I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Damn! Now I have to figure out how Atrios makes his most current post pop up on top! 
I like these rules. I've really never played by rules for success (or whatever you want to call it), because it's been my philosophy to find my own way. I'm one of those people who needs to learn from hands on experience.
But after the election, these rules make sense.
You're doing a great job, Hecate!
Repost in blogger and change the time on the post to be later than the Nuke post. It should move up.
Thanks, TK, I'll try it. You have no idea how terrified I am of somehow blowing the whole thing up!
Why do they sound like Rove's playbook? (which is an observation, not a critique).
That's okay. We love you anyway!
It would seem to me that we utterly failed to take advantage of Rules 3, 4 and 5.
Rove is particularly good at Rules 8 and 11. We could learn a lot from that.
And, well, Rule Ten applies to the Iraq conundrum nicely--did Kerry ever articulate a coherent alternative to the Bush disaster, other than "bring in our allies"?
I was, in my youth, a community organizer. We used a somewhat different model than Alinsky, but the same neighborhood based, grassroots, direct action basic concept.
Alas, it wasn't all that effective. That type of community organizing often wins local battles, but it's very hard to knit the locals together into an effective broader movement. Racism was probably the biggest problem where I worked, in Philadelphia, as it is in most places. The insularity of the poor white neighborhoods, such as Fishtown where I worked, goes beyond even racism and is an additional problem (they didn't like outside agitators). But the rise of these culturo-religio-moral issues in politics (not salient back then) makes it even more difficult.
Building an effective progressive movement in our tribal, insular, and apparently increasingly primitive society is a real challenge. I believe we need to work on the fundamentals, to combat those divisions in people's hearts and minds, not just think about how to package a candidate or exactly how thinly to slice the electorate, or how to cut our positions to fit what we think they want. We're advocates, not marketers. Alinsky's ideas are tactical, once you have the people organized on behalf of one cause or another. But Alinsky never figured out how to build a real movement. I think he took it for granted, unfortunately, and it ain't that easy.
Rule 11: Pick your target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Don't attack an abstract such as a corporation. Identify a responsible individual and ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
You mean this one, Mr. Jeffers? Sounds like the Swift Boat Smear...
Identify a responsible individual and ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
Consider it done.
Bush is the target. If we want to discredit a bad policy proposal, tie it to Bush and discredit Bush.
Wanna really personalize it? Move away from referring to the opposition as "conservatives" or "the religious Right" or even as "Republicans." The problem is Bushism, and the problematic people are the Bushists. (That leaves room for principled conservatives, social-justice-aware religious folk, and moderate Republicans to know that you're not making fun of them -- you're making fun of the Bushist extremists.)
With any luck, even after Bush is gone, the Wolfowitz-Feith axis from the Pentagon and the Grover Norquist starve-the-beast crowd can all be stuck with the Bushist label. Progressives could run on "guarding against the return of creeping Bushism for decades.
Thanks, TK!
I believe 'ol turdblossom learned these things when when they worked so well against his boss Nixon.
Never the less, they're still good tactics.
mikey likes it.
e pluribus unum
Alinsky's ideas are tactical, once you have the people organized on behalf of one cause or another. But Alinsky never figured out how to build a real movement.
Tactical success is born from sound strategy.
Actually, Rove -- or at least, the current Republican machine, we shouldn't overpersonalized movements -- tends to use all of these effectively, not just Rule 11. Rule 1, Rule 5, and Rule 8 and Rule 9 are particularly notable.
Rule 10 is actually their only weak point, and they tend to cover that up by an expanded Rule 1 (replace "numbers" with "plans", for instance).
"Thanks, TK, I'll try it. You have no idea how terrified I am of somehow blowing the whole thing up!"
That's okay, Hecate, if you do we can put it back together. The rule tho is - if you do something that turns out to be wrong, take your hands from the keyboard and call for help.
Unlike the Shrubbery and its ilk, you know enough not to compound an error, eh?
And Saul Alinsky always did rock. My kind of lefty -
Alinsky sounds like Rove because the Right learned its tactics from the Left. Do you really think they are smart enough to come up with anything that works on their own?
sounds like al queda....
But where's the Fear Factor???
Most successful tactic used by the Right...
thanks for this post, just what I needed.
aimai
Rule 12: when all else fails, aim for your bat for the kneecap.
I would summarize a lot of what people have said as yeah, these are good rules, but not just for radicals.
The point is, we need to think as hard about getting the truth out, persuading people, and bringing about cultural and social change, as we do about immediate political battles. Alinsky's rules are about mobilizing and wielding sentiments that already exist. Let's not forget, the Reality Based Community is in the minority right now. Even the best tactics won't prevail unless we can win people over.
Gobbledygook, and nowhere near the level of the Prince.
"When possible, do go outside the experience of an opponent"
What the hell does that mean? What was the author smoking when he laid down this stuff?
It's too easy to ridicule this stuff.
Wanna really personalize it? Move away from referring to the opposition as "conservatives" or "the religious Right" or even as "Republicans." The problem is Bushism, and the problematic people are the Bushists...
I see the merits to your idea, as I firmly believe Bushism is a cult:
From freerepublic.con [not a misspell]
I will pray mightily for our troops who are the best in the world.I hope God protects them and gives them the strength to crush the terrorist all over the world.The Kerry supporters over at the dailykos are showing their patriotism by calling our troops thugs and the Sunni terrorist freedom fighters.This group of liberal shit should be taken out back and shot.The rage I feel when reading their words makes me see red,blood red.
One thing to think about with the Bushist/Bushism tactic: I don't want the modern GOP to survive Bush. This party's weakness facilitated its neoconservative infestation, and I want to see it politically marginalized along with the Bush administration and its cult-like apologists.
Rules to live by. Rule we will need to survive.
I especially like the "Ridicule is your most potent weapon" rule. There is soooo much to ridicule with this administration. They are so stiff and uncomfortable around people questioning them and their actions. We need to flush them out and expose their agenda and their lack of planning to the light of day.
Adlai Stevenson had some nice quotes too
And he knew about the frustration of losing but not giving up the fight.
Unfortunately, Democrats continue to fall down on number 10. The Republican program, as awful as it is, is aggressive and puts forward real proposals (albeit horrendous) for change.
The Democrats need a coherent worldview, a positive program for reform, and concise, disciplined messaging. Without that, the other 10 rules above ultimately won't matter.
For more, see:
a href="http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/
000038.htm">"The Donkey Gets Its Ass Kicked: Five Lessons for Democrats"
"Less Than the Sum of Our Parts"
But where's the Fear Factor???
In Rule 1 and Rule 9.
I'm already going with Rule No. 5.
Stupid evangelical Christian jokes! Make 'em all the rage. They are easy to do: Just take an old "dumb Polack" or "dumb blonde" joke and rework it to be an "evangelical Christian" joke.
To wit:
The evangelical Christian saw a sign that said "Wet Floor," so he did.
hahahahahaha! See? That's some funny shit.
I'm a big fan of Machiavelli, Sun Tze, and Alinsky but... Democrats need to stop thinking about tactics and reacting to Republicans and start with Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion and retreat.
Democrats have to figure out what their experience(vision) is. Without rule #2, all the other rules are moot and they'll continue to lose.
That's damn good. Gotta look for that online. All true.
Our biggest hurdle, now, seems to be getting people together, in the flesh, to make plans and execute tactics.
We can do it online well enough, but we need some real-world action.
Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them.
--- William Jennings Bryan, 1896
What the hell does that mean?
It means "take advantage of your opponent's blindspots"
And "don't go outside of your people's experience" means, "don't adopt an approach that your base isn't well equipped to follow.
The main shortfall of the list is that the key for the current American left is how to build a coherent group of "your people" to start with.
Bush is the target. If we want to discredit a bad policy proposal, tie it to Bush and discredit Bush.
I guess that makes sense if you are trying to defeat Bush in the next election, but Bush won't be running. And by the time Bush is done, whoever does run is going to have to go another way.
Kerry failed miserably at Rule 4.
Our biggest hurdle, now, seems to be getting people together, in the flesh, to make plans and execute tactics.
Actually, the planning part is probably okay, the shortfall is getting the larger number of people that are needed to effectively execute. We're okay at mobilizing crowds near elections, but not so much at 365 days a year, every year, to shape perceptions.
Speaking of using ridicule--Why wasn't the loyalty-oath angle a bigger issue in the campaign?
One of the things I found most personally despicable about Chimpy was his complete inability to be anywhere close to anyone who could, conceivably, call him on his bullshit. It seemed unmanly and cowardly.
Well, it's not too late to bring it up.
Terrific post! Thanks, H.
Terrific post! Thanks, H.
I've heard a lot of crap about the lack of clearly articulated democratic values. Personally, I like the old trio: Truth, Liberty, Justice. Pretty simply, but I think it works.
