Harry Reid and Alinsky's Thirteenth Rule
Virginia State Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), as quoted in The Washington Post, claims that Gov. Mitt Romney's rise in the polls is the result of racism. In the same newspaper, Opinion Writer Harold Meyerson asks, "What happens if GOP's voter suppression works?"
These are just two of the most recent examples of liberals taking the truth and flipping it upside down. Consider: Only a liberal can see disagreement with a Marxist president as racist and a program to discourage voter fraud as inappropriate vote suppression.
I sometimes wonder if they really believe their own, ah, let's call it rhetoric. Importantly, however, these absurd allegations should not surprise us. Indeed, Saul Alinsky advised his followers in Rules for Radicals:
RULE 13: "Confound the enemy with allegations he cannot possibly disprove." Whenever possible, turn the enemy in on himself. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and confusion. (Watch how organizations flail helplessly when blindsided by irrelevant arguments they cannot refute.)
Astute readers will note that Alinsky only published twelve rules. The thirteenth is my creation. Yet, does anyone doubt the tactic being employed?
Take the claim that disagreement with the Marxist constitutes racism. "Look," a good friend of mine argued, "there was no Tea Party until Obama was elected; Obama's African-American; so the Tea Party is racist."
He said it with a straight face.
"It's perfect logic," he argued, speaking from his heart. And the man is no dummy. Really, he isn't! Actually, he is quite a nice guy. I like him very much. We even discuss politics without coming to blows (at least we were able to avoid blows in the past. We shall see what he thinks of me after reading my just-published conservative manifesto/novel and this article!).
The amazing thing is that no amount of persuasion could move him, even when I pointed out what liberal-tilted Wikipedia thinks of his logic:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this[,]" is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." ... The fallacy is in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. (Emphasis in original)
Like a good liberal, my friend replied, "Okay, but this!" with the following cite (of course from the same paragon of authority):
Occam's razor (... Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses, that which makes the fewest assumptions.
So, obviously, my friend is saying, between my hypothesis that Americans object to Obama because he is a Marxist and his, that Americans object to Obama because he is African-American, the latter involves fewer assumptions (in his mind) and therefore is right.
Regrettably, my friend did not read what even his beloved Wikipedia said about Occam's razor:
Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported [sic] by the evidence. (Emphasis supplied, omitting citation)
Clearly, there is no evidentiary support -- none whatsoever -- for the notion that the Tea Party is racist. To the point, any racist rearing his head would be quickly expelled with great fanfare. There is encyclopedic evidence, on the other hand, supporting conservatives' abhorrence to Marxism quite independent of any racial component.
But, note something else about Occam's razor -- something very cunning indeed:
The aim of appeals to simplicity in such contexts seem to be more about shifting the burden of proof.... Alan Baker, "Simplicity," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004) (Emphasis supplied)
Well surprise, surprise. "Shifting the burden of proof" brings us right back to Alinsky Rule Thirteen and our feeling that we must defend against allegations we cannot possibly disprove.
The problem is an overwhelmingly leftist media that allows, defends, and even intentionally propagates these perversions of logic and common sense. Shills like Lucas and Meyerson would merit little more than a mention (and that to expose the stratagem) in a world of neutral, honest, press coverage. In a world right side up, that is.
Consider this upside down situation: A federal government refuses to protect its national borders and a state, overrun with illegals, is forced to enact, but is blocked from enforcing, laws aimed at doing exactly that which the federal government was formed to do, sworn to do -- but is not doing. Then, not satisfied with themselves, liberals denominated Arizona's activity -- this attempt at self-preservation -- as "racial profiling"!
We have seen this logic before. If the police make an arrest on the grounds of being illegally in Arizona, and the suspect is Hispanic, then clearly the arrest was made on the basis of race.
How can this be disproved if the person is Hispanic? We might argue that the initial stop was made for a traffic violation or whatever, with the officer then developing a suspicion that the person is not here legally (perhaps the person lacks a state-issued driver's license). But we cannot prove the additional inquiry about citizenship was not made on the basis of race. Given two options, that the additional inquiry was made on the basis of a missing driver's license or on the basis of race, the media will broadcast the latter.
Here are the questions: Why do we need to prove race is not the motivating factor in our opposition to Obama and in Arizona's defense of its borders? Why can't we just speak the truth and let common sense prevail?
The answer, of course, is the leftist media. The drumbeat assuring us that the emperor is fully clothed is incessant, omnipresent, and still, all too effective.
Here's another example recently discussed at American Thinker by Jerry Philipson. Dearborn, Michigan, hosts an annual Arab festival that has begun to attract Christian protesters. In 2010, fulfilling a prophesy in my novel, four Christians were arrested for doing nothing more than handing out Christian literature. At this year's festival, different and more strident Christians appeared with signs and slogans that offended Muslims. Chastened by a civil lawsuit in which the four arrested Christians were awarded more than $103,000 in legal fees for false arrest, this time the police did not immediately object to the new, more strident protestors. However, once irate Arabs begin to throw hundreds of rocks, bottles, eggs, stones, and other objects, striking and injuring many of the Christians, it was the Christians who were threatened with arrest! Dearborn police told the Christians:
Part of the reason they are throwing things is you tell them stuff that enrages them.
Again, note the logic. Muslims were not rioting until Christians showed up with offensive signs. Rocks and bottles were thrown at, and hit, Christians. Therefore, it's the Christians who are disturbing the peace.
The sane want to shake their heads at yet another example of tortured logic that has the effect of shifting the burden of proof. The illegal acts were being carried out by the Arabs at the festival -- not by the Christians protesting Islam. One would think the police would have sought to explain to the rioters that in America we have a First Amendment which, except as noted below, allows precisely this type of protest. Instead, just the opposite occurred.
Indeed, by ushering the Christians away under threat of arrest, the rioters were given a very big lesson in American civics. They were taught about a little known addendum to our First Amendment, applicable at least in Dearborn, Michigan:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.
Bet you missed that in government class, didn't you?