WashPost Blogger Insists Saul Alinsky Inspires the Conservatives, Not Obama
Just like CNN's Soledad O'Brien on Monday, Washington Post "She the People" blogger and columnist Melinda Henneberger took on Newt Gingrich in Friday morning's paper (page A-2) by claiming Barack Obama couldn't be further from radical-left theorist Saul Alinsky, and found it much more believable that it was those pesky conservative Obama critics that have been channeling the ghost of Alinsky.
"Alinsky, who died when the president was 11, would delight in all the free PR. But he also would be the first to say Obama does not President Obama much resemble that remark," she wrote. At the end, she insisted "So far, the Alinsky playbook has been used to excellent effect — against Barack Obama." If he weren't dead, Alinsky would be protesting outside Obama's house:
In fact, if Alinsky were alive today, he’d surely be camped out in front of the White House, using every trick in his book, “Rules for Radicals,” to point out the many ways in which the president is not an infiltrator of the dreaded establishment, but the personification of it.
Oh, Alinsky and Obama do have a few things in common: Both lived in Chicago and were community organizers there, though that is a little like saying both Freud and my old roommate Lisa were psychotherapists.
Both Alinsky and Obama were highly pragmatic self-described change agents, too. And as I have pointed out before, if you think Obama was initially hailed as “The One,” check out the 1940 editorial in the New York Herald Tribune that said if Alinsky’s work bringing people together to improve their own neighborhood in Chicago’s notorious Back of the Yards meat-packing district could be replicated across the country, “it may well mean the salvation of our way of life.’’
But Obama is as cool as Alinsky was hot, as conservative in his tactics as Alinsky was outrageous.
The headline online was "Saul Alinsky would be so disappointed: Obama breaks 'Rules for Radicals'." The charge against Obama did not begin with Obama as president. They begin with Obama's time as a community organizer in Alinsky's Chicago. But Henneberger energetically asserted Obama's State of the Union speech defined him as an Alinsky antagonist:
And again in last night’s State of the Union, Obama followed none of Alinsky’s “ Rules for Radicals .”
That 1971 book, written shortly before Alinsky’s death, begins “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
The president has indeed drawn attention to the Have-Nots. And Michelle Obama, in her remarks at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, did refer to Alinsky when she said her husband had won her heart by speaking of turning the world as it is into the world as it should be.
Yet Alinsky’s blueprint for revolution is the opposite of Obama’s ultra-traditional path to power — via Harvard and elected office.
In his last and most lasting work, Alinsky writes, “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists.” Which pretty much rules out propping up capitalism’s failures.
Henneberger felt Obama most failed in using ridicule against his adversaries (in liberal brains, he's always a rhetorical pacifist, a gregarious Gandhi):
That’s more in line with Gingrich calling Obama “the most effective food-stamp president in history.” Or the president’s golfing buddy, Republican Speaker John Boehner, calling the State of the Union “pathetic” before even seeing it.
Nobody at the Post has ever seemed to read Stanley Kurtz, one of the leading authors charging Obama with Alinskyite principles. He wrote for National Review last August:
The trouble with Obama’s Alinskyite leadership style is that he’s trying to adapt it to the presidency, a role it was never designed for....
Alinskyite polarization and ideological reticence were never designed for the presidency. On the other hand, I doubt a president this leftist could ever have gotten elected without them. From Obama’s perspective, he’s already gotten more done on health care, and plenty of other issues, than any other Democrat in history. For Alinksyites, patience is all. Obama has at least an even chance of re-election. So despite the difficulties of his community-organizer-derived techniques, he’s likely to keep to them.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Glenn Beck
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:12pm.
Did this woman ever watch, or listen, to Beck?
A couple of days ago I watched an idiot on Fox claiming the Tea Party ADMIRED Saul Alinsky.
The fantasy of the left in assigning their leader to others is insane. The absurdity of news talking heads tha repeat silly lies speaks to their incompetance and ignorance.
In their minds Reagan was a
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:20pm.
In their minds Reagan was a democrat and alinsky was a tea partier. That is how sick and twisted their imaginary world has become.
It's Orwellian
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 3:15pm.
