Rules for Radicals, and applying them to ID



I just posted this over at the Panda's Thumb, but thought it might
spark some useful discussion here too:

One of my political bibles as a young activist (environmental, union
and antiwar organizing) was Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". And
Alinsky's rules are still well worth keeping in mind for the anti-ID
movement. Here are Alinsky's rules, with some commentary from me about
how to apply them to the ID fight:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy
thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and
people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.

DI makes more money in a month than the anti-ID groups do all year. On
the other hand, virtually no one in the US agrees with the extremist
political philosophy of the DI or its funders. That is power we can
use.

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It
results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the
backbone of anyone.

Non-scientists trying to argue over science is a recipe for disaster.
It's also irrelevant, since this fight isn't ABOUT science (see the
commentary for rule number 1). So let different anti-IDers use
differnent arguments. Let the theologians undermine ID's religious
basis. Let the civil libertarians undermine ID's extremist political
views. And most of all, don't shoot people who are on our side.

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the
enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and
uncertainty.

IDers have a specific agenda that they want to set, and specific
arguments that they want to make. So don't let them set the agenda.
Go outside the areas they want to deal with, and force them to deal
with areas they DON'T WANT to deal with - such as who funds them
and why.

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If
the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You
can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their
own rules.

ID insists that it's SCIENCE and NOT religion. That is *their own
argument*. So make them put up or shut up. Either they have something
scientific to offer, or they don't - and anything religious they
talk about is irrelevant (as well as illegal in schools). Force them to
demonstrate publicly that they simply can't live up to their own
argument.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no
defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key
pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Most fundies are loons, as well as being political/social/theological
extremists. Most of their minions are uneducated semi-literates.
Demonstrate this to the whole world, and let the whole world laugh at
them. It's hard for people to take demonstrated idiots seriously.

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll
keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing
their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Nobody wants to listen to deadly-dull lectures on "pre-biotic polymer
chemosynthesis" or "the homology between type III secretory
apparatus and the bacterial flagellum" (yawn). This isn't a science
symposium. Don't treat it as one. You'll just bore everyone to
death.

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
Don't become old news.

No more "debates". They do nothing. They never did. They are old
news.

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new
things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters
one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

IDers are vulnerable on many fronts. Most theologians reject their
religious base. They have no science to speak of. No one agrees with
their political extremism. Many of them spout out things that are,
quite frankly, nutty (such as Johnson's HIV-denial). Their funding
comes mostly from a lunatic ayatollah-wanna-be. Internally, their
supporters are ready at the drop of a hat to wage Holy War on each
other. Their most vocal "supporters" undermine themselves by
preaching at every opportunity. So attack them on every possible front.
Don't let up for a second, come at them from every possible
direction, and don't give them an instant's rest.

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than
any activist.

The ID luminaries all have collossal egos. Use that against them. The
reality is that virtually nobody gives a flying fig about them. But
their collosssal egos won't let them see that, so the effect on them
of anything we do to their collossal egos is far far out of proportion
to any real effect in the real world.

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push
through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win
the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the
underdog.

The ID movement's extremist political base may not be "violent",
yet, but the effect on people is the same. People simply don't want a
theocracy. Keep pushing them about it, force the IDers to defend it
publicly, and watch their public support melt away.

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're
caught without a solution to the problem.

It's not enough for us to be defensive and react to what the IDers do
-- WE need to start setting the agenda and go on the offensive,
introducing things that we want and forcing the other side to defend
themselves against it. Here is where things like suing schools that
refuse to teach evolution because of the "controversy", or forcing
every state in the Union to make evolution a prominent part of its
basic science standards, come in.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize
it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from
sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than
institutions.

Without key people like Ahmanson, the ID movement wouldn't exist.
Sever that link between Ahmanson and ID, and ID won't exist. Turn
Ahmanson from an asset into a liability, and ID won't exist. And
fortunately for us, Ahmanson gives us plenty of ammo for that. And Pat
Robertson was recently nice enough to do all of us a big favor by
helping out, too -- one can only sincerely hope that the Venezuelans
are successful in an attempt to extradite Robertson and try him for
advocating terrorism. Even the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt was nice enough to
help out, by presenting a Muslim extremist as an ID supporter
(highlighting the fact that nutty Islamic groups like Harun Yahya get
lots of money from YEC groups like ICR and AIG).

Yhe entire art of political organizing is knowing when to use what
tactic to your best advantage (and your opponent's best dis-advantage).
Some of them may not be "fair" or "sporting" or "polite". But all of
them WORK.

Know what we call "nice guys" in a political fight? We call them
"losers".

This is a knife fight, not a polo match. So do what you gotta do to
stay alive.



================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rules for Radicals, and applying them to ID
    ... > Non-scientists trying to argue over science is a recipe for disaster. ... > ID insists that it's SCIENCE and NOT religion. ... points and that all their support comes from creationists. ... > extremists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Anti-science creationist posters 11/08
    ...  Ask him for the intelligent design ... science that he would have taught to school kids. ... switch on their own creationist supporters. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another review of Expelled
    ... As such, "Big Science," ... switch on their own supporters you have to wonder why they even have ... dishonest scam. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > I haven't said that ID wasn't "science", ... ID supporters have shown too much bias, ... > trying to undermine evolution. ... > And we never will directly observe this, because our life spans are too ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do we need to set up an anti-Discovery Institute
    ... The science side has to ... >> decided to go with the new teach the controversy scam as a replacement ... >> You had the ID supporters like Moody that had associations with the ... > soundbyte gets lodge in the recesses of their brains. ...
    (talk.origins)