The Reagan and Bush Executive Orders: Not Remotely Comparable to Obama's Overreach

The Democrats have trotted out Alinsky's Rule for Radicals No. 4, in an effort to fend off legitimate outrage over Obama's usurpation of power on immigration.  Rule No 4 is "hoist them on their own petard," or accuse your enemy of doing the same thing they are criticizing in you.

So, the arguments are out that both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to establish immigration policy, and Obama is only doing the same thing that they did.  However, their argument is a lie (what else is new?).

There is a proper use of executive orders, to tweak existing legislation in order to implement the wishes of Congress.  That's because small tweaks are easier to implement by executive orders than to run the whole legislation back through both houses of Congress to correct small errors or ambiguities. Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders properly in this regard -- with the knowledge and consent of Congress, to tweak legislation already passed.  Unlike Obama, they did not misuse executive action in the place of legislation, as an end-run around Congress, to install sweeping new laws by the dictate of a totalitarian.

David Frum has more details on the Reagan/Bush executive orders in his article "Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama's Executive Order."  Read it at this link.

Don't be fooled by the Alinskyites in their efforts to justify fascism.

Lessons from "Rules for Radicals" - How to Fight Dirty

Today I finished reading Saul Alinsky's Handbook for Democrats, otherwise known as "Rules for Radicals." The best chapter of the book, by far is "Tactics." In it he discussed a number of rules for tactics. Some of the best are described below.

Tactics means doing what you can with what you have. As for any other goal in life, you have to make a start and not wait until conditions are perfect or "the time is right." No matter how hopeless the situation may seem, doing something, even small, gives a group energy and purpose and optimism. I think that's why most of us started blogging. We wanted to do something, anything, to help further the cause.

Never go outside the experiences of your people -- they will be uncomfortable and give up the effort. If we conservatives took up the tactic of breaking windows, spraying graffiti and throwing rocks, we would "go outside the experiences of our people." Most of us would not participate.

Go outside the experiences of your opposition. Use tactics that the enemy doesn't expect; it will confuse and panic him. An example might be buying symphony tickets for a group of civil rights workers, feeding them beans, and having them noisily pass gas during the performance. This was actually considered by Alinsky's group.

One tactic he did use against a "slum lord" was to bus blacks into the man's white upscale neighborhood where they picketed with signs that said "Do you know your neighbor is a slum lord?" It worked.

Use tactics that are fun for your group. If your group enjoys the tactics, that definitely makes them more successful. Our recent round of TEA parties did this -- they were fun.

Keep the pressure on. Tactics shouldn't be terminal, once over, quickly forgotten. We must continue the Tea Parties and find new avenues for dissent. Alinsky recommends different tactics and actions, because a tactic can become overused and lose its effectiveness. The Left's old standby of calling everyone on the right "racist" is a good example of overuse. It has become a meaningless epithet and doesn't cause the panic and confusion it once invoked.

Pick a target and polarize it.  Most social or political conflicts are not all black and white but are diffused among a variety of factors, forces, people and circumstances. Reality, however, just won't do if we are to energize our group. To do that we must give them a simple slogan, idea or villain to attack. You must assume that you are 100% right and the opposition 100% wrong and you must personalize the attack and polarize your group. Alinsky explains: "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." That leads to his next point, or how to create a target for your group's vitriol.

Choose a villain and make him the scapegoat for everything you oppose. Alinksy writes: "Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks."

The Left did this very effectively in politically destroying Newt Gingrich after the 1994 Republican victories; they made him a scapegoat, a symbol of everything the Left hated, and he became a polarizing figure simply as a result of this propaganda. They tried very hard to do the same thing to George W. Bush and were fairly successful. These men served as the "target upon which to center the attacks."

This was much more effective than merely attacking the Republican Party as a whole; that wouldn't have been adequately personal or polarizing. This tactic is well illustrated by that old canard, "to kill a snake, cut off the head and the body dies as well."

Goad and ridicule your enemy to make him react. Alinsky says that ridicule is the most effective tactic because it causes anger and irrational responses in the opposition. It is in the enemy's reaction that you gain your greatest strength. Akinsky says that the one thing "that is certain to get him to react is to laugh at him. This causes an irrational anger." An angry, irrational reaction can be used to direct bad publicity at the enemy, to further ridicule him, to send him into a humiliating retreat. You gain support while your enemy loses it.

Remember how irrational that Seinfeld comic was when blacks insulted him during a comedy routine? He boiled over and started shouting racial insults at them, and almost destroyed his public persona in the process. If there is one thing we should all learn here is not to lose self-control when ridicule is used against us. Learn not to react, because that's what the enemy wants.

Another thing we should all learn here is to continue using ridicule against the Obama Administration, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party. They furnish us with enough ammunition that we should never run out of jokes at their expense.

Pelosi was successful in bringing ridicule upon herself with her transparent attempt to avoid responsibility for waterboarding by claiming the CIA lied to her, "and that they lie all the time." She became angry and irrational, made foolish statements and made herself a public laughing stock. For the time being, at least, her credibility with the voting public is all but shot.

Ridicule helps the enemy destroy himself.

Update: See the RNC video ridiculing Nancy Pelosi's stand on the CIA. This is a good example of an effective use of ridicule against the enemy.

Hoist the enemy on his own petard. Highlight the fact that the enemy will say one thing and practice another. Their great rules of ethics, fair dealing and manners are mainly for show and they will abandon them under the pressure of the fight. Rub it in when they do and make them look like hypocrites. 

Some pertinent, recent examples: Al Gore preaching low carbon emissions while burning an obscene amount of energy is in own home; prominent Democrats who preach raising taxes on "the rich" while dodging their own huge tax liabilities.