It's like finding similarities between the Founding Fathers and the Khmer Rouge.
The trend appears to be two fold:
1) Turn the familiar into the strange (i.e. Reagan would be a Democrat today)
2) Turn the strange into the familiar (i.e Alinsky would understand the Tea Partiers)
But I can't discern whether it is deliberate muddying of the waters, or just shear ignorance of the facts. There is considerable evidence to support either and both.
'Orwellian' is a good way of putting it.
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 9:11pm.
I like to call it 'upside-down world', where everything is presented as being actually the opposite of what it really is and has been for 1000s of years. This undermines your trust in your own senses (and common sense) setting you up for being brainwashed. If you can't know what the truth is yourself then someone else has to fill you in, someone who has 'special' 'expert' knowledge reserved only for the elite. And that's where the big lie enters.
As to your last paragraph, my guess is that it's a combination of both.
The 'leaders' of leftist ideology, i.e. those in academia, politics and in the upper echelons of the media - are doing this deliberately and with purposeful intent. They genuinely have a desire to overthrow the very system in which they've succeeded. I think it's a kind of nihilism brought about by psychological factors like self-loathing, despair, meaninglessness. Some just hate knowing there are people around more powerful and rich than them - a kind of destructive jealousy, and they want 'revenge'. The root of all this being, imo, their embracing of the Atheist creed. I think Atheism is the foundation and common thread which connects all aspects of Leftism (I know there are Atheist conservatives and religious leftists, but these are exceptions) and it informs the entire spectrum of leftist ideas.
The lower-level, rank and file leftists are just following what the 'leaders' tell them and act and talk out of ignorance, deferring to the 'superior' knowledge of others. Time and again I've heard leftists mention how Obama went to Harvard, as if that were enough and meant he must therefore be infallible. 'Inner' things like character, capacity, courage, conviction, etc. count for nothing. It's all about the resume, the surface, and not about a resume of actual work done or experience gained, but a resume which ticks all the leftist boxes.
Not to sound like a religious kook, but we live in dark times, though I think it will eventually change.
Actually, in a very
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:15pm.
Actually, in a very convoluted way, this lady may have swerved into a little theory. Just remember that those 60's 'radicals' and 'anti-establishment' types have now BECOME the 'establishment' - the very thing that they were protesting and dead-set against. And what they were dead-set against, they have compounded it and steroid-ized it to a toxic level that would astound the 'establishment' of that era................except maybe Alinsky and a few others. I think they'd be proud of the results - and possibly think that it should even be going further.
My first thought, despite
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 4:36pm.
My first thought, despite whatever game the press is attempting to play with this, is that Obama and his ilk are both 'radicals' and 'the establishment'. They are the establishment, enforcers of a system, when it comes to a Marxist style global-caliphate, an elite leadership. The very idea of which is 'radical rebellion' to the experiment of America. Either way the media want to try and spin this new theory (that I guess they just coincidentally all hit upon at once-Ha!), they lose. They fool themselves into thinking they can fool everybody.
So much that Hamburger forgets.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:19pm.
Among them:
-John Boehner would have an advance copy of his speech as Speaker of the House
-Alinsky directly influenced such radicals and Ayers, who is Obama's best buddy
-Obama has plenty of Alinskyites in his coterie - nobody is ever innocent by association
-Obama goes after the "1%" through demonization - seminal Alinsky tactic
I can believe someone as dumb as S'OB would bring Hamburger-for-brains on the show as an 'expert'.
See kids...more proof
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:21pm.
See kids...more proof brain-dead people support Obama. If Obama sprouted horns and bat wings, they'd love him even more....
The big problem
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:38pm.
...is that most of America -the middle ground that keeps its head buried in the sand- has no idea who Alinsky was or what he preached. As far as they know, he could have written childrens books. So when the MSM says 'its nonsense' the useful idiots believe it.
This woman is beyond stupid
Submitted by Curly on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:38pm.
This woman is beyond stupid and there is no hope for her.
Not stupid
Submitted by oldfart on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:44pm.
She is only doing what she was been trained to do:
Ready the Alinsky playbook which says you are supposed to put the blame for the results of your actions on the opposition. I believe it is called deflection.
