As for Alinsky, his book is primarily about the effective use of tactics for attacking an entrenched opponent. A fair analogy would be a book on siege tactics vs open field battles.
The point being, his list of rules works primarily against the status quo. And who represents the status quo today? That's why the left, as were conservatives a generation before them, unable to stop the momentum to the attacks. I saw a post @ Reddit (mostly 20-somethings fighting on the front lines against SJWs) remark that they are now the "radicals".
I understand all that, but he advocates open deception and outright lying to achieve goals, never mind the actions that he states are wholly justified by the goals.
That is where I have the problem with. Like I said, I have read that work, and didn’t enjoy it, but I thought it was important given the people like Clinton, Ayers, and Obama who worship Alinsky like a deity.
I think we can achieve our objectives without resorting to their tactics. I believe there is Might to being Right, and we generally have the truth on our side, in my opinion.
Also, just because I abhor the encompassing philosophy and morality of Alinsky’s work, it doesn’t mean that pieces of it cannot be used respectably. Some of it is indeed common sense. (it isn’t the same approach muslims have taken, when they say certain things cannot be utilized because they are tainted because they were thought of or invented by infidels)
The use of ridicule, for example. It is a great weapon to use against liberals, because they have no defense against it, and as we see, they can self-destruct when it is used against them.