Tom Tancredo recently asserted that Barak Obama is a greater threat to America than Al Qaeda. This is not a smart political position to take but it is intellectually defensible. After all, Obama's biography, his associations his appointees, his policies, his apologies to tyrants and terrorists, all provide support for the proposition. Yet, it is not politically smart because there is no infrastructure to support anyone who makes the allegation. There is no one of academia, or in the press, or of political stature who will publicly admit that there is rational basis for the assertion anymore than there is anyone to be found who will take up the issue of Obama's eligibility to serve. In fact, Bill Mahrer recently forced a conservative on his show to could say that the statement was "absurd," and this individual was a representative of National Review.
I too think that the assertion about communist infiltration of our government is perhaps a bit on the tinfoil hat side but I do not know, and worse, we are in an environment in which I cannot find out. There is no institution that will find out for me and make it known. We have come to a place in this country where we find fact by resort to political correctness. This issue, as one poster has pointed out, has been determined in favor of the left by the reaction against McCarthy. It is politically incorrect to identify communists in the government while at the same time it is quite correct to identify racists and fascists among tea party attendees.
We have seen time and again in our political history how the left dominates our dialogue. "Swift boating" has come to mean precisely the opposite of what occurred, which was the righteous exposure of a man who inflated his military service. It has come to mean what occurred to Judge Bork, it has come to be a substitute for "borking." In the immediate aftermath of confirmation hearings for justice Thomas, the country by a majority concluded that he was innocent of the charges laid against him. But after months of unrelenting propaganda from the left, the country changed its mind about what it had seen. Recently, we have seen an attempt by the left to exploit the proposed construction of a mosque at ground zero as a means to render illegitimate support for the war against terror. Ultimately, if the mosque is held to be legitimate the war must be illegitimate.
The point is that Bill Bennett is right, ultimately culture dominates politics. It is very difficult to carry the day by asserting what might in fact be a truth: that Communists, for example, have infiltrated the American government to a degree unsuspected and George Soros manipulates much of what goes on in our government. Naked assertions of the sort only invite ridicule with the result that the investigation is shut down by political correctness just as surely as the investigation into the eligibility of Barack Obama has been shut down. Political correctness, whether the left resorts to the charge of McCarthyism, and especially when it resorts to the charge of racism, shuts down the investigation.
As a matter of tactics and propaganda, it is far better to assert facts and let the audience draw the conclusion rather than the other way round. The best practitioner of this art on our side is Glenn Beck and he is the object of a multimillion dollar campaign to censor him off the air. Beck is brilliant, his red telephone is but one example of his talent and it is an example which illustrates how difficult it is to run counter to political correctness and what lengths he must go to establish credibility. Rush Limbaugh, as another example, pioneered conservatism on the radio at a time when to be a conservative was to be at best eccentric and probably dangerous. In this environment it is understandable that Limbaugh countered with bombast about how infallible he is. Forensic masters such as Beck and Limbaugh go to great lengths to overcome this problem. They do not shout naked allegations which leaves him open to charges that they wear tinfoil hats.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'd like to offer a few comments. 1. "Tom Tancredo recently asserted that Barak Obama is a greater threat to America than Al Qaeda. This is not a smart political position to take but it is intellectually defensible."
Personally, I don't think it is: this position gives too much weight to a person. Do you really think that, without the adoring masses that surround Obama in this party and throughout the country he would last even for a day? We would not even know his name today were it not for the symbolism that all those leftists needed, symbolism that got fulfilled by an empty suit. Witness what happened to Hillary despite the political machine behind her, one of the most powerful and entrenched ever erected. If (and when) Obama stops satisfying the need for idolatry --- a symbol (never mind reality) of "humane," "peaceful," "socially just," "post-racial" America love abroad and feared at home --- he'll be dropped in a heartbeat.
It's not Obama that poses the greatest threat but the ideology that is shared by one half of the country.
2. "I too think that the assertion about communist infiltration of our government is perhaps a bit on the tinfoil hat side but I do not know, and worse, we are in an environment in which I cannot find out."
Whether the assertion is true is really sensitive to the meaning of the words here.
Since at least 1920s, by infiltration of communists we have meant infiltration by indiividuals that formally belonged to Communist parties. There are not many such around, and they are not popular. So, except for the self-described communist van Jones, there cannot be many communists in that sense who infiltrate the government.
What people mean by communist infiltration today, I believe, is the infiltration of by neo-communists and neo-Marxists. It is their ideology that is largely Marxist, but they do not belong to any communist party and probably do not describe themselves as communists.
The extent of such infiltration is enormous: most people in the Obama's administration, and even more so in the Dem Congress, are a mixture of fascists (in the Mussolini style --- leaving property where it is but chaining and binding it by regulation, taxation, etc.) and Marxist (nationalize means of production, let the "people" own that property, only then will "social justice" will be achieved).
I would (and did on other threads) go further and say that great many Republicans and even people on this forum espouse many of the socialist ideas, which propaganda put under their skin. That is why we had 56% growth of big government under Bush and Pawlenty proclaming in 2006 that "the era of small government is over;" that is why Republicans could not produce a candidate more conservative than McCain. Conservative, non-socialist views are simply not that popular. 3. "The point is that Bill Bennett is right, ultimately culture dominates politics."
It's not that culture dominates politics: culture produces politics and politicians - where else would they come from?
People sometimes get appalled at political of corporate corruption but forget to look at the pool from which those individuals are drawn. You raise children on the idea of how the feel rather than their character and what they do; you exile G-d from schools and public squares; you allow profanity on public streets and airways; you destroy family, where a person first learns both love, which he is then able to give to others, and sense of duty --- and after all they expect politicians, corporate leaders and movie stars to behave decently? You cannot have decent leaders when the mass of humanity does not cultivate decency: there is no pool from which to draw them.
It is in this sense that culture is the source of politics, as well as law (can the legal system be more just and fair than the people themselves). Reminds me of John Adams' words: "This Constitution is designed for a deeply moral people. It is absolutely incapable of governing any other."
4. "Beck and Limbaugh go to great lengths to overcome this problem. They do not shout naked allegations which leaves him open to charges that they wear tinfoil hats."
True. But we have to be fair to the politicians here. L and B have the luxury of time: those that committed themselves to listening (and only those) are patient enough to listen to the facts and arguments that support L's and B's conclusions. Politicians speak to people in soundbites largely because that is what people are willing to tolerate. (Recall the infamous six-week memory of American people. How many people would read today a detailed analysis and new facts about the oil spill: it's yesterday news. A huge proportion of people (I don't remember exactly) cannot name the year in which 9/11 has occurred --- that's how long ago it was). So, a politician, or a person interviewed on TV, is confined to no more than a soundbite, to naming things for what they are.
That they fail is not their wrongdoing: the blame lies with the dumbed-down public that has no clue what fascism, Nazism, communism are; these are all just "bad things" in their heads. The ignorant people, naturally, think that are simply trying to insult something when you refer it as socialist. The victory goes to the leftist scum that took over our education system long ago and thus produced three generations of Americans that cannot even recognize the threat they are facing.