Play one party against the other. Alinsky fought corporations by using their competition against them. If they were trying to unionize department stores in Chicago, they wouldn't picket them all simultaneously. They would picket one store, sending many of its customers to its competitors rather than endure the political shouting of a sign-wielding picket line. This tactic has been very succesful. It was used against General Motors, sending a lot of its customers to Chrysler.

There's more. I suggest that every conservative who wants to win the culture war buy a copy of this book. Not only will we be able to recognize the tactics used against us, we will be better able to devise defenses. We can also use the same tactics against them.  It's all about winning, baby. Let's be in it to win.

Update: Stacy McCain of The Other McCain has a related article to this one, "Against the Politics of Niceness." Do read it.

Buy the book!

Thoughts on Saul Alinsky and "Rules for Radicals"

I started reading Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals."  I expected a ridgidly ideological screed with lots of capitalist denunciations, "power to the people" and other leftdumb slogans. However, I have been quite surprised at how good the book is and how free of dogma.  

On the subject of dogma, he writes:

This book will not contain any panacea or dogma; I detest and fear dogma.  I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic.  Dogma is the enemy of human freedom.

Alinsky was a leftist, of that there is no doubt.  However, in the prologue and the first couple of chapters,  he says many things that I agree with and that are insightful and even wise.  He counseled the youth of 1971 to "fight for a better world" by working within our democratic system.  He says to them something that could have been spoken by Ronald Reagan:

We are not concerned with people who profess the democratic faith but yearn for the dark security of dependency where they can be spared the burden of decisions. Reluctant to grow up, or incapable of doing so, they want to remain children and be cared for by others.  Those who can, should be encouraged to grow; for the others, the fault lies not in the system but in themselves. 

A chapter that I find particularly instuctive is "Of Means and Ends."  He discusses the ethics of "the end justifies the means," but it isn't what you might think.  Alinsky disputes that the ends always justify the means; however, it may be true that in a particular situation, the particular end justifies the particular means.  He uses Churchill as an example.  Churchill was a devoted anti-communist, but allied himself with Stalin to defeat Hitler.  He was asked if he found it embarrassing to support the communists against Nazi Germany.  Alinsky writes:

Churchill's reply was clear and unequivocal:  "Not at all.  I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby.  If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

A modern example of particular ends justifying particular means might be the use of waterboarding on captured terrorists.  The sought after end was to stop planned terrorist attacks before they happen.  (And that is exactly what did happen, preventing a planned 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles.)

In spite of the many good points one might derive about Alinsky, he drops many clues as to his philosophy:  that he believes that we are our brother's keeper; that the plight of the have-nots, or the poor, can only be satisfied by taking away from the haves.  It is the mistake all socialists make, the false premise that undermines all of their proposed solutions:  that there is a finite amount of goodies in the world, be they houses, cars, food, clothing and Fender Stratocaster guitars (I want a red one).  To the socialists, the economy is a zero-sum game; rich people are greedy folks who have taken more than their fair share at the expense of the poor and underpriviliged.   The way to correct the situation is through revolution, the forcible redistribution of wealth.  It's a bankrupt philosophy.

I will keep reading the book, however.  It is well written and has a lot to interest me.  In the game of chess with the Left, it is wise to study your opponent's methods and strategies, so that he is the one who is checkmated rather than you.

Random Thoughts for Tuesday

A few posts back I wrote how the Southern Poverty Law Center slandered a friend of mine as a "white-supremacist," a "racist" and someone with an "extremist past."  None of this was remotely true and is a typically libelous falsehood directed at a principled (and well-known) conservative.

Today I googled my own name and found an article by a website that took the SPLC to task for slandering the unnamed friend in question.  The article named him and me and a couple of others as standing up AGAINST racism and even quoted my friend denouncing racism!  The quote came from a private listserve where early members of the League of the South, or Southern League as it was then called, could debate issues.  The listserve quotes proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that my friend was a principled, outspoken non-racist.  However, don't think the SPLC will remove their slander anytime soon.  As everyone remotely informed knows, the SPLC is in the business of slandering political enemies; their shtick as fighters of "hatred" and "racism" is no more real than it is for the Communist Party who claims the same things.

***

There is a fully carved upright bass that I want to buy.  It's from Rumania and generally costs around $4,000:  a Calin Wultur Panormo flat back.  My supplier says it has a "thunderous voice" and sounds more like a $10,000 bass than one in this price range.  I have heard others say the same, including one orchestra bassist.  My supplier  is offering it for sale for only $3,200, a really good price.  No doubt the recession has him feeling pinched.  I would love to buy the bass but the recession has me feeling pinched as well.  Dang!  Maybe I should start a Tip Jar like other bloggers have; it would only take one donation of $3,200 and I would have my bass! Hmm, that scenario sounds about as realistic as Obama's economic policies.  Guess I'll stick with my laminated bass for now.

***

Our incredibly goofy airhead President continues to amuse.  His latest stunt was having Air Force One do a close flyover of New York, scaring many New Yorkers who thought it was another terrorist attack.  What a maroon!

***

I'm still working on "the Road to Serfdom"; I will read another chapter or two tonight.  I ordered Saul Alinksy's book "Rules for Radicals" and will read that next, so I will know what tactics I can expect from our Alinksy pupil President, Obama.  One of the radio pundits I listen to daily said that when a certain Democrat office was replaced with a Republican, the Republican staff found a box of these books in the office -- hundreds of them.  Seems like "Rules for Radicals" could be called "Rules for Democrats."  Not that there's any difference.