Saul Alinsky, a community activist and political theorist, won national recognition and notoriety helping poor communities organize against landlords, politicians, bankers, land owners and business leaders. He believed I confrontation and compromise were keys to the struggle for social justice. But he stated his approaches were not always “unequivocal successes”.
Though a half century old, his methods were adopted by the political right (ie the Tea Party Movement) as well as the political left (ie the Occupy Movement). He created a 12 “rule” approach to activism.
REFLECT:
Think of a social movement as you read the 12 rules.
Assess the activists’ effectiveness in alignment with them.
Note: I have analyzed them from the “other side” – the “protestee” side.
In one of my state-wide leadership positions, a “fringe” activist group went after me / my division. Here are Alinsky’s 12 rules, with an analysis of my protesters’ proces, which led to their abject failure to accomplish any of their objectives.
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. People without money must build power from “flesh and blood”
**In my situation, they launched a people-intensive campaign with letters to the editor, radio interviews, etc. However, this opened the door to my being interviewed, and my position power got me higher level coverage. I had the “5 Powers” – both organizational and personal.
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
Expertise / knowledge creates feelings of security: lack of it results in confusion, fear and retreat.
**They were more emotional than factual, and “lost” the first rounds. Then they began acquiring knowledge, but it did not support their objectives. Actually, the facts were counter to their objectives.
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the opponent.”
Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
** They were unable to go outside my expertise, and what they were demanding I do was against federal law. I suggested they turn their attention to the legislative process – which didn’t happen.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake.
** They buried us with FIA requests (Freedom of Information Act). I had to hire one full time employee to respond within the mandated timeline — but we did it!
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
* They tried ridicule and character assassination, but reasoned, respectful responses through the media counteracted this approach. It backfired on them, and they appeared irrational and unreasonable.
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (We all avoid “un-fun” activities).
* I don’t know how much they enjoyed what they were doing – though they were adrenaline fueled and did get some attention.
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
Don’t become old news.
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance with something new all the time.
** After a few key issues were addressed, there was nothing new to address. Note: if they had been smart, they would have switched to people stories – featuring citizens “abused” by the system. We had a case load of 33,000 – so there were most likely “stories” about mistakes in there!
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. The organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions
**As a positive thought leader, this never affected me / my staff.
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
The public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* We remained objective and respectful, despite the “craziness”!
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
** They were fighting against federal laws and state procedures: there was no solution possible at my level.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy
** There was no way to do this, and with the media support we received (including an NPR special), we had all the sympathy!
APPLY:
Create a strategy for counter-balancing the 12 rules.
Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer, Saul Alinsky.
