Book Review: Rules for Radicals

I picked up this book because it's supposed to have strongly influenced our current President and a potential future candidate (Hillary Clinton). Writing as a GenXer with little to no interest in '60s activists, I had no previous experience with the author, his activities, or his writings, so this review will focus entirely on the text of Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. If you're interested in politics--left, right, or other--I believe you'll find this brief read (196 pages) worthwhile.


I'm not 100% certain what I expected from this book, but the way folks on conservative talk radio use Rules for Radicals or "Alinsky" as shorthand for this or that political vice of the President, one would assume that this was the political version of The Anarchist Cookbook--all fire and brimstone and down with The Man. This would be incorrect.

Background
Let's start with the subtitle: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals [italics mine]. This book was written in 1971, after much of the wildness of the 1960s had already happened--and in many ways this book is a reaction against the chaotic and at times violent activities of that decade. Alinsky saw dramatic, screaming activism as counterproductive to effecting actual, lasting change. As an activist and professor, Alinsky is at turns lecturing and speaking from experience. He's taking the tone of an elder statesman saying, "Look, kids: you can yell and scream all you want, but if you actually want to change the world, you need to play a different game." His primary lesson is, surprisingly (to me), to work with people and the system as you find it.

To introduce his topic, Alinsky starts by explaining his purpose for writing the book: to teach serious activists how to make lasting political changes without alienating a large section of the population, which he believed was the general reaction to much of what the hippies did. He is out to win hearts and minds, and he believes that that can only happen by working with people as they are and the political system as it is. He is trying to explain how to obtain greater political access for the Have Nots in a world comprising three main groups:

• The Haves
• The Have-Nots
• The Have a Little, Want Mores

Alinsky also provides definitions of specific concepts, such as power, self-interest, compromise, ego, and conflict. He lays out these terms in realistic, non-threatening, and terms so the willing reader/activist understands how they operate within the U.S. system of government. His analysis is not so different from what you hear about America today: unnecessary war, government overreach, corruption, and minorities being kept under thumb by an oligarchical majority.

Community Organizers and Ego
One thing that caught my attention in this section was this description of a "community organizer," which is a favorite epithet of my friends on the right to describe the President:

"The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The leader is driven by the desire for power, while the organizer is driven by the desire to create. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach--to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."

However, he bookends this statement with the following two warnings:

"Nothing antagonizes people and alienates them from a would-be organizer more than the revealing flashes of arrogance, vanity, impatience, and contempt of a personal egotism."

"An infection of egotism would make it impossible to respect the dignity of individuals, to understand people, or to strive to develop the other elements that make up the ideal organizer."

Taking Action
Gradually, Alinsky moves from a theoretical discussion to more concrete, action-oriented content. He states that the first step in community organization is disorganizing the status quo. This is followed by organizing something new to replace it. One observation he had, which a conflict-averse person might have a problem with, is that there is no such thing as a "non-controversial" issue. If there is an issue, there will be conflict, and that must be managed through politics. If there is an issue but only one opinion on it, that amounts to tyranny.

Another Alinsky point: no one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation. A protest against an entire nationwide corporation, for example, would be impractical for a local group; however, a protest at a single branch could have more impact.

So what does Alinsky mean by "take action" or protest? Perhaps one of the most important "rules" Alinsky writes about community organizing is that organizers must take people as they are--and that not all of them are going to join a group just because of the rightness of the cause, but for personal, self-interested reasons that are only partially connected to the overall "cause." Another favorite Alinsky ploy is to get one segment of the "Haves" to fight with another segment, resulting
in a win for the Have-Nots simply because the second segment of "Haves" did not want the aggravation of facing a protest themselves.

In the end, Alinsky's tactics are devious and at times cynical, but they were often effective because he understood the American political system. A recent example of effective activism in the Alinsky vein was the combination of pressures put on the L.A. Clippers following the racist comments of its owner. In that case, NBA players wore their jerseys inside-out and several teams threatened to boycott Clippers playoff games. The combination of bad publicity, threatened boycotts, and sponsorship losses (as well as the NBA-level ban) hit Donald Sterling where it hurt--his assets--and got him to sell his team. While more a case of Haves vs. Haves, the massive pressure put on Sterling was a loud message that his behavior would not be tolerated. Still, it was a campaign of which Alinsky would have approved. In the end, winning political battles come down to using the available, appropriate means to get your way. It might not always be pretty, but American politics very much wears the stamp of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

First Meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals

One of the advantages of being on a no-overtime type of schedule is that if you work really late one day, you can get out early on, say, a Friday. That's what I did yesterday after kicking it until 10 p.m. Thursday. Since I had the time and might face employment drama after September 30, I decided to attend the first meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals (HSP), a group formed by some downsized NASA folks here in Rocket City, at Chan Auditorium at University of Alabama-Huntsville. The goal of the group is "Preserving and promoting Huntsville's talented human space capital." In short, they want to keep space jobs--or at least the people who filled them--here in Huntsville.