Never thought I'd see this day.
Submitted by ekslib on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:50pm.
When Libs ran away from association with folk-hero Alinsky.
It's just the natural progression of leftist tactics.
Submitted by KyWriter on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 2:52pm.
If you can't spin it, flat-out lie about it.
I blame her ignorance on the
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 3:02pm.
I blame her ignorance on the govt-monopoly schools.
In a way she is correct
Submitted by T Walt on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 3:03pm.
Some conservatives, who may have been tempted to vote for Obama early on(in 08), may have done their due diligence and uncovered the influence Alinsky had on Obama. These conservatives were then inspired to cast their votes elsewhere.
It matters that Alinsky influenced a twenty-something Obama
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 3:24pm.
IF the Tea Party was influenced in 2009 by someone who was dead 40 years why wouldn't be possible for a young Barack Obama to be influenced in 1985 by someone who was dead 13 years?
This is such a deceptive trick.
Usual tricks
Submitted by Schofield Kid on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 7:43pm.
They used the same tactic in their dismissal of Obama's association with Bill Ayres--"Ha, Ha, you ignorant right wing fools, the president was only 11 years old when Ayres was doing all that radical stuff." Problem is he's never renounced his terrorist activities to this day and wishes he would've done more!
And I guess no one in this day and age could be a Marxist because Karl Marx died over 100 years ago, right?
The words both she and
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 3:44pm.
The words both she and soledad are using are coming from a San Francisco Chronicle article written a few days ago. The heart of lefty land.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/24/bloomberg_ar...
So what!
Submitted by Bliggie on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 4:07pm.
Karl Marx died in 1883 and look how much influence he's had on Obama, and Alinsky
F Buckley
Submitted by look on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 4:32pm.
William F Buckley interviews Alinsky 1967... feel the love///
http://perceptionasreality.blogspot.com/2011/04/william-f-buckley-confro...
Inspiration...???
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 5:08pm.
And Planned Parenthood, NAMBLA and the LGBT crowd were no doubt inspired by their deep admiration of Mother Theresa.
Don't know what Mel's been smokin', but it must be some goooooood stuff.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
It's called projection
Submitted by ohio granny on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 5:44pm.
Liberals always like to project onto their opponents exactly what they are doing. What a bunch of dispicable evil lying pond scum liberals and democRats are !!!!!!!!!!!
Plainly put, as evidenced by
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 7:12pm.
Plainly put, as evidenced by history, the continuing urge to 'level the playing field', vis a vi the Socialist/Communist agenda, has ALWAYS resulted in one bunch of scoundrels convincing the mob that the ruling bunch of scoundrels needs to be ousted from their lofty positions.
They do this with a two prong attack consisting of 1) Blaming all the peoples woes on those in power or formerly in power and 2) promising the people that they will be "taken care of" if they only support the 'new government'.
When this aim is finally achieved the new government embarks on implementing their lofty ideals which gets only so far before they realize that said lofty ideals must be severely limited in scope as they were unrealistic from the word go.
This usually results in wide spread grumbling among the people as they were promised pie in the sky only to find themselves worse off than they were before. The new government tells them to be calm, that change takes time and that their sacrifice will be rewarded in the end.
All the while this new government will be setting aside that which they believe is their due. After all if they had not seized the reins of power the people would still be languishing under the oppressive capitalist yolk. This is characterized by lavish displays of wealth and jet setting lifestyles.
As the grumbles of the people grow the new government begins to worry for its continued existence. After all they cannot 'help' the people in so short a time. The people have unrealistic expectations and in order to ensure that they have time to complete their journey to their Socialist/Communist utopia, they decide that the people need to be guided not only a compassionate voice, but with a firm hand as well.
As the grumbles grow louder the compassion for the people turns quickly to contempt. These 'people' do not appreciate what the new government is doing for them. They are ungrateful and do not understand the 'sacrifices' the new government is making to 'help' them.
So feeling under-appreciated they become even more insular and removed from the very people they claim to wish to help. They surrounded themselves with only the sycophants and ring kissers. And all the while the people fall further and further into poverty and hopelessness.
