool in the power politics used by “rights” and “entitlement” movements from the traditional civil rights groups to national healthcare advocates and Alinsky was a master at exploiting it.

Appeals to this emotion are in virtually every liberal political candidate’s campaign rhetoric. The mantra reads like this: “tax cuts helped the rich not the little guy,” “corporations make money that should be yours,” “we will take from those damn rich and give you what you deserve,” “free health care is your right” and “you are a victim and we will bring you justice.” It is the “chicken in every pot” promise. As divorced from reality as this may be, it always strikes a chord, particularly in a society that has slowly but steadily been pushed away from its traditions of individual responsibility.

There is a strain of malevolent nihilism that can be found in the left that Alinsky typifies. It is a destructive urge that seeks to undermine all that has come before, culture, history, religion, tradition, custom, honor, even morality. This is the voice of the post-modern devil that whispers in the leftist ear, “there is no truth, there is no right and wrong, there is only power.” The Left's clear assumption is that as a nation we are flawed and what we have built must be knocked down. They believe they can rebuild it better than before. It is a monumental arrogance, and equally naïve. All revolutionaries discover it is easier to destroy than to build, and destruction is usually their legacy.

Yet revolutionaries are some of Obama’s best friends and confidants. Ideologically, they are unpleasant people, people most Americans would never invite over for coffee and a chat. By my count, he has two racist clergymen reinventing history and calling damnation down on the country. He has the support and friendship of violent Weathermen terrorists pardoned by Bill Clinton, unrepentant and still preaching revolution. We have openly Marxist campaign workers, we have anti-Semites, we have open border La Raza supporters, we have the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group Obama supports, and one widely accused, indicted and in several states convicted of voting fraud and voter registration abuses. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is on board, as is MoveOn.org since Hillary has lost the primary.

We also have virulently anti-American billionaire businessman and fifth columnist George Soros, and of course, we have the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, the Socialist Party, and unsolicited endorsements by Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega. Add to that the who’s who of radical, leftist, “progressive” and post-modern academics, labor unions, rights’ organizations, entitlement advocates and race baiters and you have a good idea of who will influence our president should Obama get elected. All the wrong sorts of people really like him; they know what he believes far better than the average American voter does. In this campaign, “Alinsky Method” tactics will only increase in the months prior to the election. Manufactured scandals, push polls, planted press stories, personal attacks, intimidation, and outright fraud will fill our newspapers and TV channels. All will be justified with the rationale “this particular end justified this particular means,” which explains in part why Democrats so outrageously demonize conservatives. Truth is unimportant in their manufactured class struggle, their ideology is paramount, and their morality comes from minds like Saul Alinsky.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
– Barack Obama

But who is “we”? Obama uses a political template formed in the corruption of Chicago’s entitlement politics, and applies it to the entire country, indeed to the entire world. His tactics are born of the moral equivalence of Saul Alinsky’s concocted ethics; Obama believes in them, teaches them and lives them. That template does not match the non-revolutionary, non-radical “we” that is the vast majority of Americans. How can campaign promises, legislative compromises and policy statements be trusted when the man that makes them believes that, “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluation of means” and “The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

Obama says what he has to say, his finger in the wind, his positions ever shifting, his campaign constantly qualifying, denying, explaining, reinventing and clarifying. He will pander to whom he has to; promise what he has to promise, because in the end power is all that matters, even if you sell your soul to get it. Power is the means to bring Obama’s “change,” which will be the social justice of radical academics, the true equality of racial exceptionalism and the fair wealth distribution of socialists, all the myriad muddled ideologies of the left becoming reality. His vision for America is an elaborate falsehood, and the change he would bring would be disastrous at all levels. Yet he is our own creation, a product of our elite schools and one of our major political parties. In him we have nurtured our own fifth column and our eventual demise. The promises we hear from Obama will mean little after inauguration day, the empty words forgotten as Obama’s actual agenda is implemented. America will take a big step, backwards, the nation will mimic Chicago, and Obama will divide us as never before.

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to say where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, The Dedication