Also in attendance were Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle and WAFF TV, Channel 48. (Note to the media: never mind your pushy questions--some people don't like your Very Bright Lights shining in their face--and I was in the back of the room.)

One of the speakers was Lori King-Taylor from Trinity Performance Solutions, which appears to be a staffing company of some sort. Another site she referenced was by the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce. Trinity is helping HSP with establishing a career center, which will assist people with a job search web site, resume writing, interview skills, 401(k) options, entrepreneurship, and counseling. King-Taylor encouraged the crowd: "Keep your head high. This is not your fault. You have done nothing wrong."

Tommy Battle indicated that his office is talking to some of the likely "winners" under the Obama administration's space policy, including firms like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, and Virgin Galactic. There are a lot of smart, space-minded people in Huntsville who would prefer to stay here, thank you very much, and there is a lot of specialized equipment and infrastructure needed to build and test rockets here in Alabama, so the road to space will still go through Huntsville. We'll see if these other companies bite or not. And we still don't know what Marshall Space Flight Center will end up doing under the new policy/budget. In any case, Battle is covering all the bases and working with the Alabama Governor's office as well. He had to go to a meeting, so he wasn't able to take Q&A.

The HSP guys also contacted former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, who is now an "eminent scholar" and professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at UAH. Griffin was out of the country, but responded to Q&A via email. His general comments were that (unsurprisingly) he was not happy with the new policy, but that he has "no influence over this matter." With regard to people worried about looking for jobs, he recommended that people "look in Huntsville first," pointing to opportunities on the Army side of Redstone Arsenal. For dedicated souls who still want to work for NASA, he recommended reviewing the Space Policy and "go where the money is." On the whole, Griffin hoped that Congress "just says no to the ridiculous space policy advocated by the Obama administration."

After reviewing Griffin's emailed-in responses, the HSP folks reviewed the status of the NASA budget. H.R. 5614, the "Protecting Human Space Flight Act," which was introduced by Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) "To impose certain requirements on the expenditure of funds by National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the Constellation Program." More to the point, the point of the bill is to slow down or stop what's going on with Constellation. Otherwise, the NASA budget is entering the "markup" part of budget cycle, where Congress takes what it's been given and starts fiddling with the numbers. The House started its markups June 29, the Senate is due to start theirs July 14. The main difference in the Senate bill is the addition of one more Space Shuttle flight in June 2011. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes "number crunching" going on at the moment, so we'll see what happens. While NASA received a $19 billion budget from the House, they deferred a decision on how to appropriate (spend) that money. We're very likely looking at a Continuing Resolution (CR) come the start of the new fiscal year (October 1).

The HSP guys opened the mike to public comment. There were some questions from the audience on job assistance--the primary reason most folks were there, I'd gather. If the HSP guys were disappointed that more people weren't fired up or getting up to speak, they covered it pretty well. That's not how this town works. Engineers aren't that exciteable, in my observations, and excessive activism is sometimes a political risk.

One gentleman from Southern Capital Management said that he would be willing to share proceeds from a property that he is selling as a commercial property--if folks are willing to put in "sweat equity" to help improve it. Sounds like it'd be serious digging and sweating. He was looking for people with their own Bobcats. Still, the offer's there if you're willing to work...

Otherwise, several Human Resources reps from Technicore, MTS, and United Space Alliance went up to the front of the room to talk to people and collect resumes or other contact information. The HSP guys mentioned that Jacobs was hosting a job fair at the Huntsville Museum of Art 9 a.m. to Noon July 13, and that HSP would be having a meeting at the Monte Sano Lodge next week sometime. Then the meeting more or less broke up.

I am not certain how to rate the effectiveness of this meeting. As I walked in, they were passing out copies of the Obama administration's space policy to make people aware, and they "weren't asking people to take a stand either way." About 50 people showed up, and they managed to get the mayor and the media to show up, so that's a step in the right direction. The HSP guys were looking for feedback on what else they could be doing. I honestly couldn't say. The uncertainty around Huntsville will be around for awhile. "We're caught in a big political game that's going on over our heads," as more than one person said. What happens next is anyone's guess. In the meantime, unfortunately, this group will be necessary for awhile.

Anti-Nuclear Activist Decides to Take On the National Space Society

Caveat: The opinions expressed below are strictly my own and do not reflect those of the National Space Society, the Huntsville Alabama L5 Society, or anybody else concerned that I'm shooting from the hip. I am, mind you, but I'll own up to it. My comments are in italics.

