The “New Rules for Radicals” in the Trump Era
“Rules for Radicals” was authored by Marxist community organizer Saul Alinsky. In 1971 he offered radicals 10 lessons explaining how they could “win” as Left-wing activists. Barack Obama wrote in his autobiography Rules was his guidebook when he was a community organizer.
However, in light of the 2016 election and the reaction of today’s radicals, perhaps it might be a time for reflection and take a fresh look at 11 new “rules.”
Hence, the “New Rules for Radicals” for the Trump Presidential Era.
Rule No. 1 – It’s not wise to insult and ridicule voters who you hope will vote for you in the future. Right now, this might serve as feel good therapy to call Trump voters bigots, homophobes or stupid hillbillies. But it’s possible your rants might not entice them to vote for your side. Unless you change your view of white, working class Americans, it’s possible they will walk away from Democrats and progressives for a long time.
Rule No. 2 – Those idiotic, no-nothing whites without a college degree who you humiliate and ridicule used to be the very foundation of your Democratic Party. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson’s Democratic Party was a party of the unwashed, the uneducated, the poor working class. That was your daddy’s Democratic Party. If you don’t stop your stream of insults, they may leave your party forever.
Rule No. 3 – No Democratic Presidential candidate has won a majority of white voters since 1964. It’s true that the exodus of white voters is not all Hillary’s fault. The loss of white voters was triggered by an ongoing cultural war launched against whites and cheered on by progressive activists for at least 40 years. We saw and heard it on public display on such broadcast outlets as PBS, National Public Radio, on TV sitcoms in SNL skits and in Hollywood movies, and on John Stewart’s TV histrionics. For decades ordinary Americans have had to put up with a written press corps filled with haughty, condescending, patronizing and imperious articles from liberal publications. To date, your high-handed ridicule has never been defined as “hate speech” by federal or state authorities. But your endless ridicule has hurt many people. And they remember.
Rule No. 4: The whites who you condemn as racists twice voted for Obama. How could white people who voted in very blue states for our first black President — many of them twice — fit the definition of racist?
Rule No. 5: Don’t mock white working class women and at-home women who raise children. Overall, white female voters went for Trump over Hillary 53% to 43%, according to CNN exit polls. You celebrated smashing “glass ceilings” for professional women and the tough life of minorities. That’s OK. But for the most part Hillary and progressives rarely celebrated the poor, hard-working blue collar women and at-home moms. And sometimes they were the same people.
Rule No. 6: Don’t assume all women who grew up during the women’s movement agree with you. Among middle aged women — who would have grown up in the heyday of the feminist movement — broke largely in favor of Trump by 20% over Hillary, according to NBC News exit polls. This is not a criticism of feminist women. But it’s to say that many American women who grew up during the days of Gloria Steinem don’t really identify with her.
Rule No. 7: Don’t believe your support for amnesty for illegal immigrants and open borders can always attract Latinos. Despite Trump’s call for building a wall and deporting some illegal immigrants, more Latino voters went for Trump in 2016 than for Mitt Romney in 2012. A full third of Latino men — 33% — voted for Trump in this election, according to CNN exit polls. And a quarter of all Latino women voted for him as well. If Trump rids Latino community of gangs led by illegals, is it possible they might vote for him in even greater numbers?
Rule No. 8: Pro-Tranny bathroom politics seems like a godsend to progressives, but it didn’t play so well in places like critical North Carolina. Two thirds of North Carolina voters said they opposed the so-called “bathroom bill,” according to the Associated Press exit poll in the Tar Heel state. Yes, it won votes in liberal Raleigh-Durham. But Trump won six out of ten voters in the suburbs as well as those in the Western rural parts of the state. The evidence suggests the Obama administration’s heavy handed Justice Department intervention may have cost Hillary the state.
Rule No. 9: It may be a little early to cement Barack Obama’s legacy. Legacies are born out well after a president leaves office. But it’s not encouraging that in the November election, an overwhelming 62% said the country was on the wrong track, according to the CNN exit poll. Among those who felt that way, Trump won by more than a 2 to 1 margin.
Rule No. 10: Maybe in the future you should play down the “bigger government as a solution” idea too. Only five percent of all voters were “enthusiastic” about more government, according to the CNN exit poll. “Dissatisfied?” 46%. But another 23% weren’t just dissatisfied, they were “angry,” according to CNN. The days of big government solutions may be in our past, not in our future.
