Words mean something. Force your opponent to use your words, you take the debate in your hands and win even with bad ideas and evidence of the failures of those ideas. It’s about perceptions and rhetorical manipulation.
Consider how the US Government has funded agit prop for the left while conservatives play defense, not very well. We are now in the 82nd year of leftist domination of the society, with few pauses in their success. It’s a remarkable thing to consider starting with the rousing political successes of and adulation for FDR, who was convinced that socialism was the right formula for national success.
Saul D. Alinsky, communist community agitator in Chicago, mentor in person to Hillary Clinton and by his teachings and influence to Obama, very successful agitator coached the following for his students of community agitation–attack ridicule, target, intimidate, break the rules, but hold the opponent to his rules, mostly do whatever you have to do to destroy the opponent and win the debate, tear down the things you oppose.
Here are the Alinsky rules from page 125 of his book. Understand this–the left is full of hate and anger and wants, most of all, to destroy traditional institutions and society.
When writing about street drama and actions, Alinsky describes, on page 125 of Rules for Radicals(1971 Vintage Books) tactics to beat the man—the institutions and the people who represent the hated establishment and culture. He speaks of the societal institutions and establishment persons as the enemy.
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. (cause confusion, fear, retreat)
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the time and space for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying that the thing itself.
10. The Major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard enough it will break through into its counter side. ( I don’t understand this one very well.)
12. The price of the successful attack is a constructive alternative. (don’t get trapped by an admission or an offer of agreement, stay on the attack.)
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. (attack persons and freeze them so they can’t blame someone else or make an effective excuse. Allow no middle ground, black and white, evil and good.)
Tell me how many conservatives that you know who can make war like this, and if they do accomplish some successes in the wars or battles, like Allen West, guess what happens, they are sabotaged by phony establishment people who call themselves conservative.
Too many compromisers in the conservative ranks, too many political wimps.
When the Pentagon did the war game on South Viet Nam they advised the Kennedy/Johnson White House that the commies would sacrifice anything to win and fight to the last man. Major HR McMaster now General, told the story in Dereliction of Duty (1997 Harper Collins).
Incrementalism, half solutions, half measures are the tools of lawyers and political science academics and don’t work in war.
Limited non dominant violence actually feeds the fanatic, and does not succeed. Insurgencies win by just surviving and persisting until they break through and kill the establishment’s confidence and commitment.
It’s the problem with fanatics of all stripes, commies, lefties, enviros, islamists. War is not well suited for lawyers and academics, or well-mannered businessmen.
Compromise and the middle ground kick the can down the road and allow the fanatic to rearm and develop new plans and strategies.
Victory cannot be achieved unless one breaks and extinguishes the enemy’s ability and will to fight, Carl Von Clausewitz On War.
Von Clausewitz’ reality is simple, but hard to learn and stay with because it exacts a price and requires serious and sustained effort a price and a risk. Risk averse people rush to the treaty or cease fire or inadequate truce and sue for peace but they give their children the problem, they give the future an unresolved conflict.
This societal war may not appear to be a war, to the foolish. Is there really any doubt about the goals of the left in America and how they would use environmental issues to advance and destroy capitalism, free markets and liberty in favor of a statist tyranny?