II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 65categories: ‘“Alinsky, cringing at the use of labels, ruefully admitted that he might be called an
existentialist,” she found. [We already know what that can mean.] Rodham tried to probe his moral
relativism — particular ends, Alinsky maintained, often justify the means — but Alinsky would
only concede that “idealism can parallel self-interest.” Hillary tentatively accepted Alinsky’s
contention that the problem of the poor isn’t so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as
his skeptical view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (Alinsky took the facile view,
shared by the GOP, that Johnson’s War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,”
even though he collected funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity.) It is clear that Alinsky
wanted everything to come out of the do-it-yourself bag of the local community organizer, a kind of
nomadic left-wing anarchist who viewed the state as an adversary. Organizing in the Democratic
Party was too broad, and might develop into an actual challenge to the ruling class, the very thing
that Alinsky’s owners were using him to head off. Hillary conceded what was obvious: “A cycle of
dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”
Hillary advanced a “perspective” or critique of Alinsky’s methods, citing especially scholars who
claimed that Alinsky’s small gains actually delayed attainment of bigger goals for the poor and
minorities.
Hillary noted the “few material gains” that Alinsky’s methods were capable of obtaining, such as
forcing Kodak to hire blacks in Rochester, New York, or delaying the University of Chicago’s
expansion into the Woodlawn neighborhood, the very Hyde Park community later represented by
Barack and policed by Michelle. Hillary attributed part of Alinsky’s failure to shifting demography
and the diminishing role of neighborhoods in American life. She also showed that many projects
depended completely on the presence of Alinsky personally – hardly a recipe for empowering
others: “One of the primary problems of the Alinsky model is that the removal of Alinsky
dramatically alters its composition,” she wrote; “Alinsky is a born organizer who is not easily
duplicated, but, in addition to his skill, he is a man of exceptional charm.”
Hillary’s final verdict was that the Alinsky school of micro-organizing could never work in a
mass society; the Alinsky “power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social
conflicts” — over-arching national issues such as racial tension and segregation, prosperity and
economic depression. Alinsky never had any success in forming an effective national movement,
she said, suggesting the futility of “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.” Alinsky
sometimes threatened small-scale disruptions to extort temporary, local concessions. Hillary
concluded that the mini-conflict approach to large-scale power is limited. “Alinsky’s conclusion
that the ‘ventilation’ of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board
‘social catharsis’ cannot be prescribed,” she wrote.
Hillary brought Alinsky to Wellesley in January 1969 to speak at a private dinner for a dozen
students; he expressed dissatisfaction with New Left protesters such as the Students for a
Democratic Society. Rodham closed her thesis with the obligatory flourish by saying that she
reserved a place for Alinsky in the pantheon of social justice activists next to Martin Luther King,
Walt Whitman, and perennial socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs. She also ironically
suggested that Alinsky was a part of the establishment: “In spite of his being featured in the Sunday
New York Times,” she wrote, “and living a comfortable, expenses-paid life, he considers himself a
revolutionary. In a very important way he is. If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the
result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the
tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is
regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been
feared — because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”’ (Bill Dedman,