Also, I believe that we were not nearly negative enough. Only Michael Moore came close enough to hitting hard. Kerry should have called Bush a liar to his face, because that's what he is - a liar. If we're so wound up about winning over opponents that we can't even call a spade a spade, then what's the point of saying anything at all?
Well, shoot, I was going to turn the computer off because I have some things to do, but I came back for a second to find you have posted this, Hecate - and am I ever glad you did.
This is just exactly what I've been thinking for the last 2 days. This is how they did it. This is how we do it back.
My target is hate speech - Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Weiner and all the rest. Clear out that nest and we are almost home free.
So, by Rule 11, we should have said (often) not "Halliburton", but "Dick Cheney's Halliburton". That shold be the new name of the corporation. Never say "Halliburton". Always say "Dick Cheney's Halliburton".
Yeah, I like that.
I remember reading Rules for Radicals in High School. Facinating stuff. Probably some updates could/should be done, but I'm not wise enough to do them.
I agree with the TJ that we need to do more with rules 3,4, and 5. Especially 4 and 5. Bush has been able to turn 5 on its side a bit because attacks on his intelligence are taken as mean. We need to ridicule his need to one up his father. We need to ridicule his arrogance and elitism (which is what they did to Kerry so successfully).
The Democratic party is sorely lacking in the ability to use rules 1, 8 and 9. We need to figure out some ways of utilizing these tactics.
We do a great job generally on 10, and the Republicans consistantly get away with not doing it, we need to be able to attack them better when the fail at this.
Democrats also fail to do a good job on number 11. We attack Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfield, Hastert, Frist, etc. Republicans did a much better job at this with Clinton.
great minds think alike, Alinsky was on my reading list for our time-
http://gotv.blogspot.com/2004/11...r-our-
time.html
Oh sure. This will help you a lot.
Somebody ridiculed the line "When possible, go outside the experience of your opponent."
He's obviously a Freeper or a Little Green Fascist, because he's too shallow to understand the profound significance of that line.
rougy's point well taken. How about taking over your local Democratic operation? Or start an alternative one? Throw a barbecue/dance/picnic, see who shows up and go from there. Admittedly, this strategy only works if you are a)social and b) live where there are enough people to make a difference--minimum of 6.
rougy's point well taken. How about taking over your local Democratic operation? Or start an alternative one? Throw a barbecue/dance/picnic, see who shows up and go from there. Admittedly, this strategy only works if you are a)social and b) live where there are enough people to make a difference--minimum of 6.
hecate - on a personal note:
the first time I subbed for Atrios I was literally terrified. It is alright - you will not mess it up irretrievably.
Remember all my double and triple posts? It's ok. YOu can fix it.
Believe me, it won't blow up on you.
Thanks for the rules. I could sure use them and that's in everyday life. I sure like to point out stupidity wherever I see it.
I was reading some astrology site and it says that the USA's progressed sun is moving into Pisces, and most probably this happened on election day. This means that for the last 30 years, the USA has been in "humanitarian, idealistic" mode and now moves into a more fantasy-like, illusion-filled and religious period.
If this is the case, we will all need this rules for the long haul.
Didn't mean to depress anyone, but perhaps this can provide an explanation to those who cannot explain what is happening to your country.
PS. I'm reminded of the earlier posts on "balanced" jouranlism, where crazy right-wing lies are given equal weight as reasoned democratic responses. What we need to do is tell the truth with equal fervor as they tell lies.
Thanks, Tena. I'm such a luddite on computers and don't want to mess anything up. 
We fell down on rule 10. Everyone knows Bush is incompetant. We didn't have an alternative strategy. We had plans but we didn't have a unified strategy with unified values and themes. I was convinced at the time that Bush had done better in the debates than he was credited for. Sure he sounded like an idiot, he is an idiot. But for his answers, he stated a conservative theme and riffed on it. Kerry just aswered the questions like an intelligent person - what we need to learn to do is say, "Progressives believe in fairness for all Americans, this tax plan is not fair," or something to that effect. State principle, then plan. Our goal should be, our supporter and opponents should be able to state what we stand for concisely.
The problem is Bushism, and the problematic people are the Bushists.
some of us prefer the Busheviki
Thanks Hecate.
"Ridicule is your most potent weapon"
Absolutley and we are much funnier. The wingnuts are still cracking infantile Johnny Fuckfester type jokes.
We have irony, they don't.
Mock the hell out of 'em
The Democrats need a coherent worldview, a positive program for reform, and concise, disciplined messaging. Without that, the other 10 rules above ultimately won't matter.
I think the problem is not so much that Democrats lack a coherent worldview; the issue is that as we saw in the last month of the presidential campaign, the Democrats do not have the media resources to disseminate this message. Kerry promoted strong national security via shoring potential terrorist targets, strengthening the economy via an innovative plan to increase access to student loans, repealing tax cuts, and reforming health care. On the other hand, I never got a clear and coherent picture of how Bush reconciled maintaining Social Security entitlements with private accounts for part of the laborforce, reforming health care via tort reform?!!, or any other "disciplined message." Bush by far ran the weaker campaign, punctuated by glaring and public lies ("I never said I wasn't thinking about bin Laden," "We have captured 3/4 of Al Quaeda's leaders," "I inherited a recession," "the economy is stronger because of my tax cuts"), horrific public appearances (looking and acting drunk at a fucking presidential debate, for God's sake), and daily news of his failed leadership. The problem is not the Democratic message. The problem our lack of resources to more effectively disseminate this message.
Hecate,
one of Rove's great tactics is not mentioned here:
make your opponent's strength his weakness...
hence Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and the hit on McCain as being against Vietnam Vets.
It doesn't matter how absurd the allegation, all that matters is getting morons to stick with it and shout loudly
john ashcroft gone . . . yeah! gonzalez is in . . . wtf!?!?!?
I remember reading Rules for Radicals in High School. Facinating stuff. Probably some updates could/should be done, but I'm not wise enough to do them.
I agree with the TJ that we need to do more with rules 3,4, and 5. Especially 4 and 5. Bush has been able to turn 5 on its side a bit because attacks on his intelligence are taken as mean. We need to ridicule his need to one up his father. We need to ridicule his arrogance and elitism (which is what they did to Kerry so successfully).
The Democratic party is sorely lacking in the ability to use rules 1, 8 and 9. We need to figure out some ways of utilizing these tactics.
We do a great job generally on 10, and the Republicans consistantly get away with not doing it, we need to be able to attack them better when the fail at this.
Democrats also fail to do a good job on number 11. We attack Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfield, Hastert, Frist, etc. Republicans did a much better job at this with Clinton.
As I recall, the democrats wahed their sensitive little paws of Alinsky and his ilk about the same time Robert Strauss began steering them away from workers, the class war paradigm and toward international business.
Too bad.
Why is it that the democrats never fail to cede their best weapons/tactics to the opposition?
--mort
Dr. Bonzo, I'm right with you, but I don't think we should use "Bushists." I prefer the term Bush Davidian™.
Also, the Sinclair "Stolen Honor" episode is a perfect example of Rule #8.
Rule 11: Passive attacks gain passive results.
Rule 13: make sure your team members are really on your team, especially if they are about to be named Senate Minority Leader!
Heads up: the Dem Senators have still not voted on their minority leader..it happens on Tuesday. Please get on the phone right now with your democratic senator if you have one and urge them to vote for Dick Durban, not ANTI-CHOICE, Harry Reid from Red state Nevada! Yesterday the staff in Reid's office would not tell me if he supports overturning Roe v. Wade! How the hell can the democrats fight if they select a leader who doesn't even believe in our democratic platform in its entirety! That's like putting an older player on the field who has a knee injury and can't even run just because he has seniority and is a "nice guy".
Please make the calls folks or we have already lost 2006 and 2008.
Hecate - You can't possibly be more of a luddite than I am and I promise I know just how you feel right now.
I survived and the next time I subbed, I was much calmer.
You're doing absolutely wonderfully.
Ooops... I meant Rule #9
my bad
I think the problem is not so much that Democrats lack a coherent worldview; the issue is that as we saw in the last month of the presidential campaign, the Democrats do not have the media resources to disseminate this message.
The lack of media resources is in no small part a result of the fact that the Republicans have a much more effective 24/7/365 grassroots pressure organization to push the media.
Doh, sorry about the double post, I guess I shouldn't hit refresh after posting.
Alas, I have no democratic senators. I am not being represented at all at the moment.
that's ok - I can still harass the rest of them.
Rule 11 has interesting implications for anti-globalization, anti-World Bank, anti-IMF kinds of activism. Not obvious how to personalize them, but I agree they'd be a lot more potent if we did.
An evangelical Christian checks a book out of the library.
A few days later, he returns and complains to the librarian, "This book was really boring. It had too many characters and too many numbers, and I couldn't follow the plot at all."
