SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Saul Alinsky Wasn’t Who Newt Gingrich Thinks He Was

POLITICS JANUARY 25, 2012

Saul Alinsky Wasn’t Who Newt Gingrich Thinks He Was

On the night of his triumph in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich boldly announced: “The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.” Barack Obama did once work in a Chicago project inspired by Alinsky, the legendary community organizer who died in 1972. But, in its essence, this was classic demagoguery: connect a name that, at least to a crowd of Southern Republicans, sounds rather alien—and certainly not Christian—with a president whom many conservatives already suspect of being an un-American, anti-religious socialist.

Because Newt is reputed to know a great deal about the past, even those who don’t admire him may give credence to the former Speaker’s claim that Alinsky was a dangerous leftist whose doctrine lies at the root of all that is wrong in the country—and in the White House. In fact, it shows, yet again, that the skillful demagogue is a lousy historian.

Saul Alinsky often called himself a radical, but his career as a community organizer had thoroughly traditional foundations in grassroots democracy and institutional religion. Indeed, it was built with the active support and resources of key figures in the Roman Catholic Church. (The same faith, incidentally, to which Newt converted in 2009, joining his wife Callista, who grew up Catholic in Wisconsin.)

In the late 1930s, Alinsky launched his first project in the Back of the Yards, a multi-ethnic, working-class, mostly Catholic neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. Bernard J. Sheil, the city’s auxiliary bishop, championed the new Back of the Yards Council and encouraged local priests and leading parishioners to take part. Sheil, founder of the Catholic Youth Organization, helped set up Alinsky’s network of local organizers—the non-profit Industrial Areas Foundation—and convinced financier Marshall Field III to bankroll it.

During the 1940s and early 1950s, Alinsky worked closely with another influential priest, Monsignor John O’Grady, director of the National Conference of Catholic Charities. O’Grady liked Alinsky’s focus on mobilizing local people to help themselves and introduced the “radical” to a parish priest who was working with young Puerto Ricans in a poor neighborhood near the University of Chicago.

The Monsignor and the Jewish troublemaker got along so well that Alinsky began to work with O’Grady on the older man’s biography. The book was not completed, but the outline made clear that the two shared a strong critique of modern liberalism that would be congenial to many conservatives today: “…the New Deal was important, it was good…yet it carried an opposite side to the shield, in terms of a gravitation of power and the establishment of enormous bureaucracies which were evil.” Americans should turn, instead, wrote Alinsky, “to grass roots organization and decentralization.”

As Alinsky knew well, O’Grady’s thinking drew from the Catholic principle of “subsidiarity,” which the Church began to develop in the late 19th century as an alternative to social change directed by powerful nation-states. Subsidiarity holds that social problems should first be handled by the smallest, most local authority in existence. As Pope Pius XI wrote in a 1931 encyclical: “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.”

Of course, Alinsky’s intellectual influences were not limited to Catholic social thought. Contrary to Gingrich’s ignorant slur, he frequently quoted Jefferson and Madison and had contempt for young leftists in the 1960s who disdained the American flag. “The responsible organizer would have known,” he wrote in 1971, “that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America’s hopes and aspirations.” But Alinsky frequently spoke at Catholic venues and regularly advised young seminarians who were eager to improve the well-being of the men and women they would soon be serving, many of whom were poor and needed help organizing themselves to demand jobs and better services from the local authorities.

In 1969, Saul Alinsky received the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award, given annually by a coalition of Catholic groups in the Midwest to commemorate an encyclical about human rights and alternatives to war written by Pope John XXIII. Most honorees have been ardent reformers of one faith or another: Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, Daniel Berrigan, and Jim Wallis are on the list—as is Lech Walesa.

Newt Gingrich would, no doubt, point to some of those names as proof of how the Left can seduce innocent devotees of his new-found faith. But he might find it difficult to criticize the woman who received the award seven years after Saul Alinsky: a community organizer from Calcutta named Mother Teresa.

Michael Kazin’s most recent book is American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation. He teaches history at Georgetown University and is co-editor of Dissent.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 20 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

20 comments

More proof that Gingrich and his fellow Republicans are sociopathic liars. They are not the "loyal opposition." They are the anti-American opposition. Sociopathic lies of the scale mentioned in this article are against American principles of fairness. Is the GOP so unequipped to govern that it can't participate in an honest debate? I'd say yes.

