Replies

One major difference between the two sides in the Culture War is that the Left seeks absolute impositions of its values via the Courts, whereas the Right (though usually in these cases the Right's view encompasses the mainstream view) merely seeks a fair battle in the proper, legitimate democratic channels. It is the Left, knowing that most people reject their radical cultural views, who have turned to the Courts to impose these things that can't be won at the ballot box. They try to justify this with the 'Living Constitution' nonsense; telling us that the Constitution somehow now requires things never envisioned or contemplated by the Framers or the people who gave their consent to it.

The idea that the Constitution mandates, abortion rights, recognition of same-sex unions, or the barring of religious displays on public grounds (to name a few hot-button examples)is absurd.

I would agree with you in the sense that such issues (barring an Amendment setting policy one way or another) should always have the ability to remain in flux. If the people want permissive abortion laws (as the Left insists is the case), then so be it. If the people suddenly decide a radical redefining of marriage is in order, then so be it. If the people don't want a nativity scene outside city hall, then so be it. But since the people want none of these things as of now, then that is as it should be (allowing for regional differences of course).

In fact, the only reason we have a national Culture War is because of the Left's abuse of the judiciary and Consitution. Without such tactics, then all of the contentious social issues would be resolved in a manner that most could live with. Having a fair hearing and chance in the democratic process, and knowing that you can come back to try again some other day lends a certain amount of satisfaction to all parties involved, even the losers.

As to Letterman and O'Reilly; Letterman is clearly a leftist, who can barely hide his hatred of Bush and Republicans. And while I am no fan of O'Reilly, he did bust Letterman on a few points. One was how he correctly pointed out that yes, of course Cindy Sheehan deserves compassion and sympathy for her loss suffered on behalf of all Americans, but once she makes herself a part of the political scene then her comments are fair game for criticism.

The biggest point in O'Reilly's favor is how he got Letterman to admit that he was judging his show w/o having watched it. Such a revelation -- that one is criticizing a subject based not on firsthand obervation but instead on what others say -- is usually taken in a debate as a devastating blow. All of the media types and liberals who claim Letterman cleaned O'Reilly's clock are conveniently ignoring this, and they would no doubt pounce on a conservative admitting to the same.

I disagree with the notion that there are just two sides to the culture war or that victory means that our culture would have only one viewpoint on most issues. While there are extremes on each side, I still think and hope that most Americans are not on any fringe. I'd like to see a victory that would result in a dominant culture that was largely traditional without being overbearing on superficial matters. I'd like to see a culture where traditional heterosexual marriage is honored as the ideal, but I don't want to be the victim of discrimination because I'm single and likely never to be married. Our schools should not applaud or enable homosexuality or promiscuity, but nosy neighbors who try to dig dirt on someone's private life should be shunned for not knowing how to mind their own business. We don't need people who can't abide public displays of a nativity scene at Christmas, but neither do we need people are rude to those who don't share their faith. A society with the right mix of modesty, self-respect, and tolerance can be a good society, but those sides of the culture war that want to use one of these virtues to destroy the others are the sides that need to lose.

Bill