Rule No. 11. Hillary won a majority of the popular vote. Not true. She won 48% of the popular vote and Trump won 47% That’s not a majority, but a plurality. And her husband, Bill Clinton, won the Presidency with only 43% of the vote in a three-way race. His supporters didn’t suggest he could not legitimately govern without a majority. The same goes for Trump.
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
First for me onsite and most likely a last, found this last night while reading op eds and figured it would be good to repost here.
There are no red box rules, I wont be monitoring the discussion ( might join in , don't know yet). and I give the R.A. permission to lock the discussion , or delete the post entirely if she feels the need to .
remember to keep the discussion polite , if there is any , the source is not the topic , the topic is the body of whats written . if one wishes attack the premises put forward , not where they come from.
and I included the link to the original at the top.
It has been nearly a year and I haven't seen any indication they've learned a thing.
I take it , from lack of response there is no arguments about how these 11 factors affected the outcome of the last presidential election.....
It's only been up for less than an hour Mark. Still might not attract much comment though. The left wingers here don't like to comment on a topic where they're already beaten and certainly not on an article that they can't control.
Maybe we will boycott this article the way the right boycotts and ignores "liberal" articles on this site. I've heard worse ideas.
free to do as you wish , except to spam, I have never boycotted articles from either side , just exersized the right to say nothing if I had nothing to say or contribute. which is mostly the case for me nothing to say but a lot to consider.
Oh and an afterthought, because of the rules here , I had to use the original title to this editorial, otherwise I might have changed it to something like," lessons that should be learned from the last election by all parties."
Well to my surprise here is another article of more of the same old I told ya so that I've been seeing since 11/9. Thanks for the repackaged info. Bravo for moving the conversation forward.
don't worry Pj , this is only my first post as an author on a serious note on site , rest assured it WILL be my last.
and as I pointed out , I had to use the original title from the op -ed , otherwise I would have changed it to "lessons that should be learned from the last election by all parties." because it fits everyone actually , not just those pointed out in the OP-Ed.
because there was enough of it going around from all sides. I presented it , people choose not to see it and learn from it no matter what strata of politics is their flavor , not my problem anymore.
Bravo Mark for a fine article . It had a lot of material to really think about instead of the usual propaganda . I would like to see you put up more articles ...
I'm not worried Mark and please don't change your tone or objective on my account.
But honestly, what information are you providing that others haven't provided ad nauseam for over two weeks? What conversation are you looking to encourage and with whom? Where on this site have you seen any softening from either side? Why would you think regurgitating points that some on the left find rather silly if not condescending? How about you put up a list outlining how completely naive those who voted for Donald Trump are to have actually believed he would keep any of his promises after he proved time after time that he is incapable of telling the truth? Start with that list and then you can go back to the "why liberals are stupid" list.
I was just popping in to see whether anything had changed and I'm not surprised to learn it hasn't.
PJ , come on ! Asking why would people believe Donald Trump, just because he is a known and proven fraud and pathological liar ! How dare you?
actually , me posting an article , is not the norm for me , I am usually just a commenter, so it was a change for me to post , I will just be going back to my normal accepted role, and if I change tone its because I evaluate all the information at my disposal , as to why not post anti trump stuff? I didn't vote for the guy either , and its that simple , because until jan 20th 2017, its all speculation as far as what I could say , until then , cards closer to the vest than normal, and even when I do comment I keep in mind , its only my opinion, and it matters to no one but myself. the only one that has to be happy with my opinion , is me , everything else , fairy dust and unicorn farts.
Hey, it's a lot more fun than snark!!!
PJ, you're back! I missed you!
Have you been to Israel yet?
Mark, this is a fabulous article, and I sincerely hope you post more!! MUCH love to you!
Also: I took it to mean ALL-- left, right, center, too!
thank you lady d .
here is another one I read and had to think about , might not like the way it slants and all but its something to consider in helping understanding .
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/here%e2%80%99s-why-progressives-lose-their-minds-when-they-lose-elections/ar-AAkzj9u?ocid=spartanntp
I have been labeled progressive and liberal, when I'm really a moderate. I haven't lost my mind, yet, I don't think... I'm really a moderate with a slightly left lean-- but I believe in the art of compromise-- Libras often do!
