Rules for Conservatives: A Response to Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

by Michael Charles Master

Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals 40 years ago as instructions on how to seize power. He was the original community organizer who documented how to organize others to provide power to the organizers. Alinsky was an instigator of class warfare and of the culture war. He taught liberals how to divide America by organizing communities to seize power. Because of those who practiced those rules, America is suffering. Every problem that we Americans face today can be traced back to compromises with liberal radical leaders. As it defined the rules that radicals should use to implement socialism and gain more control of governments, Rules for Conservatives defines the rules that conservatives should use to stop this incremental takeover by liberals. The Tea Party movement is determined to cut the tax burden on Americans. With decreased tax revenues, governments will have to shrink and liberals will lose power. Rules for Conservatives is the playbook for all conservatives and all Tea Party people to save America from liberal community organizers.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction

192 pages, Paperback

First published October 11, 2011

Reviews

[Joseph Serwach · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read the classic "Rules for Radicals'' and "Rules for Conservatives: A Response to Rules for Radicals'' back to back. The problem: Rules for Radicals wound up making better arguments for conservatives than the "conservative response'' did.

Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals'' was written in 1971 "for the have nots'' challenging the entrenched establishment. It's just as relevant today to conservatives challenging an entrenched liberal establishment today.

While Alinsky's book is largely strategic in nature (and still relevant), Michael Charles Master's "conservative response'' is far more tactical, filled with a number of arguments for how conservatives could respond on specific issues.

His best strategic advice?

"Friendly media outlets should be used as part of the network to instruct soldiers on the actual battlefields. Those media and entertainers who are enemies should be used to challenge everything about the opponents in order to cause doubt among the opposition.''

That sentence basically explains why conservatives lost so many elections in 2012: they were busy assuring each other of victory on "friendly outlets'' and arguing/but failing to persuade on the less friendly outlets. As a result: enough Republicans stayed home in 2012 for Mitt Romney to lose.

[Glen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title says it all here.

If that's your bag, you might like it, but it won't be anywhere near angry enough for some people.

[Adam Jacobs · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had every intention of reading this entire book, but after 30 pages, I encountered so much complete, baseless, partisan nonsense that I could not in good conscience go on. I always take notes when I read, and I have half a page of documentation as to the blatant errors I found- I skipped over many minor errors, but the whole tone of the book is one of mindless generalizations. Liberals this and liberals that- time and time again- as if liberals agree on every issue all the time.

This text is dishonest partisan tripe, and I cannot imagine why anyone would bother reading the entire thing.

[Melsene G · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book for conservatives. Mike does a great job spelling out the major issues facing our country and a roadmap of how to deal with it. A key issue that everyone needs to learn about and understand is the low birth rate of the western world. America is dying. The anecdote regarding young people around the table at Thanksgiving was rather telling and startling, but so true. This is Mike's second book, and I will go back and read his first book called, "Save America Now." Well done.

[Brian Katz · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting approach to Alinsky radicals.