Posted by
Don't Tread On Me on Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:46:42 PM
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
That is "Rule #5" in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", an out-of-print manual for guiding leftist agitators to wage war on the middle class and change government policy from within. In an early edition, it was dedicated to Lucifer, who, through rebellion "won his own kingdom". Saul Alinsky and his philosophy have been very influential to many of the big policy-makers we know today, including Wade Rathke (co-founder of ACORN and SEIU), Hillary Clinton (wrote her Wellesley College senior honors thesis about him) and perhaps most famously, Barack Obama.
More than any other American President in this country's history, Barack Obama has used ridicule in an attempt to diminish opposition to his policies, cheapen the credibility of his critics and dismiss the concerns of entire groups of people. He did it in a Presidential campaign stop in San Fransisco, CA where he painted "small-town" people in PA and the midwest as suspicious, racist and fearful of change. "(T)hey get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." After the Tax-Day Tea Parties of April 15, 2009, Obama denied knowing anything at all about the protests, trying to give the impression that these hastily-organized events were beneath his radar and not worthy of attention. Despite this initial statement, he had this to say on the 28th of April, at his 100th day townhall:
"Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”
“But,” Obama continued, “let's not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act."
The issue of health-care reform, being intensely opposed by at least 53% of Americans and critical to the perceived "success" of both the Obama Presidency and a liberal mandate, has been vigorously defended by the Obama administration and congress not by well-defined principles and intellectual debate, but by
ridicule. Ridicule of all opponents, including doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, senior citizens, hospitals, bankers, Republicans, conservatives, veterans, small business owners and manufacturing companies. (If I've left any groups out, just wait- your turn is coming!)
Sarah Palin's "death panel" phrase, used to describe the provision entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” (Section 1233 of HR 3200) was heartily ridiculed by Obama, most media outlets, and the usual contigent of deranged Palin-haters. "No one's gonna kill Grandma," Obama joked. "There are no 'death panels' in the bill". Ha, ha, very funny. What the American people were concerned about was a faceless panel of unelected people, directed to cut costs and save money, having infuence over who got care, what kind and how much. This fear could have been articulated a little better than Palin managed it, but then again, it did get the necessary attention. This particular provision has also reportedly been exised from the bill, which is strange given that Obama insisted there was no such thing in the first place, but end-of-life counselling is not the government's business and should definitely not be contained in legislation.
I have digressed a bit, but would it not have benefitted the administration's position to address the actual concerns rather than ridicule both the phrase describing it and the people who shared concerns over anonymous panelists? If congressional members actually spent time considering the opposition's alternatives to single-payer health care systems rather than mocking them as "the party of 'no'", how much further along would we be today towards real, meaningful reform? Rather than demean American citizens as "angry mobs", "Nazis" or "teabaggers", wouldn't it serve Americans' interests better if these citizens' grievances over spiking tax rates, insane deficits and job losses were treated as legitimate, and not "manufactured anger"?
Ridicule is only "man's most potent weapon" when the man using it has no better weapon. Ridicule fails when those it is being used against know it is the other side's only weapon. Alinsky, being a fan of Lucifer, is short-sighted when it comes to man's place as the cosmos as God's own and His most cherished creation. God gave man intellect, free will and the ability to reason that man might use these gifts to choose for himself to worship and glorify God. God wants no praise from mindless slaves.
The thinking man uses reason to determine what is best for himself, and by extension, for his family. Men work together to determine what is best for their societies, by laws and compacts. Reason and intellect are man's tools, separating him from beasts. Ridicule is a cheap barb, irritating but easily broken. Man's most potent weapon is his ability to use reason. Man must use it to defend his most precious possession: freedom.
The next time you encounter ridicule for your opposition to poorly thought-out policies, your criticism of lazy arguments or the umbrage you take at being habitually lied to by your elected representatives, remember this: The strongest weapon in your opponent's arsenal is ridicule.
That should make you smile all day.