Check your email, please, Mark...
Yeah, if only we could change some titles so as not to be so snarky... I would say "Why Some People..." But, that's me.
Lady d your not alone , many people actually don't ask questions to find out exactly where someone stands , and what questions they do ask, well I will say they already have preconceived conclusions .
I doubt anyone on this site thinks I have a liberal bone or belief in my body .
take for instance I am pro choice with limitations
I am for equal pay for equal work irregardless of gender or race
I am pro LBTG
I believe there should be social safety nets , but not where they can become a way of being a lifestyle
To me it all depends on the subject not the party platform.
me, too!
Mark, this is a fabulous article,
Dowser, every single one of the points in the article are specifically referring to the Democrats and Clinton and "the left" in a derogatory , negative, or accusatory way.
Are you sure you are a "moderate" ?
And those that fail to see those pearls of wisdom , and fail to see how they apply to those themselves in the bigger picture, will forever remain in the dark.
I think many can say they have seen exactly what the OP-ED was talking about , even if it was non inclusive and narrowly directed in its writing , can say they have seen it themselves in other groups, the trick , and to answer a question I was asked , take whats written apply it to yourself( or other groups) and not who its written about , and see what the results would be , only the individual can answer that , but I am starting to think that is outside a progressive minds ability , and yes I think there is a difference between a progressive and a liberal , or a moderate.
Sell your double talk to Dowser, she appears to be buying.
John - Don't pick on Lady Dowser. She's our last ray of sunshine here. I admire that she always looks for common ground and the positive message. I've unfortunately given up on there being any real effort of compromise from most here. Mark is another who is generally able to "hear" you. Whether he agrees is a different story but I appreciate he makes the effort.
I'm not picking on anyone. The seeded article is an attack on "the left". It is beyond obvious.
Yes, but the title said, "The “New Rules For Radicals” In The Trump Era"
I took that to mean radicals of both sides...
Thank you m'lady for seeing I at least "try".
more than just her john , Like I said , I couldn't change the title , nor the body because its a printed article , so it has to come as is from the source , how some one takes it is up to them , what different points are brought out if applied to different groups /parties or individuals is definitely relevant because there are lessons to be learned , just so happens this time it was the democratic party used as an example ( one that can be applied to all the parties), 8 years ago it was the GOP learning this hard lesson, for many of the same points , or is that forgotten today?
you see it as an attack as maybe a few others do , well like I said pearls of wisdom unseen .... if all you have is what you have posted about the seeded article and have nothing of substance related to the points raised , then your opinion is duly noted and unceremoniously disregarded as nothing more than a feeble attempt to disrupt and start a fight, neither of which will happen nor be condoned so unless you are going to add something about the points raised , I suggest you take your own advice from your first post on it and start your boycott since anything other than polite discourse on the points are nothing more than the feeble unicorn farts and tears of fools from you.
You know where the door is if the article is not to your liking.
John, you see it as a shot at the liberals, the "lefties", the Democrats, but others, including me, see it as a guideline to not lose again. Your comments appear to be paranoid, and so you miss seeing the forest for the trees.
Buzz. The difference between you and me in these instances is that I have enough experience in looking at this type of stuff in the right wing media to know what I am talking about, and I am not sure you do.
If Mark feels like this comment is off topic he can go ahead and have Perrie remove it. If that happens before you see this I will copy it and email it to you.
The tip off to the intentions of this particular writer is that he calls Saul Alinsky , the now semi-well known community organizer from the 60's and 70's, a "Marxist". Only the political right media refers to Alinsky as a marxist. I won't flood this comment with examples of that but you could google it. Or Bing it.