Here's a link designed to annoy me:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/SPACE-MOVEMENT--WHICH-SID-by-Bruce-K-Gagnon-080910-499.html

The National Space Society (NSS) is talking about building a "space movement." The organization is heavily funded by weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Honeywell, Northrup Grumman, Aerojet and others. About support from these corporate giants NSS says, "By supporting NSS, these companies have shown their commitment to strong citizen involvement in our nation's space program."

And just what do these aerospace corporations want in return for funding this "grassroots space movement?" They are asking NSS to lobby for massive federal expenditures to move the arms race into space, to fund the space technology infrastructure to put mining colonies on the moon and Mars, and to support the development of space-based solar power technology that would put centralized solar production in corporate hands rather than development of decentralized solar technologies on homes and businesses back here on Mother Earth.

Re: moving the arms race into space

This has been going on since the 1970s or 1980s, when the Soviets used a laser to "blind" one of our satellites. Somehow, when the U.S. decides to shoot back, it's always our fault for "militarizing" space. As witness the U.S. ASAT test, in response to the Chinese shooting down one of its old satellites. Funny how that happens.

In any case, the NSS is much more interested in sending people than weapons into space. I for one have no moral objection to my country of birth defending itself in any environment where its people work or reside, but that's another argument altogether. Regardless--our primary emphasis is on the peaceful exploration, development, and settlement of space. Many of our writings have suggested that the vast resources of space--energy, materials, what have you--might make everyone on Earth so rich that resource wars become unnecessary. We hope ardently for such a future.

As one NSS leader puts it, citizen involvement in space drives power at the Congressional "negotiating table for funding."

No advocacy movement worth its sodium chloride is without lobbying or voter education efforts. How much money do people protesting nuclear power have at their disposal? Our annual legislative "blitzes" are done by private citizens on their own dime.

Because of the growing budget deficit in the U.S., the weapons industry worries that space technology funding will take a hit. They are now moving to preempt that problem.

The space technology budget will take a hit regardless--there's more than the deficit to worry about. There are unfunded entitlement commitments ("Socialized medicine, dude!") that will send the deficit from the upper troposphere to the ionosphere in my lifetime. Space activities--military or no--are among the few things that are considered "discretionary," and thus subject to cuts. It's easier to face down a few hundred thousand scientists and engineers than a few million cranky grandparents in need of their meds.

With heavy funding from the industry the NSS is undertaking a "five year Strategic Plan" and "building a stronger Space Movement is a key component of that plan."

As my pal Jim Plaxco notes ably in the responses below the post, NSS does NOT receive the majority of its funding from corporate sponsors, nor are all of those sponsors are involved entirely in defense activities. And once again I must take exception to the author's automatic disparagement of defense companies as fundamentally immoral. They provide the tools that allow our volunteer military to defend this great nation of ours. The companies and their employees bear a heavy burden, and they know it quite well.

NSS says, "Recently, the space community has become concerned about the relatively low level of support for space among America's youth....In order to strengthen the Movement, additional emphasis will be placed on chapter development and grassroots organization. We will not only appeal to people via intellectual argument, but also to their emotions through the use of space art and other media."

Naturally we are trying to reach new audiences. I myself have written several papers and presentations on the subject of targeting specific audiences to broaden the appeal of space exploration messages. Heck, that's how I got my master's degree! Is that wrong? I think not.

The aerospace industry understands how things work. If you want to control the discussion and change public perception, then you must create the grassroots thunder. NSS confirms this by saying, "The media, the public, politicians, and historians all view something to be of greater importance when it is a movement as compared to when it is not."

So, what? Space advocates aren't allowed to advocate for space, but anti-nuclear activists are allowed to advocate against nuclear power? How arbitrary. NSS does not receive "marching orders" from Bethesda or Chicago. Our policy discussions are often freewheeling, strenuous, and heated, but they are NOT focused on who's getting money for what.-

And since there is not presently a "pro-space movement" the industry has decided to create one.

On the contrary. The National Space Society traces its roots back to the L5 Society and the National Science Institute, both of which came to being as grass-roots organizations of private citizens in 1975. L5 and NSI merged in the late 1980s to become NSS. Often the organization has struggled. If we were so much in the pockets of, beholden to, and funded by, these rather profitable aerospace/defense companies, we would have succeeded better than we have to date. Some, but not most, of our officers are employed by "Big Aerospace." We are doing this for the most part on our own dimes, giving of both our time and treasure. This is a non-profit organization we belong to, not another large conglomerate, for gosh sakes!

There is much money to be made if the public can be convinced that we should spend our dwindling tax dollars on space technology. The Mars Society says that the Earth is a rotting, dying, stinking planet and that we must move our civilization to Mars and that Congress must appropriate funds to "terraform" Mars. And what does terraform mean? It means turning the dusty dry red planet into a replica of the Earth - alive and green and habitable. Just imagine how much that would cost? Imagine the profits for the aerospace corporations to be given such a mission.

