How Trump controls the conversation

A lesson from Alinsky that Clinton must learn

One of the oldest and truest sayings in community organizing is: “The action is in the reaction.” Yes, it was the founder of citizen organizing in the United States and perennial far-right piñata, Saul Alinsky, who said it.

Alinsky wasn’t advising a billionaire real estate developer who wants huge tax cuts for the wealthy. He was trying to equip the truly powerless — workers in dangerous stockyards, tenants in dreadful tenements — with a useful tool. Effective and targeted action sparked a reaction. That reaction was the first step toward recognition. And recognition was the precondition for any meaningful public relationship with those with in power.

In the current presidential campaign, one person intuitively understands Alinksy’s insight. Donald Trump showed again in the first debate that he’s intent on initiating action after action. His wild charges and outrageous statements have no content, no weight, no meaning. Their sole purpose is to provoke a reaction — from Hillary Clinton, from the media, from the frustrated supporters of his opponent.

It doesn’t matter what the reaction is: howls of disbelief, pleas for more civility, numbing defenses based on statistics. Every reaction, any reaction, is a win.

Trump understands that a presidential campaign is not some college debate where merit matters, where the winner marshals the best facts and presents them in the clearest way. This is a chaotic free-for-all that will be won by the candidate who demonstrates dominance.

But why do Clinton and her advisers keep building him up, feeding the beast, by reacting? What in them keeps them from understanding this most basic of tactics and figuring out how to deal with it more effectively?

Part of the answer lies in who they are. She and her circle did win every college debate and law school argument based on hard work, depth of knowledge and informed presentation. They surrounded themselves with others who played by these rules and rose to wealth and prominence based on these standards.

While they have well-developed muscles for marshaling facts and defining positions, they have no ear, no sense of what resonates with many Americans.

The nation has a long and deep tradition of valuing freedom from. During the Revolutionary era, it was freedom from kings and clerics. Today, it is freedom from taxes, crime, terrorism and extensive regulation — and even freedom from that bogeyman called political correctness. Again and again, Trump hit those notes in the first debate.

He understands that leadership is as much about music as text, as much rhythm as narrative.

And Trump, however ridiculous or dangerous his proposed solutions, has his finger more firmly on the pulse of the nation. We have just come through a punishing summer. Violence erupted in many American cities. Anxiety about terrorism is palpable. Dysfunction in Congress has deepened. In spite of recent positive economic news, the level of distress in our central cities and rural areas is intense — made worse by an epidemic of cheap heroin and other deadly drugs.

When Trump speaks, when he acts, he calls attention to problems he can say others are ignoring, communicates concern — and, by provoking a reaction, keeps himself, and the supposedly forgotten millions who are part of his “movement,” at the center of the conversation.

In Monday night’s debate, Clinton generally managed not to react when Trump rambled on. It was commendable restraint.

But refusing to react is only half the equation. She and her campaign need to initiate action of their own — resonating with millions of independent and undecided Americans who need more than a laundry list of detailed policies and complicated programs.