How Losing My Political Values Helped Me Gain My Freedom [Warden]

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Wait until we get the left-wing version of Trump. "Conservatives" will have no moral authority anymore.

[Cripplecreek]

Wait until we get the left-wing version of Trump. "Conservatives" will have no moral authority anymore.

As Trey Gowdy said. "The day will come when you will cry out for the rule of law."

Repubicans should have listened.

[r9etb]

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.

[Sanguine]

If you stop at using the Alinsky tactics, then you're no better than they are. 

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are designed as a means for upsetting and bringing down the existing order.  They're effective, in the same way that rust and dry rot are effective.  They're intrinsically infantile and, as such, it's difficult to form a rational argument to oppose them.

The difficulty we have is in trying to propose and discuss ideas in good faith with opponents who are more interested in destroying us, than they are with considering any ideas other than their own.  They're helped along in this by a media and social-media culture that treats such contests as games to be watched for fun, rather than a discussion of ideas that have consequences. 

Furthermore, we live in a society that, for most of us, lacks much in the way of consequences.  Much of what passes for "concern" these days is essentially cost-free, in the sense that the costs are often not obvious or immediately attributable to specific policies. 

Most of the time, our perceptions of costs and consequences can be expressed only in terms of frustration and a sort of directionless anger at an oppressive-seeming system that generally doesn't work, for reasons we can't quite pin down.  I believe that Trump's campaign and subsequent election was based on recognizing and playing on that dynamic.

Consequences can't be avoided forever and, unfortunately, their return is probably only way we get back to a culture where ideas can be addressed on their merits.