Everything in Its Own Time

Search for “Alinsky” on Twitter, and you’ll find piles of posts from conservatives, the majority crying that Dems are playing dirty, using tactics made popular by Saul Alinsky. While the complaints and just general posts pointing out that these tactics are being used in the first place are plentiful, it seems there aren’t very many (if any) seriously addressing how to counter them.

First, I would like to point out that crying foul only fuels the situation, and leaves conservatives open for more attacks from the Alinsky playbook. Second, merely pointing out that the tactics are being used is equally ineffective. The primary reason for both of these facts is that neither does anything about the base problem that makes conservatives vulnerable to this sort of thing in the first place.

So, if it’s foolhardy to call the Dems on the tactics, what should be done? The most important thing to do is to engage in self-examination. Yes, I know that sounds a lot like inaction, but if conservatives don’t seriously sit down and figure out why they are vulnerable to Alinsky tactics, they will not be able to do anything to stop it. That is the inherent beauty of the tactics – the fact that the target is easily kept busy trying to battle each individual “attack”, that there is no time to honestly go on the offensive. Once one is the target of an Alinsky style campaign, there is no effective defense, and if the target only tries defending, there is no way to counter-attack.

Back to that first step, the primary reason why Alinsky tactics are being used in the first place against conservatives is because of plausible believability. You’ve no doubt heard of plausible deniability – plausible believability is just the inverse. Everything that the Dems have accused the conservatives of doing is believable. The Alinsky playbook does not rely on truth, on the contrary, it relies on perception. I was involved in a state level campaign once that ended up accusing Christian Coalition members of beating a campaign worker for putting a political sign on someone’s property without permission. This information was spread by word of mouth, and was very effective. Why? Because many people had witnessed individuals working for the Republican candidate act physically menacingly toward me at a debate – I was pregnant at the time, so that was particularly damaging. (Yes, I was working for a Dem campaign, at the request of my parents, because the candidate was the son of family friends. Blood is thicker than politics, and bluntly, in hindsight, I would feel more guilty about working a campaign that lowered itself to thuggery as that particular Republican candidate’s campaign did.) Now, I never found out if anyone ever verified who beat the campaign worker – the blame fell on the Christian Coalition people because they had already shown that they were willing to engage in violent behavior. It was believable. Who wouldn’t believe it after they’d acted like they were going to start beating on a pregnant woman?

Like it or not, conservatives have been cast as a rabble that is willing to do anything to be heard, and forward their agenda. The Tea Partiers have been cast as a group that is willing to lower itself to violence. Even if it would be proven that none of the recent violent acts ever happened, it will be like closing the barn door after the horses got out. As it is, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop when it comes to the gun fire and bricks used against GOP offices in Virginia – I won’t be surprised if the blame is left on GOP operatives seeking to make the Dems look bad, and sadly, the public will eat that news with a spoon.

The only way to stop the cycle is to gain control of how the public perceives conservatives. Stop using protest signs that leave any room for Dems to cry that they’re hate-filled or offensive. Stick to slogans that pick on policy, not people, and stop letting your small children get caught on film carrying signs. Just saying! I know there’s no way to stop folks like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter from speaking their minds. That’s fine. But make it clear that the masses that listen to and read their stuff don’t agree with them when they go off on their tirades. Beck said it last night – we’re about peace.

Kelly’s Court missed it when the coverage on Coulter in Canada yesterday ended up as legal expert splitting hairs on Canadian speech laws. Coulter has the right to spew racist nonsense, and she has the right to claim it was a joke. But, until the other person involved in the exchange also says it was a joke, please don’t leave all conservatives open to more Alinsky style attacks by mentioning it on air! Seriously, the entire exchange was vulgar – I cringed as I sat here thinking about a dear friend of mine who is married to a man of Arabic descent. He works for the U.N., and is currently stationed in Jordan. According to Coulter, apparently my friend shouldn’t be allowed to bring her son home to the U.S. to visit his grandmother, and her husband shouldn’t be able to come back to visit his family. That is hateful.

Also wouldn’t hurt to tell the lawmakers that they need to stop giving the Dems ammunition. I know, it sounds like giving in and surrendering to the other side, but we can’t get out from under the problem of the public perceiving us as a bunch of hateful idiots when our representatives in Congress stand in the way of any legislation that the public considers necessary to get us out of our economic problems. Save the fighting over unemployment benefit extensions for a time when there aren’t so many out there that will take that sort of action as a personal attack. Pick issues that won’t make it easy for the Dems to make us out to be greedy bastards hell bent on increasing the number of families that can’t afford their homes or food on their tables. Even better, play the martyr – “I’m really against this, but I’ll vote for it because I know there are families out there that really need the help right now.” Want best? Start going out en masse working food pantries, and donating loads of food to them. Don’t donate money – pallets of food makes a much better photo-op, and it’s time conservatives started using them effectively. And stop getting pictures handing over stimulus dollars to home districts if you voted against it! Saul Alinsky would love that!