- magboy47.

January 26, 2012 at 12:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

....More proof that Gingrich and his fellow Republicans are sociopathic liars... Let's not over egg this pudding and let's not get hysterical. And let's not let him off the hook by attributing Gingrich's lies to sociopathy rather than to his conscious! demagogic culpability and by assimilating Gingrich to all Republicans thereby losing sight of the conniving, glib, say anything, manipulative lying that is uniquely his. Kazin's nice tho' brief exposition does great honour to the idea of community organizing and makes it shock worthy afresh that such an honourable tradition can--encapsulated in the word "Alinsky"--become such a Pavlovian trigger for unknowing, knee jerk condemnation, and as triggered by those, for example, Gingrich, who know better.

- basman

January 26, 2012 at 1:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Conscious demagogic culpability is sociopathy. And Mitch Daniels' rebuttal to Obama's SOTU is just one example of the GOP's conscious, sociopathic lies. Daniels said that Obama is anti-business. In the SOTU Obama spoke of several strong proposals to help business, including helping to fund the construction of new factories, if factory owners would employ American workers. Republicans make up lies and then every last one of them repeats the lie in the media. "Class warfare" is a current one. Progressive taxation does not aim to destroy a class, as warfare would. If Gingrich becomes the nominee, I guarantee that Republicans will agree in the media with almost everything he says (I'm not sure about "Food Stamp President"). And, of course, most of them will know better. That's what defines a sociopath--he knows he's lying. BTW, when I say Republicans, I don't mean only politicians. I'm also talking about their media hit-people, who mouth slogans and phrases they know to be lies.

- magboy47.

January 26, 2012 at 3:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder what Sheldon Adelson thinks of this particlar variety of his guy's demagogy.

- gurwia

January 26, 2012 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michael Kazin, Excellent post. If imbecility were an Olympic event, Gingrich would get a gold medal. As part of my Peace Corps training back in the mid-1960s, I spent a couple weeks with an Alinsky-connected Puerto Rican community organization in Chicago's Triangle neighborhood. Revile for Radicals was one of the reading assignments. Someone mentioned that Nelson Algren lived in the neighborhood, so one day I knocked on his door. He invited me in, his wife plied me with tea and cookies (I had envisioned being served a double shot of Old Grandad), and after a pleasant chat I walked out with an autographed copy of The Man With the Golden Arm. Dan

- dbuck1

January 26, 2012 at 9:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So on your version of these things, Mitch Daniels and all conservative pundits, political handlers, media people, intellectuals and so on, anyone who wants Obama beaten along the lines argued for by the Republicans running for the nomination, all Republicans in Congress or the Senate and in state houses and others too are sociopaths? Either the word means something or it has become another meaningless epithet to be tossed around like Socialist or Marxist detached from its true meaning - here designating a personality so disordered as to be diagnosable as ill--in order to arouse unthinking indignation, like Gingrich using "Alinsky."

- basman

January 26, 2012 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

send this article to Obama and if he ever gets to debate Newt (should Republicans be so insane as to nominate that degenerate egomaniac) and after Obama quotes Alinsky and offers a brief discourse on subsidiarity, watch Gingrich flail away into wild tangents that the Alinsky he is talking about is maybe not the Alinsky that lived but a false Alinsky that Democrats have invented on their way to a socialist Nazi state.

