The Community Organizer - Part 2

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

A couple of days ago, we quoted from Rules for Radicals where Saul Alinsky says, “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.” This whole subject was important enough to him that he devoted an entire chapter to the “ethics of means and ends.” I think it’s important enough to present for your consideration the series of rules he laid out in that chapter:

1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.” In other words, we tend to be much more concerned about morality when we are not directly involved.
   
2. “The judgment of the ethics of means and ends is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.” This is similar to the concept that whoever wins the war gets to write the history of it. If your side wins the conflict, you will get to be the one who passes judgment, and by definition, whatever means you used to win will be judged entirely ethical.
   
3. “In war, the end justifies almost any means.” This is pretty self-explanatory, and one that liberals consistently ignore…at least when they’re not the ones in charge of the war.
   
4. “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.” Another one that liberals consistently ignore in their pursuit of revisionist history (e.g., the voyage of Columbus, the treatment of the Native Americans, the struggle to abolish slavery in the United States, the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, etc.)
   
5. “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.” In other words, if you have only one choice, the ethical question will never arise.
   
6. “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
   
7. “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.” This is, of course, closely related to rule #2.
   
8. “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. The same means employed with victory seemingly assured may be defined as immoral, whereas if it had been used in desperate circumstances to avert defeat, the question of morality would never arise.”
   
9. “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
   
10. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
    
11. “Goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”

The chapter ends with this observation: “Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, “Does the End justify the Means?” but always has been “Does this particular end justify this particular means?”

Food for thought, isn’t it? Certainly one could survey history and find numerous examples that illustrate each and every point above. Still, the list strikes me as pragmatic at best, and cynical at worst. Nevertheless, it was written by a man who had an undeniable influence on Barack Obama’s formative years as a community organizer in Chicago, and the principles are likely to permeate his administration. At least now you know what to look for.

Thanks for listening.