Mark Steyn: Why the real battle for America is over culture, not elections

[EdwardBaiamonte]

black fathers not living at home are actually more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group. .

There are plenty of American families.

dear, the issue isn't "plenty" but rather that 73% of black kids grow up in broken or never formed homes versus 27% before the deadly liberal programs began.

Actually it is the CON$ervoFascist unequally enforced drug laws that have broken up black families. But in spite of that, research shows that black fathers not living at home are actually more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group. IOW, when whites dump their families they avoid them forever, but when whites incarcerate blacks the black men still maintain contact with their families.

Bulls**t. I live in suburban, middle class, $70k annual median household income PG County, MD and we have he same issues with fatherlessness and we have crime and failing schools. It's not about dads in jail over drug charges. It's about no daddies in the home to begin with. This is a cultural thing promoted by the democrat party.

yes, feminism is perhaps the biggest cause. It was not about strengthing love and family but rather the exact opposite! 72% of black kids end up in broken or never formed homes- no biggie a woman's got to be free!!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Mark Steyn: Why the real battle for America is over culture, not elections

By Mark SteynOctober 19, 2014 | 12:00am

Though his new collection of essays, “The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned” (Regnery), recounts many of the biggest political events of recent history, bestselling author Steyn says that’s not the real battleground. While everyone is focused on the 2014 midterms, the question about where our country is headed is being decided in our entertainment and our schools. Here, in an excerpt from the book, he explains how culture is king.

Over the past few decades, I’ve seen enough next-presidents-of-the-United-States for several lifetimes: Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson, Bob Dornan, Bob Dole, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Alan Keyes. . . .

Would it have made any difference to the country had any of these fine upstanding fellows prevailed? Or would we be pretty much where we are anyway? Aside from a trade agreement here, a federal regulation there, I’d plump for the latter.

You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican Party is in.

After the last election, I said that the billion dollars spent by the Romney campaign on robocalls and TV ads and all the rest had been entirely wasted, and the Electoral College breakdown would have been pretty much what it was if they’d just tossed the dough into the Potomac and let it float out to sea. But imagine the use all that money and time could have been put to out there in the wider world.

Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November — and then are surprised that it doesn’t make much difference.

Culture trumps politics — which is why, once the question’s been settled culturally, conservatives are reduced to playing catch-up, twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why gay marriage is really conservative after all, or why 30 million unskilled immigrants with a majority of births out of wedlock are “natural allies” of the Republican Party.

We’re told that the presidency is important because the head guy gets to appoint, if he’s lucky, a couple of Supreme Court judges. But they’re playing catch-up to the culture, too.
In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the chief justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage.

What happened in between? Jurisprudentially, nothing: Everything Chief Justice Warren Burger said back in the ’80s — about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature,” “the legislative authority of the State” — still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture — from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts — moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat.

Because to say today what the chief justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office — not merely as Chief Justice but as CEO of a private company, or host of a cable home-remodeling show, or dog-catcher in Dead Moose Junction.

What politician of left or right championed gay marriage? Bill Clinton? No, he signed the now notoriously “homophobic” Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama? Gay-wise, he took longer to come out than Ricky Martin. The only major politician to elbow his way to the front of the gay bandwagon was Britain’s David Cameron, who used same-sex marriage as a Sister-Souljah-on-steroids moment to signal to London’s chattering classes that, notwithstanding his membership of the unfortunately named “Conservative Party,” on everything that mattered he was one of them.

IF THE CULTURE’S LIBERAL, IF THE SCHOOLS ARE LIBERAL, IF THE CHURCHES ARE LIBERAL…ELECTING A GUY WITH AN ‘R’ AFTER HIS NAME ISN’T GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE.

But, in Britain as in America, the political class was simply playing catch-up to the culture. Even in the squishiest Continental “social democracy,” once every four or five years you can persuade the electorate to go out and vote for a conservative party. But if you want them to vote for conservative government you have to do the hard work of shifting the culture every day, seven days a week, in the four-and-a-half years between elections.
If the culture’s liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal, if the hip, groovy business elite is liberal, if the guys who make the movies and the pop songs are liberal, then electing a guy with an “R” after his name isn’t going to make a lot of difference.

Nor should it. In free societies, politics is the art of the possible. In the 729 days between elections, the left is very good at making its causes so possible that in American politics almost anything of consequence is now impossible, from enforcing immigration law to controlling spending...

Why the real battle for America is over culture not elections New York Post
​

Concluded at the link with Steyn's assessment of how this nation will be turned into a 21st Century real life version of some 1950's dystopian film scenario future.

WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY ON TRACK TO EXPERIENCE.

​

Thank you... I wholeheartedly agree.

And what's more, Steyn is exactly correct. Anyone who has spent any time on the internet debating the Relativists of the Ideological Left, through the unapologetic natural principles that define America, they have found that the Left is wholly incapable of contesting reasoning which recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to those defining principles.

I doubt a single day goes by when Bo Snerdly of the EIB doesn't bounce 500 calls to Rush, from folks who want to know: "Why doesn't the GOP spend any time Promoting American Principle?".

I say this based upon the weekly number of callers that get through and in one way or another, get around to asking just that.

Over the years Rush has managed to round off his explanation that the GOP doesn't do it, because the GOP doesn't BELIEVE IT. That they've 'bought into' the tech-wizard rant that 'people' don't want to be preached to.

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead and they need to know that those who are leading them are leading them to SOMETHING TRUE and they need to trust that what they're doing is moral and that it is being done in the service of justice.

Great article... really enjoyed it.

