I have been watching the Tea Party's employment of Alinsky's rules for the past couple of years. For a while I had thought this was somewhat ironic, as Alinsky was a Jewish leftist, and has often been reviled by the right.

However, looking at Rule #11, one realizes that there is no irony whatsoever:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."

Obama - the target - could be easily targeted via guilt-by-association by focusing on his association with Alinsky's ideas. In fact, it is this association that led to some of the initial claims of Obama's "socialism" (and it didn't help Obama in the eyes of the right that both he AND H. Clinton shared this association - link below). It's almost like while evidence of guilty associations were being searched for, these handy, movement-fueling rules were accidentally discovered along the way.

---

Obama, Clinton and Alinsky: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

American Thinker on the Alinsky/Obama connection:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

World News Daily suggests that SOCIALIST AGITATOR Saul "The Red" Alinsky suggested Obama enter Harvard:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=76170

I don't know. I think the left is still the master at these rules, especially number 11.

"* Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."

Defining all tea partiers as racists despite no evidence of the sort? That's a pretty good strategy. It's hard to counter because even when the tea partiers show that they're not racist (and, let's be honest, they're not), the left can still go back and say "nope, you are racist." It's a joke the way political debate is now, and one of the worst perpetrators is Roger Ebert.

Ebert: Not all Tea Partiers are racists. Unfortunately, those who are not never seem to object to the racist signs and caricatures of their friends.

Two other links:

Via the Chicago Tea Party: Did Saul Alinsky create the new blueprint for modern politics? What is the link between Alinsky and the rise of Barack Obama? What ethical, strategic, and tactical lessons can tea party activists and other liberty loving Americans learn from the writings of Saul Alinsky?

http://teapartychicago.netboots.net/events/2010-06-04/community-organizing-101-lessons-from-saul-alinsky

Conservatives Find Town Hall Strategy in Leftist Text: Organizers See 'Rules for Radicals' as Blueprint for Taking Down 'Obamacare'

http://washingtonindependent.com/54554/conservatives-find-town-hall-strategy-in-leftist-text

Sheesh Jake way to miss a point!!

Rule#11 includes "Identify a responsible individual" & Jake proceeds to use the entire Tea Party conflagration as the example of identifying an INDIVIDUAL?

Hilarious. How can anyone have a rational argument w/ these types?

Ebert: Not all Tea Partiers are racists. Unfortunately, those who are not never seem to object to the racist signs and caricatures of their friends.

It's hard to decipher your answer. You seem to say that you don't believe tea partiers are racist, but at the same time you claim they are because they don't object to supposed racist signs. And it is supposed because there really isn't evidence to show that tea partiers have brought racist signs or shouted racist comments at any of the rallies. There are signs that people assume are racist, but those people are trying to patch together a narrative. The congressmen who claim racist things were said to them in DC never had any evidence to back up their claims. And it's really hard to concretely know that any racist sign that shows up to a tea party event is by a tea partier because some individuals have tried to infiltrate the tea party rallies to make the tea party look racist. For an organization that is supposedly racist, why would people need to infiltrate the rallies to make the tea party appear racist? Unless, well, there haven't been actual signs of racism at the rallies and therefore people need to create this narrative.

The worst part about your reply is that you were blatantly dishonest. Your statement goes against what you've been saying for the past year. For example, a tweet from March 20th: "I wonder how many additional "yes" votes the racist, spitting, cursing Tea Party louts inspired." And another, from March 21: "The Tea Party mob is racist, and let's frankly say so." Come on Roger, let's be honest for once. I love your movie reviews. I own a couple of your books on film. There is no one I would rather go to for his/her insight on film than you. Your genius in the field is unsurpassed. However, your lunacy and dishonest as you attempt to bash all things Tea Party is silly and pathetic.

Ebert: A man holding a racist sign at a Democratic Party rally would be quickly made to feel extremely unwelcome. You seem to believe such signs are fakes at Tea Party rallies, where they are common. Why don't the non-racist Party Members ask them to leave? You have to admit, it's a good question.

