• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the work of Saul Alinksy influence any of your beliefs?

Has Saul Alinsky influenced your beliefs?


  • Total voters
    24
They are making progress, but not so much on foreign policy IMO. In any case one need not be "successful" to see what the left has become. Like I said you really should try to understand how the left looks to outsiders.

I'm saying your attribution of skills to libertarians is rather hilarious, considering they have yet to begin to understand how everyone else perceives them and their ideas.
 
If you were truly open minded you would seriously note my observation. But its no matter, the lefts hubris also hastens its demise.

I see you studied Alinsky's Rules for Radicals quite well.
 
I'm saying your attribution of skills to libertarians is rather hilarious, considering they have yet to begin to understand how everyone else perceives them and their ideas.

I agree with them on most social and fiscal issues, and find them quite consistent. Not so much with the left-which is a series of disparate interests willing to lie/cheat/steal for what it wants.
 
I agree with them on most social and fiscal issues, and find them quite consistent. Not so much with the left-which is a series of disparate interests willing to lie/cheat/steal for what it wants.

Consistency isn't really desirable for political pluralities. However, even when one thinks of "consistency" being a good thing, that's not what keeps libertarians hopelessly out of touch with the American public. Conservatives and liberals both value completely different ends and means. Libertarians are also incapable of carrying on a decent conversation with them in order to build bridges.

That's why, again, why we shouldn't be impressed that libertarians somehow cracked the liberal code.
 
My point is that there is nothing new with leftism. Frankly, the left is better at tearing things down than doing anything substantive.

And yet, as explained repeatedly, that it is not "righties" or "lefties", but strategies that have been around, and that, as explained in this thread, ALinsky was studied by those on the right as well, you still try and make it about "leftism".
 
Consistency isn't really desirable for political pluralities. However, even when one thinks of "consistency" being a good thing, that's not what keeps libertarians hopelessly out of touch with the American public. Conservatives and liberals both value completely different ends and means. Libertarians are also incapable of carrying on a decent conversation with them in order to build bridges.

That's why, again, why we shouldn't be impressed that libertarians somehow cracked the liberal code.

Consistency is desirable for an ideology though. Its not JUST politics, its a mindset. I think a blend of conservatism/libertarianism is about right and in fact consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. The left is intellectually and morally bankrupt-its ideas have demonstrably failed, and they can't come up with anything new (its the same old rehashed class struggle and identity politics). Im tired of the rhetoric and I think most Americans are as well.

The mid terms were just a preview, btw-the dems will lose the 2016 elections as well. Its the chickens coming home to roost.
 
And yet, as explained repeatedly, that it is not "righties" or "lefties", but strategies that have been around, and that, as explained in this thread, ALinsky was studied by those on the right as well, you still try and make it about "leftism".

Strategies first widely implemented by lefties, and still to this day associated with them. Keep in mind its not just the fights one decides to make, but also how they are fought that matter to people. And how the left fights is well, lacking taste.
 
Strategies first widely implemented by lefties, and still to this day associated with them. Keep in mind its not just the fights one decides to make, but also how they are fought that matter to people. And how the left fights is well, lacking taste.

When those strategies where first derived, there was no such thing as righties or lefties. Your ignorance of history is correctable. And since it is righties that have studied Alinsky specifically, hand out his book, refine and exploit his strategies, why is it the left is lacking in taste?
 
When those strategies where first derived, there was no such thing as righties or lefties. Your ignorance of history is correctable. And since it is righties that have studied Alinsky specifically, hand out his book, refine and exploit his strategies, why is it the left is lacking in taste?

:doh Sometimes the things you say. :lol:
 
Consistency is desirable for an ideology though. Its not JUST politics, its a mindset. I think a blend of conservatism/libertarianism is about right and in fact consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. The left is intellectually and morally bankrupt-its ideas have demonstrably failed, and they can't come up with anything new (its the same old rehashed class struggle and identity politics). Im tired of the rhetoric and I think most Americans are as well.

The mid terms were just a preview, btw-the dems will lose the 2016 elections as well. Its the chickens coming home to roost.

I get that you think of yourself as a fusionist, but I'm letting you know that libertarians have trouble dealing with contradiction and paradox. There is both with fusionism (which is just fine). Consistency in ideology, really, is foolish. That's why libertarians have a lot of problems. It may feel good, but it won't once you are playing with real pieces. Yes, I know that 2016 is looking good for Republicans...I have said as much for a long time, and I am looking forward to voting for a Republican candidate that is not Rand Paul. That being said, let's not give the libertarians much credit at anything.
 
I get that you think of yourself as a fusionist, but I'm letting you know that libertarians have trouble dealing with contradiction and paradox. There is both with fusionism (which is just fine). Consistency in ideology, really, is foolish. That's why libertarians have a lot of problems. It may feel good, but it won't once you are playing with real pieces. Yes, I know that 2016 is looking good for Republicans...I have said as much for a long time, and I am looking forward to voting for a Republican candidate that is not Rand Paul. That being said, let's not give the libertarians much credit at anything.

