Culture Warrior (13 page)

                  

A question then logically follows: How would the secular-progressives, themselves, deal with Islamic terrorism? Paging George Lakoff! He deals with that very issue on page 60 of his training manual:

         

Most Islamic would be martyrs not only share [fanatical religious] beliefs but have also grown up in a culture of despair; they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists…when the Bush administration speaks of eliminating terror, it does not appear to be talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social conditions that lead one to want to give up his life to martyrdom.

         

Outstanding. Lakoff apparently believes the United States has the power to eliminate poverty and change social conditions in places like Pakistan—estimated population, 163 million. America can't even eliminate poverty and change “social conditions” in Detroit, much less Islamabad. No government can impose prosperity or benign thinking on masses of people. It is simply impossible.

But George Lakoff and the S-Ps don't care for rational analysis. It sounds so good to say that terrorism can be defeated by a change in America's foreign policy. More Lakoff (page 63):

         

What is needed is a new kind of moral foreign policy, one that realizes that America can only be a better America if the world is a better world. America must become a moral leader using fundamental human values: caring and responsibility carried out with strength to respond to the world's problems.

         

Once again, Lakoff seems to have missed the truth of America's great sacrifice in defeating the Soviet Union's totalitarianism and thereby bringing freedom to tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe and other Soviet-dominated areas. Nor does the S-P guru mention the enormous blood and treasure America spent defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Don't those historic achievements fall in the category of “caring and responsibility carried out with strength to respond to the world's problems”? Or did the United States bring World War II upon itself as well?

It galls me that the S-Ps can get away with denigrating the United States when it, along with Great Britain and a precious few other countries, is standing up against a homicidal jihad that could destroy the world.

The S-Ps' unrealistic assessment of the war on terror is dangerous, naïve, and disqualifies the secular-progressive movement from any serious participation in the post-9/11 decision-making process. Sure, it would be great to heal social ills all over the world by waving a magic wand, but why bother spouting such delusional nonsense? The S-Ps are at their best when proposing airy theories or undermining policies with which they disagree. They fail dismally, however, when asked to create better, more effective policies to protect and improve the lives of everyday people. But that failure does not deter them; they are convinced they hold the moral high ground and those who oppose them—their enemies in the culture war—must be marginalized for the good of all.

And so I have arrived at this necessary conclusion: All clear-thinking Americans
should
become opponents of the S-P movement for the simple reason of self-preservation. If the secular-progressives ever come to power in America, and remember, Howard Dean got close, their policies would put you and your family in grave danger. Osama and his pals would love to face off against Lakoff, Dean, Michael Moore, George Soros, and the rest of the soft secular forces. In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler had a blast with Neville Chamberlain, the appeasement-supporting prime minister of Great Britain. That historical lesson might be worth revisiting in the culture war between the traditionalists and the S-Ps.

Oh, and one more thing. If you really want to see just how “caring” and humane the secular-progressive movement is, visit some of their black-hearted Web sites. If the hatred and libel you see are examples of S-P caring, somewhere the Marquis de Sade is cheering. One of the reasons I am writing this book is to show the great divide between how the S-Ps frame their arguments and their actual conduct. Many of these people are as ruthless as anyone you see in the Bush administration. But they hide behind the nurturing and enlightenment themes. To use an old Levittown expression: “What a crock.”

God helps them that help themselves.

—POOR RICHARD'S ALMANAC,
1736

Way back in 1776, a committee that included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others decided to include the Latin words
E Pluribus Unum
on the first Great Seal of the United States. Actually, a man named Pierre Eugene Du Simitiere came up with the idea. I have no idea who that man was, but great name, right?

The motto
E Pluribus Unum
means “From Many, One,” thereby reflecting the integration of the thirteen colonies into one country. Subsequently, the words took on a deeper meaning as immigrants from all over the world brought their talents and energy and desire for freedom to the United States, fueling its rapid rise in power and prosperity. Yes, it's an old story that may have put you to sleep in high school. But it's worth thinking about. The United States is the strongest nation the world has ever seen because so “Many” pulled together to create the “One.”

But in today's culture war, “From Many, One” no longer applies on the secular-progressive side. Their motto might be: “Where's Mine?”
(Ubi Est Meum?)
Remember, the S-Ps believe that the government has an obligation to
provide
Americans with prosperity and happiness. This philosophy is, of course, in direct conflict with the vision of the Founding Fathers. They did not want government to provide, they wanted it to get out of our way. They imagined and designed a system whereby freedom and capitalism would give most Americans an
opportunity
to pursue happiness. What you did with that
opportunity
was up to you.