Jake, I disagree with you that what you're describing fits #11, and I imagine we differ in our opinions of the subjects of this post (I refuse to associate them with honorable patriots). You are right, though, I think, in calling the racist argument a straw man, at least to a degree. Of course some are, because conservatism in general calls forth scared and hateful individuals, but I'd say these folks are actually less racist in general than the average body of Republicans. While the GOP stays rooted in the Christ, Corporations and KKK conservatism of the south, these guys are much more of the individualist, libertarian breed, more west/southwestern, hating government interference more than begging for welfare to be given to rich white men.
The problem is that, while they claim this, they also love laws that demand handing over papers for any reason at all, bringing federal troops en masse (that's French, sorry) to their (or, more likely, other) states. They want total liberty for their in-group and total fascism against all others. This is that confusion-inducement Alinsky mentions, extremism in every direction. That's also the basis for the movement's appeal, in my opinion. It allows any frustration to be voiced through it, no matter how incompatible it is with the others also being voiced.
So yes, if you're pissed that a black man's the president and you're unhappy even though your whole family's white, or that some Mexican's getting $3 an hour to do backbreaking work while you have to struggle by on ten-times his monthly wages in unemployment checks, these people will welcome you and let you yell, and as long as the movement stays amorphous and leaderless, both the accusations and the denials will be valid, but at least according to the talking points its posters proclaim, the thing itself isn't inherently racist, it just, as Ebert points out, feeds off hatred.
So good point.

Ebert: Why don't the non-racist Party Members ask them to leave? You have to admit, it's a good question.

Good question indeed, Roger. The answer is even better. They do. The racist members do ask them to leave. For example, take this article from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050405168.html

Key paragraphs:

"Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, said that at the heart of the effort to counter racism accusations is dissociating from protesters who cross the line. Around the time of the health-care vote, FreedomWorks and Tea Party Nation worked to form a federation of tea party groups to coordinate strategy and do a better job sticking to a similar message, organizers said.

At a protest in Nashville, Phillips said, there were "a couple of signs -- which I'm not convinced weren't plants from the other side -- that were really tasteless and inappropriate." The people who carried them "were told to put their signs down and leave. . . . They were literally thrown out of the event," he said."

That's right Roger. They are trying to dissociate themselves from the supposed racist fringe of the party. They have asked those carrying racist signs (but might not have been tea partiers) to leave. Of course, that's just one article, but it's a pretty good article to counter your outrageous claims that non-racist tea partiers are complicit in the supposed racism. In my defense, I'm no tea partier and I find the whole group a big nuisance. However, I believe ideas should counter any opinion one thinks is unpopular and not baseless attacks towards the group's mindset.

Brilliant article! At first I worried that raising this point could inadvertently help the Tea Party leaders who seem to be neglecting Rule 7 about tactics that drag on too long, but then I figured that this might be balanced by rank and file Tea Party followers who finally wake up to the fact that the rules are used to manipulate them as much as the opposition. Rule 1 has made them think they are really the majority, Rule 9 has them terrified of nonexistent threats, and Rule 2 has them sucking up guff from demagogues who are obviously talking down to people they don't really have anything in common with.

Well, TM, it looks like I missed one word in the rule. Individual. Of course, the rule also states not to go after abstract institutions like corporations and bureaucracies. And one could see the tea party as an organization of individuals, unlike corporations and bureaucracies. But, that's splitting hairs. Your attempt to imply that I am not on the same intellectual level as you because the rule carried the word "individual" neglects to address the point I was making. And if you decide the rule only encompasses individuals, then we only need to look into the left's ridicule of individuals such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, etc, etc, etc. All in all, your dismissive comment was pointless. You are going with the "Wizard of OZ" style of arguing, that of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Ignore the meat of my argument and attack a sole, inconsequential part. Kudos.

Ebert is either an idiot or an intellectual ho or both.

Saul Alinsky was a known communist and he formulated his Rules for Radicals based on the works of Antonio Gramsci, a known Italian Marxist agitator.

I hope Ebert's expertise on movies is substantially better than his understanding of history.

Ebert: Here's an Alinsky quote for you:

"I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."

In any event, what do his politics have to do with the Tea Party using his Rules? Given how much the TeePees mention Alinsky, it's a cinch they know about them.

BTW, Saul Alinsky dedicated his book, "Rules for Radicals," to Satan:

"Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

You'll have to be more specific about what constitutes racism nowadays. The word has lost its potency through overuse, much like "fascism".