The librarian says, "You know, we were wondering who took our phone book."
hahahahahaha!
The Rethugs went far towards disarming us on Rule 5 with "Enron Eddie" Gillespie et al. pushing the "irrational Bush hatred" meme and with all the trashing of Fahrenheit 9/11 by people who had never seen it for people who had not seen it yet.
I love ridicule. I love mockery. Let's just not have it descend into hate speech, because that is my target. I've had it with this shit and it is one of the roots of the problem.
We really need to learn how to fark with language like the rethugs do.
I reccomend watching the new frontline if you are new to methods of mass manipulation. You need to know what we are up against.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...ows/persuaders/
Douglas Atkin, a partner at advertising agency Merkley + Partners, goes even further, comparing the brand loyalty that companies are trying to create to the passionate zeal once enjoyed only by cultists and religious fanatics.
But some companies are taking the practice several steps further, commissioning their own fMRI studies ŕ la Montague's test. In a study of men's reactions to cars, Daimler-Chrysler has found that sportier models activate the brain's reward centers -- the same areas that light up in response to alcohol and drugs -- as well as activating the area in the brain that recognizes faces, which may explain people's tendency to anthropomorphize their cars. Steven Quartz, a scientist at Stanford University, is currently conducting similar research on movie trailers. And in the age of poll-taking and smear campaigns, political advertising is also getting in on the game. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles have found that Republicans and Democrats react differently to campaign ads showing images of the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. Those ads cause the part of the brain associated with fear to light up more vividly in Democrats than in Republicans.
As McLuhansad world war 3 will be an information war.
We are in WW3 right now.
PS: Good job, Hecate.
Hecate, this is seriously good stuff. It's the kind of "ideas" post I would like to see more of. I'm not saying that this blog shouldn't have fun, but strategizing and figuring out ways to take back the country is it's own special kind of fun.
That Frontline was amazing and disturbing and disgusting. OUr entire culture is one big advertisement. The original American invention and it has gone way too far.
Every single aspect of our lives is subject to advertising now. Our movies are turning into ads with "product placement."
I sometimes wonder if advertising isn't really the anti-Christ.
if you think any of these ruleZ are better than straight up, gettin' on the pulpit, and sermonizing - you are mistaken
those rules work against tolerant people - not against simple thuggery.
I'd say a democrat who gets up there and sermonizes like a despotic teevee preacher praying that he is a sinner and to have god forgive him - do you really think that will not be a powerful sign?
these are the times we live - faith-brainwashed-stupidity
we are smart enough to realize we can play that game and play it probably better!
How about a national and global petition drive to open up war crime tribunals against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. Submit the petitions simultaneuosly to the United Nations and the Hague with coordinated mass rallies on the anniversary of the opening of hostilities in Iraq?
Could we get millions of American signatures? I think so. There are certainly millions of signatures globally to get. Implied in the petition would be an acknowledgement that the American political and justice system have failed.
The lack of media resources is in no small part a result of the fact that the Republicans have a much more effective 24/7/365 grassroots pressure organization to push the media.
cmdicely
And we got a little taste of how effective it could be with Sinclair. The problem was that we had no follow up strategy. I have no problem making phone calls and writing letters and e-mails. But it's better if its part of a results-oriented campaign.
Anyway it feels good and empowering to make the rethugs the butt (Andrew Sullivan) of jokes.
I love the DNC person who came up with the Hot Karl Rove T shirts(google it), sick and brilliant.
Regardign the terms we should use to mock 'em
We really need to study and plan carefully what words & phrases will have the most impact.
We need people who understand NLP on our side.
For further reading on this subject read anything by Mcluhan and Rushkoff for starters.
Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn is another great book to read.
reminds me of a little chess tutorial I really like, "Chess for Tigers" by Simon Webb. There's a chapter on how to play against people who are much stronger than you, and should be able to easily crush you.
1) If you have a plan (or chess opening) that you like to use, don't back away from it just because you're afraid he'll know it better.
2)Play actively. "Don't let him have it all his own way. Put him under pressure. Even if the summit of your ambition is to draw, you are much more likely to achieve this by gaining the advantage and then offering a draw"
3) Randomize. If the position is murky, and both sides are floundering around, you stand a better chance of getting lucky and getting a good position out of it than if everyting is clear cut.
4) (continues on the theme of creating chaos)
5) Be brave! Your opponent has everything to lose, since he should crush you. You've got nothing to lose, so go balls out.
Anyway it feels good and empowering to make the rethugs the butt (Andrew Sullivan) of jokes.
I love the DNC person who came up with the Hot Karl Rove T shirts(google it), sick and brilliant.
Regardign the terms we should use to mock 'em
We really need to study and plan carefully what words & phrases will have the most impact.
We need people who understand NLP on our side.
For further reading on this subject read anything by Mcluhan and Rushkoff for starters.
Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn is another great book to read.
I sometimes wonder if advertising isn't really the anti-Christ.
Tena | Email | Homepage | 11.10.04 - 2:52 pm | #
NO
it is not the message that is bad it is the receiver that sheepily bays in accordance and consumes mass quantities
As for uniting an "insular" country--wtf? The nation of island communities died a long time ago, and everybody needs to acknowledge that we are in a postindustrial phase of history. We cannot, even if we want to, return to the old days of isolated, smallholder democracy. I don't think this is what the poster was referring to, per se, but it's an important consideration for the Left, which continues to agree (unwittingly?) with the Right that the independent, noble workman is the ideal that this country must return to. Fuck that! We are, in fact, a united, late-market consumer (not producer) society, and our fight should be against the forces of rampant individualism and towards cooperative politcs.
What the red-staters don't know, what they have not been told by historians or anyone else (ahem, failure of the Left!)is that they are lagging behind the rest of the nation. The West and South, specifically, are mired in the last years of their own indutrial revolutions (ie, they have experienced firsthand the industrial economy for only about 50-80 years). They still believe all that Horatio Alger shit; they still think: 1. there is a possibility that anyone can be a "self made man" and 2. if industrialism fails, they can go back to being petit bourgeois. THIS must be addressed by us, their neighbors, friends, and educators. We must tell them that the man who owns the factory is not their friend; that they are part of a proletariat, not a bourgeoisie; that time can never reverse itself and that they are connected to the world through their mutual, if unconscious, opposition to exploitation and oppression.
Most important, we have to do a beter job of showing the value of history. If, in fact, we all know that there are crises coming down the pike (a fresh water crisis, and oil crisis, a financial crisis), then we have to offer a cogent proposal for avoiding those crises. BushCo has offered a plan that speaks to the supposedly inherent streak of "individualism" in this country: Grab all of the resources and to Hell with everybody else. On a very basic level, it makes sense. We are the most powerful nation (at the moment) and we see the oil crisis looming, so we use our power to gain control of all the oil. This ensures that the US continues to exist as long as possible, until every fucking drop of oil is gone. Fuck everybody else--I'm not going to be the one who tells Americans they can't have TV or SUVs anymore.
What's the alternative? To use history to show that the world has confronted similar (though perhaps not so large) catastrophes before, and the world has always met such situations in a cooperative fashion. The problem with acting unilaterally is that eventually you WILL need someone to bail you out. Sure, we can hold the oil fields today, but what about next year? Ten years from now? What happens when somebody tries to take them from us?
What happens when our nation, drained by war, goes bankrupt? W
surfdork - I think you are right - in a sense this really is a civil war, it's just that the only way we win is without guns. We win with smarts. We have them. And the humor. That brings people to us rather than driving them away. We need them. they need us. It will come together. I just know it. And it will come together soon enough, I really do believe that too.
Lisa - great joke - I'm going to try like hell to remember it so I can tell it.
Hecate, you're doing great!
(Don't worry about blowing it up, I worried the same thing, and if I didn't do it, it must be harder than it looks!)
And I don't think we personalized the problem enough. I'm reminded of one of my favorite movies, The American President, in which Andrew Shepard is talking about his opponent hacking on his girlfriend: "You take a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters, and you show them a picture of the president's girlfriend, and you tell them, 'she's to blame for your lot in life.' You go on television, and you call her a whore."
Bush made it all about hating John Kerry. John Kerry refused to make it all about hating George Bush, despite what everybody else was doing. It was the high road, and it leads to loss.
A.
Is anyone here at all bothered by the fact that we weren't able to make political capital out of Bush being a Yale cheerleader?
Fox uses Rule 5 more effectively than all, with Hannity, O'Reilly, and that smirking panel of idiots on Brit Hume's show. Their chuckling attitude of "no one could possibly believe what those silly liberals say" goes a long way with their audience (and, sadly, with the uninformed undecided).
Great book. Unfortunately, the anti-Equal Rights Amendment movement adopted it, and all the rules are now known and practiced by the wingers, even though they fail to acknowledge the origin.