Yes, there is money to be made in investments in space technology. But there are also benefits to be had. The author is described as a Vietnam-era veteran. I'd venture to say that many of his comrades in arms have benefitted from medical advances derived directly from the space program. Subsequent soldiers have had their lives saved by "eyes in the sky" (satellites) or reduced the number of civilian casualties in a combat zone by using GPS-guided smart bombs instead of manually guided weapons.

As far as the Mars Society's suggestion that we're rotting, I'd take issue with that as well (I give my time and treasure to them as well--without a lot of subsidy from "Big Defense"). TMS believes that our species would be better off having more than one world upon which to live in case we're whacked by an asteroid or some other threat preventable by our defense industry. And as for terraforming Mars, I'd like nothing better, but that is hardly an aerospace activity only. Getting there? Sure. But transforming a frozen, lifeless, nearly airless ball of rock into someplace comfortable for human habitation will require nearly every science we have, and a bunch we haven't come up with yet. And jeez, man, can't you at least see the value, the glory, the greatness in such a transformation?

Space technology development is very expensive. Just one illustration - the International Space Station was originally supposed to cost the public $10 billion, but the price tag has grown to over $100 billion and it is not yet finished. By the time the space station is completed it will be an outdated technology and on we will go to the next round. Already the aerospace industry is working on the successor programs to the space shuttle and the space station. But in order to get these massive projects funded it must create a citizens base - a movement.

Point taken on the International Space Station. It has undergone many redesigns and partner changes, which have resulted in higher costs. But that was the nature of the process, not solely the technology itself. If ISS were to be used to facilitate commerce in Earth orbit and exploration beyond Earth orbit, then it will have fulfilled its purpose and perhaps even made a return on our national investment. A movement was not needed to keep ISS flying; congressional support was, and it survived its last fight by a margin of one vote. If Mr. Gagnon is so against ISS and believes so little in its potential, perhaps he'd like us to hand the keys over to the Russians or the Chinese when it's finally completed. I'm willing to bet that a lot more than NSS's 20,000 members will rise up to protest.

Some years ago I attended a pro-space development conference at Cape Canaveral in Florida. I went to a workshop on Mars where the speaker was the head of the tourist facility at the Kennedy Space Center. Why him, what did he know about Mars? His message was simple - unless we get the kids, who will be taxpayers in 20 years, to support these space missions to the moon and Mars, we are sunk. So, he said, we are doing a complete renovation of the space center tourist facility on a Mars theme and increasing our efforts to bring school children into the space center.

If you don't understand what it takes to interest and motivate young people to stretch their brains, I won't try to explain it to you. Suffice to say that a hands-on, interactive environment is precisely the sort of thing that might--I do not say must--spark the imaginations of young people. I helped develop a proposal for the Mars Society that would create exactly that. Even if the kids don't decide to become astronauts, they might become doctors, mathematicians, chemists, computer programmers, or any of a thousand other occupations that are necessary to maintain this nation's competitiveness and standard of living. By the way, who do you think will develop the next computer that allows you to blog? One might hope that it's an American.

On the other side we have the Global Network organizing international opposition to these plans for "everything space". We understand that we can't have social progress in the U.S. and pay for "everything space" at the same time. We are also hearing from our GN affiliated groups in Sweden, England, France, South Korea, Italy, Australia, Japan, India, and other nations that their countries are being dragged into the space technology game because the U.S. needs allies to help fund this very expensive new direction. The challenge becomes global as we try to hang onto our national resources to protect life for the future generations right here on planet Earth.

Ah. At last we come to the heart of it. Mr. Gagnon represents a group that is against placing anything nuclear-powered into space. This includes batteries for things like Voyager and Cassini, which have vastly increased our appreciation and understanding of the universe. It might interest you to know that one of the grassroots chapters of the National Space Society--to its credit--organized a counter-protest in support of Cassini when it was launched in the 1990s. And the world has been richer for them: the counter-protest and the Cassini probe itself.

Yes indeed, we do need a space movement. It's just a matter of which kind we need. And the real question each of us must answer is "which side are you on?"

This hardly requires answering.

If you want a space program that will only go as far as hyper-non-polluting propellants and batteries conceived in conditions of peace will take us, then you are restricting the human race to the Earth and the Moon. Mind you, there are solar sails and other "green" space exploration products that could be sent into space, but that hardware has often been developed by "defense" companies and other such suspicious characters.

If you want a space program that goes farther (boldly!) and achieves more, then you might consider joining the National Space Society. We support a peaceful, expansive, high-technology society of free peoples living and working beyond Earth orbit. And we might be just a little safer, to boot.