... I'm gonna go ahead and be a cynical douche.
With everyone (who isn't a jerk) rather stunned by the actions of individuals like this gomer (hurr, Fox News link) trying to infiltrate the "Tea Party" movement, there are quite a few people (Glenn Beck) who are going street rat crazy about the writings of a certain Saul Alinksy. Because I'm lazy and you know you are too, here's a Wikipedia link for Rules for Radicals (that thing written by Saul Alinsky).
What I find out offensive about this crap isn't what he actually wrote, this is actually good stuff to be completely honest. I mean, let's look at this douchebags rule-o numero uno:
Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
My main problem with the fear/hatred (from the right) and the love/reverence (from the left) of Saul Alinsky is that this idiot didn't actually come up with anything original. If you're like me, and I hope you aren't, you've read at least one version of Sun Tzu's Art of War. In that case, you can easily recognise this advice as almost directly lifted from the text, even the phrasing is similar to many of the translations of the discussions (of Art of War) I've seen.
Just to borrow from Sun Tzu, here's what may well possibly be the most famous passage from the text. You might note that, despite being translated from Chinese, it's far more descriptive and intelligent in its general meaning:
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Saul Alinsky was a "smart" guy in that he took concepts that have been outlined for centuries, maybe even millennia (Xerxes of Persian fame had a certain love of psychological warfare), but at the end of the day, his work is ultimately derivative. If you want to know how to crush anyone who thinks they have a leg up on you because they know Alinksy's Rules, read Sun Tzu's Art of War at least twice (it makes sense the second time around) and, if you can, make your way around to Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince.
Keep in mind, I'm not a Conservative, I'm a Republican, but I (unlike many Conservatives) can admit that I'd rather have people in power with whom I "mostly" agree than people with whom I do not agree whatsoever. It is the alternative to this reasoned position that caused the Republican party to bleed so much in 2006 and it is this idealism with which Conservatism chains itself that will be the reason November 2010 is not the red-letter month it absolutely should be. At this point, any successes are not the GOP's, but failures on the part of the DNC.
Long story short? Saul Alinksy? Not the liberal/progressive Sun Tzu. At best, he's a hack, at most realistic, he's a relatively talented plagiarist.
