Rival Revolutionaries

          Gingrich contends that Obama is “a Saul Allinsky radical”. Gingrich is always entertaining. Who is Alinsky? He is known as the “father of modern radicalism”. Alinsky created “rules” that channel amorphous grassroots emotion and discontent into concerted tactical and strategic action. His approaches were adopted by the civil rights movement and campus radicals in the 1960s. Virtually every form of social protest seen today reflects Alinsky’s methods to some extent. They are published in strategic planning publications such as Public Relations Strategies and promoted internationally by such strategic think tanks as the Miyamoto Strategic Council. The methods are very effective in enabling groups to confront and change the big and powerful. So virtually everyone who organizes grass roots action is a Saul Alinsky radical, in method if not in motive, including Mr. Gingrich.

          The Newtster is playing off Establishment sentiment that his opposition is a radical. Newsflash to Newt, the culture wars are over and the Counterculture is now the mainstream. For Newt, being  radical and a revolutionary is a bad thing. It depends which revolutionary tradition inspires you. “Modern” or Marxist revolutionaries are populist, and seek political reform and social justice. They are inherently anti-Establishment and anti-colonialist.  They oppose the established political and economic order. When they come into power, Marxist revolutionaries often form a country characterized by a few exploiting the many, profound economic inequality, the illusion of popular political engagement, manipulation of the media, and entrenched political corruption. Good thing that’s nothing like our country…pesky Marxists.

          Newt believes we should be inspired by the Founding Fathers, such as Madison and Jefferson. However, our Founders were also radicals and revolutionaries, opposing the established economic and political order. Both modern and Founding revolutionaries believed that Government and the “system” gets its power and authority from the People and that the People have the power to establish a system of governance rather than simply comply to the one in place. Since a core value of the Founders was liberty, they may well have radically opposed a political system with neo-colonial aspirations and big business dependence.

          One might contend that the Founders were rich, white guys who wanted to protect the interest of rich, white guys. Not true. They ferociously opposed an aristocracy of wealth and privilege. They established a Government designed to protect the rights of all Americans. They laid an egalitarian, inclusive foundation that benefited all enfranchised citizens.

          Self-governance is always based on radicalism and revolution. Only in complacency and defense of the Establishment, the dividing and conquering of the People, can avarice and exploitation flourish. So which radical tradition will YOU choose to be inspired by? Or will you just defend the status quo?

          It may be mentally jarring to conflate Che with Madison. There are many points of common ground on which the Founding Fathers would agree and align with modern radicals. The original Tea Party was a protest against the East India Company, as well as the taxation policy of the Crown. Both would have opposed the exploitation of the People by the wealthy and privileged. They would both oppose social injustice and political/economic corruption. Both believe that the  People have the authority and responsibility to renew the ”system” when it becomes “tyrannical”. Does tyranny mean exploitive and providing no authentic options for genuine reform….such as a “two Party” system which is inherently the same big money Party? Let’s see what one revolutionary radical advises:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." – Thomas Jefferson