Organizing Against Alinsky
The Left had Saul Alinsky. The Right needs a Thomas More.

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The mostunethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“

- From Rules For Radicals, by Saul Alinsky

Throughout the 1960s, a young generation stood up to an orthodoxy and changed American history forever. American exceptionalism, traditional values, and Judeo-Christian heritage would long since demand a strong defense in order to survive.

That didn't happen overnight. In order to build, you must have an architect. The architect that flooded these radical notions into the mainstream was none other than Saul Alinsky.

A nation brought many woes onto itself through its prior years by conditioning generations of Americans to embrace a welfare state and a new century worth of unprecedented executive power. The Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, and the Sexual Revolution would leave no room for neutrality as the conscience of a nation was brought to its knees. Such conditions set the stage for a pragmatic tactician to bridge the gap between an idealist generation and the power structure they seeked to change.

The American Left has undoubtedly succeeded in the past to the extent that we must study their tactics. Their appeals win the support of well-intended (but naive) "bleeding heart" types, and elitist snobs alike. How is that possible? They operate in more than one mindset.
Pragmatists such as Saul Alinsky went after the institutions to achieve incremental "change" in their favor, and "organized" in poor and minority communities to turn them against the power structure until it met their every demand. Idealists, while less organized, have proven themselves no less useful.

And the rest, they say, is history.

As for the New Right, "realism" has been the defining virtue, perhaps to a fault. Establishment conservatives, for lack of a better term, routinely lecture their audience about "living in the real world." In doing so, the Right Establishment has created an environment where nothing is shocking. And Heaven forbid it ever is.

Senate hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY) came under fire for suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 overreached because it authorized the federal government to force businesses to serve minorities against their will. Predictably, he was smeared as a racist, and few within the GOP bothered to defend him. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who initially endorsed him, said he was "going to talk to Rand about his positions." Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said Rand's position was "wrong."

Rand Paul boldly took matters into his own hands with a series of media appearances, most notably on the Rachel Maddow Show. In that appearance, Rand rightfully praised efforts to end racial discrimination within the government, but stood firm on his conviction that the federal government had no business to dictate who a private business must serve against their will.

Predictably enough, Maddow praised the same federal government that brought institutional racism well into the 20th century for getting involved, even after Rand explained that his position was based on constitutionally limited government, property rights, and state and local solutions. Maddow was particularly stumped when Rand argued for desegregation over forced integration.

These virtues were, at least in years prior, defended by conservatives and classic liberals alike. If Republicans can't be bothered to defend their own principles, then the words "party" and "faithful" appear to be an oxymoron. This may have well been a case of political correctness, Republican-style.

How will the conservative movement achieve its objectives when its ideals are off-limits?

Here's a thought: Preach the gospel of private property and carefully delegated powers as often as the race-fixated media preys on conservative voices.

How many times did the mainstream media question the far-left's proposal to seize BP's assets?

Trent Lott, Don Imus, Rand Paul? - No problem.

Rosie O'Donnell? - That's Rush's job.

When Alan Grayson (D-FL) wants Americans making under $35,000 a year to pay nothing in income taxes, ask why anyone should be payhing the Income Tax to begin with. Speaking of which, why do 47% of Americans owe no income taxes as it is? Why replace the Income Tax with a 23 percent national sales tax? Why not 10 percent? The tax system will not fundamentally change for the better until Americans are desensitized of stereotypes that are slapped on conservatives, especially if such challenges allow the debate to continue.

The media elite have gotten away with the "birther" label in order to discredit those who want a constitutionally eligible president. These questions deserve to be asked, given the lack of transparency. The importance of complying with the Constitution must be stressed. While the issue may not get anywhere, it has proven that constitutional requirements are still of value to Americans. Well, some, anyways.

After President Obama demanded that BP fork over $20 billion to a slush fund, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) was thrown under a bus for calling it a "shakedown." House Minority Leader John Bohner and fellow Ohioan Eric Cantor have agreed, according to a senior GOP aide, that Barton is "within a centimeter of losing his position."

When did it become more acceptable to the GOP to confiscate over a year's worth of after-tax profits from a foreign company than to call it out for what it is?

The GOP is inviting the opposition to isolate and attack when it is obvious that they will do everything in their power to make nice with the strawman voter, even at the expense of a few good men.

Now is not the time to feed the bait to Saul Alinsky's disciples. It is time to give them a taste of their own medicine. "The world as it is" is stuck in Clueless-land. A principled defense of our culture warriors - Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment - represents "the world as it should be."