Now, let's look at the author of the seeded article, Richard Pollock
Let's see a sample of Richard Pollock articles
Bill Clinton Got Millions From World’s Biggest Sharia Law Education FirmThursday August 04, 2016
Former President Bill Clinton collected $5.6 million in fees from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that teaches Sharia Law through its network of…
Clinton Foundation Ignored All ‘Best Practices’ For Good GovernanceTuesday July 19, 2016
Clinton Foundation officials have ignored virtually all of the "best practices" urged by good governance organizations for public charities, according…
Obama Never Once Met With His Defense Intelligence ChiefWednesday July 13, 2016
President Barack Obama twice appointed former Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn to key national security jobs in his administration, including as deputy director
Clinton Donor ‘Deliriously Happy’ He Escaped IndictmentWednesday June 29, 2016
Swiss billionaire and Clinton donor sat in a packed Washington State courtroom Monday to face his first trial over unsuspecting patients who died when…
Obama Stayed A Mile From Reagan Assailant’s Home in 2012Thursday March 31, 2016
Secret Service won't say if John Hinckley was home during the visit
Clinton Foundation AIDS Program Distributed ‘Watered-Down’ Drugs to Third World CountriesTuesday September 20, 2016
Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed "watered-down" HIV/AIDs drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa,…
and it goes without saying there are many more.
He currently writes for the right wing anti-Clinton website The Daily Caller.
This article had nothing to do with giving general advice to candidates from either party in order to avoid losing. It is hit piece on the Democrats and "the left".
Maybe you can insult other people's intelligence, but that is their problem.
"remember to keep the discussion polite , if there is any , the source is not the topic , the topic is the body of whats written . if one wishes attack the premises put forward , not where they come from."
So that's off topic John that's one I will be asking to be removed as off topic . and that was in my very first post on the seed.
you don't make the rules here.
Normally, without red rules you cannot have anything removed, but I will concede to you the choice to remove it if you so wish. The seeded article is not a general advice list for how campaigns can avoid losing. That notion is absurd. It is a hit piece on the Democrats and the left and the writer's bias certainly is relevant to that. As is the text itself which also proves it.
The bottom half of this thread is almost surreal.
John , I said I wouldn't have any RBR ( personally I don't believe in them ,) but I also stated the source was not the topic , that what was written was , refute what was written as stands ,and as I and others have said they see it , if not , then I take your comment as so much "STOP PICKIN ON MEEEEEE, meant to disrupt and cause arguments that would not happen otherwise , your normal MO wont work on me ( or many others anymore I think) so start dissecting those 11 points , and show how they ONLY apply to Just the Progressives. personally the underlying message goes out to a lot more groups than the one you feel you belong to.
As for the "bottom half"? people discussing how they have been mislabeled , lets them think what are they really, a slight off topic but allowable IF it promotes a polite discussion on how those 11 points apply to them and their views, so allowable as long as its short.
where as yours went exactly against what I asked about staying on topic thus on point.
Mark, I will lay a couple facts on you and you can do what you want with them I am leaving this thread.
9 OF THE 11 NUMBERED POINTS IN THE ARTICLE MENTION EITHER THE DEMOCRATS , CLINTON, OR OBAMA , BY NAME, IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. THE OTHER TWO POINTS REFER TO "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION" AND "DISLIKE OF GOVERNMENT" AS THE REASONS THE VOTERS WERE TURNED OFF.
I have no idea what any of your points are. We must be reading different articles.
Then John I suggest you reread them , with an open mind , not as an attack , the number 1 was just plain old common sense , don't expect people you call names to vote for you in the future , that pretty much explains itself and applies to anyone.
Rule No. 1 – It’s not wise to insult and ridicule voters who you hope will vote for you in the future.
Rule No. 2 – Those idiotic, no-nothing whites without a college degree who you humiliate and ridicule used to be the very foundation of your Democratic Party.
Rule No. 3 – No Democratic Presidential candidate has won a majority of white voters since 1964
Rule No. 4: The whites who you condemn as racists twice voted for Obama.
I talked about #1 already . lets go to #2, a person doesn't need to have a college education to have pride , they can be a tradesman( or woman) and still be able to do things those higher educated could never do , lesson here for everyone, educational level does not mean a greater degree of intelligence in day to day life, so its not a good idea to denigrate them .
lesson #3 imparts is pretty simple , to win elections one has to form a coalition of like minded voters, and all parties will gain , and lose some people
#4 , doesn't mention the POTUS in a bad light at all , but the lesson here is the name calling contrary to what someone did in the past , well they have a way of doing what they want.
That's why I suggest to you to reread those 11 points without the authors opinion or explaination, maybe , that's why people can see there are lessons here , that they can apply to themselves . Guess what I am saying , is look for what you normally wont see because of personal biases, its not easy , but its possible .
