Political Strategy's Tactical Assault Project

Political Strategy ^ | 1/16/2005 | Tom Ball

[Beckwith]

Announcing the launch of the PoliticalStrategy.org "Tactical Assault Project".

The project will be an ongoing effort to provide a 'handbook' of political tactics being used -- and for use -- in the ongoing battle for political and ideological superiority.

Tactics: Specific actions that you can take to debate, attack, defend or otherwise promote your agenda. They are the actions used to execute or advance the overall strategy or agenda of an organization, political party, or ideology. They can be used at every level of political battle. Some are clever. Some are commonsense. And some are downright despicable. The ones you choose to use are up to you. In any event, your knowledge of such tactics is critical to your ultimate defense and rebuttal of the opposition.

[Beckwith]

A liberal activist's propaganda and dirty tricks handbook.

Be aware of what the enemy is up to and how they plan on achieving their goals.

This is really something. Check the main page as well: http://www.politicalstrategy.org/

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

OUTSTANDING LIB TACTICAL/STRATEGY FIND!

Bookmark for those who are trying to destroy the VRWC by shredding the Constitution and adopting the UN's Charter.

[Howlin]

Way to go, beck; great find.

[AZ_Cowboy]

So, correct me if I'm wrong with this, but these folks basically have put up a book on how to "win" arguments via insulting, personal attacks, and saying outright lies really, really loudly.

Goebbels would be proud. I suggest we term this thing the Mein Kampf of the Left, because that's basically what's going on here. Perhaps "Blueprint for Burial" would be a better title.

Is this really anything new, or is it just a ocntinuation of what is already going on? In the mean time, I'll continue doggedly on my current strategy, which is to occasionally tweak the newspaper nutties so they get progressively (pardon the pun) more and more off the wall. We don't have to marginalize the libs; they are doing it automatically.

[ndkos]

I think what the website is trying to say is that the right are hypocrites. But they only give a few examples and hope the readers buy the argument.

[Carolinamom]

One of their recommended debate tactics: Lie like a pro.

They need to be instructed in this tactic?

[Beckwith]

Goebbels would be proud . . .

I'm not sure of this, but it sounds more like the source of this stuff is Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky is generally considered the father of community organizing. A criminologist by training, Alinsky in the 1930s organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made famous by Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power.

Author of Reveille for Radicals, Alinsky encouraged controversy and conflict, often to the dismay of middle-class activists who otherwise would sponsor his activism. Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for confrontational political tactics that dominated the 1960s.

Alinsky was a ferocious critic of mainstream liberalism. A champion of radical propaganda tactics and propaganda techniques, Alinsky encouraged deception in organizational strategy.

While attending Wellesley College, a young Hillary Clinton was a major admirer of Alinsky. She wrote her undergraduate thesis on his work and ideas.

It seems to me that the tactics of the democrats changed dramatically when the Clinton co-presidents took office. Hillary was always credited with being the brains and the strategist and that goes right back to Alinsky.

Just a thought.

[BOATSNM8]

I really like the part that says that you should ignore facts or logic!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the post and ping folks. I appreciate it. I'll take a look.

[Southack]

fyi

[writer33]

So typical of the Left. Thanks for the ping.

[AZ_Cowboy]

I was unaware of Mr. Alinsky, although you've definitely hit on something with that comparison. I used Goebbels because he was closely affiliated with the Nazis, who were famous for using deception and intimidation to silence competing ideas. In essence, he was the architect of many of the Nazi media tactics. First and foremost was the belief that the public would believe almost anything if it were repeated frequently enough.

No doubt better comparisons than Goebbels exist. I'll keep that one in mind and check it out a bit.

[eric_da_grate]

Great find!

10% "Savvy, Political Calculation" and 90% hollow, vindictive tripe....The sarcasm doesn't go unnoticed, either.....An aspiring liberal who one day hopes to rival the credibilty of Al Franken.

That site has no soul.

[tet68]

That site has no soul.