- blackton

January 26, 2012 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, Republicans are sociopaths in their political statements in the media. They believe that Obama is illegitimate as the President, because he is a Democrat. They believed the same thing about Clinton. Their stated number one goal is, not to help America progress, but to get Obama out of office. They are obsessed with this goal. Religion is a strong element in the GOP. People with a religious streak in them will consciously lie in order to achieve their obsessive goals. Santorum, whom you implied was sincere last week, told a whopping lie of omission this week, when he refused to correct a woman who told him in front of the media that Obama is an avowed Muslim. Asked later why he didn't challenge her, he said it wasn't his job to correct people he disagreed with. So, in effect, he let the woman tell a Big Lie for him. The current GOP lie in the media is that Obama is anti-business. I challenge you to find any Republican in the media who will deny that Obama is anti-business (and by implication a socialist), if the topic comes up. Most of them will actually promote the lie. I've been studying American politics since 1953, when I became interested in the Rosenbergs case as an 11-year-old. I've admired liberal Republicans, like Ike and George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller. But the sea change in the GOP that came with the Nixon Administration altered the way that Party members deal with truth (Nixon, in fact, was the last liberal Republican of any note). Grover Norquist and Karl Rove are presently the message leaders of the Party. Lies are their reason for existing. I guess this comes down to a matter of opinion. But many people agree with me. I got a refrigerator magnet in the mail via "Bill Clinton" recently. The message on the magnet is STOP REPUBLICAN LIES. I think it's too late for that. It's in their DNA now.

- magboy47.

January 26, 2012 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, aside from Mr. Alinksy, everyone knows that President Obama "pal's around with terrorists" and some of the President's best friends are...dead.

- Nusholtz

January 26, 2012 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good question, gurwia. "Saul Alinsky" is just a shade more foreign (and equally non-Christian) as "Sheldon Adelson" -- I guess little Saul's parents should have been a wee bit more assimilated and called him "Sheldon" or some other English name that is now used almost exclusively by Jews (and the occasional East Asian), just so he could blend in better.

- wildboy

January 26, 2012 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Gingrich does not care about what Alinsky (or anybody else for that matter) really was. He simply speaks off the cuff with whatever his stream of consciousness tells him might resonate with his audience and makes him appear to be smarter than anyone else.

- Dshields

January 26, 2012 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Magboy 47 These points respectfully are not well made. Most obviously, you are lumping all Republicans into one category of extremists-- for example, they all believe Obama's illegitimate.  Next you conflate political aspiration with a disorder of the mind--their goal is to get Obama out office. Third, you make general unsubstantiated and rather wild judgments-- all Republicans are obsessed with Getting Obama out of office.  Fourth, you make baseless generalizations and then posit them in a ludicorus chain of connectives--Republicans are by and large religious; religious people will lie to get what they want including their obsessive goals. That's just your first paragraph. Fifth you equate Santorum's silence as sociopathic lying, let alone his insincerity. All politicians puff, let things go by, shave and shade things. They don't correct every piece of nonsense they hear. On your logic, therefore virtually everyone in politics is a sociopath. Sixth, most republicans probably thinks Obama is anti business. Some say this insincerely some say that sincerely. They support their positions with arguments, those that are rational. Anti business here is a judgment, a conclusion, taken by certain people, those who are rational, based on what they see in his policies, in some of his pronouncements. Plus that judgment can be arrived at in a nuanced way as in "He is on balance anti business even though not everything he has done is anti business." Somebody for example can argue that his health care statute puts a strain on businesses and signifies him being on balance anti business. Nor does it follow as a matter of logic, empirical fact or proximate association that thinking Obama is anti business is akin to him being a socialist. Some feel that nearly anything that impinges of free markets or blunts moral hazard is anti free market and thereby anti business. Finally, I'll agree with your observation, and it's commonly made, that Republicans as a general matter are more right wing than they have been since the days of Barry Goldwater and are more so since the days of Bushes 41 and 43. Ideology seems to grip them and it's by my lights very t bad ideology at that. But to return to my main point calling any active Republican who is is represented by the contenders for the nomination sociopaths is bad analysis, bad politics, and really bad use of language, in a word (with one hyphen) self- defeating.

- basman

January 26, 2012 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, I emphasized that the sociopathy of Republicans is in the media. None of them are acting any differently there than the way I described. Even Jon Huntsman was talking like a Right-winger in interviews. It doesn't matter what the personal opinions of GOP'ers are. In public they all stay on message, and when that message is a lie, it's self-defeating, as you might say. After that nasty woman accused Obama of being an avowed Muslim, Santorum lowered his head and stared at the floor, while she finished her rant. You could see he was struggling with the truth, but he chose to surrender and go with a Big Lie of the same magnitude that Hitler accused the Jews of. I call this amoral. You call it what you want. That's one of the most incendiary accusations ever made against a national leader in public. It's rivaled somewhat by the Arizona governor getting up in Obama's face this week and wagging her finger at him, while scolding him. It's just another sign of the breakdown of our society. Do opposition parties do anything like that in Canada? I hope not. Let me quote myself: "I guess this comes down to a matter of opinion." P.S.: Are you a professor up and over there in Toronto? First you scold me, then you lecture me. BTW, Toronto is my favorite North American city. I got up there fairly often when I lived in Detroit. It's a cornucopia of wonderful restaurants. The last time I was there (decades ago) they had a French restaurant in the train station!

