Parish Deacon

The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

Analysis
1. Organizations often lament their lack of resources, even to the point of self-inflicted paralyzation. The intent of this tactic is similar to rule one: 'Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have'. If the enemy considers you to be a dangerous force in society, then by the attention it receives it becomes more powerful than it actually is. Power is as much about perception as it is about facts.
Response
1. The same-sex marriage issue is a prime example. Approximately 3.8% of people in America consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans-gender, and those numbers (2012) are much larger than in previous decades. However, from all the media attention that has been generated (pro and con), a significantly higher percentage would be expected.
2. The same-sex marriage movement is a effective application of Alinsky's strategy, a few people making a big noise. The media has been complicit in this strategy - directly and unwittingly. Not only have gay-rights activists worked their way into powerful media positions, but the sensationalism of news reporting always seeking a crisis makes the threat(s) appear much larger, more powerful, and more dangerous.
3. I suppose the Christian threat in the early days of the Church, was viewed in much the same way. Perhaps, the Church grew not only from the Christian example of love but from the ferocious attention it received. The Roman's, in trying to destroy the faith, actually ended up bringing it greater recognition. The art, in responding to Alinsky's tactic, is to counter the error without fanning the flames. That requires a coordinated and carefully planned response. The response is to define the issues on your own terms. Christians should not simply responding to attacks but promote their own issues: Christian values such as fatherhood, the peace found in purity, and the real effects of sexual immorality.

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

Analysis
1. Analysis:
  Tie the attack to a theme and never stop hammering the theme. This constant pressure is designed to force the opposition to react, and ideally to react badly. The action is in the reaction. Launch an attack to the reaction. Force a concession.
Response
1. Alinsky maintains that an activist organization must maintain constant pressure on the opposition. However, it is not the pressure itself that makes the tactic successful, it is the reaction that it intends to generate. The tactics is designed to enrage, to bring others into the fight, both for and against. The larger the numbers, the bigger and seemingly more important is the cause.
2. This is the classic case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Every parent knows that responding to every temper tantrum only leads to chaos. However, Alinsky's methods are so designed that simply ignoring the outcry is not an option. Rather, Christians need to state their own message as creatively and relentlessly as Alinsky's supporters, promoting fundamental morals with the real-life stories of the consequences of the 'philosophies of the day'.

If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counter side. This is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

Analysis
1. Alinsky tells his followers that 'You can't win every battle'. Violence from the other side can win the public in your favor because the public sympathizes with the underdog. The Civil Rights movement gain power by focusing on the attacks against the protesters. Labor Unions used the violence against them to turn public opinion in their favor. An improper response by the opposition can turn a defeat into a victory.
Response
1. The player who responds to a foul usually gets called for the penalty. The previous rule indicates that a reaction from the opposition is not only necessary and but critical for a successful campaign. Violence against an activist portrays him, or better yet her, as the victim and justifies the cause, even if that violence was elicited to bring about public sympathy.
2. The second goal of this tactic is to consume all your opponent's resources. Political candidates, and others, often spend more time defending themselves from attacks (often minor or false) than presenting their message. That constant defense is the critical reaction the activist is trying to generate.

The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Analysis
1. Something worth fighting for? Often, the details of the idea are kept general and vague. It many cases they are not even revealed to the innermost advocates in the organization. How many times have we seen a revolutionary come to power and then implement policies that are foreign to their supporters. Fidel Castro is a prime example - fooling many in the US and even his own troops.
Response
1. Something worth fighting for? Often, the details of the idea are kept general and vague. It many cases they are not even revealed to the innermost advocates in the organization. How many times have we seen a revolutionary come to power and then implement policies that are foreign to their supporters. Fidel Castro is a prime example - fooling many in the US and even his own troops.
2. Political candidates are always clamoring for the details of an opponents agenda. That allows a focused attack on single items that can be used to discredit the entire plan and the candidate. Christians have no hidden agenda. The facts are all laid out in Scripture and the teachings of the Church and have withstood 2000 years of scrutiny.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Analysis
1. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Response
1. This is perhaps Saul Alinsky’s most controversial rule. Select one individual in a position of responsibility and launch an attack on that person. Discredit that person and you discredit the group. Discredit that person and you alienate their support. This tactic incites more fear than all the rest. Who doesn't have something in their life that could be attacked? It makes individuals afraid to participate.
2. How often have we seen candidates picked off one by one, only to have the least favorable left standing! How often have we seen public officials force to resign in order to protect a higher position! Is it any wonder why highly qualified persons do not seek public office!
  1. It is absolute necessary to be brutally frank about past transgressions.
    Any lack of transparency will be seen as a cover-up.
  2. Use it as an opportunity to testify how Christ has transformed your life.
    Most people are ready to forgive.
  3. Know that others have survived these attacks? Roosevelt and Kennedy had affairs. Clinton had shady finances and personal past of adultery. George Bush fail at several businesses and was an alcoholic. Obama was an Alinsky disciple and an associate of underworld figures.
  4. Seek skilled counsel and spiritual advice. Know that facing the criticism you will receive will require great courage and commitment.
  5. Trust that the Will of God led you to this point and will see you through.1