Should Christians adopt Saul Alinsky’s zero-sum political tactics

Saul Alinsky was a left-wing community organizer whose seminal 1971 book Rules for Radicals influenced the thinking of both Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Tea Party strategists. In a world where political activism encroaches more and more on every area of life, it’s worth understanding why Alinsky’s outlook and tactics are incompatible with Christianity.

The shadow of Marx

Alinsky’s book is singularly focused on how to wrest power from the elites so that it can be given back to “the people.” Although Alinsky makes a point of not framing his advice as pro-communist, his framework leans heavily on Karl Marx. Like Marx, he believes that society is constituted by the “Haves” (those with resources), the “Have-Nots” (those without), and the “Have-a-Little, Want Mores — the middle class” (p. 19).

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

However, the “Haves” are not merely characterized in terms of wealth, but in terms of social and political power. They control the institutions, the laws, and the very values of society. In particular, Alinsky adopts the analysis of Marx and later critical theorists, who argued that the “Haves” impose their arbitrary values on culture to shore up their power and privilege: “Justice, morality, law, and order are mere words when used by the Haves, which justify and secure their status quo” (p. 19).

Pragmatism

If a Marxist outlook on society is the first pillar of Alinsky’s ideology, the second is his thoroughgoing relativism. Alinsky insists in no uncertain terms that the ends justify the means: “The real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, ‘does this particular end justify this particular means” (p. 24).

In Alinsky’s mind, an activist must be a pure pragmatist. No tactic is intrinsically good or evil. No approach is morally off-limits. The only question the activist asks is “what works?” Constant blather about “moral principles” or “corruption” is useless and enervating:

“The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms … He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conceptions of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody” (p. 24).

But worse is yet to come.

Relativism

Alinsky rejects not only appeals by oppressor groups to conventional morality but also appeals by oppressed groups to divine law. According to Alinsky, abolitionists or civil rights activists who invoke objective morality are merely using it as a smokescreen to advance their own interests. And once they gain power, they will create new moral principles to justify that power:

“The Haves develop their own morality to justify their means of repression, and all other means employed to maintain the status quo [and] Have-Nots, from the beginning of time, have been compelled to appeal to ‘a law higher than man-made law.’ Then when the Have-Nots achieve success and become the Haves, they are in the position of trying to keep what they have and their morality shifts with their change of location in the power pattern” (p. 42-43).

Polarization

Finally, Alinsky’s 13th “rule for radicals” is the most striking and the most recognizable: “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” (p. 130). Alinsky argues that in a “complex, interrelated urban society,” guilt and blame adhere to large institutions and faceless organizations, which are not ideal targets for outrage. Thus, the activist must “personalize” every conflict by laying all the blame at the feet of one individual whether or not he deserves it. No matter what happens, all the mob’s anger needs to be directed at that one person: “Let nothing get you off your target” (p. 133).

Moreover, the target must be utterly demonized. The activist’s mantra (even though he knows it isn’t true) must be that “all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other … [Our] cause is 100 per cent positive and the opposition 100 per cent negative” (p. 134). An activist must paint his opponent always and only in the worst possible light. Offering “qualifying remarks” about how he is a “good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’” is “political idiocy” (p. 134).

Christian analysis

I will leave it to others to decide whether Alinsky’s tactics are effective and whether we can glean selected insights from some of his other recommendations. But from the excerpts above, most Christians will instantly recognize that his fundamental ideological framework is deeply corrupt and evil.

First, Alinsky’s vision of politics as a zero-sum struggle for power between oppressed and oppressors is Marxist, not Christian. While governments can be corrupt and can abuse their power, the ideal civil magistrate fulfills a God-ordained role in punishing evil and commending good (Rom. 13:1-7).

Second, Christians must utterly reject an “ends justify the means” ethic. Some means are evil and should not be employed by Christians regardless of how effective they are. Full stop. If we can justify propaganda and lies for the sake of the greater political good, why can’t we also justify voter fraud, bribery, intimidation, violence, and even murder?

Third, not all moral values and norms are the creation of those in power; some values and norms are instituted by a loving God for His glory and our good. There does in fact exist a divine law that is higher than human law. This divine law is not simply a useful fiction to be discarded once marginalized groups have achieved their goals.

Lastly, and most importantly, Alinsky’s 13th rule is a gross violation of the Ninth Commandment, which — in the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism — forbids, “all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors … receiving and countenancing evil reports and stopping our ears against just defense [and] neglecting such things as are of good report.” More simply, portraying our political enemies as wholly evil is a clear violation of the command to treat others as we would want to be treated.

Aside from its fundamental immorality, Alinsky’s approach also has a serious practical problem: It inhibits reform. Alinsky’s goal (and the goal of those who employ his methods today) was to seize power. He didn’t want institutions to change or to improve. He wanted to take them over or destroy them.

This approach necessarily provokes an adversarial response from institutions: they refuse to admit error, circle the wagons, and double down.

Practically, this is a lose-lose situation. If the Alinskyites win, we get unethical, power-hungry demagogues at the helm. If they lose, we get an institution hardened in its error.

Both results are especially destructive if the institution and all the parties involved are Christians. Our goal should be a reformation, not a power grab. The idea that Christians would intentionally paint other Christians in the worst possible light for the sake of a political “win” is appalling. We can rebuke clearly while doing so in a spirit of love, grace, and humility.

Conclusion

Alinsky was obsessed with fighting the establishment and gaining power. Therefore, it’s wholly unsurprising that he dedicated his book to “the very first radical … who rebelled against the establishment and won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”  But as Christians, we look to a very different victor who overcame death, won an eternal kingdom, and yet warned us: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36). Obedience to Him is what truly counts as a win. And disobedience to him is what truly counts as a loss.