Most liberals don't , they don't really believe in them.

[longtermmemmory]

Tactic: Lampoon Your Opponent
By Tom Ball
12/16/04

Technique: Make jokes about the other side's policies, misfortunes, mistakes, etc.

One Liner examples:

Despicable Example: "Guns don’t kill people. People on welfare kill people” - Bumper sticker spotted in Knoxville, TN.

Light-Hearted Example: "When President Bush mentioned the 'Axis of Evil' I thought he was referring to the prime time line-up on Fox News" - Hillary Clinton in reference to the right-wing bias at Fox News.

Setup: These types of low-ball jokes can be quite despicable or enjoyably lighthearted. Either way, they hold their effectiveness by praying on prejudices, fears and hatred. It is these types of jokes that make AM hate-radio so popular with the right-wing.

Reasoning: This tactic truly appeals to the masses. They remember it, they believe it and they spread it like butter on toast. Do this loudly and frequently in the light-hearted mode. Avoid the despicable mode since it can only get you in trouble (unless you have your own AM hate-radio show of course) and will entertain only the true scumbags (true even on AM hate-radio). Take the bumper sticker example above (Despicable by most measures). This entertains only the people who already believe that it is true and probably disgusts everyone else. Either way, you won't be gaining any new support by using the despicable mode.

Summary: Lampoon the opposition, but don't offend the world. The objective is to lure the middle-of-the-roaders into your camp, not drive them into your opponent's.

[longtermmemmory]

Every Word Matters: Using 'Keywords' as a Political Tactic
By Tom Ball
05/16/04

In 1990, Newt Gingrich published a booklet he called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control". He mailed his little manifesto to Republican leaders throughout the land and encouraged them to "paint a vivid, brilliant word picture." Gingrich, showing a distrust for his fellow Republicans' judgement, saw fit to supply the leaders with two lists of keywords, a positive word list to use in describing themselves and a negative keyword list to describe those evil Democrats.

Gingrich's positive words for Republicans (try not to laugh or retch)

"Active, activist, building, candid(ly), care(ing), challenge, change, children, choice/choose, citizen, commitment, common sense, compete, confident, conflict, control, courage, crusade, debate dream, duty, eliminate good time in prison, empower(ment), fair, family, freedom, hard work, help, humane, inventive, initiative, lead, learn, legacy, liberty, light, listen, mobilize, moral, movement, opportunity, passionate, peace, pioneer, precious, premise, preserve, principle(d), pristine, pro-flag, pro-children, pro-environment, prosperity, protect, proud/pride, provide, reform, sights, share, strength, success, tough, truth, unique, vision, we/us/our, workfare"

Particularly entertaining was the inclusion of such words as "Eliminate good time in prison", "peace" and "pro-environment". No. They did not include "Audacity" in their "pro-Republican" word list. Anyway, Newt continues with his choice of words to describe the opposition.

Gingrich's negative words for Democrats

"Anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, anti-jobs, betray, coercion, collapse, consequences, corruption, crises, decay, deeper, destroy, destructive, devour, endanger, failure, greed, hypocrisy, ideological, impose, incompetent, insecure, liberal, lie, limit(s), pathetic, permissive attitude, radical, self-serving, sensationalists, shallow, sick, they/them, threaten, traitors, unionized bureaucracy, urgent, waste"

So now we know what Gingrich was doing when he wasn't busy cheating on his sick wife or serving divorce papers to her in the hospital while she received cancer treatment so he could marry his bimbo. Busy! Busy! Busy!

Nevertheless, if a loser like Newt can issue a list of "power words" then so can we. It is our duty.

