Saul Alinsky's White House and the War on Rush LimbaughGail Heriot

Saul Alinsky's Thirteenth Rule:  "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

He wasn't kidding.  In his handbook for community organizers, Rules for Radicals, he made it clear that the way to succeed is to demonize your opponent.  Pick someone your followers can focus their anger upon and attack him without mercy. 

Who would have ever thought that the White House would follow Saul Alinsky's playbook? 

Well ... anyone paying attention to the candidates' histories in the recent election, that's who.  Again and again, Obama has made it clear that Alinsky is his inspiration.   As community organizer during the late 1980s, he worked for Alinsky protege Jerry Kellman.  (Alinsky himself was already dead). The Chicago Sun-Times reported in a 2007 article entitled "Ruthless for Obama" that his campaign had organized Alinsky-style boot camps for activists called "Camp Obama" at which young recruits were urged to be "'absolutely ruthless'" for their candidate.  Even NPR calls Alinsky "The Man Who Inspired Obama."   Why should anybody be surprised when the new administration acts like Alinsky?

Alinsky himself admired John L. Lewis, whom he identified as "the leader of the radical C.I.O. labor organization in the 1930s."  Lewis, according to Alinsky, "never attacked General Motors," but "always attacked its President, Alfred 'Icewater-In-His-Veins' Sloan."  Similarly, Republic Steel Corporation was never attacked by Lewis's C.I.O. but always "its president, 'Bloodied Hands' Tom Girdler."  Personalize, personalize, personalize.  RfR at 133.

Alinsky describes with pride his decision to target Benjamin Willis, superintendent of Chicago schools.  He ridicules those who objected to Willis's demonization.  Quoth Alinsky:

Many liberals, during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn't a 100 per cent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity.  Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as "He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband"?  This becomes political idiocy.  RfR at 135.

Not exactly the kinder, gentler tone that Obama called for during the election, is it?

The New York Times confirms that the White House is behind the recent Rush Limbaugh battle:

[David Axelrod] also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”

But the roots of all this go back to October, when pollsters at Democracy Corps, the polling organization run by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, found that Limbaugh was deeply unpopular with man Americans, especially younger ones.  As Politico reports it:

“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host."

It seems clear Axelrod has been biding his time, waiting for an opportunity to attack Limbaugh, and Limbaugh eventually made himself a useful target.

It's not that Limbaugh is getting hurt by any of this.  The whole thing is probably giving his ratings a boost.  But there is something very distasteful about the White House getting down in the dirt like this for a real or imagined political benefit.  Somehow Axelord thinks he can make conservatives look bad by associating them with Limbaugh and distract us all from the economy by stirring up a fuss over Limbaugh.  Over at Power Line John Hinderaker reports that the Democratic Party is holding a contest.  They plan to erect a billboard "'where Rush can't miss it'" and are asking their members to provide the wording.  Says Hinderacker:

"Can you imagine the Republican Party, on instructions from President Bush, erecting anti-Michael Moore billboards near his home? No, neither can I. Nor can I imagine the outcry from the Democrats had the Bush administration done such a thing."

No, I can't imagine it.  Can you imagine how low the Dow can go while the White House spends its time demonizing a talk show host?

Comments

[Cat]

The attack on Limbaugh is silly. We are told that Limbaugh is "unpatriotic" because he hopes Obama will fail. I hope Obama fails too: I hope he fails to pass his misguided health care legislation. I hope he fails to pass to pass the global warming legislation that will be catastrophic for the economy. I also hope he fails to pass his thuggish "employee free choice" legislation that is in fact all about no choice. In 2006, over half of Democrats polled said that they wanted Bush to fail. Where was David Axelrod then?

[krome]

People simply didn't vet the candidate (and the media is on his side).

He won by being "not Bush" and the masses projected all of their "hope" and "change" wishes on him without ever examining what he hoped to change, and how.