I think there were originally 14 rules ... plus some descriptive text of each. It should be available somewhere on line.
One of the missing rules was something like: People do the right things for the wrong reasons. An example Alinsky gave was of having blacks have protests outside the suburban house of a Chicago slumlord. These so enraged the neighbors that he caved. The kicker, though, was that their rage was due to having all those n*****s in their neighborhood, NOT that their neighbor was a slum lord.
This really applies to all those poor folks voting for Bush. They aren't voting for the neocon war-and-wealth machine, they are voing Republican for the "wrong" reason -- religion.
Maybe Dems need to stop trying to get conservative voters to support Democrats for all the right reasons -- equality, economic fairness, environmental conservation, etc. -- but instead for reasons that are important to them.
What can we possibly say that will keep other nations from calling our loans? Once they cut ties to the dollar, they don't need us anymore. I think we'll be wanting some friends, right about then.
That is the use and purpose of history. We owe it to the red states to pass it along. Not because they are stupid and we are smart, but because they are us. The political crisis in this country is actually a crisis of knowledge. The truth is that a small group of bastards is relying on ignorance and indifference to keep them in power. If ordinary, sane, good people voted for Bush, it is at least in part because we let them. It's time to roll up the sleeves and get to work, because we care. Because our souls and theirs demand that we fight harder and make good citizens out of them. The Right believes its on a mission from God. Our belief should be as strong. We are on a mission from God as well, but our God is the People. And our God actually exists.
josh - I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But it isn't really a question now of these broad cultural and economic terms - it is a question of nuts and bolts, and that is what these rules are about.
At least, IMO.
Rule 6 is where we often fail. Because we do not "enjoy" stooping to the level our opponents do, we often pass by good tactics. If Kerry had had the heart to ask "how many times have you been arrested?" he still would have been crucified by the Dem establishment. The righties have no such compunctions.
The right had no problem casting aspersions on Kerry's eucharistic-worthiness. Where was our attack on Bush's supposed Methodism and his dismal church attendance?
Excuse me, the message of advertising is now exquisitely structured so that the "sheeple" have very little resistance to it and it is saturating our culture.
Sorry, but I do see a problem with cheapening our lives by turning us into nothing more than consumers.
Follow on to my post above: the key behind the "people do the right things for the wrong reasons" is that Alinsky noticed that too often leftie groups were more interested in forcing opponents to see their point of view than to actually accomplishing their objectives.
This clearly does not bother the Republican leaders. The fact that the majority of their stable of voters supports a minimum wage, for example, is of no concern to them as long as they vote Republican.
Tena
agreed. but, we need threads with larger socio-economic implications. In my opinion.
Sorry about the double post.
The advert issue is also a potential wedge issue for the fundies.
The fundies end up supporting the corporate state.
The corporate state pushes market valus that conflict with fundie xtian values.
So harness this conflict for good.
Like banning all adverts targeted to children.
Heck even a fundie could go for that.
Fundies battling corporate interests, I like that idea.
Yes Tena the show was disturbing and it's only the tip of the iceberg.
The flood of adverts is a sign of our devolution.
Instead of appealing to the frontal lobes the trend is to appeal to the reptillian brain where conscious thought does not occur.
Maybe Dems need to stop trying to get conservative voters to support Democrats for all the right reasons -- equality, economic fairness, environmental conservation, etc. -- but instead for reasons that are important to them.
The problem is that one of the things that is most important to them is destroying the evil godless socialist Democrats.
Hecate, thanks for doing a terrific job keeping this going today. I love this post. Let me know what you think of this. I saw Frontline last night - "The Persuaders" - anyone else? It drove home a point that bothered me during the whole election and continues to really stick in my craw, which is that we have allowed the language of the lunatics to frame the issues. The day a Democrat said "War on Terror" I got an inkling that all would be lost. Frontline had this Frank Luntz guy on, who consults with Republicans to help them lull everybody to sleep, for example, by replacing "global warming" with "climate change". You know what I'm talking about. "Healthy Forests Initiative". It makes me sick to my stomach.
I don't think this is specifically in Alinsky's rules, but I sure think it's a mistake to let either the right or the media get away with glossing over things with doublespeak disguised as "plain talk". Has anyone seen the pipa.org survey? A co-worker of mine told me about it this morning, and it's really sort of astonishing.
And we got a little taste of how effective it could be with Sinclair. The problem was that we had no follow up strategy.
The problem is that the Sinclair reaction was about a particular thing. What we need is to get people "trained" so that there doesn't need to be a centralized strategy driving responses, but so that just hearing about something like what Sinclair planned will get large numbers of individuals to seek out their advertisers and push back immediately, on their own.
Rule 12: If you cannot assure the integrity of the voting process, you will never win.
"Power is both what you have and what your opponent thinks that you have. If you have few members, hide your numbers and make a lot of noise."
Start here. They have 100% effective control of the electronic media and virtual control of the rest yet in this election they were able to get only about 50% of the vote. Without terrorizing the people they'd have gotten much less. Yet everyone, us included, is talking about their victory as if they didn't have half of the people against them. And I'll bet our half is a lot more fixed than theirs. Theirs has one serious fracture in it, Mammon vs. Thumpon. The thumpers won't take half the loaf and be happy about it. They've got God on their side, oh, and they've got that guy who created the universe too.
We can crack them.
Is this the one where all the poor people ate a bean supper then went to the posh banker's event? I love that story.
Seems clear enough that we need to find our own Brother Rove.
Scalpel, Dr. Frankenstein??
.
I like the "Bushist" idea, especially because it sounds so much like "Bushit".
Agree about the great job, Hecate. It's like magic.
Sorry, but I do see a problem with cheapening our lives by turning us into nothing more than consumers.
Tena
I agree. Why I would like to see the GOP marginalized is because they play "lowest common denominator" politics and the leadership has such a dearth of morality, we can't even put election stealing past them. We need to resist adopting such cynicism and anti-democratic values. Rather, if we launch a concentrated campaign to reform the media, all but the most vigorous Bushists would be reformed as well.
We wackfundies are now in command.
Do not fuck with the Holy Cowhand.
We don't need to defend
Our intention to send
More crusaders to die in the sand.
How about finishing Sinclair off? That would get some attention. Barring that, making it really expensive to keep it afloat.
Hey, let's go easy on the "evangelical Christian" jokes. Bushists aren't (as Biblio suggests) Christian at all -- they're Manichean Gnostic heretics, with a side-order of morbid greed.
Follow on to my post above: the key behind the "people do the right things for the wrong reasons" is that Alinsky noticed that too often leftie groups were more interested in forcing opponents to see their point of view than to actually accomplishing their objectives.
Which I think is wrong in the modern context. We need to get people to see our point of view. But not by trying to sell it through mass, impersonal, media.
Oddly, though, its also right, in a way. We need to get people to see things our way, but not by intellectually convincing them (we do that, already, as well as can be expected). We need to convert their worldview through, in addition to intellectual persuasion, building a strong social group identity that that worldview attaches to, and then getting them bought into that social group identity. In a sense, that's a "doing the right things for the wrong reasons" approach, too, but on a deeper level.
Hecate, please post a vote fraud thread. Unlike those who are having their nap, we in Los Angeles are involved in a massive protest cycle, as I'm sure atriosans are elsewhere.
Our new 'Vote Fraud' banners, 6' x 3', are a big hit, and combined with shouting about Ohio people in our part of the Blue Zone are fired up about the stolen election. The thugs are few, all with W stickers on their cars, and nothing but threats and their thumbs in their mouths.
They SO know they stole the election. What a bunch of traitors.
--
Is anyone here at all bothered by the fact that we weren't able to make political capital out of Bush being a Yale cheerleader?
Rhyleh
This is something that I hate to agree with, but yeah. Remember one of the themes of the '92 election was that GHWB was a wimp? Of course he wasn't, he was a war hero for cryin' out loud. But nevertheless that was an effective theme. Some headway was made with the AWOL status of W. But we should have very loudly called him a coward. It would have had the advantage of being true. Frozen in fear when the planes hit the tower. Afraid of "hard" questions, opposing viewpoints, or anything that could undermine his world view. Our side is too nice. We should have done everything we could to paint Bush as the craven coward he is.
josh - it is that small group of bastards who have mislead the people who are our most urgent business. I want them stopped.
I am going to keep writing to the paper about Rush and the rest and how hateful they are. I am going to try to get it out there as much as possible. There are other ways, I just don't know what they are yet, but it is possible to stop this.
Thersites - the Dallas paper has a new columnist who is making me think I'm cancelling my subscription. He is a hate speecher and he wrote a column today that accuses Democrats of being "godless." I want that stopped. It is ridiculous.
