Can Alinsky's Tactics Work on the Right? Should They?

In their February 9 column on BustedHalo.com, “Tricks Are For Kids,” conservative Catholic writers Dawn Eden and William Doino, Jr. joined the herd of pious finger-waggers who have taken to the high ledges to point at James O’Keefe, upon his recent arrest in New Orleans.

In an interview with Matt C. Abbott of RenewAmerica.com, Ms. Eden blasts the work of O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Lila Rose of Live Action Films (O’Keefe’s partner in the Planned Parenthood investigations):

We noted that Alinsky’s tactics ran directly counter to St. Paul’s dictum that we cannot do evil that good may come. Live Action’s work, like O’Keefe’s, uses the means of lying and deception in order to accomplish a good, which in their case is pointing out the lying and deception of Planned Parenthood.

About the ACORN investigation, she continues:

Was it really necessary to have an undergrad disguised as a scantily clad prostitute to expose the organization?

Well, it worked, didn’t it? With an enveloping sigh of disdain, Eden and Doino write:

O’Keefe’s contention that his adaptation of radical tactics was ‘the future of activism’ found an approving audience among numerous conservatives and libertarians.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that O’Keefe’s “adaptation of radical tactics” has effectively defunded truly evil organizations to the tune of millions of dollars simply by using words, hidden cameras and basic principles of investigative journalism – opening taxpayers’ eyes to the returns on their investments in the form of federally-funded would-be underage teen brothels and bureaucratic hornets’ nests of clandestine corruption. We would like to know what Eden’s morally superior tactics have achieved on such a scale.

[youtube 9UOL9Jh61S8 nolink]

But Eden and Doino – whose moral priorities have apparently more in common with those of the ACLU than those of the conservative movement – would rather shake their heads at the “lying and deception” inherent in James’ investigative journalism practices than the transgressions of his targets. Their advice to James is to put his head down, go back to school, get married and lead a quiet family life. Aw, gee, thanks for your advice, guys!

We didn’t want to throw the Good Book at Eden, but since she has resorted to using scripture to support her pious presumptions, we will play her game. Eden harbors the same instincts that compelled Peter to betray Christ upon his arrest. Citing scripture to furnish her moral opposition to O’Keefe’s “lying and deception” as a willingness to “do evil that good may result,” we hereby wonder if certain biblical heroes who employed subterfuge for purposes of self-preservation as well as the good interests of their communities would have merited Eden’s approval.

Rahab, the prostitute in the Book of Joshua, who deceived her own people in order to protect the Israelite spies she had taken under her wing, is lauded as a “profile in faith” in Hebrews 11: “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” Perhaps what Rahab truly needed was a lecture from Dawn Eden(who probably would have also criticized her scanty attire) about the use of deception as a means to an end.

Since Eden, as a pro-lifer, would rather invest her energy in scolding O’Keefe and Rose for their employment of “lying and deception” against Planned Parenthood as an evil means to an end rather than Planned Parenthood’s condoning of eugenics and statutory rape – we wonder if she would feel the same about those who deceptively housed Jews in their attics, lying to German interrogators during World War II.

Eden and Doino are the kind of people who would retreat and pray in closets rather than stand in the street and deliver results. It is no surprise that warriors like O’Keefe, Giles and Rose must be subjected to the pressures of ideological foes, but that they suffer the potshots of armchair theologians is outrageous. Eden and her ilk are no help to the cause by turning their backs on the brave ones that take those risks when they get in trouble.

To those who would rather embrace the security of pompous legalism and pusillanimous do-nothing “activism,” smugly throwing our movement’s true, brave warriors under the bus for their boldness and creativity while they are already being chastised for it; to those whose contribution to the conservative movement is sitting in a safe, comfortable position while condescending to the game-changing contributions of those like James, Hannah and Lila, who have literally risked their security, lives, reputations and freedom for the movement – on behalf of said movement – thanks, but we are no longer in need of your services.