Posted on 01/08/2006 5:13:35 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Even though the war on terror dominates the headlines, the culture war in America is almost as intense. On one side you have traditionalists, people who believe the country was well-founded, does mostly good things, and has become the most powerful nation on earth by adhering to Judeo-Christian principles like generosity, justice, and self-sacrifice.
On the other side of the culture war are the secular-progressives (S-P's) who believe that the USA is fundamentally a flawed country, which has caused considerable misery both within and outside our borders. The S-P's want drastic change and a new direction for America.
The two most intense issues in the culture war right now are how to deal with terrorism and what role spirituality should play in the public arena.
The S-P's want little or no public displays of God or religion. That's what drove the attacks on Christmas images and traditions; knock down the big Christian holiday, and the secularists achieve a big victory.
On the terror front, traditionalists largely want aggressive action to wipe out the "evildoers," and if lraq is the battlefield, then so be it.
Secular-progressives are appalled by the Iraq war and generally believe the USA has no right to act unilaterally to hunt down terrorists or their enablers.
So the stage was set for my recent appearance on the David Letterman show. I am a traditionalist; Mr. Letterman tends to mock traditionalists. And he often does it very well.
Our discussion began with the Christmas controversy. Dave did not see it as a big deal. When I pointed out the absurdity of a library in Memphis, Tennessee OK'ing a manger scene but then telling the woman donating it that she had to remove Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the three Wise Men, Dave said he did not believe the story. And, generally, that was the opinion of the liberal media: There was no Christmas controversy -- the whole thing was fabricated by religious zealots bent on establishing a theocracy.
Dave's skepticism must have come as a surprise to Memphis resident Brandi Chambless, the woman ordered to remove statues of the Holy Family and their visitors from the East. But, hey, the shepherds could stay, staring into an empty stable.
The subject quickly shifted to Iraq, a conflict both Letterman and I believe has been poorly managed. We also found common ground on the terrific performance of the U.S. military.
But then Cindy Sheehan came up. Uh-oh.
Dave, as well as many in the entertainment community, feels that Ms. Sheehan should not be criticized. He believes she is above reproach because her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq.
I do not see it that way, so sparks flew. My contention is that Ms. Sheehan is entitled to grieve and dissent in any way she wants, but her grief is being exploited by far-left elements.
And when Ms. Sheehan told Mark Knoller, a correspondent for CBS radio, that the terrorists in Iraq were "freedom fighters," she insulted thousands of other Americans who lost loved ones in Iraq.
Simply put, terrorists who blow up civilians, women and children are not freedom fighters in any sense. They are murderers, and I called Mr. Letterman on Sheehan's support of them.
I hope you saw the program. It was a rare display of the culture war on television. I told Dave I respected his views and he should respect mine. I enjoyed the joust.
By far more important, is the wake-up call many late-night viewers got. We in America are becoming a deeply divided country along cultural lines. The more we all understand what the issues are, the better. The culture war is real, and now, everybody watched Letterman that evening knows it.
Well make no mistake, I hold conservative views on just about all the hot-button, contentious social issues.
But yes, the manner in which the Left seeks to implement its agenda is more vexing and maddening than the agenda itself. I wouldn't like it if the Left's agenda won approval through democratic channels, but if the public turns against traditional values and beliefs, then its over, and my side has lost. But as I said, so long as my side had a chance and so long as we could come back to fight another day, then I could accept it much easier than if as few as five judges decided to disallow such action.
We're not the ones making Christmas illegal. BOR beat Letterboy like a rented mule!
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
I agree with your sentiments and most of what you say, though I do think that society has the right to endorse marriage and reward those who take part in it.
But from my own biased point of view, it seems that it is those on the Left who seem hell-bent on making harmony impossible. It seems that conservatives living in liberal areas have for the most part accepted that their views are in the minority, and can live with it. In conservative areas, however, there is always some malcontent who can't tolerate expressions of the majority. That's why, for example, you have Court rulings that bar a prayer over the speakers before a high school football game in Texas.
When politics was being ignored, Letterman could have his own opinion.