We are not monolithic and the sooner we can get that across, the better. Rush and his ilk have made us look like one solid bunch of anti-God, anti-goodness zealots. it isn't true.
cmdicely - Image - thank you. I believe that you are correct. We have been painted in terms that should make most people wonder why we don't all have 3 heads and a thousand eyes.
Time to turn that around, right now.
"Instead of appealing to the frontal lobes the trend is to appeal to the reptillian brain where conscious thought does not occur.--surfdork"
Off topic, but this 'reptilian brain' bullshit is, er, bullshit. Why 'reptilian'? To emphasize our great relationship with geckos or dinosaurs?
The root structures of the brain developed IN FISH, not in reptiles. But it is an absolute canard to suggest that these portions of the brain are 'from' reptiles OR fish. The entire human brain in more complex than that of other species, including 'lower' areas.
Brain development in humans is most noticeable in the lobes, but the lower areas are all redesigned as well.
Reductive brain modeling (and references to animals) went out with social Darwinism, just as the theoretical basis of racism collapsed with the study of DNA.
--
Right on Tena, yes this is a civil war AND WW3.
Information war as per McLuhan.
If it goes to the guns level, all is lost.
That is why I've dropped all of my gun rhetoric for now to focus on the theft of this election.
So what is a good term for the election theft, a term that resonates, words that trigger response in the back brain?
We need something along the line of "death tax" or "tax relief".
We need to use the tools of "preception managment" (read Toxic Sludge is good for you)etc.
They have been using this stuff for years, it works.
We need to use it as well.
The best thing is that we have truth on our side, they don't.
Did you leave a couple out?
Rule#12?: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
Rule#13?:The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
surfdork - yes, we do have the truth on our side and at least half the people in this country already believe that. We are not starting out at zero - we don't have that much farther to go.
Ok - I really do have to go because I have a meeting.
Later.
Hecate, you are a wonder.
"We should have done everything we could to paint Bush as the craven coward he is.
Another Bruce"
We WON the election by landslide. What more do you want?
Oh, yeah, counted votes. But how would further characterizing Horrible Bush have changed vote fraud? Do you think Diebold cares?
Post-mortems by the actual winners. Too sick.
Protest by the actual winners. For our most basic rights.
--
Hecate:
Probably should add one of Bush&Co's favorite tricks:
"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing even if they aren't doing it and certainly don't admit you are doing it."
Hey, so I had mentioned this a long time ago in this space, but when are straight people going to refuse to get married? I have to believe that the right wing obsession with gay marriage is (a) a great wedge issue to drive between the "libertarian" wing of the Republican party and its Christian fanatic segment, and (b) a making large strides toward nullifying whatever meaning marriage is supposed to have left in 2004.
These are 11 different ways to say that Repubs fight the war of ideas very differently than Dems.
When was the last time we saw the national Dem party use any of these tactics?
Conversely - when was the last time we saw them used against us?
Time to bring out the brass knuckles people.
RT.
Hmm. As fulfilling (in a visceral, short-term, transitory way) as #5 [ridicule] is, I wonder if it's effective. Making fun of fundies seems to have little effect beyond making those who hear it discredit those who ridicule.
Still, can't deny it's fun fun fun!
The folks who doubt the efficacy of these rules should really read up on Saul Alinsky's life. And his record in the battles he fought.
Paraphrasing from the same book, but not one of the rules: "The question isn't 'Do the ends justify the means?' It's 'Do these particular ends justify these particular means?'"
In short, take the high road when you can afford to, but don't be afraid to take the low road when you have to.
I see a lot of rules here that Rove should have stressed to rummy.
Paul, I appreciate the clarification however you need to provide links.
Because your assertion goes counter to EVERYTHING this lay person has read in Sci Am and various other scientific journals.
Your assertion goes counter to what my shink sez.
You assertion goes counter to the assertions made by successful advertisers/psychologists, especially thee ones profiled on FRONTLNE.
So links please, and your point is?
BTW you may be correct sematically however your assertions do not dispute that advertisers are targeting our neurology.
The includes the amygalda and reactions from that region.
Wonderful post Hecate!
Number 10 killed us in this election. I still have no idea what Kerry would have done in Iraq besides engaging our allies.
I really do agree with those who say that we need an overarching theme or narrative. What is the Democratic Party? What does it stand for?
Being against Bush, being against the rethugs is not enough. We must articulate what we stand for before we attempt to implement tactics.
"The best thing is that we have truth on our side, they don't."
surfdork
Yeah try to convince them of that. The problem is that the Democratic party is weak and after this election they are weaker than ever, the Senators and Congresspersons are not going to rock the boat, because they believe they are weak.
If we can't guarantee the integrity of the voting process we are doomed, not matter how many people we get out to vote, they will simply steal it.
Bush is on record saying he sees this as the asendancy of the Conservative Movement and predicts Republican control of government for the foreseeable future. Sounds like he knows how they are going to do it too.
There are but two possibilities, 1. The Rethugs stole the election using the "no paper trail machines" or 2. The fundies are a majority and we are all screwed.
Tena -- read the book. Alinsky was good at getting people enjoy the tactics by turning them into social events.
These are disturbingly similar tactics of the insurgents in Iraq.
Bushism is:
good for corporations: how many people are doing time on the Enron scandal?
good for really rich people: If you make more than $200k your tax cut was $78K plus, if you make less than $50K how much was it?
bad for families and children: Moms and Dads lose jobs and health insurance; NCLB used to destroy publica education
bad for religion: calling folks who disagree with you godless will only work for so long and when it ceases to work, people in general will distrust the discussion of religious values in public discourse
These are disturbingly similar tactics of the insurgents in Iraq.
wicked
Gratuitous?
calling folks who disagree with you godless will only work for so long and when it ceases to work, people in general will distrust the discussion of religious values in public discourse
I've been thinking about this quite a bit since last week. Are the religious fanatics at all concerned about the backlash when Americans get fed up with them? I don't think so, but I think that intelligent religious leaders should be, because when the backlash comes, it's unlikely to be particularly discriminating.
If we can't guarantee the integrity of the voting process we are doomed, not matter how many people we get out to vote, they will simply steal it.
Not necessarily. The ultimate means by which the government derives its power from consent of the governed is not through the electoral process.
OTOH, it is certainly desirable to have free and fair elections and establish popular control of government that way.
OT: But Jeebus Xmas
armored vehicles arive at a protest site in LA
Police State anyone
krsaz, if the fundies are the majority, then where the fuck are they? I know hundreds and hundreds of people, and I really only know a dozen or so Christian fundamentalists.
Unless they're living in caves or in secret cities or something...so to go back to your point, it's got to be number 1.
Of course, when we consider that only 120 million people voted, that's really less than half of the entire adult population in this country ~ and therein lies the answer, I think.
We need to engage the other half of the country to vote.
Last Tuesday, on my way out of work, a friend asked me if I voted. When I told him that I had, he said, "Please don't tell me that you voted for that scumbag Kerry!"
So I asked him if he voted, and he said, "Ummm, no...I'm not registered. I don't have the time to register. But if I did, I'd vote for Bush."
So does someone who supports Bush but doesn't bother to vote still have blood on their hands?
When is the organization for an Inaguaration Day Nat'l protest emerge. I'm trying but just pissing into the wind.
When is the organization for an Inaguaration Day Nat'l protest emerge. I'm trying but just pissing into the wind.
When is the organization for an Inaguaration Day Nat'l protest emerge. I'm trying but just pissing into the wind.
Thanks, Hecate. Great post.
Ridicule is a great starting point. Cultifying 'Bushism' too. Refusal to treat these people with superficial respect, while respecting -- in the sense of taking seriously -- their insidious power.
And since we're in a 'spectacular' era, it's time to read some Guy Debord.
I do believe that we need to hold them to their own standards. Lets get a list of all the republican congressman and keep track of what they say and do and nail them to the f*ing wall when they slip up.
OT - but can we get a thread going on the nomination of Gonzalez as the new AG? Just read about it over at Daily Kos, which mentioned that, prior to his "Geneva Convention is for Sissies" memo, Gonzalez was an Enron counsel. Surely this has go to get someone's blood roiling.
Interesting - sounds like Rove's Rule book to me. Figures - conservatives have never had an original thought in their history; they learned how to beat us from US.
I have had a copy of that book (in paperback, March 1972 edition) for 30 years. I haven't read it in 20. I can see it from right where I'm sitting, on the top shelf over there by the TV. I think I'll give it a read. Thanks, Atrios! Sometimes the answers are (almost literally) right in front of us.
A quote from the frontspiece:
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..." -Thomas Paine
Indeed.
Holy war. Sheesh.
Alberto Gonzales nominee for Attorney General of the United States.
I think we need to emphasize class warfare. The pigz have been waging it since 1980, and whenever it's pointed out that they are doing it, they yell "class warfare" at our side for bringing it up. Let's get the issue out in the open. Class warfare IS being waged in America, by some of the rich against the rest of us.
