Power, Self-Interest, and The Way Things Are

As my reading of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals slowly wanes it's way to conclusion, I encountered one of the primary conceptual challenges that I face as I look at how he does the organdizin' bidness.

That challenge comes when he throws out some key terms that need to be embraced by Alinskian organizing. These are words, Alinsky argues, that are generally viewed with some distrust. We must, however, wholeheartedly embrace them if we're going to effectuate meaningful change in our communities. Not redefine them, mind you. Alinsky is too gritty and hard nosed for that. We must swallow our qualms, and grab the bull by the horns, and embrace these terms and all that they imply.

Those words are Power and Self-Interest.

Power, of course, is just the ability to create change in the world. It's wielding energy and force to bring about a particular end. Alinsky argues that power is an inevitable and inescapable element of human life, and that any awkwardness we feel around the idea of wielding power is silly. We do feel some awkwardness, and for good reason. Where human beings amass power, the record of human history shows us that we have a propensity to do some nasty, nasty things. Alinsky notes this tendency, and then says we should just get the heck over ourselves. When confronted with Lord Acton's quote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," Alinsky says, "Aha! Notice how he uses the word 'tends.'" Power must exist if change is to occur, and therefore, we've got to be willing to use it.

As for self-interest, well, Saul's down with that too. Again, we tend to be a bit leery of the idea of self-serving people, particularly when those people have political or economic power. Bad things tend to happen when the selfish use power to get what they want. But Alinsky has no such qualms about selfishness. Human beings are all driven by their own self-interests, he argues. That's the nature of human beings, of both our political and economic systems. Therefore, the task of the individual seeking to organize a community and change a social system is to find ways to "bundle" self-interests, so that individuals support one another's goals as a way of self-interestedly furthering their own desires. In doing this, Alinsky is rejecting the idea that somehow self-interest is bad. It's the Way Things Are, says Saul, sounding for all the world like a leftist Gordon Gekko. We may as well accept it.

Oddly enough, this assessment of the nature of human social systems is pretty much in keeping with classical Christian understandings of the political sphere. The dynamics of power and the balancing of interests are, at least as St. Augustine's City of God expresses it, the nature of the state...and by extension, the purpose of the marketplace. All human endeavors revolve around power and self-interest.

Christians seek neither of those things. Our awareness of the transcendent foundation of all being leads us to see power as ultimately meaningless, and self-interest as solipsistic delusion. We aren't called to serve ourselves, but to orient our whole beings towards the good of others. From such a stance, power over others is inherently dangerous. Does it exist? Of course. We can't help it. But when we step out of self-seeking, and see the interests of the other as our primary interest, we approach power in a radically different way.

Because Christianity is radically subversive of the Way Things Are. It is...perhaps...far more radical than Alinsky.

Alinsky, Gandhi, King, and Jesus

One of the reasons that community organizing schtuff appeals so much to progressive Christians is that it reminds us of the great and noble movements of the 20th century. We recall Gandhi's radical call to the people of India to peacefully liberate themselves through nonviolence. We recall Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and how he applied those same nonviolent techniques during the civil rights movement. In those memories, Christian communities find significant inspiration. Both of those movements were defined by an ethic that is fundamentally sympatico with the central teachings of Jesus.

Whether you describe it as nonviolence or satyagraha or "soul force," the assumption of those movements was that violence begets violence. The only way for a powerless community to liberate itself from oppression was to abandon the violence that underlies all oppression. Instead of violence, the communities would aggressively apply nonviolence. That didn't mean inaction, but rather direct action that intentionally assumed that the opposing side was human, and capable of grace if confronted by grace. It's the whole "loving your enemies" thing, applied to the challenge of injustice.

As Rules for Radicals was written in 1971, I was curious to see just how Alinsky would deal with nonviolence as a central ethic for transformative community organizing. The answer was interesting. In his recounting of the movement for Indian independence and the civil rights movement, Alinsky makes it clear that he views nonviolence as a tactic, and not an ethic.