 

[edthecynic]

black fathers not living at home are actually more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group. .

There are plenty of American families.

dear, the issue isn't "plenty" but rather that 73% of black kids grow up in broken or never formed homes versus 27% before the deadly liberal programs began.

Actually it is the CON$ervoFascist unequally enforced drug laws that have broken up black families. But in spite of that, research shows that black fathers not living at home are actually more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group. IOW, when whites dump their families they avoid them forever, but when whites incarcerate blacks the black men still maintain contact with their families.

Bulls**t. I live in suburban, middle class, $70k annual median household income PG County, MD and we have he same issues with fatherlessness and we have crime and failing schools. It's not about dads in jail over drug charges. It's about no daddies in the home to begin with. This is a cultural thing promoted by the democrat party.

yes, feminism is perhaps the biggest cause. It was not about strengthing love and family but rather the exact opposite! 72% of black kids end up in broken or never formed homes- no biggie a woman's got to be free!!

Baloney!

The CON$ervoFascist Greed of Ronald W Reagan which he imposed on the country forced both parents to work leaving no one at home to supervise the children.

 

[edthecynic]

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

black fathers not living at home are actually more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group. .

There are plenty of American families.

dear, the issue isn't "plenty" but rather that 73% of black kids grow up in broken or never formed homes versus 27% before the deadly liberal programs began.

Actually it is the CON$ervoFascist unequally enforced drug laws that have broken up black families. But in spite of that, research shows that black fathers not living at home are actually more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group. IOW, when whites dump their families they avoid them forever, but when whites incarcerate blacks the black men still maintain contact with their families.

Bulls**t. I live in suburban, middle class, $70k annual median household income PG County, MD and we have he same issues with fatherlessness and we have crime and failing schools. It's not about dads in jail over drug charges. It's about no daddies in the home to begin with. This is a cultural thing promoted by the democrat party.

yes, feminism is perhaps the biggest cause. It was not about strengthing love and family but rather the exact opposite! 72% of black kids end up in broken or never formed homes- no biggie a woman's got to be free!!

Baloney!

The CON$ervoFascist Greed of Ronald W Reagan which he imposed on the country forced both parents to work leaving no one at home to supervise the children.

How does "CON$ervoFascist Greed" comport with 'clean debate'?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

 

[edthecynic]

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

 

[edthecynic]

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

SOooo... You feel that leadership equates to domination?

Then you claim that a piece of dried up parchment dominates 350 million people.

LMAO! Well... what does THAT say about YOU?

Oh well, whatever it says, not the least of it represents the distinction between Americans and socialists... and demonstrates why socialists lose every time they find themselves in a contest with American principles.

The Reader should note that the above contributor was (as predicted would be the case) unable to actually show evidence in support of her now thoroughly discredited 'feelings'.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[edthecynic]

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

SOooo... You feel that leadership equates to domination?

When it is "CRAVED," absolutely!!!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

SOooo... You feel that leadership equates to domination?

When it is "CRAVED," absolutely!!!

Ed, you've already conceded to the standing points.

While I will happily recognize as many concessions as you care to provide, you should know that such is not necessary.

At this point, you're just a sad little crank, desperately trying to justify foolishness.

You should try to focus your efforts on issues that are within your means to understand and NEVER, EVER allow yourself to get anywhere near a voting booth.

You're simply not bright enough to remain free, where you're not protected by the herd. Ya see Ed, you need the herd to know which way to go. And where YOU submit your ideas on where the herd should go, you're likely to send the herd running off the edge, to their collective demise.

(That's BAD!)

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

SOooo... You feel that leadership equates to domination?

When it is "CRAVED," absolutely!!!

Ed, you've already conceded to the standing points.

Pure delusion, on your part!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

SOooo... You feel that leadership equates to domination?

When it is "CRAVED," absolutely!!!

Ed, you've already conceded to the standing points.

Pure delusion, on your part!

Your third concession to the same standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Just as an FYI: This is how it went down:

First, people don't like to be preached to, but people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead

No, CON$ervative children like to be lead, need to be lead, need to be told what to think and say.
Adults think for themselves and ALWAYS follow their OWN heart!

Baseless conjecture...

Actually, far less conjecture than your claim that "people like to be lead, they NEED to be lead" since YOU thus have admitted that YOU "NEED to be lead!"

LOL!

Conjecture?

Humanity doesn't seek guidance?

I wonder then how it is that humanity has ALWAYS fallen into groups, communities, societies and culture and, that without exception, inevitably these cultures end up structured around some type of hierarchy.

Tell ya what, why don't you post up examples in human history which demonstrate that humanity does not crave leadership... .

Now when you fail to do so, which FTR: is a mathematical certainty, you will concede to ME that you've once again succumbed to fatally flawed reasoning, specifically: Conjecture of the baseless variety.

Just because weak submissive people like you "CRAVE" to be dominated by others does not mean that people who agree to mutually agreeable guidelines for the smooth order of civilization need some "leader" to follow blindly and obediently.

Here in the USA we are "lead" by a Constitution, not some tyrant, as you "CRAVE," leading you around by the nose!

SOooo... You feel that leadership equates to domination?

Then you claim that a piece of dried up parchment dominates 350 million people.

LMAO! Well... what does THAT say about YOU?

Oh well, whatever it says, not the least of it represents the distinction between Americans and socialists... and demonstrates why socialists lose every time they find themselves in a contest with American principles.

The Reader should note that the above contributor was (as predicted would be the case) unable to actually show evidence in support of her now thoroughly discredited 'feelings'.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.