Elections are revving into high gear as January comes to a close. The 2012 presidential election will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 6, leaving candidates 281 days to step up to the plate and present a platform that will leave no room for discussion and immediately gain one of them the title of Commander in Chief.

In our day and age, negative advertisements are common aspects of campaigning. However, recently Newt Gingrich has begun to take a new approach to this method.

Saul David Alinsky was a far-left community organizer from Chicago. Despite his philosophical similarity to leaders such as Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, he was well liked by much of the United States, right and left. Therefore, I’m bewildered that Gingrich would attempt to create a negative tie between President Obama and Alinsky.

It would be false to say that Obama’s views don’t resemble those of Alinsky. However, it would also be false to say that the resemblances they share constitute a bad thing.

Alinsky’s main effort was to strengthen equality by organizing the poor and powerless in an attempt to articulate their grievances. He didn’t respect private property rights and he believed that everybody should be guaranteed a certain way of life. Similarly, Obama sets forth to organize a society that provides for the betterment of individuals with legislation including universal healthcare and tax cuts, which will in effect bring about a level playing field.

Some people may argue that Obama doesn’t respect private property rights, private businesses and hardworking millionaires. However, he is merely attempting to create a level of equality throughout the United States. In response to the popular conservative view of disdainfully looking down upon what our president is trying to do for our country, I ruefully look down on you for not realizing that your views are not perfect either. After all, if you have such a problem with the idea of Obama limiting property rights, how can you deem it acceptable to limit a person’s civil liberties and his choice in regards to topics such as same-sex marriage and abortion?

In 1971, Alinsky wrote “Rules for Radicals,” a book that aimed to inspire the generation of young activists that was present in the 1970s to step forth and change the country.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” The aforementioned quote is rule number five of Alinsky’s book. Perhaps this rule sets the stage for not only radicals but politicians as well.

According to journalist Stephanie Gutmann, “regimes with tentative hold over beleaguered populations deflect anger away from their own corruptions and mistakes with the deployment of a greatly embellished, even invented, external enemy.” Although this comment was geared towards Obama’s tendency to imply that the state of the nation is primarily due to the catastrophe known as the Bush Era, Gingrich’s attempt to portray Obama as a socialist, possibly even a communist, shows that he too tries to point fingers.

For decades the media has been the main platform for politicians to attempt to make a mockery of their opponents. Positive and negative advertisements are aired for a reason, whether to advance a candidate or create the downfall of another. Perhaps Gingrich felt the need to point out similarities in order to veer attention away from New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s comment claiming that Gingrich “is an embarrassment to the party.”

This same attempt – comparison between Alinsky and Obama – was made in 2008 prior to Election Day in hopes of keeping the White House under the Republicans’ belts. However, it didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.