You can hardly be blamed if you’ve completely turned your attention away from the ridiculous slugfest that has been going on in the Republican Party’s ongoing effort to select a presidential nominee. The enmity that Newt Gingrich has developed for Mitt Romney has created a war of campaign ads and debate retorts such as the Grand Old Party hasn’t seen since Ronald Reagan issued the edict that no Republican should ever speak ill of another Republican.
Gingrich, despite his claims to bear the mantle of Reagan’s legacy, has hardly been attentive to that piece of scripture, as he has sought to pummel the former governor of Massachusetts by painting him as almost as venal as the hated liberal media, if not Barack Obama himself.
But in between his excoriations of his rival, Gingrich attempts to show his brilliance by dropping names and speaking of historical events with enough bravado to convince the casual listener that he actually knows what he’s talking about.
And one of the names he has been dropping regularly, in both his stump speeches and his Q and A sessions with reporters (when he deigns to speak to those despised members of the fourth estate), is Saul Alinsky, whom Gingrich mentions whenever he gets to the part of his remarks where he wants to sound like the savior of the great American experiment in democracy.
“This campaign,” he will say, “is a battle between American exceptionalism and the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.” Or he’ll proclaim, “I will draw the contrast between the Declaration of Independence and Saul Alinsky.”
He speaks about this Alinsky fellow as if he must have been an ally of Vladimir Lenin or maybe Leon Trotsky. Certainly the guy must have been a card-carrying communist, at the least.
In fact, Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was a Chicago born community organizer who is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. During his lifetime, he was praised by no less a conservative icon than William F. Buckley (the founder of the “National Review” magazine and long-time host of “Firing Line”) as “very close to an organizational genius.”
Alinsky was certainly a liberal, but he was no communist. His efforts were devoted to improving the living conditions of the poor in America and, later, to doing the same for African-American ghettos in America’s inner-cities. At one point, “Time Magazine” declared of him that he was “altering the nature of American democracy.”
Alinsky’s primer on community organizing, “Rules for Radicals” (published a year before his death) became an immediate Bible for college students protesting the Viet Nam War. But his teachings had been widely adopted from the outset of that struggle.
Alinsky’s methods are hardly the sole province of the left, however. In fact, no less a conservative stalwart than Dick Armey (the former Republican leader of the House of Representatives who is often credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement) gives copies of “Rules for Radicals” to leaders of the Tea Party. A shortened version of the book, called “Rules for Patriots” is distributed to the movement’s entire membership.
So, you ask, why is Gingrich turning this patron saint of the country’s neo-revolutionaries of both the left and right into something of a bogeyman in his presidential campaign? The answer has far more to do with the former Speaker of the House than it does with the deceased community organizer.
Gingrich is a blowhard. There, I’ve said it. He is no more presidential material than your favorite barfly who can rant for hours about everything that is wrong with the country while those who do listen to him laugh at his vacuity. And that this phony windbag has commanded the wildly enthusiastic support of a sizeable segment of his party is all you need to know about how pathetic that once revered political body has become.
Team Obama would love to run against this guy. His nomination would guarantee a second term for the incumbent president at a time when his re-election should be very much in doubt. That’s why the Republican establishment came out so strongly against him last week. Their collective rejection of him, coupled with Romney’s excellent debate attacks, turned a double-digit lead coming out of South Carolina into a double digit defeat in Florida.
But apart from being one of the least attractive possible presidential nominees for his party, Gingrich has almost single-handedly made the election of the probable nominee (Romney) far less likely than it should have been. The turning point was Iowa, where Romney unleashed his super-PAC against Gingrich to crush his potential victory.
In a span of two weeks, Gingrich saw his lead in the polls evaporate, and he finished a distant fourth in the actual caucuses (behind eventual winner Rick Santorum, Romney and Ron Paul). Furious, Gingrich then began his personal vendetta against Romney, in the process providing the Obama re-election camp with all the ammunition it will need in the fall.
Like most blowhards, Gingrich has a massive ego, so massive that he could not abide the idea that his life-long dream (to be the next sculpture on Mount Rushmore) had been crushed by the likes of someone as craven and duplicitous as he believes (or has convinced himself) Mitt Romney is. And so, he proceeded to reveal Romney to be just that – craven and duplicitous.
And, of course, Romney, because he is Romney, gave him all the evidence he needed, starting with his career at Bain Capital, and continuing with his ham-fisted hemming and hawing about whether he’d release his tax returns and with his declaration that he only earned pocket cash (over $350,000) for his speaking engagements.
But Gingrich isn’t done. He still has that ego to feed and that vendetta to finish. And if a few inappropriate references to Saul Alinsky find their way into his rants, he certainly won’t apologize for besmirching a good American’s name, assuming the self-declared “master historian” he claims to be even knows who the man really was.
Great column Ed. I didn’t know who Saul Alinsky was and looked him up on Wikipedia after hearing Newt speak about him. I reserved his book “Rules for Radicals” from the library. I’m going to guess 90% of Newt’s audience doesn’t know who Saul is but makes no difference. If Newt attacks he must be liberal or un-American. I do agree with the Republican leaders about the unattractiveness of Newt. I find him scary and someone who just might have a personality disorder. Definitely the most narcissistic of the politicians around today.
Ed, FYI, Jacquie is many years a Bakersfield City Councilwoman. She is the real dynamo nationally behind posting the national motto. A very nice, sweet lady who can be counted on for conservative votes on the Council. She’ll be happy to hear you have given both of us the honor of having columns dedicated to us. I believe she is one of my referrals to Meals.
As for Alinsky, he may not be a communist, but by his own admission, he dedicated his “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer. (Whether he was pulling some Christian chains or really meant it is for people who give a crap about him to study.) Tea Partiers are quite aware of him… and Cloward & Pivens, and Joel Rogers and Van Jones, and Andy Stern and Valerie Jarrett, ad nauseum. Of his 13 rules, maybe 6 are sound strategies for good or evil. like anything else, its as good or bad as the one who applies them. Armey’s idea wasn’t all bad therefore. After all, Scripture tells us Satan often comes as an angel of light (the root of the name Lucifer – light bearer, 32nd Degree Masons are taught he is God.)
I sometimes wonder if Gingrich would make a good Press Secretary. Sure miss Tony Snow though there is no comparison intended.
I spent the day at the huge Farm Show in Tulare. President George W. Bush is speaking there tonight. Since I have to get up at 4:15 to pray for you and others I value in this life, I’m off to bed.
However, you may want to know about a recent event:
A “Progressive”, a Conservative and a Moderate dropped in at a local bar. The bartender said, “What can I get for you, Mr. Romney?”
Good ‘ole New just proved his ignorance – and he is/was a history professor. Saul Alinsky was (is?) required reading for UC students – especially for Political Science students. To the best of my knowledge, he was not a terrorist – and his activities were – at the most – annoying, especially to some of the banks that were redlining ‘minority neighborhoods’ for loans. He would take a crowd into a bank and have them open bank accounts – then they would return a little later and withdraw the money. Then they would repeat depositing money and later withdrawing monies (small amounts) just to show the banks that they had some power. There was nothing communistic nor terroristic about what he did. He was, like Obama, a community organizer – but there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that.