[nathan]

The left used the same tactic on Bush. Early in his administration, instead of going directly after Bush, Cheney and Rove were literally demonized. The right could do the same to Axelrod and make his name synonymous with Orwellian doublespeak.

[The Masked Defender]

But Rush has it coming; he's said some very piggish things. Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog on the radio.

I thought of a great idea; Rush should challenge Gibbs to a televised debate.

But the core of the problem is this, whatever Rush's qualities are, he won't run for election. And the GOP does not have someone with his charismatic speaking style to run; Mitt Romney is some kind of wooden robot - it's almost like he's trying to be the most uninspiring person on earth.

There is a romanticism to a dedication to the values that make the USA great and that make the spiritual, economic, political, military, etc. elite in the USA great (I'm not one); those values are sort of conservative, but really they are virtuous. Who can lift that spirit up in people? Jindal? No way.

Republicanism must become "cool" again.

Where is John Galt?

TMD

[Gail]

I agree that Rush's remarks about Chelsea Clinton were outrageously rude. Although I am not a fan of either of her parents, it pleases me that she has grown into a beautiful and poised young woman.

[P.E.Kramer]

Limbaugh is and has always only been a "loudmouth", as are all of the conservative television and radio talk show hosts.They are clowns and they appeal only to the Nascar/Pro wrestling audience.
Lots of Americans sure love it though.The angrier,the louder and, dumber the better.
We've got a clown on the radio here in Pittsburgh,{middle America}, named Jim Quinn.He used to be an AM radio top 40 jock. He was always,and still is a clown and a loudmouth. That was just his appeal and it worked out well when he was spinning bubblegum pop music.But now he's listened to for his political opinions.Yipes! Americans love to go to the circus and see all the funny clowns and fireworks.Loud noises, shiny colors and,smash-up derbys!Duh.
Too much television has shortened too many attention spans. It would be laughable if it weren't so frightening.
Let's go to a commercial. I'm bored.

[Gail]

On the other hand, Rush has the upside of being right about the general positions he takes more often than not. You can't say the same for all the celebrity conservative talk show hosts and you certainly can't say it for the sanctimonious folks at NPR.

As for angry, I suppose that he has been angry now and then just like everybody else, but I really haven't seen much of that. The folks who criticize him are the ones who sound angry to me. It's funny how that works.

[Paul Kramer]

Sorry about that. I apologize for what amounted to a rant.That's never a good thing to do and it had me doing the same thing I was ranting against.Thanks for pointing that out.
I agree with the statement that the hosts on NPR can and often do come off as being elitist and condescending.That is a real turn-off and a put-down. Everyone seems to be ready to take the "holier than thou" position.I guess it has a lot to do with news, political commentary and , entertainment being comingled. Lack of boundaries creating a carnival atmosphere.It may keep listeners but it limits any useful conversation.
Again, thanks for calling me on the anger.Noone thinks clearly or listens effectively when angry.

[Karl]

Rush is doing very well for a person of substandard intelligence. let's give hin an "A" for effort.

Karl Marx

[john]

The word “liberal” is synonymous with “hypocrite”. I know plenty of liberals and not one lives by the rules he/she imposes on others. The real talking heads and “loudmouth” idiots are Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman and NPR,CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS news people. They all carry Obama’s water for him and do everything he demands of them. They never think for themselves unless it involved attacking Bush or other conservatives. Which was just fine, but don’t oppose Obama. They are in fact, prejudice hate mongers! Look at how they attached Sarah Palin and her family. Of course that’s okay, but don’t mention how homely Chelsea Clinton is, but it’s okay to call Palin’s daughter a “slut.” All liberals are hypocrites.
I listen to Rush every day. I have two Master degrees, eighteen hours away from a third and looking for a Ph.D. program. Rush’s audience is the most educated audience out there. CNN’s and Air America’s audience is the lowest educated. Liberals I know you don’t like the facts/truth, but go learn something!