There are several advantages of this. Mainly, it helps break down the race divide among working class and lower middle class folk. This has already started to some degree, and will continue into the future. Look at social groups at places like bowling alleys and malls. High school and college age (although not necessarily college attending) social groups tend toward being more racially integrated.
How do we do this? On the idea side, point out that the color that matters most in America now is not white or black, but green. This relates to personal experience. Deep down in their hearts, both blacks and whites working at burger factories know that they share more common interests with each other than with Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas. Same goes for gender issues. Let's put more focus on women AND men trying to make it on $7/hr than on female executives who are making only a percent of their male counterparts, but who still have six or seven figure incomes (and who benefit from repig tax cuts).
Policy implications include: making community college and votech schools universally available, increasing minimum wage, treating wages on equal footing with investment income in tax policy, replacing race and gender based affirmative action with programs that direct aid (health care, education support, contracting opportunities) on a strictly means tested basis. Minorities in need won't loose any benefits, and people will be united in their economic interests regardless of ethnicity or gender.
Point out that all the goper programs that put "responsibility" in people's hands are meaningless for subsistence and lower middle income workers. What good are medical savings accounts and investment set asides from social security if you don't have any assets to save or don't get any tax deferment benefits?
Also emphasize practical aspects of other programs. Don't just make vague statements about the environment, point out the rapid increase in childhood asthma rates, and how most of the increases occur in cities where working people live because that's where jobs are, not because of some "elitist" lifestyle choices.
On the electoral side, the benefit is that you appeal to the people who do not now participate in the process. If you look at the demographics of non-participants, they are overrepresented in the lower end of the income scale, and if more of them did vote, and vote their interests, then the slight pig majority would be overwhelmed by a real majority of the population.
Couch the effort as an appeal to fairness, hard work, and common values. And make proposals practical, streamlin
Guy Dedord, yes situationalism. People need to be shocked.
Krszaz, I agree in the difficulty of getting people to accept the truth but the good thing is the truth never changes, it simply is.
1=1 will always = 2 no matter how it's spun.
So the forces of the lie will always have to spin and bullshit.
Repeat a lie oftern enough and it becomes the truth.
How 'bout repeat the truth enough and it will be accepted.
We need specific, targeted language. This is WW3 as per McLuhan.
streamlined, and effective.
And emphasize that separation of church and state is not anti religion, but anti government involvement in religion. Focus on privacy and independence, and you'll appeal to a clear majority regardless of their belief system. Those who would be offended are brainwashed and a writeoff anyways.
Besides, if we can't get more than 55% of the population to participate in a time of war and economic peril, haven't we already lost the ideals of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams?
"Besides, if we can't get more than 55% of the population to participate..." knuckledragger
Far more did, and their votes weren't counted, or they were blocked at the polls.
Turnout was MUCH higher than reported.
The continued sale of cynical excuses for vote fraud, abetted by those who should know better.
--
An evangelical Christian checks a book out of the library.
hahahahahaha! (oh...you mean there's more?)
Still have Alinsky on the bookshelf. At the end of my edition is Alinsky talking about proxy battles as one of the future tactics.
Goes to the previous post, maybe here or on another blog, that maybe Soros could just buy Sinclair outright.
Framing moral values:
Well, I finally found it. While cleaning up the gore at the soon-to-be-vacated campaign office in the grim hours of the morning of Nov. 3rd, (001, 1 ECF – Day 1, Year 1 – Era of Conservative Fascism), two people mentioned a book by a UC Berkeley professor on framing the moral values issue for liberals. The title was something about a elephant. Googling Elephant & Livingroom based on my imperfect rememberings didn’t turn up anything,but today I blundered into the author’s name, so FWIW, the book is “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” & the author is George Lakoff.
Lakoff has also founded Rockridge Institute, a think tank for progressive politcal ideas. The site is worth checking out for it’s ideas on framing the politcal discussion.
For instance, in dealing with winger baffle gab, call it what it is.
…
Progressives commonly wring their hands in despair when conservatives use Orwellian language. They shouldn't. The use of Orwellian language signals to us where conservatives are weak. Forget that their deceptiveness is immoral. The point is that they are weak and are revealing their weakness. If they had public support, they could freely call their initiative the Dirty Skies Act.
Progressives can use the Right’s Orwellian weaknesses to our advantage. We can focus the public’s attention on it by highlighting the discrepancies between what the radical Right says and what it does. Do not hesitate to rename their Orwellian legislation. For example:
. Do not call it the “Clear Skies initiative.” Call it the “Dirty Skies initiative.”
. Do not call it “Healthy Forests.” Call it “No Tree Left Behind.”
. Do not call it “Compassionate Conservatism.” Call it “Callous Conservatism".
…
This is fantastic.
Clearly lays-the failures of the Kerry/Edwards campaign (and the DNC).
GREAT post.
Paul,
sounded like the reptilian part of your brain got pissed off there
"Paul, I appreciate the clarification however you need to provide links. Because your assertion goes counter to EVERYTHING this lay person has read in Sci Am and various other scientific journals."
What assertion? That the 'reptilian' brain should be called the 'fish' brain, if that?
"BTW you may be correct sematically however your assertions do not dispute that advertisers are targeting our neurology.The includes the amygalda and reactions from that region.--surfdork"
Pseudo-science doesn't solve any questions. How does it improve what you're talking about to say, instead of 'they are playing to our fears,' 'they are playing to our amygdalas'?
Not at all.
As for your psychiatrist, the models he uses in healing are not necessarily those he understands as a professional. The brain stem, limbic system, amygdala, et al, is completely rewired from reptilian or piscine forms.
That's not surprising, because our lobes are wired into these regions, and with greater expanse of them, the lower wiring has gotten more complex.
Not only do you NOT dream of chasing rabbits, or zapping flies with your tongue, but you dream IN LANGUAGE. IN CONCEPTS. As a human, in other words.
Human beings are not lizards.
--
Osama bin Laden thinks these rules are both valid and effective...
" but when are straight people going to refuse to get married?"
Tried that for awhile, but in the end finances won: we needed my employer to cover the Mr.'s healthcare (he's self-employed.)
"Clearly lays-the failures of the Kerry/Edwards campaign (and the DNC)." --ABP"
Landslide victory.
Massive rejection of Bushliar policies.
Those are not failures.
--
"Guy Dedord, yes situationalism. People need to be shocked."
No, they do not. People need to be HEARD.
I know many of you live in weird, backwards places, while I live in the Los Angeles paradise. But I meet people every day, and when I talk with them, they usually are aware of the big picture, but they don't feel, for good reasons, that their voice is heard.
Not counting their votes, being overwhelmed by corporate calumnies, it's not surprising.
But what Dems really need to do is not to adapt new stormtrooper techniques. BUT FOCUS THEIR ENERGY TO FIX THE VOTING SYSTEM!
And protest this stolen election every day until the certification, and thereafter.
Not willing to do that, malcontents talk of 'shocking' the people. More fear just produces more head-hiding. Free speech, counted votes, that builds democracy -- not I Hate Americans strategies that are driven by childish frustrations with the human race.
--
Interesting that someone here mentionned NLP because I have just been reading a lot about it.
The latest thing I have found is that they tell people that to be convincing, you have to sound totally incoherent. I'm not kidding.
They say - speak in sentence fragments- repeat, repeat, repeat your core message even if it's inappropriate if you can get away with it.
Doesn't this sound like Bush in the last few years?
You also have to speak in hypnotic tones - lower your tone at the end of sentence fragments, low tone throughout, and there's a pattern you have to repeat.
The ironic thing is that Hitler used these types of tricks although they were adapted to his language and time. Bush, although many people cringe at the comparison, is using another Hitler trick and it seems to work with the majority (ok, slim majority) of the public.
NLP - let's find out more about it!
"When is the organization for an Inaguaration Day Nat'l protest emerge. I'm trying but just pissing into the wind."--mccamman
In every case, the way to stop fascism is to INTERFERE with it. If you focus on the goal of removal, you will burn out.
Instead of focusing on big goals, focus on putting fenceposts into the spokes of the machine, on a regular basis.
Along with many of the 85 million people who just voted John Kerry a landslide victory, your efforts are NOT pissing into the wind.
Protest opens free speech. Your protests affect others in ways that cannot be quantified.
Selling us fake defeats is what Bush is all about. We won, and our predominant vote cannot be taken away from us, unless we are willing to embrace Bush's lies, as far too many here seem willing to.
--
"The ironic thing is that Hitler used these types of tricks although they were adapted to his language and time."
Do you know that Hitler would throw himself on the carpet and thrash around howling if he didn't get his way? And then people would yield (it worked).
Smirking is mostly about undermining the security of the self. It's emotional terrorism, just like Hitler.