I thnk Fox News may be the most guilty of employing these tactics

Rule #1 reminded me of what a university student union leader said when asked about radical student groups on campus:

"Two guys and a $100 can look like a revolution" - Paul Normandeau

Huh! Where'd my short and sweet one go? Coming up?

Was gonna add a rule 13, but forgot what it was. Oh! Yeah! 13. Never use people expecting money for their cause. And if your opponents are NOT expecting money, you're a goner.

Am I just making this up, or did we not wipe out Supervisorial boards in 2 different counties in 2 different states this way, virtually overnight?

I'm in agreement with Jake here. I love Roger's film reviews, even when I disagree with them, and I enjoy much of what he writes, but having followed his Twitter page for a steady two months of continual bashing/insulting of the Republicans and particularly the Tea Party movement.....I just don't see anything positive that is ever going to grow out of all the dirt that he flings. He's quoted as saying "The Tea Party mob is racist." For someone who is as skilled with language as Roger is, that doesn't convey to me that he feels that a small percentage of people associated with the Tea Party are racist. I'm not a literary expert, but that statement seems to paint the whole movement with pretty broad brushstrokes.

I just want to go on record as saying that I consider myself a liberal and that I agree with a lot of the individual statements that Roger makes, but the incessant negativity and bashing and attacking just wore out my ability to really listen. I wish he'd use his platform in a more positive manner, on both sides of the issues because he has a great ability to do so and I personally think he'd have a greater impact doing so.

How often does the right create a "concerned citizen's group" who tend to 'protest' laws and regulations aimed at companies/corporations re: polluting, discrimination, etc.? And usually these concerned groups are funded by those very companies? I'm waiting for a concerned citizen's group to show up this week to protest anything introduced or suggested against bp or other oil companies.

"It's hard to decipher your answer. You seem to say that you don't believe tea partiers are racist, but at the same time you claim they are because they don't object to supposed racist signs."

I understand why it was hard for you to understand Ebert's answer, Jake. Maybe point form would work better for you:

- some Tea Party folks hold up racist signs (making them racists.)

- other Tea Party folks aren't very reliable at making the racist people in the first group feel unwelcome (making them, at best, indifferent to the racism of their fellows.)

- If group 1 (the racists) and group 2 (the people indifferent to racism) make up the majority of the Tea Party movement (assertion), then, yes, I believe it would be fair to call it a racist movement.

Is the assertion true? I think so and so does Ebert. More importantly, there is nothing dishonest or crazy about believing that assertion -- it could be true, and there's at least some evidence that it is true.

Jeez Jake, what a crock to call Roger's original answer "hard to decipher". Do you believe there are hidden codes in his answer? (Hint: THERE'S NOTHING TO DECIPHER!)

No ciphers involved whatsoever.

I'm starting to think Jake is also JakeD @WaPo, but he's trying to be polite for Roger; same type of faulty arguments.

Hmmm...definitely seems like Sarah Palin's rules of the road, especially Rule numbers 5, 10 and 11.

We have to define racism properly. No one in the tea party fits within the old definition of a racist: someone motivated by racial hatred to commit acts of violence or other injustices against black people.

The tea party is compromised of people who would have 30 or 40 years ago been the average American--that is to say, not particularly malicious, yet filled with the firm conviction that there are significant differences between people of different races and the white race is superior.

Today, that belief is the province of people on the right. Racism has also become counter-cultural, so it is considered somewhat edgy and cool in certain circles to tell racial jokes and to raise one's eyebrows at the prevailing mainstream consensus of racial equality.

Today's tea partiers are just a bit behind the times. In the 1960s, there were plenty of liberals who, with all good intentions, patronized black people no end. That's another form of racism--ironically, the kind that drove Clarence Thomas to the right. It is that kind of unthinking, non-vicious racism that the tea party traffics in.

" It's hard to counter because even when the tea partiers show that they're not racist (and, let's be honest, they're not)"
"there really isn't evidence to show that tea partiers have brought racist signs or shouted racist comments at any of the rallies."

Jake is quite clearly a crazy person

you sir, are trollin'

Call it trollin', call it trying to hold a public figure accountable for his quotes, so be it. I can deal with what you're saying precisely because many of you are not giving any evidence for your positions, but rather parroting what the anti-tea party talking points are.