- magboy47.

January 26, 2012 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Magboy 47 thanks for the exchange and we can leave it here: nothing like a civil, if spirited, disagreement. I (what I laughingly call) practice law in Toronto and am just on the cusp of starting to move towards taking steps toward getting ready to start to begin to wind that down. I used to live in Vancouver but came here in 1972 to go to law school, intending to go back west where it's the best, but wound up staying. I just about a month ago spent a week in Victoria, lovely place but ultimately too small and too slow for me.  I still have friends in Vancouver and my wife has family there. I have tentative plans to spend some time there over the next couple of months. I love Toronto. I think it may b the most ethnically diverse city in the world. I've read that. The GTA, Greater Toronto Area, has close to six million people and the City  of Toronto has about 2,500,000, most of whom I'm quite close to. Given its diversity, the restaurants are fantastic; the cultural scene is broad and deep; the downtown is alive, thriving and expanding; it has a world class university and also a very good one and others too.  It's waterfront is one blight on the city. If it wasn't for family considerations, I'd have a hard choice to make between Toronto and the ever beauteous Vancouver as to where I'd want to live. I look forward to discussing something again with you sometime. I haven't done here in quite a while.

- basman

January 26, 2012 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, basman. We agreed on a couple of things, and that's enough for one day. And we agree that Toronto is a wonderful place, as is Vancouver. The latter is much like Seattle, which is beauteous, too. I only went to the waterfront once in Toronto, and I still remember the bow of a massive ship dominating me, as I stood almost underneath it on the sidewalk. My favorite overall city is Berlin, where I was stationed with the U.S. Air Force in exciting times--when the Wall went up and during the Berlin Crisis that followed. Berlin is Toronto writ large. Another favorite is Morgantown, West Virginia, a college town, where I lived for three years before moving to Seattle. The green rolling hills and river valleys there can never be surpassed for pure, natural beauty. Yes, let's get in a "spirited," but civil discussion again sometime. I'm a working-class intellectual, and I tend to express myself without the niceties of restraint sometimes. I'll try to improve, but don't bet on me. Good luck in deciding between Vancouver and Toronto someday. You can't lose with either one.

- magboy47.

January 26, 2012 at 9:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perfect.

- basman

January 26, 2012 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S. I go to West Virginia, usually Wheeling, for the Heritage Blues Festival, on occasion but have never been to Morgantown. You've just lit a visiting there fire in me.

- basman

January 26, 2012 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joni Mitchell, a Canadian from Windsor, wrote a song about it, "Morning Morgantown." I saw her perform with her husband, Chuck, at the Alcove [Bar] on the Wayne State University campus in Detroit (where I went to school) well before she became famous. Her talent was out of his class, and she soon went solo. And the rest is history. As is today. Thanks for the peppy day on the site. I'll check you and TNR out tomorrow.

- magboy47.

January 26, 2012 at 11:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy, I lived in Berlin 1983-97, several years either side of the Wall coming down. Worked for a while as a civilian paralegal for the U.S. Army JAG (1988-94). You could have been stationed at Tempelhof airport back in your day, which is now a kind of unreconstructed park for Berliners. It's strange to wander onto this huge open area, runways still there, and see hundreds of young people cycling, flying kites, playing frisbee etc. The size of the airfield is huge. In the summer sun, I wandered in from Columbiadamm and exited somewhere in Neukoelln. I found a bar I knew from 20 years earlier and ordered a very large cold beer.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2012 at 1:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like these last few comments a lot. I'm very big on Joni Mitchell especially her underrated jazz singing. I hadn't heard Morgantown Morning, nice song: http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=CA#/watch?v=6bbxg4u90so even if it's no Chelsea Morning.

- basman

January 27, 2012 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close