Ridicule is not the answer, though it does help at times. Refusing to be altered by their lies, tantrums, and smirks is the main purpose that animates protest of known wrongs.
--
Its easy to to say 'how can they be so stupid?' once you've seen enough evidence to believe that they are lying and your heart is ready to go there with you.
I've often thought that many of the people who supported Bush were decent people in a confusing world with very little information on which to make decisions who ultimately could not wrap their minds around the idea of The President (esp. in wartime) looking them in the eye and lying repeatedly.
As for stategy, all good points but you can't think your way into communicating emotions and many people, especailly when undecided, really rely on thier emotions. That's why the nice guy persona they pushed helped them and why the 'elitist' label killed us - its too cold, not passionate, not emotive. We have the truth, we have moral certainty - we just have to learn how to communicate it in a way that can be easily felt in the heart, not just in the mind.
Ridicule is not the answer, though it does help at times. Refusing to be altered by their lies, tantrums, and smirks is the main purpose that animates protest of known wrongs.
for one thing, ridicule is particularly ineffective if you're seen as the enemy rather than as a sympathetic figure.
but at some point you have to decide whether you'd rather be virtuous, or win.
for one thing, ridicule is particularly ineffective if you're seen as the enemy rather than as a sympathetic figure.
case in point: weren't you won over by bin Laden's clever mocking of Bush and My Pet Goat?
I didn't think so.
Rule # 3 about never going outside the experience of your people- I never did understand just why a photograph of Kerry windsurfing was so damaging. It's not like it was a shot of him having goat sex or something but the pundits were unglued about it. Personaly, I think windsurfing seems like a pretty cool and macho kind of thing to do. Although I've never tried it I can understand it's appeal. But then again I live in California and see these people windsurfing all the time on the beaches and in S. F. bay so it is inside my experience. My goodness, it sure is easy to spook the coastless folks isn't it?
I am probably skipping over many comments of the same sort (for lack of time), so apologies for redundency. It has been my view for a long time that the conservative movement took the New Left playbook and ran with it in a way the NL was never able to realize. The radical affinities - tho on opposite sides of the political spectrum - should be robustly apparent by now.
This is off the cuff, and therefore pretty shallow a comparison, but it might be useful to think about all those churches marshalled on behalf of the GOPs, with voters' guides and pep-talk sermons, as analogous to the Left's former union base.
Somebody tell me this is wrong.
Both Hillary Clinton and Dick Morris studied Alinsky. Alinsky himself saifd that the rules were "value neutral". They work wheather used for good purposes or bad. Don't think of them in terms of Karl Rove - think Newt Gingrich circa 1992 facing a newly elected popular president plus a Democratic Senate and House. Two years later, the Clinton presidency teatered on the verge of irrelevance and the democrats haven't recovered since. that's the campaign we, as the opposition party, should be studying. - Maury
Hitler may have thrown himself on the carpet, but not in public. Like GWB treats people badly in private, but tries to portray himself as a good guy, the one you want to have a beer with (not my words, believe me).
Hitler cultivated this vegetarian and "humanitarian" persona and many people bought it.
What choice do we have other than to look at the Nazis to predict what the next tactics of the Republicans are going to be? It sounds surreal to say something like that, but that's what the world has come to.
Neuro-linguistic programming is one of the tools they use. Let's not pooh-poooh it, let's see if we can use it too.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You have to know what to say when your opponent asks you, "If you're so smart, what would you do?"
We certainly know this rule wasn't followed by the Dem's.
MYOB'
.
Alinsky also said that the handwriting (for the organizing he was describing, a whole-left movement, not just labor, or environmentalists, or feminists) better be on the wall by....oh, I can't remember now, but it was sometime in the 1970s, I think 1975, or it was all but over. He seems to have been proven right, at least for the near term. Chomsky's been warning of the same thing since about the same time, only in different ways. The day the courts declared that corporations have some of the same rights - essentially the same status - as persons under the law, is the day power began shifting inexorably in that direction. Only focused, consistent, continuous organization in opposition to what has been essentially a legal elevation of property rights above other rights will stand a chance of effectively combatting that trend. And it's not a single battle that can be won, but an ongoing, Sisyphean campaign. But, while it can't be decisively and irrevocably WON, ol' Saul understood perfectly well that it can be permanently LOST, hence the apprehension that the writing for middle-class organization had better be on the wall soon.
Thirty years on, and we're still waiting.
RULE # 11 is no longer applicable:
Examples: repubs deamonized-- out right deamonized such Gerneralities as: Unions, Teachers, Gays, and even Liberalism (could you get more general?) Clealy this rule no longer applies. In Fact I think that it is backwards today.... (why?....)
grisha---
This is wrong.
In American English Union= bad. E.V. Debbs couldn't make it work back when Unions were seen as good.
Perhaps this is linked to rule #11 .
The American attention span is just too short now-- It all boils down to identity.
I think we need to be looking at the role of music (just 1 well-studdied example)and identity (such as ethnographies in colonized countries) Repubs use language in just this way to cultivate their zombies. Or perhaps the Dems need to take lessons from MTV
Yes, this is neuro-linguistic programmming-- we need to find a way to counter this. As long as folks in the red states see the repubs as "one of us" and the Dems as "the other" we don't stand a chance. We need to at least be competitive in Jususland.
I want to get those rules tattooed on mt chest.
[i]Yes, this is neuro-linguistic programmming-- we need to find a way to counter this"[/i]
Yes, Lakoff has a piece of it.
Change the frame.
Here's the frame we need at this critical juncture:
We Do Not Concede!
In a true America, leaders serve only with the consent of the governed, and that consent must be obtained by lawful elections that accurately measure the will of the voters. We shall not tolerate any violation of this fundamental principle, the SOLE moral tenet on which our nation was founded and has since relied.
The voting systems and practices used in the conduct of this past election are so clearly flawed that the results in nearly every state are wide open to corruption by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and consequently, willful fraud. The only certain result is that we can have NO confidence in how accurately they guage the will of the electorate.
We refuse to further descend into the Stalinist perversion of "democracy;" in which "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Such was the clear underpinning of the 4-year-old edict of the 5 black-robed political operatives, who arrogated to themselves the perquisite of sentencing the nation by their fiat to live under appointed rule as opposed to elected leadership.
We the People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. In far too many states, demonstrable errors and anomalous patterns of result have rendered the "official" tally suspect. More tragically, the systems and processes implemented by "experts" now make it impossible for us to rule out corruption without further investigation and audit.
Given the likely consequences of once again tacitly accepting corrupt results, the moral burden must now be on each state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their results are accurate and lawfully obtained. There is no other patriotic option.
But let us be clear, IF WE ARE UNABLE to obtain this proof under current election law, through civil and/or criminal judicial means, then we MUST RESORT to a political solution and demand that our Congress reject the electors from ANY STATE that fails to validate its results through comprehensive, apolitical investigation and audit.
Our law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow a "technical" or "legal" arguments and rationalizations to trump reality as we did in 2000.
NEVER AGAIN.
Son of a gun! Someone actually remembers Saul Alinsky, community organizer extraordinaire. Don't stop with "Rules for Radicals." Read his earlier "Reveille for Radicals," too.
Hecate? As in "Jennifer, Hecate, Macbeth, William McKinley, and Me, Elizabeth"?
Hecate? As in "Jennifer, Hecate, Macbeth, William McKinley, and Me, Elizabeth"?
Rule 1: Republican support numbers are small, they rely on polls to hide them, consider the big DC protest with thousands of anti-Bushers and 25 pro-Bushers. They use screaming and media polls to hide what's really going on. Point to the lack of grass roots support for Bush, and when and where they show up... point out who they are. Falwell's fundamentalists.
Rule 2: Republicans like to hide everything with their religion. Bush just saying "God" makes his followers nod their head and sway when he talks. The trick is to pull the rug out from under him on this one, god made succesful men, not good looking failures.
Rule 3: Prove versatility, be ready to handle any incoming attack from any angle and use it to shift the spotlight to the Republican standpoint. They're very weak, and rely on attacks. Be so ready to handle their attacks that they'll learn to fear making them.
Rule 4: Live up to your own rules! Show total consistancy in your own behavior! Deprive your Republican opponent even a single possibility of accusing you of being weak or a hypocrite.
Rule 5: Handle ridicule with witty smugness. Stab back, play the game, be better at taking and dishing it out.
Rule 6: Entertain your own crowds, and when possible, make his own people laugh. Observe his techniques, learn to control their followers laughs and smiles the same way they do.
Rule 7: Watch out for inconsistancy on part of your opponent, catch them in it, don't let them get away. Keep a list, keep coming back to each failure and putting together a picture of an opponent who can't stand on an issue for more than five minutes without switching the topic of discussion.