This is unsurprising. When he uses the words "morals" or "morality" in Rules for Radicals, he almost invariably "puts them in quotes." Ethics are, for Alinsky, imaginary things. If a moral code helps you effectuate change and articulate power in a community, then great. Stick with that moral code. If that moral code gets in the way of your goal, then to hell with it. All that matters is what works to move you closer to your goal of change.

From that worldview, Alinsky argues that when Gandhi used nonviolence, he only did so because it was a tactic that had a chance of working. Had the Indian people been able to throw off British rule with force of arms, then Gandhi would have told them to take up their rifles. Or so Alinsky suggests.

Similarly, the use of nonviolence by the civil rights movement was just a tactic that matched the needs at the time. If African Americans had the numbers and the clout to rise up in violent revolution and succeed, then they would have. He suggests, looking at where race relations were in 1971, that eventually such a path might be taken. By Any Means Necessary, as some used to say.

There is some truth in Alinsky's assessment of nonviolence. As he points out, nonviolence only works as a political instrument if your opposition is willing to accept a shared humanity. Nonviolent resistance would have worked rather badly against the Nazis. Then again, it did prove itself rather impressively in Imperial Rome during the first and second centuries.

Yet by claiming that nonviolence is just a tool in the organizer's toolbox, a tactic to be whipped out or packed away depending on the circumstance, Alinsky shows he really doesn't quite understand it. To successfully practice nonviolence, it has to be a defining ethic, both the ultimate goal and the value that suffuses and defines every moment of life.

Particularly the hard ones.

Alinsky, The Truth, The Tea Party, and Jesus

One of the more significant things that Saul Alinsky pitches out for those who want to start a radical movement is how to approach one's opponents. It isn't enough to disagree, and to work for consensus.

Alinsky, being a deeply realistic critter, argues that respectful disagreement is absolutely useless when you're trying to motivate a group of folks. People don't get fired up to march and shout slogans if you present them with an honest and balanced appraisal of the opposing position. If you have sympathy for the opposing party, if you see some of the merits of what they're saying and are willing to present their position with all of it's nuances and possibilities, then you're a crappy organizer.

Not because what you're saying would be materially incorrect. Alinsky acknowledges that human systems are complex and interwoven things, and that even opposing positions likely have positive aspects. In fact, he banks on it, as ultimately his goal is to have his mobilized communities negotiate with his opponents for whatever gains can be made.

But when you're rousin' the rabble, you don't say those things, even if you know they're true. The rhetoric of Alinsky's community organizing is apocalyptic, meaning it is radically binary. Once you've identified your enemy, you define them as 100% evil, and your own position as the ne plus ultra of virtue and all things good and right and true. When things are pitched out in those binary terms, it becomes much easier to get people motivated.

Three things strike me about this approach.

First, it requires organizers to do what Alinsky describes as being "schizoid." Meaning, saying and arguing and passionately shouting about how The Man is the source of all oppression and monstrousness and evil, while deep down inside you know that isn't accurate. As Alinsky was writing before we knew that schizophrenia wasn't the same as multiple personality disorder, let me suggest a more accurate description of that state of being.

It requires that you be a liar. You hold a truth in yourself about your opponent, and you knowingly misrepresent their nature to your own people to stir up passions. Hmmm. Perhaps that little shout out to Lucifer at the beginning of Rules for Radicals is more apropos than I thought.

Second, this approach works great. It's wonderfully successful in the political arena. What it is not, however, is limited to the political left. If you honestly compare the Obama's leadership style and the Tea Party against this metric of successful organizing practice, it is the Tea Party that comes across as more Alinskian. Obama always had this pesky habit of being moderate and circumspect, of noting that McCain was a war hero and a patriot and the like. But folks like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have no such compunction. Obama is Hitler. DemocRats are Nazis. Or communists. They will take your guns and kill your babies and make you drive a tiny little car and eat tofu and broccoli. They know how to rile Americans up.

Alinsky's methodology has won some significant admirers on the American right. When I read smart conservatives...meaning, ones who are talking openly about Alinsky with one another for purposes other than faux anti-communist polemic...they like what he has to say. They glom onto his methods. They see how useful he can be. They are now, in fact, using his methods in their training. So far, it seems to be working.