Positive words for Democrats

American, Best-interest, Bipartisan, Caring, Children, Choice, Clean, Common sense, Confident, Correct, Courage, Decent, Democracy, Determination, Diversity, Environment, Equity, Fairness, Family, Fiscal responsibility, Forward looking, Freedom, Growth, Hard working, Health, Humane, Innovative, Justice, Liberty, Life, Majority, Middle-class, Moral, New ideas, Open government, Open-minded, Passionate, Peace, Pioneer, Populist, Progressive, Pro-growth, Promote, Prosperity, Protection, Proud, Reality, Responsibility, Security, Solution, Strength, Success, Tolerance, Truth, Unity, Vision, We/us/our, Win, Women, Working, Working-class

And?

Realistic Words for Republicans

Against, Al Qaeda, Anti-, Anti first amendment, Anti-choice, Anti-civil rights, Anti-environment, Aristocracy, Arrogant, Audacity, Authoritarian, Backward, Behind the times, Betray, Big brother, Bigotry, Bin laden, Chaos, Chickenhawk, Closed-minded, Corporate interests, Corporate malfeasance, Corruption, Cowardice, Crisis, Cronies, Danger, Dark ages, Death, Deficits, Denial, Despicable, Destructive, Destructive, Divisive, Doubt, Elitist, Embarrassment, Endanger, Enron, Extremist, Failed, Failure, Falling stocks, False, Fear, Fearful, Fear-monger, Greed, Hateful, Hurtful, Hypocrisy, Ideologues, Incompetent, Inhumane, Insecure, Insecure, Intolerant, Isolationist, Judgmental, Lies, Limousine, Lose, No ideas, Nuclear proliferation, Oil, Oppression, Orwellian, Outdated, Pain, Partisan, Poison, Prejudice, Propaganda, Racism, Radical, Recession, Right-wing, ,Secrecy, Selfish, Selfish, Self-serving, Shameless, Terrorists, They/then, Traitors, Unemployment, Unfair, Unilateralist, War, Warmonger, Weak, Wealthy, Zealots

In addition to these broad-based keywords, we can also focus in on specific issues. For example, in the article, "North Korea Threatens US with Preemptive Attack: Arguing Against the First-Strike Precedent", I suggested the following:

~ Such a policy is the antithesis of what America stands for. Use the term "un-American" liberally.

~ Refer to the action of striking first as a "Bush Administration" phenomenon, not an "American" phenomenon. Even non-Americans understand the difference.

~ Refer to the Iraq situation as an "invasion" or a "preemptive strike", not as "war". It is not war. Psychologically, "war" is more acceptable to people than either an invasion or a preemptive strike.

So there you go. Every word matters.

[longtermmemmory]

Tactic: Appropriate the Symbols
By Stu Finkel
12/31/04

Travelling over the holidays in the purple regions of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, I have been struck by the omniprescent yellow and tricolor ribbon stickers and giant flag stickers on cars (and especially SUVs) the likes of which we don't see so much in northern California. My immediate reaction is irritation -- the assumption being that the driver in question is a Bushie (often confirmed by the W. sticker next to the giant flag). And, usually, I then feel annoyance that these symbols of basic patriotism are so associated with the wingnut right that progressives are alienated from them.

So my modest proposal: we (re)appropriate these symbols. Stick the flag and the ribbon on your car -- but do so right next to your Move On "Nothing Accomplished" sticker, or your old Dean sticker, or your "Re-Defeat Bush" sticker. Make people look twice and form new associations.

When I suggested this on a dKos or Atrios comment thread several months ago, the reaction I got was that a number of progressive bumper stickers incorporate these symbols or ideas (i.e. either the flag or an expression of support for the troops). This is true, but I think the reappropriation of the symbols themselves, on their own (but juxtaposing them with more explicit but symbolically separate messages) is also important. So that the next time you see a big flag driving next to you on the highway you don't autmoatically think, "that's gotta be one of them."

[longtermmemmory]

Tactic: Poo-Poo Your Opponent's Rhetoric
By Tom Ball
12/20/04

One of the many tactics that have been perfected by the Republicans -- and one that has infuriated a media-less, voiceless left -- is the brazen dismissal of their opponents arguments, accusations, complaints, and rhetoric. It is the first line of defense in every arena. It is the initial slap-down designed to stun and disorient the opponent, while simultaneously framing the rhetoric as some that is best left ignored.

