Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Historically, political leftists have learned to use vocabulary to promote “human hurts, hopes, and frustrations” that result in “conditioned, negative, emotional response.” These words come from that “realistic” radical, Saul D. Alinsky, in his book Rules for Radicals.
(Two of his highest profile political disciples are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.)
In Alinsky’s chapter A Word About Words he discusses several powerful single words that result in negative, emotional reactions; for example, conflict. Alinsky sees society as in continuous turmoil, “interrupted periodically by compromise” (compromise to the Left is accepting its views and policies).
In the Rules chapter, Tactics, Alinsky discusses more than a dozen. The third rule: “Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.” Note that Alinskyites don’t think of us as opponents, we are the enemy.
That was clearly in play during the Obama/Clinton reign when most Republicans were clueless about how to deal with their avowed enemies on the left.
This rather long, but important introduction brings me to an example of how Leftist Alinsky tactics subvert the political process and attack conservative legislators (the enemy) here in North Carolina.
Susan Myrick, Civitas staff investigative reporter, writes in the July issue of NC Capitol Connection (nccapitolconnection.com) about the confusion and conflict caused by the Left in mapping North Carolina election districts.
Ironically, Ms. Myrick developed a Civitas program called “Mapping the Left” where she exposes who they are and what they are up to in this State. She identifies more than 140 radical Left organizations, 1,800 people and 300 funding organizations operating in North Carolina. They create conflict and confusion in public, attack our State legislators and try to subvert our laws and culture with government corruption. (see Civitas site below)
Their deceptions are familiar to those of us who have followed politics here for many years.
A favorite devious tactic of the Left involves finding left-leaning sympathetic courts with activist judges to help fight their battles. Myrick writes, “Worse than confusion, however, is an ominous trend. The current court battles threaten to turn redistricting into political jockeying, and even turn federal courts into “weapons of political warfare” (remember we on the right side of public issues are the enemy).
Further, the Left has been able to use tactics of conflict, confusion and fear by constantly stirring the racial pot. Thus, in drawing election district maps, when Republicans do it suddenly it becomes “racist,” apparently if too many blacks, or too few, show up in a district—or something like that.
Myrick gives an accounting of State and federal courts’ involvement going back to 2011 when “Republicans relied too heavily on the use of race when they drew the State legislative maps.” She cites one writer’s “Goldilocks Redistricting Rule”: not too many, not too few, but just enough blacks is the right amount. But, that’s a problem….
Myrick says that “confusion is likely to continue. The underlying problem is that the courts are quick to strike down maps, but haven’t provided clear guidelines about what kind of districts are acceptable.”
Of course they don’t. That’s the way the Left wants it. The longer this goes on the more Rev. Barber and the NAACP can accuse Republicans of racism, and the better to keep the media sniffing around the issue to support the Marxist ideas promoted by Alinsky.