Rule 8: Maintain a solid defense, and as soon as possible mount a counter offensive and don't let up. You know what they say, "never let them see you sweat."
Rule 9: Call every bluff they make, and never make a threat you don't fully intend to go through with. Note that I said go through with, not "be able to do." Always go through with your threats, be a man (Or woman) of your word and action.
Rule 10: "If you're so smart, what would you do?" Answer! And then tack on, and you didn't think of this because...
Rule 11: Stand behind your people, stand behind the issues, and never admit guilt that is not your as well as never deny fault that is of your own making. Honest and integrity shine more, even when spit on.
Not mentioned is 'divide and rule'. The Republicans are happy to propagate the red/blue divide, probably for this reason. When we talk about antagonism of blue towards red state voters, we deepen the divide and probably play into their hands.
First we need to kill the North-Eastern Liberal Elite (NELE) meme, which is in part assisted by the propagation of the red/blue divide meme. Remember, the NELE doesn't talk to ordinary decent people of America (ODPoA). The NELE wants to impose its sick morality (gays, no guns) onto the ODPoA. The NELE speaks French. And so on. The NELE is akin to 'the man' or 'the federal government' -- powerful, shadowy, out to get you. The common characteristic to the far right wing conservatives I know is a sense of grievance, which needs a focus. A white male living in the USA in the early 21 century is one of the most privileged members of the species ever born. Yet this sense of grievance. It's odd.
Common cause with red staters would be a huge victory over Rovian manipulations. Those are our people, whether they know it or not, or whether we know it or not -- we're all Americans, trying to get by. The 9.11 unity was probably not the best thing for the Republicans after the 'rally around the flag' sentiment cleared.
For those who suggest Evangelical Christian jokes, forget it, that's wrong from an ethical and from a practical standpoint, it just hands bullets to the enemy.
Don't get me wrong -- this is not hippy BS, 'let's all come together and we'll be fine', this is recognizing and addressing the black arts. We have to fight back viciously, but with focus, and we're very undisciplined right now.
Ridicule is a potent arm that is being used on a daily basis by the entire right-wing noise machine. If you listen to Limbaugh, ninety percent of what he does is ridicule Democrats.
It works. It sticks. That's exactly why we are afraid to call ourselves "liberal" any more.
Will Democrats learn to fight fire with fire? They haven't yet, although Air America is a good start.
This book was one of the first books i read that started my politic literature binge. Reveille for Radicals is also good, it's his first book. Look into books put out by the Rockridge Institute.
i've started my bit by calling them "Red-assed Baboons".
because that's WHAT THEY ARE.
m.
Use the examples of Swift Boat Veterans and flip-flopper and go back and examine how they could have been counteracted, the problem being that maybe they couldn't, it might just be whoever starts out with this kind of thing forces the other on the offensive. Also, the media complicity in these is a big part of them - you must address how to get the media to print them.
thersites - most important to them is destroying the evil godless socialist Democrats.
Remember they attack where they are most culpable themselves. Military service, etc.
The top Rovians aren't religious, except in terms of marketing and sales. They sell their own zealotry as religious to appeal to the religious zealots. The ones who pray to "the prince of peace" to ensure death of their enemies on the battlefield.
The freepers and Little Green Raelians are too dim and stuck on flatlander analyses of "communism=bad" and "capitalism=good". They wouldn't be able to recognise the Leninist vanguard when it sneaks up on them in sheep's clothing, even after the sheep bit them on the ass. How many of these Rovians are former 60s leftist radicals?
Stalin's worst enemy was not Nixon or McCarthy, but Trotsky. This is why the Leninist-style operatives astro-turf places like the freepers and Little Green Raelians to make their numero uno object of derision the Trotskyite Chomsky.
I haven't read Saul Alinsky in 20 years. Thanks.
I'm sending out an email to all interested parties on available resources for training ourselves/others in strategizing for creative, successful, mass nonviolent civil resistance. Included are a few humble ideas of my own for fun, do-able, easy-to-carry-out actions.
I posted about this last week, but got the impression that at least one person thought I was spamming or something. Which is not what I'm up to. So if you're interested, drop me a line.
Personally, I think the Bush machine uses blackmail and extortion. Think of all of its critics who got their arms twisted and changed their tunes. Alinsky doesn't mention extortion, since it's illegal, but illegal doesn't mean ineffective. Hell, the Scaife crowd worked the badger game until Clinton caved. Tactics are good and all, but getting something juicy on your opponents AND friends lasts longer and yields more results.
Thanks, I haven't read Alinsky in THIRTY years.
Ridicule is one of Rove's most potent tool. It is not one of ours. I think it was easy to confuse ridiculing Bush with disrespect for the office or with making fun of his supporters. Those people are very sensitive about their self-image.
Ridicule, on the other hand, is a great American tradition, and we should adopt it as such. Think: Will Rogers.
The one thing that we throw at the Bush to no effect, to our dismay, is hypocrisy, lies and fraud. Although we cannot rely on this weapon alone, eventually it will be important. Just not now. You have to wait until people are ready to listen.
These rules suck. Just use Rove's why don't you. Or you could just shoot your enemies.
I rather like the following:
http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/i...0479/
index.html
Why do they sound like Rove's playbook? (which is an observation, not a critique).
Because, as Alinsky always feared -- he says as much in Rules for Radicals -- the radicals and liberals ignored his words, while the conservatives fucking memorized them. About the only active Democrats who have done likewise are working for Howard Dean. (Yes, Joe Trippi is on record as being an Alinsky fan.)
Saul Alinsky wrote the book -- literally -- on the single-issue movement. When he organized the Back of the Yards in Chicago, he did it by picking one issue at a time (and he made SURE it was an easily-winnable issue) and used the string of small victories to forge a coalition.
Just as Ralph Reed (who I will bet money has every single one of Alinsky's books) didn't let his embyronic groups know the full extent of his agenda, Alinsky didn't let on to the largely Catholic Back of the Yarders that he was an atheist Socialist, or that he had goals beyond the single issue of the day with which he presented them -- not until he'd established a strong rapport with them. But he slowly got them to enjoy activism, and to be more tolerant of non-Catholics and political views other than what the ChiTrib spewed.
Alinsky also has a name for the kind of liberal that shrinks from doing what needs to be done: "Means-and-Ends Liberal". And, as he says, they usually wind up on their ends without any means.
Bush is the target. If we want to discredit a bad policy proposal, tie it to Bush and discredit Bush.
I guess that makes sense if you are trying to defeat Bush in the next election, but Bush won't be running. And by the time Bush is done, whoever does run is going to have to go another way.
Doesn't matter, Krsaz. Bill Clinton's been out of office for four years now and the right wing STILL waves his visage at their marks whenever they want 'em riled up.
Alinsky was an effective and legendary community organizer.
His rules may or may not be applicable to the broader scale of regional and national politics.
But they sure worked in Chicago.
Hecate-
You're actually the reason I've started posting here - you referred to the Goddess the other day, so I figured the crew must be Pagan friendly.
Anyway, our problem has been that we won't use the truth. That is the most powerful weapon. If someone lies to your face and you're afraid to call it a lie, it doesn't matter how correct your position or how altruistic your values. You are a coward, and your cause will fail.
This will piss people off, but our biggest failure was not emphasizing Bush's Nazi connections. Not just the origins of his family fortunes, but the Rove playbook as well. "Tell a big lie and keep telling it." - sound familiar? 9/11 conveniently giving them an excuse for curbing civil rights, just like the Reichstag fire. Demonizing a particular group of people. And the real tip off - the nationalism and the religiosity.
"We need believing people." - Adolf Hitler.
Think about it - Americans were signing loyalty oaths to attend a political rally and Kerry never called it fascism.
This post was getting way too long, so I put the rest of it here.
It seems to me that, while not specifically stated in the numbered rules, the overall premise seems to indicate that Kerry should probably have started by being a radical and should probably also represent have-nots instead of haves.
I mean, why are the Democrats losing labor? Why are they losing minorities? Because they aren't doing crap for them. If they are doing crap for them, they are doing a piss-poor job of articulating that.
re: gay marriage
Instead of straight people refusing to get married (at least to achieve a political objective) I think we could come up with some legislation which preserves the sanctity of marriage for the Christians and equal protection under the law for the lovers of the Constitution:
Make marriage a non-legal institution. Civil Unions from the state regardless of sexuality. Marriage from your church. If you don't have a church, marriage has no sanctity for you and you can decide whether you're married based on whether you believe you are or not.
The key is to frame this issue as good for everybody (which it is.) You can't sneer at the Christians and hope to win their hearts and minds. Approach their issues with respect for Christian faith and with respect for equal rights for all people (even sinners) under the law.
' Republican support numbers are small, they rely on polls to hide them,'
Quoth a member of the 'reality based community'
LOL
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