Of course, it is certainly true that Americans born into poverty do not have the same opportunity as those born into wealth. There are also many other kinds of inequities (like innate intelligence) in play in America and everywhere else. In addition, as acknowledged earlier, the sad truth is that for more than two hundred years most black Americans were systematically deprived of the right to pursue happiness, and Native Americans were brutalized as America was being settled. Thus, the government today does owe African and Native Americans, and the poor in general, more attention and specific entitlement programs to help level the playing field. On that most traditionalists and S-Ps can agree.

But the S-P notion that the U.S. government has the right to seize private property (which is exactly what the estate tax achieves, for example, but under stealth wording), or redistribute legally earned income from the affluent to the poor, runs counter to the founding spirit of America in every way.

Look at the evidence. The United States became the strongest nation on earth because individuals working their butts off created a unified powerhouse. These individuals, from many different nations and backgrounds, bought into the idea of pursuing the American dream: That is, they chose to live an honest life that affords the individual and his/her family security and comfort backed by the freedom necessary for accomplishing these worthy goals. Americans fought and died for these principles. They are still fighting and dying today, liberating people from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq. Any erosion of the American ideal, which the secular-progressives are attempting by championing the entitlement state, would drastically weaken the nation.

Call me a crazy traditionalist, but I do not believe General George Soros could have defeated the Soviet Union or the Nazis or Tojo's fanatical Japanese military. I don't believe that Howard Dean could command respect in any armed conflict and, most likely, would appease all over the place to avoid one in the first place.

Why do I believe so strongly that the secular-progressive movement is clueless as to how to deal with evil in the world? Simple. To them, as their leaders admit, evil doesn't really exist. Evil is actually redirected personal pain. Evil is a cry for help and can be persuaded to be good through kindness and caring. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler would all have changed direction if only Barbra Streisand could have sung “People Who Need People” to them in her very meaningful way.

Too harsh? No way.

History has demonstrated time and time again that disciplined, just societies prevail, while weak, utopian systems crash and burn. Life is tough, and we all have to deal with that, not buy into fantasies that could get us killed. The world is, and always has been, a struggle between good and evil. The Bible and the stark reality of the world teach us that. But as we all know, the Bible is not on the secular-progressive recommended reading list.

On the home front in America, traditional forces strongly believe that their hard-earned money is not the property of the government, to be distributed as largesse to others who, perhaps, are not willing to work to earn prosperity. On a personal note, I don't want my money being given to substance abusers, for example. Why should my money allow them to continue leading lives of dissolution? I donate money to drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinics like The Doe Fund, but I strenuously object to welfare payments for substance abusers to buy more substance. I work hard for my money and I don't want to support anyone who lives irresponsibly. Period.

Traditionalists like me understand that taxes are needed to keep the country strong and safe and to maintain an infrastructure that benefits the many. But cradle-to-grave entitlements, embraced fervently by the S-P movement, are rejected by traditionalists who understand that they foster weakness and sap initiative.

You only have to travel to Europe to see the difference that an entitlement culture makes. While the United States is a vibrant, creative, and exciting place, Europe today is largely stagnant. Workers there have little incentive to move ahead, because the rate of taxation is punishing and the governments guarantee a certain standard of living. In France, young people demonstrated for weeks because the government wanted a new law that would allow employers to actually fire them during the first two years of employment if they screwed up on a regular basis. But nooooo, we can't have that! The French sense of entitlement basically says “You owe me prosperity, government. You owe me.” Where have we heard that before? Paging George Lakoff!

For those reasons and more, Europe has grown weak and frightened in the face of intense conflict, leaving it to America to protect them. And we do, even as the United States continues to grow economically and provide incredible opportunities for upward mobility (you are reading the words of the poster boy for U-M, by the way).

It is actually laughable to hear the S-Ps moan about economic injustice in the United States when we all know there is a flood of immigrants, both legal and illegal, trying to get into America. Surely, if the American system was as bad as the S-Ps claim, people would not be coming such great distances and at great risk to get into this country. So you can either believe your eyes or believe the S-P socialist propaganda. Up to you.

Sorry. Once again, I am applying real-world logic and facts to counter S-P propaganda. I've got to stop doing that. Don't tell Howard Dean. He'll call me another name. You see, loopy theory and delusional analysis are the twin pillars of the secular-progressive movement. Their theory, as we've seen over and over, essentially argues that every individual in this world is
owed
a certain lifestyle by the powers that be.

So once again, out with
E Pluribus, Unum.
That phrase is simply not nurturing enough. The brand-new S-P motto is inclusive, caring, and pithy:
Ubi Est Meum?
“Where's Mine?” If the S-Ps ever do take control of America, that phrase will ring loudly from sea to shining sea. Where Is Mine! I want it right
now
! And if I can't get stuff for myself, I'll take yours. I am owed prosperity even if I don't want to earn it.

Is that the kind of country in which you want to live? If so, France might be your next stop. By the way, the S-Ps love France. Says a lot about them. But then again, France is far away and many of us don't really care about it. What we do care about is our neighborhoods. So let's go there now.