Technique: Claim that the news or accusation is silly, irrelevant and/or unimportant. Stress that this is merely a distraction technique intended to take the focus off the true issue (at this point you state what you want the "true" issue to be. Of course this will be an issue that is to your advantage.). In any event, give as little attention to the adverse information as possible and immediately follow with what is truly important. (i.e. Your opinion.)

One Liner: "That's simply not important."

Setup: Once again the attacks arrive. It could be a personal attack from a particular adversary or it could be a news report or even a rumor. No worries, Whatever it is, it's silly. It's of absolutely no relevance. It's of no importance.

Example one liners:

* "Uh huh. Well, nevertheless, the situation here is… (and then continue as though the other person never said a word)."

* " ." - Totally ignore what they just said.

* "The important thing is…(follow with whatever you think is important)"

Rationale: The most effective tactics are those that

1) are demeaning to the target

2) are distracting from the real issue, and

3) allow the user to appear 'in power'.

This tactic covers all bases and sets the tone for further tactical assaults. It is the napalm before the ground assault.

Summary: Regardless of the message, downplay its significance.



Tactics | Link | TrackBack

[longtermmemmory]

THIS IS A GOOD ONE:-- -- -- -- -- -

Tactic: Never Concede an Inch to the Opposition
By Tom Ball
12/13/04

In an age where Democratic concession to Republican demands has become standard practice, it is critical that we review and put into practice the godfather of all political tactics -- one at which Republicans are adept.

It purveys power, decisiveness, and confidence -- and it is one that progressives must add to our arsenal if we ever hope to retake our rightful position as the accurate and dominant political representative of traditional "American Values".

Technique: Never Concede an Inch to the Opposition. Unless the opponent's assertion or conclusion is beneficial to your own argument, do not concede one inch. Their point is either innocuous, in agreement with you, or simply wrong. Never say things like, "Well, there's a lot of truth to that..." or "You've got a point there." Remember that your stance on the issue is the correct stance. Learn it, Live it. Love it. No matter what. Never give in and stick to the script. Remember that you are debating, not negotiating, in which case concessions might be appropriate.

The left has traditionally perceived such a stance as 'stubborn' or 'pig-headed'. The fact of the matter is, however, that such unyielding force is something that would be a welcome addition to promoters of the progressive view of politics. More often than not, people are willing to overlook the air of 'stubbornness' in favor of the aura of 'strength' that such a tactic creates.

This will be a tough tactic to implement for some progressives -- you know -- the ones that are most easily labled 'milquetoast', 'mamby-pamby', and/or 'wafflers' who are derided by the right as standing for nothing and living without values or principles.

Perceptioin is everything. Tough tactics are a means to an end. They show that you have a spine and they are something sorely lacking at all levels of the progressive political movement.

One Liners: "That is completely wrong."

Setup: Most people, when engaged in lively debate, have some sense of compassion for their opponent and will generally tell them when they agree with something their opponent has said. If you really want to crush your opponent, you won’t do that. (And we DO want to crush our opponents)

Reasoning: "Give them an inch and they take a mile" the old adage goes. That could not be more true. In fact, a more accurate saying might be, "Give them an inch and you give them a mile." You give them and their message credibility and a growing strength each time you agree with their points regardless of how minor or irrelevant you might perceive those points to be. Relentlessly refraining from concession makes you look strong, confident and correct, exactly the type of person someone would like to associate with. Rest assured that the benefits of such a strategy far outweigh the potential for some listeners to perceive you as being stubborn.

Example one liners and Tips:

* "That is completely misleading."

* "Wrong."

* "You are completely misguided."

* "Let me help you with reality"

* Don't just disagree, completely disagree or vehemently disagree.

Should you ever concede anything?

Sometimes concession is in the best interest of your goals.

First remember that we are talking about debate, not negotiation. You NEVER negotiate your values or principles.