And Roger, I see you posted one of the comments I made late last night, but the other one is not up yet and I hope it gets up soon. The one linking to the Washington Post article that shows that the Tea Party organizers do take a proactive approach to get racist signs out of their rallies. If you can't allow comments that link to other newspapers, I understand. However, if you can't allow comments that disprove one of your arguments, that's inexcusable.

Never mind. Just saw that. I'm sorry I was mistaken. Thanks for your fairness and integrity.

It's not that either sentence in Mr. Ebert's comment about racist TPers is hard to "decipher". It's that in the first statement he acknowledges that not all TPers are racist, then in the second he accuses them of being racist (by omission as it were)!
It was a sly way of reining in his broad baseless attack, while still promoting it. And it was confusing.
I wonder if TPers don't object to racist speech as much because they understand free speech. . . I mean, there are racists with mouths everywhere, so what? Discredit them logically and move on.

No Les, he was very simply asking where are the TPers who object to the extremists? And don't tell me it isn't racist to hold signs that say "First Kenyan President" or "Barry HUSSEIN Obama". Nor is it a free speech issue; no one's telling them how to run their own rallies or protests. But if the racist rhetoric is accepted by them (the more anger the better) then they can hardly complain if their image is fashioned as a bitter and bigoted movement.

And not to kick a dead horse here, but the TPers continually crack me up how they cloak themselves in Founding Fathers attire and say "Let's take our country back to 1776". Who wants to explain to them that back in the days of the early Republic politicians would be far less sympathetic to their voice than they are today?

"I don't know. I think the left is still the master at these rules, especially number 11."

Let me get this straight. You're saying that "The Left", in attacking the Tea Party in general for its widespread use and general acceptance of overtly racist messages, is somehow utilizing a strategy that instructs one to avoid attacking an organization in favor of personifying an individual.

Sorry, but that would actually be the exact opposite of employing Rule 11.

As for this bullshit argument involving the ludicrous strawman accusation that "all TPers are racist", allow me to break it down.

- The individuals of the tea party that make overtly racist statements and arguments are indeed racists.

- The individuals of the tea party that would not make such statements or utilize such arguments are probably not racists, but their general unwillingness to stand up to the racists in their house makes them cowards.

Those rules look like they're chapter headings from a political strategy textbook. You are right, they have no party affiliation.

Maybe the TPers who aren't "standing up" to the racists protesting are just busy people who have better things to do than wag their finger at racist. It's not like there's a membership registry for the TP. It's just a neologism trying to describe a social phenomenon.
I've been to some TP events and I just want to lend my personal attendance to "the cause" for a bit and get back to my life. I don't want to go through the crowd accosting everyone with a ___ist sign.
Do you address everyone who has an objectionable opinion at your work? school? church? and every other organization you belong to? It's untenable!
So, as I said, logically discredit the racists and start discussing the legitimate issues surrounding the TPers. Stop obfuscating valid POVs by trying to create guilt by association with racism.
For more info on "the cause" as I see it, visit www.downsizedc.org

Peace!

I just wanted to say that it seems a great shame that some of the first comments on this post are disingenuous and manipulative rubbish by the likes of "Jake" and "Peter".

Mr Ebert, in an attempt to counterbalance their malign presence, allow me to say that I love your social commentary pieces. They strike me as being both wise and humane. American public discourse has been dominated for far too long by a brand of so-called conservatism that is nothing of the kind. It is good to hear someone, anyone - let alone someone as articulate as yourself - speaking out against them.

(For those who want to see the damage that the "Reagan Revolution" and its lackeys have done, try looking here for a small sample:
http://www.alternet.org/story/147262/6_shocking_ways_conservatives_helped_cause_the_economic_destruction_of_america/)

Tea Party Movies - a celebration of an American movement
http://chinokino.blogspot.com/2010/07/tea-party-movies-celebration-of.html

Roger...

You are correct - but the Tea Party is now just giving back what the left has been dishing out since Obama was nominated.

I point to these three rules specifially:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Keith Olbermanns "World's Worst People" was on long before the tea parties. On MSNBC' the ED SHOW just yesterday I heard Michelle Backman referred to as a "psychotalker", Shawn Hannity was called "Slant head" and Sarah Palin was called "an idiot"

This sort of targetted ridicule is FAR common and relentless on MSNBC than by the tea parties or anyone on the right. Alinsky was a "community organizer" and this book was written as an instruction manual for them. 'nuff said.