As for health care, I respectfully disagree with Karl Rove, at least in part. There’s a very good reason – beyond logistics – why the Dems set this up the way they did. The majority of the really “scary” stuff won’t be implemented until long after the elections this year. Why? Simple answer is that they are counting on conservatives to attempt to run on “repeal”. When Obama drops the gauntlet and outright challenges the GOP to run on a specific platform, it’s a fair guess that he already has a plan to counter that sort of campaign. Sure, we could play right into the Dems’ hands, or we could run on a “wait and see” platform. I know, that sounds rather wimpy, but if done right, it really isn’t. “I want to be your voice in Washington when Health Care Reform requires that you buy insurance, to make sure that you definitely end up saving money on your insurance premiums and costs” sounds a lot more intelligent than “I will work to repeal this atrocity.” The public’s been overfed heated rhetoric. Given the public’s lack of faith in government in general right now, any candidate or official going out there running a believable campaign on a “watch dog” style platform has a much better chance than one running a contrary one. The people are fed up with inaction, and flatly stating you’re against everything the other party is trying to do will only increase the probability that the people will vote against you. Please don’t forget the concept of voting “the lesser of two evils” – people have been known to vote against a candidate they agree with, simply because they believe that candidate won’t get anything done. Keeping that in mind, it becomes a situation where one has to worry about people not voting “for” any candidate, just voting against perceived ineffectiveness. If anyone thinks that won’t be a factor in the elections this year, they’re sadly mistaken. They’re also fed up with claims of “bipartisanship”, since they rarely end up being real these days. That just leaves the watch dog stance.

Another thing that is a problem is the internal struggle in the party. I’m a member of the GOP. I believe in smaller government, responsible governmental spending, and despise governmental intrusion into people’s lives and business. That said, I also begrudgingly accept that sometimes the government needs to step in to protect us from ourselves – one glaring example is the financial sector. We need some degree of regulations, to prevent what got us where we are now, and more importantly, those regulations need to be enforced. Now, all of that is probably on par with what many conservatives believe. But, I have been listed on Twitter many times in people’s “progressive” groups. Why? Because I believe that we have no business passing morality laws. It’s an insult to religions to drag them into the dirt of politics, and I believe that it is my personal responsibility to carry out the social conservative principles in my own life. It is not the job of government. So because I don’t believe that we need to make a bigger government to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes, and in their intimate relationships, I’m considered “progressive”? The argument has been around for a long time now – how big do we make the GOP tent? Here’s your simple answer – big enough for anyone that wants to be in it. One of the biggest “image” problems for conservatives is that we are considered intolerant. Beyond the public media figures spewing hateful commentaries, there’s the general ranks thinking that there is some sort of purity test out there to prove that someone is a “true conservative”. If you want to end up with a relatively small group of drones that agree with each other on everything, then sure, that’s what you want to do. If not, then stop alienating potential allies by acting like there’s some mysterious standard that must be met in order to be considered a “real” member of your group. Seriously, the last time I dealt with this sort of childishness was in grammar school! Take anyone that is willing to support the conservative cause even a little, and get over it!

Finally, I guess you could say I saved the best for last, stay away from violent innuendos. No, I’m not in love with the current splash page at the GOP website. Sure, putting Pelosi in front of flames was an easy way to illustrate the concept of firing her, but come on now. Do we really need to conjure up images of burning her at the stake to get the message across? I’d be liking her in front of a picture of the National Mall filled with people with the caption “You’re fired!” across it. Would really love it if it was a properly attributed photo from Obama’s inauguration day! And someone please tell Sarah Palin to stop using the rifle sights and firearms lingo, unless she takes up working for the NRA. That’s another one Saul Alinsky would love, and it’s being used far too effectively by the Dems. There’s a time and place for all of that – like gun rights campaigns – not general politicking.

I know I’ve undoubtedly annoyed at least a few conservatives out there with all of this. That’s fine. All I’m hoping for is that I make at least a few people seriously think about what’s been going on. The bottom line is that we need to think before we speak, stop giving the other side ammunition to attack us, and start building an image and reputation for being above all of the nonsense that they’ve been using against us for years. Alinsky is all about using negative perceptions people have about a given group to the best advantage. The only way to fight it is to get the public to stop having those negative perceptions in the first place, period.