Now that it is a war, he is a weapon. A paid weapon. Paid to now keep his own opinion to himself.
Culture changes by degrees and generations.
I think that O'Reilly and Hannity and Limbaugh, are for the most part, pompous self-serving windbags. But, I am glad that they exist to provide a counterpoint to the multitude of liberal pompous self-serving windbags that dominate the mass media. OTherwise, the conservative view would be completely lost.
I completely agree. While we probably don't hold the same fundamental beliefs, the priniciples are the same.
The problem with "rewarding" marriage is the reward may result in unintended consequences. An incentive to marry may also be an incentive to marry the wrong person just to receive the reward. However, neither the institution of marriage nor the society in general is helped by people marrying the wrong person and making bad marriages to receive the reward. However, if the reward is valuable enough, people may do these things because they need the reward. The result would be bad marriages and the kind of misery that causes people to doubt marriage completely.
The situation is analogous to the origins of welfare. When welfare began, no one ever thought that a small government check to help a few women and children in desperate situations would be an incentive for poor people not to make their marriages and families work. Even now, liberals try to dismiss concerns about the effects of welfare by pointing out that welfare recipients never lived as nice a life as folks in the suburbs. What they forget is that for people in bad circumstances, any kind of incentive can push them into an otherwise foolish decision. Welfare was hardly a "reward" for being a single, unemployed parent, but it had that effect, and the result was a disaster.
As conservatives, we need to avoid the temptation to engage in our own forms of social engineering. A tangible reward for marriage will not strengthen marriage. A good marriage is the ideal, and with few exceptions, married people will be healthier and happier than single people. That health and happiness inherent in marriage is all the reward that is needed. Other attempts to manipulate people into (or out of) marriage will only cause trouble. We can't control everything, and we can't make things just right for everyone. Efforts to push people into a situation "for their own good" are a mistake.
I hate being single, but I'd rather be single than be married to someone who isn't right for me. As an unhappy single, I'm not making anyone else unhappy. If I were in a bad marriage, my wife and I would be adding to each others' misery. As a single, at least I'll always have the option of marrying the right woman if I ever meet her. A policy that tried to manipulate me into marriage wouldn't be doing anyone any good.
Bill
What went wrong? He lives in NY now and wants to be "liked"....remember, all these celebrities NEED to be loved...and that means they have to talk the liberal talk.
I might be less than satisfied with many of Bush's positions on things such as immigration and 'social' spending, but I'm unwilling to sacrifice our American civilization as those on the Left are all to willing to do.
We're not gong to have a future unless and until we do a little house cleaning within our own borders. That won't be pretty, but it will be necessary.
As I have said before, those who seek the destruciton of a free society - no matter who they are - are unfit to live in that same society. It's not just a matter of a difference of opinion that we're talking about here.
It's called "jamming": psychological terrorism designed to silence any opposing view. It's what homosexuals do when they no longer simply seek to be left alone, but insist on Uber civil rights, including hate speech laws and the desensitization of school children. If jamming is not challenged, the Bible will soon become hate speech, and only certain types of "Christianity" will be permitted (as in China).
Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.
bttt
Either the secularists (marxist liberals) or the traditionalists (classical liberals) will dominate; but neither will wipe out the other.
It would be better with traditionaists dominating because they have the tradition of American free speech whereas what they call "secularists" have the tradition of Marxism. Also traditionists are the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Letterman was a Conservative for about two weeks, right after he inked his 14 Mil deal with CBS, and then watched the klintoon&company raise his taxes an extra 13%.
It took him a while to cool off and revert to form.............FRegards
"When you have mainstream media blasting the sheeple with their propaganda...when you have Horryweird blasting the sheeple with their propaganda...when you have idiots like Letterman using their direct pipe to the sheeple to preach his propaganda........." ( LasVegasMac)
LasVegasMac,
When you have government schools indoctrinating kids and training them to be good sheeple.........
But as long as RINOs infest the GOP, that battle is not only compromised, but akin to letting known double-agent spies into camp.
ABSOLUTELY no argument from me on that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.