by mouthypatricia » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:27 am
Dishonest Debate Tactics
Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit
of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V.
However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to
fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media knows
they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once
in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive
environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to
clearly convey their ideas or facts. TV pundits are often trained in what are
commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion
of the lie as a tool for the “greater good;” essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His
“Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the
establishment, and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political
opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even
more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics?
Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.
These tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across
the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the
need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent
real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions.
Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:
1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as
mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a
futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their
perception of your power.
2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of
the experience of the enemy. Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject
you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into
such a situation instead. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty
in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news
shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly
irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this
also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own positions.
3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. The objective is to target the opponent’s
credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent
in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks.
4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. “Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Dennis Kucinich is
short and weird.” “9-11 twoofers wear tinfoil hats.” Ridicule is almost impossible to counter.
It’s irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also
works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. The popularization of the term
“Teabaggers” is a classic example, it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s
clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun keeps your side
motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.
6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. See rule number 6. Don’t become old
news. If you keep your tactics fresh, its easierto keep your people active. Not all disinformation
agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.
7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period
for your purpose. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a
chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and
twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
This goes hand in hand with Rule #1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to
expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities
can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.
9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a
constant pressure upon the opposition. The objective of this pressure is to force
the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success
of the campaign.
10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example,
by labor movements) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which
leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots
movements use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions. The idea is
to provoke (or stage) ruthless attacks against ones’ self, so as to be perceived as the underdog,
or the victim. Today, this technique is commonly used to create the illusion that a
certain movement is “counterculture” or “anti-establishment.”
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. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer a solution.
12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The targets supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.
The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely
see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual
attempting to tell the truth.