Saul, you must be kidding!
What a person didn't do is never as interesting as what one did. Accordingly, as Saul Alinsky warms to his topic in Rules for Radicals, the topic shifts from political theory to political fact. It should be read back-to-back, either before or after, Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground. Alinsky writes like one of Dostoevsky's political and social malcontents on the verge of taking direct action. Alinsky might have been a character in a Dostoevsky novel.
Alinsky became a household word upon the election of Barack Obama. The enthusiasm for underhanded tactics in the cause of social justice went viral. It was obvious everybody who joined the discussion had not read the book. That in itself did nothing to recommend it. Nonetheless, I mulled what was being said about it. After long deliberation it occurred to me I might be the last one in on the joke. Could Rules for Radicals be a unique example of political humor?
That was the inducement I needed to finally read Rules for Radicals. Political humor is a venerable American tradition. It is protected speech under the Bill of Rights. Sedition, calling for the overthrow of the government, is not. It is imperative, therefore, to know the difference. Alinsky quotes Mark Twain. It can be inferred, there-from, that Alinsky knows the difference. That is sufficient to cast doubt on the charge of sedition. Rules for Radicals must be political satire.
What Alinsky can be accused of is having a very poor sense of humor. He is direct to the point of tactlessness, unforgivably so in his dealings with under-represented, and under-served groups, "community organizing," in his words, the very persons he would defend. His protestations can be read two ways. Alinsky longs to make the powerful the butt of the joke. Instead, the power-less are worsted.
On page 70 (Vintage edition, 1989), Alinsky describes a meeting with the Latino community over breakfast. He doesn't like Mexican food and says so. His hosts are appalled. Alinsky insinuates that they must endure such poor fare because they are the victims of oppression. I kid you not! He concludes the exhortation to organize with his assurance that they will be better enabled to negotiate economic improvement by being united.
Another anecdote from Rules for Radicals tells of a meeting with Canadian Indians. Alinsky is confused by the diversity of tribes. He suggests they band together as one tribe for unity. The tribal representatives tell Alinsky that they are united, and that they have always been united. As embarrassing as this incident was, it is as nothing compared to his dealings with people of African descent. He's just getting warmed up.
Alinsky tells the one about the black homeowner in Chicago. Against all odds the black home buyer succeeded in moving into a home in an exclusive (white) neighborhood. As Alinsky tells it, the black homeowner complains that the house is now worth one-fourth of the price at which he bought it. Like a drunk driver, Alinsky is guilty of countless similar side-swipes at propriety, as he swerves and dodges down the road to the organized community of his dreams.
Much of the controversy in the public forum has been over Alinsky's tactics. His book is titled Rules for Radicals, but the title Tactics for Radicals would have been more accurate. To call his tactics unorthodox is to be charitable. Not one for bomb throwing—the traditional anarchist weapon—Alinsky understands that the struggle for hearts and minds is won or lost in the mass media. Alinsky follows, and duly notes, news coverage of his exploits like an entertainer follows reviews.
One-of-a-kind works of art can be viewed at: https://www.saatchiart.com/account/artworks/1840403