Wouldn't consistency in ideology be ideal? And yes there are paradoxes-take the example of foreign policy.
And from a practical politics standpoint-I'd not dismiss them, they make up a sizable portion of swing voters/independents and may well make or break the election results. Plenty of time, though and even Rand Paul is "evolving".
 
Wouldn't consistency in ideology be ideal? And yes there are paradoxes-take the example of foreign policy.
And from a practical politics standpoint-I'd not dismiss them, they make up a sizable portion of swing voters/independents and may well make or break the election results. Plenty of time, though and even Rand Paul is "evolving".

The main problem with consistency in political philosophy is that it is a metaphorical box that you're trying to put on top of the human condition and governance. It serves more to the satisfaction of the individual holding the belief than it does substantively address variance in human experience. Likewise, you're going to quickly find out that being so consistent isn't going to work at the polls. People's love affair with consistency fades when it is applied to them at ever-increasing rates.
 
The main problem with consistency in political philosophy is that it is a metaphorical box that you're trying to put on top of the human condition and governance. It serves more to the satisfaction of the individual holding the belief than it does substantively address variance in human experience. Likewise, you're going to quickly find out that being so consistent isn't going to work at the polls. People's love affair with consistency fades when it is applied to them at ever-increasing rates.

I think we have very different views on whats ideal. I'd love to see a political party that represents exactly what I believe not just personally but politically. Im not saying thats practical or likely-but it the dream.
 
I think we have very different views on whats ideal. I'd love to see a political party that represents exactly what I believe not just personally but politically. Im not saying thats practical or likely-but it the dream.

That would be more likely in Europe, where parties are more free to pick and choose their positions as they wish. Of course, when forming a coalition government, you still have to come to terms with difference to get anything done for the short time you have.
 
That would be more likely in Europe, where parties are more free to pick and choose their positions as they wish. Of course, when forming a coalition government, you still have to come to terms with difference to get anything done for the short time you have.

Thats true but those coalitions are fleeting. Less of substance gets done, and there is more conflict.
 
I doubt that many on the right would readily admit to it, especially since he is now somewhat villianized by "the right".

Then you're looking at it differently than how they do. There's a definite sense of "well, hit them back" on the right.

But that's pretty recent, and still at the grassroots/lower levels. I can't think of any current national GOP leadership who has hopped on it.

Logic and common sense kinda suggest that many did.

:raises eyebrow: I think you are reaching here.

We do know that both Adam Drandom, the head of Freedomworks, and Dick Armey have passed out copies of Rules for Radicals to their workers, and the Tea Party movement looks very much like an Alinsky type grassroots group(oh lord do they, something which would embarrass so many of them).

Yeah. Post 2008.
 
The "power words" was my specific original thinking. Ironically, I did read the list and learned from it. Newt is right, how you speak about something does influence others. The idea that we should not learn from some people is one of those ideas I never could understand. Why is it somehow terrible that people learned from a successful community organizer?

I suspect its because organized communities are less profitable, more easily marginalized.

Divide and conquer and all that.
 
‘Language: A Key Mechanism of Control’

So right around the Contract with America. That whole "permanent conservative majority" period of time. GOPAC.

...this looks like it was aimed at controlling a majority party by getting them all on the same page. Which is why language is listed with "Agenda" and "Attitude". It's a couple of lists of poll-tested words. :shrug: It's not sending out black-bag operatives to pretend to be odious members of the opposition, in order to color your opponent with their taint.

I'm not really seeing Alinsky here, tbh, though I'm not much of a student of his - can you draw the connection in bright crayon for me?
 
I have met one person who has ever referenced Saul Alinsky. And he was an incredibly talented attorney who worked on behalf of a lot of downtrodden people who had been abandoned by the system and the laws that were supposed to protect them. Anyone who positively influenced him is probably okay.
 
...this looks like it was aimed at controlling a majority party by getting them all on the same page. Which is why language is listed with "Agenda" and "Attitude". It's a couple of lists of poll-tested words. :shrug: It's not sending out black-bag operatives to pretend to be odious members of the opposition, in order to color your opponent with their taint.

I'm not really seeing Alinsky here, tbh, though I'm not much of a student of his - can you draw the connection in bright crayon for me?

I think you are trying to require a one to one comparison rather than acknowledge the more general adoption of whatever dirty tricks need to be used to win.

And you know subliminal cognitive manipulation is more effective than simple political machinations. Variations on sun tzu.
 
I think you are trying to require a one to one comparison rather than acknowledge the more general adoption of whatever dirty tricks need to be used to win.

And you know subliminal cognitive manipulation is more effective than simple political machinations. Variations on sun tzu.

I think if you are conflating "Alinsky" with "prioritizing ends above ones' distaste for means", then you are making the same overly-simplistic comparison some on the right could be accused of. And being precise and deliberate in ones' language, similarly =/= dirty tricks.
 
I would bet Alinsky influenced more people on right than on the left. I never heard of the guy until a conservative told me about him.

Then you and others have totally ignored the pasts of Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
 
Back
Top Bottom