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.
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 quite agree with your assessment. The problem with the original article is that the author is sloppy in his definitions. One moment he is speaking of an old-fashioned 1950s Soviet style communist infiltration of the American government such as we saw in the person of and in the next breath he is talking about the kind of infiltration by people we used to describe as "fellow travelers" or "useful idiots."
My problem with the sloppy definition is I fear it is used as a cover for inadequate proof of real, conventionally defined communism yet the author wants to arouse the emotional reaction the invocation of such an image is sure to produce. This is not to say that the infiltration by such people, however defined, is not mortally dangerous to the Republic, it is. But it is not a J. Edgar Hoover defined communism that we used to know and understand, contrary to the sweeping assertion of the author who is too free with the use of the word "Commies."
I quite agree with your assertions about the culture, in fact, I have posted countless times on the baleful influence of The Frankfurt School on culture and, through the culture, on politics. I have observed that The Frankfurt School has so insidiously indoctrinated our culture that we do not even know that it's explicit purpose is to tear down the culture, even our epistemology, to pave the way for good, old-fashioned, J. Edgar Hoover style communism.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
