Adopting Alinsky? Lowering the Bar on the Right

Since Obama won the White House, the most passionate debates I’ve witnessed or taken part in have not transpired with liberals, but with other conservatives.  I’ve heard this “in-fighting” described as the greatest advantage liberals have over us, accompanied by finger-shaking that we must band together at all cost.  On the contrary.  This internal strife, in fact, demonstrates the most critical element distinguishing us from the left, and we should cling to it ferociously.

The average lib doesn’t get this, or they wouldn’t be a lib.  (Yes, I know that’s what they say about us, too.)  Unfortunately, however, too many conservatives don’t truly grasp the implications, either.  The entire progressive philosophy seeks, not the identification of right from wrong, or a consistent attempt to adhere to principle, but rather to justify the means to a predetermined end, even if the end hasn’t been established as possible or even desirable.  Entitlement policies barely scratch the surface of this mentality underscoring the entire leftist strategy.  It’s demonstrated most clearly by “Rules for Radicals,” the infamous book from liberal icon Saul Alinsky, a man who honed his craft with a mob internship, and introduced his book with a dedication to Satan.  The whole of his thesis advocates doing anything it takes, barring nothing, to impose “progressive” policies.  Morality is relative among leftists, after all.  They love Nietzsche.

It so dominates their thinking that various leftist special interest groups will suppress their own supposed principles to maintain a facade of unity, turning a blind eye if fellow leftists are the offenders in question.  Consider the national Organization for Women, who seemingly had no objections to sexist remarks from former President Clinton, and which consistently lets the rap industry slide on its vulgar or violent depictions of women.  In kind, Alabama’s NAACP recently dropped its official objection to the genocide of millions of black infants through legalized abortion after a briefing from NOW.  They don’t hesitate to compromise their principles.  It’s their M.O., straight from the Alinsky handbook, and the very core of their philosophy.  Yet there are conservatives who insist we must strive to be more like them.

Considering the voting record of too many GOP legislators, you’d think there was a version called “Rules for Republicans:” forsaking their values, “reaching across the aisle” in the spirit of “compromise” (how did that word become so benevolent), trying to be all things to all people, hoping to secure re-election and the position of power.  It’s just another means to an end, but dare I say, an even less principled one than those pursued by leftists.  There are GOP players that have openly advocated the shady tactics of the Alinsky left, citing that our failure to do so thus far has contributed to the advancement of liberal policy.  It’s an absurd notion.  The GOP’s failure in holding back liberalism is precisely because it has, for decades, repeatedly chosen the liberal route of justification over principle.  The failure comes from not working diligently to market conservatism and standing steadfast for truth.  Instead, they often choose the lazy route, succumbing to that which we fight, and all the while obscuring the difference between left and right.

So how do you defeat the monster without becoming the monster?  This has always been among the greatest challenges of humanity.  But the mightiest armies in history have fallen before passionate people who wielded truth and fought with conviction.  Regardless of its label, at any given time in history, Conservative ideology has been rooted in the pursuit of truth, and in principled conviction that includes both the ends and the means.  Therein lies the conflict among conservatives: the debate between those who think we can “win” through compromise, continuing to behave more like the opposition, and those who recognize the futility of obscuring the difference.  So label it however you wish, Alinsky-ites.  Call it a stalled Congress.  Call it Tea Party, Third Party, or Independent.  I, for one, will not compromise for a contrived win.  I’d rather go down fighting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *