Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote a baffling column today (1/24/12) praising part of Newt Gingrich's political persona–not the bad stuff, but man"of big ideas," as he put it (italics his). Cohen gives one example:
Out of nowhere, he has exhumed Saul Alinsky, whose fame is limited to university sociology departments, and yet whose name is so perfectly evocative of old-style radicalism, vaguely European in sound, that it fits Gingrich's recent formulation, "people who don't like the classical America." Who dat, Newt?
The reference, although a tad obscure, is nevertheless intriguing. It shows that Gingrich is familiar with the late father of community organizing who died in 1972, and who by occupation and residence (Chicago) is suggestive of Barack Obama. Alinsky was no communist but he was a radical, and to have his name mentioned by a presidential candidate is just plain thrilling–also chilling. This is the bright and the dark side of Gingrich. He knows his stuff and often can't stop from showing off.
Out of nowhere? Using Alinsky to bash Obama has been a staple of right-wing media for at least the past four years. Alinsky was regularly included in Glenn Beck's shrill conspiracy theories. Linking Obama to Alinsky doesn't prove Gingrich knows his stuff–it means he listens to a bit of radio, or perhaps watched some Fox News Channel over the past several years.
Doubly unhelpful to Cohen's argument is the presence of this Post news article today:
If it's a Republican debate night, it's time for a Saul Alinsky reference.
Alinsky, as anyone who has paid close attention to community organizing, Fox News or presidential politics in the past four years knows, is a liberal hero and conservative villain, best remembered for his theory of empowering the disenfranchised.
I guess Richard Cohen hasn't been paying attention to politics.
But still, why does Cohen go so far to praise someone whose views he largely finds repellent? Because he hopes Gingrich will move Obama to the right:
He's an unscrupulous man, a one-car demolition derby, but if he goads Obama to unaccustomed bravery and other Democrats to rethink outdated liberal dogma (affirmative action, etc.), then he will have done his nation a great service.
About Peter Hart
A Nexis search reveals that Saul Alinsky has been mentioned at least 120 times on Fox News since 2007.
"vaguely European in sound" Umm, more like "very Jewish sounding", and that is exactly why he is referenced like this.
Part of me is fascinated by the workings of Cohen's brain.
A much larger part of me is scared shirtless.
As for Obama and community organizing, he's putting his skills to good use within the gated enclaves these days, judging by his campaign finance reports.
The basterd may have been one of the earliest to use Alinsky to smear Democrats:
Saul Alinsky was an advocate of community organizing, from a middle-class radical and anti-socialist perspective, who died in 1972, when Obama was ten years old. The only connection, if it can be called that, is that both worked in the city of Chicago as community organizers, although separated by a quarter century. Gingrich is recycling an old McCarthy-style smear from the 1990s, when he and other Republicans vilified Hillary Clinton for writing her college undergraduate thesis on Alinsky.
The repeated references to a man who died 40 years ago might appear bizarre. However, invoking the name of a Jew whose father fled Tsarist Russia gives Gingrich the opportunity to appeal to anti-Semitism, anti-communism and anti-immigrant prejudice, as well as to revive the traditional Southern bogeyman of the â┚¬Ã…“outside agitator.â┚¬Ã‚ (Alinsky was a prominent supporter of the civil rights movement).
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/scar-j23.shtml
Richard Cohen "is vaguely European in sound" too.
Readers might look up Saul Alinsky on Amazon. In addition to Alinsky's books and and a few biographical, historical, and "critical" studies of Alinsky, there is also a handful or so of traditional and e-books from the conservative right that have come out in recent years (pretty much the past four years) that both attack and appropriate Alinsky's rules for radicals. So at least some on the right appear to have some significant admiration for Alinsky's methods, if not his policy or political objectives. As for Gingrich, my guess is that he's picked up on Alinsky's name from somewhere and is simply tossing it about without much specific meaning. Notice that Gingrich never actually says anything about Alinsky. I suspect "Alinsky" is just another "nasty" word used to assault opponents (remember Gingrich's 1994 memo on language to use when attacking Democrats).
Conservatives have taken Alinsky's book and created a Conservative Rules for Radicals for themselves.
Yeah! Move Obama to the right… that's exactly what we need! Why can't we ever have a left or liberal Democrat in the White House? Why does it always have to be center-right, moving rightward?
Affirmative action is "outdated liberal dogma"? Gosh I don't know where to start with this. I wonder what the etc. stands for–women's right to choose? Equality before the law? The right to form Unions? This Cohen–a name "so perfectly evocative old-style radicalism", not to mention new-style journalism. is a total jerk.
Wrong. Here's an example of Gingrich's history knowledge. I heard him on tape (on KPFK in case you want to find the actual recording) say that the Haitian revolution was under Napoleon III. He should return his consulting fees to Freddie Mac. If he's showing off some knowledge, he probably gained it recently from the internet. (I'm sure you already know this, but the Haitian revolution was under Napoleon I, about 80 years earlier.)
Yeah, Gingrich speaks as though he knows his stuff until he says something totally wacky such as "By the end of my second term as president, we'll have an American colony on the moon."
Then all the right-wingers, who were were so appalled at Clinton's affair but so accepting of Mr. High-Infidelity's, cheer.
cohen must not get out much…saul alinsky is already enshrined in the wingnut straw man hall of fame….right next to bill ayers, francis ford piven, george soros, acorn and of course, the blackety black black panthers..
Well, John Tobias, I knew I couldn't have been the only person to have thought that the chief reason fo Gingrich to mention Alinsky was to employ the oldest and shrillest dog whisltling of all: the Jew as radical communist troublemaker and slayer of Christian babies, among many other things. Gingrich is a cracker, just one with a lot of dough and a good vocabulary. He knows that the old Jewish bugbear is alive and well down in the hinterlands, and employed the race-baiting for a double-whammy: radical blacks and Northern Jewish commies are going to ruin the country.
What's really interesting is that Cohen and many other northern bloviators seem to think that anti-Semitism simply isn't a problem any more on the Right; indeed, it's the left, in the Right's eyes, that is the new hotbed of anti-Semitism, because the left calls Israel to account occasionally. I remember reading Charlie Krauthammer's mystified account of the movie Borat; Krauthammer couldn't believe that Sascha Cohen would suggest that honest sons and daughters of the American soil, good Christians all, would sit around a bar, and at some very minor provocation, sing "Throw the Jew down the well."
LOL, woodward. It amazes (and terrifies) me how conservatives can so successfully vilify anything and everything that is truly and actually good for this country. Boggles the mind.
I
As far as Alinski….. Hilary was a huge fan admittedly as was Obama.Most lib just don't want to ask that question.Or ties to any of the people Woodward above mentioned.Move along(quickly)nothing to see here.Obama was never vetted and never will be.Any republican candidate gets vetted more on any day, than Obama did for his entire campaign.Tim has some interesting takes on Newt.Just seems like a lot of personal stuff.No real in depth looks at his policies.In the end if I said it once ive said it a number of times.He wont beat Mitt and all this is a waste of effort.America wants a lot of things from their president.But that likability factor….that feeling that he is a good man under it all(politics)is just not gonna sit well on Newts shoulders.He seems smart and very knowledgable about government.He also seems a jerk.Id like to see him in the cabinet were his ideas can be channeled.The campaign he has run seems "oily" to me.Like a Democratic run.Full of leveraging for position using any means.Wait till the general election when Obama lets fly.Then you will really see oil flying.