There are some debating techniques that are more art than science where you concede on unimportant matters, or appear to be conceding on issues of fact. This technique allows you to press forward without looking 'unreasonable'. Nevertheless, when fighting the rabid right, such mindful concessions, no matter how well chosen and placed, would simply seve as an opening for the winger attack machine to set itself in full motion. Don't do it.

In the Event of Agreement

Even when you do agree with your opponent, re-frame the assertion in terms of your values and principles and DO NOT USE THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR OPPOSITION. In other words, do not use the terms, catch phrases, or context used by your opponent.

For example, If they say something like "We need to defend America at any cost", then we must paraphrase in a way that promotes our progressive values.

Something like.... "We need to defend America at any cost -- by forming global alliances, properly funding first responders, targeting the true threats to national security, promoting non-proliferation, and fighting the root cause of these threats rather than encourage and provoke them with insightless, haphazard, ad hoc policy." -- or something like that.

Never offer them the comfort of phrases like 'I agree', or 'I concur', etc. Start your statement simply paraphrasing the point with which you agree in your own words, using your own frame. Do not give validity to anything they say regarding their opposing, and thus 'wrong', position.

Never agree with your opponent for the purpose of appearing 'popular' or 'agreeable'. All that will accomplish is making your opponent more credible... and thus more 'popular' or 'agreeable', not you.

Summary: Stick to your guns and give them NOTHING.

[longtermmemmory]

Tactic: Claim that Certain Facts are Evidence for the Opposite of What They Actually Support
By Tom Ball
12/10/04

Huh?

In other words, when something exists -- a piece of evidence -- that supports your opponent's view, claim that it actually supports your view, NOT theirs.

For example: Unseasonably cold weather in Los Angeles would be reason for Republicans to rejoice. They would boast that such cold weather is 'evidence' that global warming is a bunch of nonsense. In reality, such aberrant weather is a telltale sign of the existence of global warming, cold or not. It has to do with complexities involving alterations in the oceans' currents and the planet's jetstream. Of course the sophistication of the subject makes it that much easier for conservatives to paint in terms of 'black and white': "It's cold where it should be hot, therefore there is no global warming. Ha ha ha ha..."

Another example from Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times:

A few weeks ago, a pair of studies found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias.
Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?

Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives.

They don't, however, have much evidence to back this up. Mostly, they assume that the leftward tilt is prima facie evidence of anti-conservative discrimination. (Yet, when liberals hold up minority underrepresentation at some institutions as proof of discrimination, conservatives are justifiably skeptical.)


As you might presume from this example, many people execute this tactic without much conscious thought. It's a simple matter of rationalizing your position to relieve growing cognitive dissonance on the subject. It is this desire for relief that makes the tactic, executed intentionally, so powerful. People want to be right. And they want to be right as fast as they can -- and with the least amount of effort.

True, those who know better will not be swindled by such a tactic -- but who cares. They aren't the targets of the actions anyway.

Effects of this tactic:

At the highest level, the hope is that the public believes your assertion that the 'evidence' supports your position and NOT your opponent's.

On a sub-level, at least the assertion will cloud the issue -- leaving the topic 'up in the air', 'open to debate' or 'inconclusive' -- denying the opposition the advantage of citing the evidence as conclusive proof in support of their position. This is what the right has effectively done with global warming and evolution.

It is the ultimate spin. Assert that black is white -- that up is down. It works. It's powerful. But it does take a fair share of cleverness concoct the rationale to pull it off. Generally, since very few people care to know the nuances of detail and implication, the more complex the issue, the easier it is to successfully execute the tactic.


Summary:

1) Identify a high profile piece of evidence in support of your opponent's position -- the more complex and nuanced, the better.

2) Frame the 'evidence' as proof for your position and as a challenge against theirs. It is best to paint the issue in terms as 'black and white' as possible.

This certainly won't work for every piece of evidence, but a little research and creativity will reveal plentiful fodder with which to effectively apply this tactic.