• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Read “Saul, Barack and me,” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

The Saul Alinsky who helped lay the foundation for the amorality of the soulless young lad who would one day lie and scheme his way into the most powerful office in the world comes through loud and clear in “Rules for Radicals” when he says, “We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it.”

This is an important statement by Alinsky, because it opens the floodgates to interpret the term general welfare in any way one chooses. In other words, simply wanting something makes it right. If your desire is to play God and steal from those you deem to be rich and give the stolen loot to those you deem to be poor, so be it. If that’s what you want, it’s moral. Nice and simple.

This explains Alinsky’s willingness to anoint himself arbiter of right and wrong. Apparently borrowing from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” Alinsky said:

Mankind has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.

On top are the Haves with power, money, food, security, and luxury. They suffocate in their surpluses while the Have-Nots starve. Numerically the Haves have always been the fewest. The Haves want to keep things as they are and are opposed to change. …

On the bottom are the world’s Have-Nots. On the world scene they are by far the greatest in numbers. They are chained together by the common misery of poverty, rotten housing, disease, ignorance, political impotence, and despair; when they are employed their jobs pay the least and they are deprived in all areas basic to human growth. Caged by color, physical or political, they are barred from an opportunity to represent themselves in the politics of life. The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get. …

Between the Haves and Have-Nots are the Have-a-Little, Want Mores – the middle class. Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they become split personalities. … Generally, they seek the safe way, where they can profit by change and not risk losing the little they have. … Today in Western society and particularly in the United States they comprise the majority of our population.

Challenge your neighbors with the question of the year — now a magnetic bumper sticker: “How’s your Hope and Change working out so far?”

In general, Alinsky was correct in his assessment, but he didn’t live to see a middle class that lives in half-million-dollar homes, eats out three nights a week and vacations at luxury resorts. He died in 1972, long before the hippie movement had died out – a time when Bob Dylan’s mutterings were still taken seriously by pot-smoking longhairs desperately in search of a cause.

Deficits, a tidal wave of credit cards, cheap goodies from China, the dramatic expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and, above all, the technology explosion of the ’80s and ’90s gave the middle class a lifestyle that only the rich had enjoyed in the past. It’s pretty hard to get people excited about a revolution when they’re relaxing in the backyards of their suburban homes, grilling steaks on the barbecue and watching the kids splash around in their 10-by-20-foot swimming pools.

Convincing these folks that they’re being exploited by “the rich” is a very tough sell. Other than the unhinged Muslim extremists – who had, and have, a whole different agenda – there wasn’t a lot of enthusiasm for revolution over the past 25 years.

Unfortunately, it was impossible to indefinitely hide the invisible depression that was overtaking America. Those pesky universal laws have a way of showing up when you least expect them, and when they finally did, false-prosperity addicts were ill prepared to deal with them.

In 2008, as economic reality began to set in and unravel the false-prosperity that the middle class had come to view as a right, it opened the door for the perfect Saul Alinsky disciple to rise from the down-and-dirty community-organizing business on the mean streets of Chicago to the halls of power in the nation’s Capitol.

To tens of millions of people who were witnessing the house-of-cards good life collapse before their very eyes, the word “change” was like a life preserver being thrown to a drowning man. No time to think about the kind of change this inexperienced, arrogant, silver-tongued young man was talking about. To the Have-a-Little, Want Mores, any kind of change was better than watching their addictive lifestyle slip away.

To paraphrase a longstanding Chicago political mafioso, Dirty Dick Durbin, BHO was the right man in the right place at the right time. And if you like redistribution-of-wealth revolutions, you’d be hard pressed to disagree with him.

So, in reality, BHO is nothing more than an accident of history – and a dangerous accident, at that. But give him credit for one thing: When given the opportunity, he took Saul Alinsky’s stale, class-warfare ideas and ran with them full-steam ahead.

Whether or not he succeeds in his efforts to totally destroy liberty in the United States of America remains to be seen. Given his willingness to push the envelope not just to the edge, but all the way off the table, in an effort to reverse the roles of the Haves and Have-Nots, I don’t think we’ll have to wait long to find out.

Hmm … now that I’ve had a chance to give it more thought, I take back what I said about thinking that I would have enjoyed having lunch with Saul Alinsky once a month. The only way anyone could possibly break bread with him now is to visit him in hell … and I’d like to think I won’t be making that trip any time soon.

In any event, I’m sure he’d much rather see his most successful disciple coming through the gates of his eternal resting place. You know the old saying: Birds of a feather burn together.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.