Third, this way of approaching one's enemies just ain't Christian. Yeah, I know, Jesus cleansed the temple and took on the powers that be and yadda yadda yadda. But what made Yeshua Ben YHWH such a powerfully different presence was not that he taught us to love and honor our friends and demonize our enemies. That's always been the way of the world.

It was that he pressed that love ethic out to include opponents. Yeah, they might be messed up. Yeah, they might be cause of much hurt and oppression and brokenness. But real transforming revolution only occurs when you can look at Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin or Nancy Pelosi or the CEO of BP and realize that you've got to love 'em.

It doesn't feel as good, sure. It doesn't fill you with righteous glazed-eye partisan fire. But that's not why Jesus lived and taught and died and rose.

Alinsky and Communism

That Alinsky chose to start his "Rules for Radicals" hailing Lucifer like he was the opening act for Black Sabbath hasn't endeared him to reactionary Christians everywhere.

Evidence of how freaked certain quarters of the Jesus world are by Mr. Alinsky can be found by engaging in a quick visit the website of the Rev. Jack Van Impe. Yes, that Jack Van Impe. In the event you've not experienced the Jackster, he's the late-night teevee pastor whose been pitching out imminent apocalypse predictions since I was in high school. On his show, he and his awesomely be-haired wife Rexella go over the new items of the day, all of which are a Certain Sign that Things Are Coming To An End.

JVI Ministries is pitching out a little bit of end-times hysteria that prominently features the influence of Alinsky. They are also the media shop responsible for all of the Left Behind movies, which rank as some of the most impossibly mediocre cinema ever to blight the reputation of Christianity.

Interestingly, though, the issue with Alinsky isn't that he lionizes the Prince of the Air. Like most other conservatives, The Rev. Dr. Van Impe is still a tiny bit fixated on the creeping Red Menace. This fear seems unaffected by the complete collapse of communism as a global movement, but hey, fear is irrational. His website is pitching out the idea that Alinsky was a commie, and that by extension, so is the current administration. Which means the end times are at hand. Or something like that.

That's pretty much the same line you'll hear about Alinsky from Glenn Beck. And from Rush Limbaugh. Alinsky is an "America-hating radical." He's a Red! He's a Socialist! That means Obama must be as well! Take to the hills! Wooolveriiiines!

Problem is, the Alinsky you encounter in "Rules for Radicals" is really nothing of the sort. He says as much. Communism isn't revolutionary enough for him. If anything, he finds more inspiration in the revolutionary fervor of the American founding fathers. Being an astute observer of the real, he more often than not describes communism as stultifying and oppressive in both rhetoric and practice. He chides those who support or apologize for global communism, noting that the ability to speak freely about change in the system can be done freely in America, while in the communist countries of his time, such talk means there's a knock on the door at 3 AM, and you suddenly and permanently disappear.

He ain't a commie. A progressive? Sure. A leftist? Sort of, but more Trotsky than Stalin.

Community Organizing, Jesus, and Saul Alinsky

Way back yonder in the election of Aught Eight, there was a wee bit of a kerfuffle about community organizing. You know, back when Miz Sarah got all high and mighty about small town mayorin' bein' real work, and community organizin' being somthin' only them lib'rals do when they cain't find work for the summer and Mumsy isn't opening up the house in the Berkshires until August.

Folks got all riled 'bout that, and so many Priuses and Volvos started sportin' bumper stickers that said: "Jesus Was A Community Organizer."

I saw one of those bumper stickers the other day on the back of a shiny Audi SUV in the well-off, liberal area in which my church is sited. It reminded me that over and over again, I've told myself that I needed to read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Alinsky, in case you don't know him, is the Grandaddy of community organizing. His work to empower and radicalize communities in Chicago has a surprisingly deep impact on the American political system. Hillary Clinton wrote her doctoral thesis on him. Barack Obama cut his political teeth in the crucible of Alinskian organizing. That's made Alinsky a particularly potent boogeyman of the reactionary right.

He's a...commie! A...socialist! Aieeeee!

I figured it was about time to get down to some summer reading, and Alinsky was next in the rotation. So tonight, I'm curling up on the couch with Saul.

I'm wondering, in particular, just how well the thesis underlying that bumper sticker will hold up.