March 23, 2010

Saul Alinsky's interest in excrement and (bizarrely racial) flatulence.

I've been reading Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," and I've run into some really weird things. I'd copy out text from the book, but to save time, I'll just cut and paste this material — which tracks the book — from an interview he did with Playboy here and here:
ALINSKY: The most effective way to [attack Chicago mayor Richard Daley was] to create a situation in which he would become a figure of nationwide ridicule.

Now, O'Hare Airport in Chicago, the busiest airport in the world, is Mayor Daley's pride and joy, both his personal toy and the visible symbol of his city's status and importance. If the least little thing went wrong at O'Hare and Daley heard about it, he was furious and would burn up the phone lines to his commissioners until the situation was corrected. So we knew that was the place to get at him. But how? Even if we massed huge numbers of pickets, they'd be virtually lost in the thousands of passengers swarming through O'Hare's terminals. So we devised a new tactic. Picture yourself for a moment on a typical jet flight. The stewardess has served you your drinks and lunch or dinner, and afterwards the odds are you'll feel like going to the john. But this is usually awkward because your seat and those of the people sitting next to you are blocked by trays, so you wait until they're removed. But by then the people closest to the lavatories have got up and the OCCUPIED signs are on. So you wait a few more minutes and, more often than not, by the time the johns are vacant, the FASTEN SEAT BELTS signs are on, so you decide to wait until landing and then use one of the terminal restrooms. You can see this process in action if you watch the passenger gate at any landing airplane. It looks like almost half the debarking passengers make a beeline for the lavatories.

Here's where we came in. Some of our people went out to the airport and made a comprehensive intelligence study of how many sit-down pay toilets and stand-up urinals there were in the whole O'Hare complex and how many men and women we'd need for the country's first "shit-in."... For the sit-down toilets, our people would just put in their dimes and prepare to wait it out; we arranged for them to bring box lunches and reading material along to help pass the time. What were desperate passengers going to do -- knock the cubicle door down and demand evidence of legitimate occupancy? This meant that the ladies' lavatories could be completely occupied; in the men's, we'd take care of the pay toilets and then have floating groups moving from one urinal to another, positioning themselves four or five deep and standing there for five minutes before being relieved by a co-conspirator, at which time they would pass on to another rest room. Once again, what's some poor sap at the end of the line going to say: "Hey, pal, you're taking too long to piss"?

Now, imagine for a second the catastrophic consequences of this tactic. Constipated and bladder-bloated passengers would mill about the corridors in anguish and desperation, longing for a place to relieve themselves. O'Hare would become a shambles! You can imagine the national and international ridicule and laughter the story would create. It would probably make the front page of the London Times. And who would be more mortified than Mayor Daley?....
PLAYBOY: How did you organize Rochester's black community?

ALINSKY: ... We had a wide range of demands, of which the key one was that Kodak recognize the representatives of the black community who were designated as such by the people....
[An] idea I had that almost came to fruition was directed at the Rochester Philharmonic, which was the establishment's -- and Kodak's -- cultural jewel. I suggested we pick a night when the music would be relatively quiet and buy 100 seats. The 100 blacks scheduled to attend the concert would then be treated to a preshow banquet in the community consisting of nothing but huge portions of baked beans. Can you imagine the inevitable consequences within the symphony hall? The concert would be over before the first movement -- another Freudian slip -- and Rochester would be immortalized as the site of the world's first fart-in.

PLAYBOY: Aren't such tactics a bit juvenile and frivolous?

ALINSKY: I'd call them absurd rather than juvenile. But isn't much of life kind of a theater of the absurd? As far as being frivolous is concerned, I say if a tactic works, it's not frivolous. Let's take a closer look at this particular tactic and see what purposes it serves -- apart from being fun. First of all, the fart-in would be completely outside the city fathers' experience. Demonstrations, confrontations and picketings they'd learned to cope with, but never in their wildest dreams could they envision a flatulent blitzkrieg on their sacred symphony orchestra. It would throw them into complete disarray. Second, the action would make a mockery of the law, because although you could be arrested for throwing a stink bomb, there's no law on the books against natural bodily functions....
A shit-in and a fart-in. I thought you should know.

204 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 204 of 204
epobirs said...

Beth,

Snark aside, that is exactly the biggest problem faced by those who genuinely believe in minimizing government power. It is all too easy for those who love power for its own sake to seize it and make everyone's live the worse for it.

Every time you hear someone proposing a new regulation rather than providing information and letting people make their own choice, you should be suspicious. Remember the idea of not letting a crisis go to waste? It is so much easier to impose new rules on people who are frightened or desperate. Periods of economic woe are times of joy for those who love power.

richard mcenroe said...

I'm unclear on something.

Has "Issues" read the book?

Synova said...

"There's a fear or the "or have you ever been" aspect of the old question "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist?'"

I thought about Obama that he'd have done much better to actually talk about the politics of his younger years and to explain to us what he'd learned and how they had changed.

Trying to hide associations with various sorts could only lead to the conclusion that nothing had changed.

Hillary could have done that and done it effectively, I think. Release the thesis and then *talk* about it. What did she think of Alinsky then and what does she think of him now? Does she think that other considerations trump winning by any means or winning by deliberately smearing opponents?

There is a small risk, but unless she couldn't clearly articulate the difference between her views and Alinsky then, as well as how they have matured and changed, it's got to work better than to just leave this as a secret influence that somehow defines her.

Same with Obama. Certainly he's self aware enough to explain the influences on his life and how his understanding has matured and what he believed then that he was wrong about... what did he learn.

Have you ever been a communist?

Would it actually be a problem for someone who said, "Oh, lord, I was the classic pink-diaper baby..." or "It was romantic when I was 19. The struggle against the oppressor class and focus on the working man..." and then follow with the *grown up* thoughts.

reader_iam said...

Synova: Excellent!

There are, of course, a number of examples of that working.

However, there are also those who simply wouldn't believe it (on "once an 'x,' always an 'x'..." grounds).

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 204 of 204   Newer› Newest»