Okay John, I saw it and knew ahead of time what your opinion of it would be. I also knew that you would revel in criticizing the source because that's what you ALWAYS do.
John I hear your point. It's hard to separate the source and the history and intent of the source from the content. It's been tainted. It's like introducing a bride as a virgin whose been raped by all the groomsmen and they are trying to pass her off as pure.
This kumbaya moment that is being sought just doesn't ring true to me. To much has been said and implied by both sides. They wanted this pig so they got him. They can at least own it and stop trying to blame the other side for their choices or worse trying to sell some formula on how to make people like you "next time".
I'm going to ignore this dig, as I ignore a LOT of digs, because it isn't worth responding to. All that does is create more cat fights.
And it's ripe for ignoring, cause it illustrates the ignorance of the comments poster.
But then everyone knows the position of the comments poster, especially if you disagree with his opinion of anything.
I've been called a lot of things on NT. Liberal, progressive, moderate, conservative, radical, ignorant, backward etc. I guess to identify me as anything you have to know my position on individual items....Yup, I cover the spectrum depending on the question.
Lean right on fiscal issues, left on social issues and radical on a some issues.
But I guess the question is, what is a radical or radical position. Is that a position that differs from another person just because they think it's radical. Is it breaking with the conventional line of thought/actions. Or is it someone that is willing step into uncharted territory and risk the blow back?
''How can anyone be right if everyone is wrong''...
REALLY good point!
I am considered to be radical because I don't care if gay people marry, and a rightie because I believe in the 2nd amendment, but a leftie because I would like to see more mental health screening and support, and suggest we better enforce the rules we've got. So what am I?
Other than a tired, hurting person right now...
And please, everyone be nice... I'm having a really bad nite!!!
There are many who don't fit the box they're accused of being locked into, but thank you, Marsha, for pointing out that there are some who are actually capable of thinking independently and don't have their feet buried in concrete.
I was threatened with cement shoes once, I thought, anyway, and they weren't pretty... Actually, it was Kavika that said it... Thank God for Kavika!
There are a few members of NT, Ksvika, as you and I both know, who feel that they are ALWAYS right, and can never be wrong.
I'm certainly not always right, nor do I feel that Kavika thinks he is always right... Nor do I feel that anyone is always right. We all have different perspectives, based on our life experiences... I can't really walk a mile in your moccasins, as you really can't walk in mine.
A lot of outside circumstances help us to develop our point of view. I would like to see us all be more respectful of other's points of view...
Ha ha, Dowser. I just happen to be wearing my moccasins at this moment. You have amazing "vision" so stop complaining about your eyesight. LOL
LOL!!!
Ok , so back to topic , how do you all think those 11 points applies to you and your beliefs , whatever they may be? and which ones have you found yourself guilty of the most personally? and more importantly , how are you going to fix it for yourself personally?
I know no one can fix anything for anyone , but we can each fix it for ourselves individually.
Rule No. 10: Maybe in the future you should play down the “bigger government as a solution” idea too.
To my way of thinking its not merely the size of govt but the continual growth of the body of laws . They are rarely ever withdrawn or repealed .
There is finally talk of changing the laws against marijuana . Sending people to prison for long terms due to MJ sales is to me a complete waste of resources . Then there are the no-knock violations of people's rights to be free from searches & seizures . Using violence to do those violations is an example of the punishment far exceeding the crime .
Then there is the seizing of assets of people traveling with cash in their possession . Why is cash illegal ?
And lets not forget the "Patriot Act" . 4th amendment is now null& void ...
Denigrating a whole group of people is a receipt for having a bad day/week/month/year.
I do try not to do that, painting with a broad brush paints innocent people and they don't like it.
I have to agree with JR and PJ. To me, this article could easily be captioned "11 reasons why the arrogant tranny-loving liberal snots lost the White House." The whole thing seems to rest on the assumption that democrats are actually in a culture war with blue collar whites and see them as a bunch of imbeciles not worth courting. I tend to think the assumption is largely true but Democrats will disagree the same way republicans will disagree that they are essentially a party of racists. I think the better sell is to tell democrats that this is how many blue collar whites perceived your message so maybe you need better messaging. Still, I liked the article as food for thought so thanks for posting it.
It's a good idea for everyone to abide by these rules, but they were written for those who call themselves Progressives.