In Part 3 of this article, I said that the Saul Alinsky-like idea of playing musical chairs with the reins of power is a yawner, because history has clearly taught us that what happens in a successful revolution is that a new upper class emerges (Castro and his thug associates, Mao and his thug associates, Gadhafi and his thug associates, etc.).
In all revolutions, the doors of elitism swing open and a small number of populist leaders (as opposed to the duped masses – euphemistically referred to as “the people”) rush to take their places inside. As Alvin Toffler describes vividly in “The Third Wave”:
Time and again during the past 300 years, in one country after another, rebels and reformers have attempted to storm the walls of power, to build a new society based on social justice and political equality. Temporarily, such movements have seized the emotions of millions with promises of freedom. Revolutionists have even managed, now and then, to topple a regime. Yet each time the ultimate outcome was the same. Each time the rebels recreated, under their own flag, a similar structure of sub-elites, elites and superâ€‘elites.
In “Animal Farm,” George Orwell wrote about this phenomenon in similar terms:
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. … The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low … is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.
And, finally, Will and Ariel Durant put it this way:
Violent revolutions do not so much redistribute wealth as destroy it. There may be a redivision of the land, but the natural inequality of men soon recreates an inequality of possessions and privileges, and raises to power a new minority with essentially the same instincts as in the old.
Alinsky was absolutely right when he said, “History is a relay of revolutions; the torch of idealism is carried by the revolutionary group until this group becomes an establishment, and then quietly the torch is put down to wait until a new revolutionary group picks it up for the next leg of the run. Thus the revolutionary cycle goes on.” (Examples: Iran, Russia and most of Eastern Europe.)
To lead a revolution, one has to assume the role of arbiter of right and wrong, which Saul Alinksky was more than happy to do. But he was a complex man who was full of contradictions and mismatches between his words and his actions. For example, in “Rules for Radicals,” he warned his followers of the danger of dogmatic arrogance:
I detest and fear dogma. … Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit grows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world with cruelty, pain and injustice. Those who enshrine the poor or Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatists and just as dangerous.
Based on the above, I believe that Alinsky would have been distrustful of BHO. I find it ironic that Alinsky, who never knew BHO, clearly explained, decades before he came on the political scene, why he is such a dangerous individual. Just as Lenin saw Stalin as a threat to the purist ideals of the Bolshevik cause, I believe Alinsky would have seen the super-arrogant BHO as a danger to the community-organizing cause.
Nevertheless, BHO learned his lessons well from Alinsky, who said that “no ideology should be more specific than that of America’s founding fathers: ‘For the general welfare.’” These are perhaps the most dangerous words in the Constitution, because they leave the door open for power mongers to do just about anything to anyone under the banner of “the general welfare.”
To a soulless relativist like Barack Obama, the fact that the Constitution gives the government the right to “provide for the general welfare” is a dream come true. It is the perfect cover for his focus on “redistributive change” and forcing through legislation that is not authorized by the Constitution.
In Part 5: Saul Alinsky’s harsh view of the world as it is.