That's a good starting point for an analogy, however, I would argue that rust and dry rot are not "infantile", but just like Alisky's
Rules they are essentially corrosive, in that they depend on the pure nature of that which they propose to destroy.
Rust works most effectively on wet, exposed iron, dry rot feats on fresh, bare wood, and Alinsky preys on unassuming, decent people. His Rules depend for their success not upon the corruption of their targets, but rather upon their decency.
In this instance, the act of making people "live up to their own book of rules" assumes that one's target has such a guide, and that the person so targeted actually cares about observing it - which means that they have both standards and virtues. Hypocrisy, it has been said, is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. But in the absence of virtue: what is left to rot?
Excellent post. A couple of minor points.
In using the word "infantile" I was thinking of it as a description of Alinsky tactics as a fundamentally irrational approach - something not amenable to, and even immune to, responses grounded in reason or moral principle. I certainly agree with your description of all three -- rust, dry rot, and Alinsky -- as being
corrosive. That's an great way to say it.
On your final point, I'd add the following. The use of our values (and our failures) against us has two purposes. First, to be confronted with our failings often makes us simply leave the fight on our own. In addition, and probably more importantly, the tactic is intended to make it so that others no longer take us seriously. It is indeed interesting that Trump seems immune to the tactic.