Right on, Paul, and I'm sorry it took me so long to find this article. Do the Tea Partiers adhere to the 11 rules as much as some claim? Are they sometimes unfair in their tactics? My answer to both questions is: I don't know, but I certainly hope so. About time.

I came across this article while looking for proof that Saul Alinsky praised Satan, or Lucifer in the preface to his handbook. I see a few people quoted that but I could not find proof that it is true. When you google that, hundreds of sites come up regarding it. I had to scroll a few pages until I came to something which looked reputable (Roger Ebert) Any authentic websites or just B.S. perpetrated by fearmongers?

Great article, Mr. Ebert.

Funny, just today, the NY Times published an article about "FreedomWorks, the Washington advocacy group that has done more than any other organization to build the Tea Party movement." According to the article, "New employees receive a required-reading list that includes 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky."

See the full article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/politics/26freedom.html

Um, these look racist to me. Especially the ones depicting Obama as a monkey and / or witch doctor.

http://www.google.com/images?q=racist+tea+party+signs&oe;=utf-8&rls;=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client;=firefox-a&safe;=strict&um;=1&ie;=UTF-8&source;=og&sa;=N&hl;=en&tab;=wi&biw;=1024&bih;=562&safe;=on

I've been disappointed, Mr. Ebert, by your demonization of Republicans and anybody on the right. The Tea Party is going to have some bad apples -- people are bad apples, on all sides.

Here's a Democratic party official calling Andrew Breitbart "gay." Nice:

http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/10/25/identified-right-nation-protester-who-called-andrew-breitbart-gay-is-a-democrat-party-official/

Let's not pretend the left are all wonderful and the right are all evil. I used to respect you, but since I've been reading your tweets, I don't anymore. Truly balanced people understand that politicians are generally out for themselves, and are able to look at the other side without demonizing them entirely. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro a lot of other things you probably are, but I also think there's a lot of wasteful government spending. Does that make me an evil Republican or an evil Independent (I can't vote Republican because of their positions on social issues)?

Ebert: The Tea Party uses Saul's playbook. I said so. That's all.

Alinsky, Goebbels, Hoffman, what have you - The tactics are all common sense to running a grass-roots campaign, especially when you have minimal control of the media...

Regarding the "racist" tea party folks - I've spoken with people at the meetings, and it seems like nobody knows the folks on the lunatic fringe... And it is very difficult/impolite to just ask someone to leave... Quite a few "conservative" folks are too polite for their own good. And until recently they had little idea about how to actually organize a coherent message/group.

Crying "racist" is also a very effective way to detract attention from the Tea Party "group's" message - small government, fewer and simpler regulations, lower taxes, and the rest. People knee-jerk when they hear some words. That's why they get used so much... Saying that a black politician is a crooked incompetent isn't racist any more than saying the same about a white (or hispanic or asian...) politician... But it's still effective...

When I suggest to someone that they need to read something called "Steal this Book" to understand how to get a message across, they usually look at me with horror... And after they've read it, they tell other people to read it.

The grass roots campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s were essentially co-opted by people in search of raw power - today's grass roots campaigns are full of people who want to see things simplified, with an emphasis on common sense instead of "you must follow the nonsensical rule, because it is the rule, or else."

re: She is an idiot about whom TPartiers should be deeply ashamed: "Outrage at Bachmann Over Huma Hit." Good luck dumkopf.

According to media pundits, Michelle Bachman is the new Joe McCarthy after addressing the issue of Huma Abedin’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood via her family.

However, in her letter to Ellison, Bachmann explained that much more was behind her concern about Abedin than guilt-by-association based on family members: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”

And in Abedin’s case, there are ample reasons for raising these questions. Her father, Syed Z. Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization supported by the Muslim World League, a Brotherhood organization. Her mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, the Brotherhood’s adjunct organization for women. The Brotherhood itself is in its own words, according to a captured internal document, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

As Bachmann noted, “these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.” So why should Huma Abedin be exempt? Would an official who had family connections with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations be similarly exempt from scrutiny? If not, why should someone with familial connections to a group dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”?

It is the same political correctness and liberal appeasement of Muslims that has been cited in the Fort Hood shooter investigations that prevents an honest assessment of the risk to Americans that Bachman attempts to address. Oh, and by the way, history has shown that McCarthy was essentially correct.