The final result generally ends with wide eyed members of the 'new government' being lined up against a wall, hung by a vengeful mob or turned over to the UN to be tried for crimes against humanity.
One wonders how our brush with those that aspire to 'utopia' will end?
Idiot!
Submitted by Thalpy on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 6:48pm.
How old was Obama when Jesus died? More to the point, how old was Obama when Muhammad died?
It's an interesting
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 1:27am.
It's an interesting historical twist that Chicago both produced some of the most brilliant free-market economic minds of the 20th century, and one of the most devious proponents of the authoritarian collectivist social system.
The Chicago school of economics was home to geniuses like Friedman and Hayek. Yet Chicago also produced Saul Alinsky. Alinsky's approach relied on the lowest human traits of selfishness and envy among the masses to secure political power for their chosen ruling class. Friedman and Hayek, on the other hand, preached achieving success through hard work, equal opportunity, and free markets.
It is strange that Chicago native Barack Obama embraced the teachings of Alinsky over those of Friedman and Hayek. One might understand how Alinsky could appeal to an individual truly mired in poverty with no chance of bettering their life. But such a situation has not existed in America for many decades. As for Obama, he has had a life of privilege. He has never had to work, he has received a free elite private university education that 99.9% of Americans could not afford, and he now lives a life of luxury at taxpayer's expense. He has nothing to be bitter or angry about, so what is the appeal of Alinsky?
Perhaps it's Obama's brain.
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 1:40am.
Perhaps it's Obama's brain. Could be the research concerning the differences between the conservative and liberal brain hold much merit. Or Obama is just a weak-minded twit who learned that to 'fit in' in a University setting meant to embrace their pathology.
Nah............it's a lot
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 3:07am.
Nah............it's a lot simpler than that. Boy Barry is pissed off because he was born and raised as a communist.........and he's had a couple of different name changes and 'fathers'.............and he's a homely, un-athletic, mixed-race and mixed-religion kind of guy..........and he was subjected to homosexual behaivior early in his life..........and he never really got anywhere on his own talents or merit - yet he believed he did...............and his whole life has basically been a lie - from Day WON until the present.
Plus, he's a spoiled little brat who never was told 'no' by anybody.............and he's been 'picked up' and 'chosen' and 'selected' by various power brokers to advance THEIR agenda...................yet he seems to think it's because of his own 'gravitas'.
So, even though he's a total phony and a complete charlatan - with an average IQ and below-average personality, and a snide and snotty attitude, coupled with self-induced narcississism that nobody - obviously - has ever called him out on...............andhe has hit the bigtime by becoming the President of the United States - mostly on bogus claims - he is a born, raised, and dyed in the wool liar and phony - and the only things that he has ever believed are lies - including who he is. So can you blame the little c**ksucker for being pissed off?? And then.........he's married to the Mooooooooooooche????
The guy might be too f**ked up for even Doc. Sam to figure out............and he's 'our' President!!!!
Teenage rebellion
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 12:59pm.
"He has nothing to be bitter or angry about, so what is the appeal of Alinsky?"
It's the classic Teenage Rebellion. Just as it was with Sara Jane Olsen, a.k.a Kathleen Soliah, one of the members of the SLA. They are both perfect example of rich, pampered people rebelling against their parents, or, in Obama's case, Grandparents.
And, just like you saw with Soliah, if you mention their rebellious past to them, people like Obama will answer: "well, that was a long time ago," as will their supporters.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Alinsky's tied up now, please hold...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 12:54pm.
"Alinsky, who died when the president was 11, would delight in all the free PR."
Well, I hate to break this to you, hunny, but Alinsky is too busy to even notice. He's working on overthrowing Satan's rule, in hell! Good luck with that, Saul!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obama & Alinsky
Submitted by VincentMVNY on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 12:05am.
Is it possible she is so stupid and ill informed?
For Hennenberger's information.
Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky
"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky, Book by Richard Poe
Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy.... Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.... 'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'... Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing." "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power. "Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer."
Nice work
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 12:32am.
I would suggest e-mailing that to her, but it would make no difference, they know they're full of it.