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

Mojo2

Gold Member
Oct 28, 2013
6,210
1,026
190
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.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Steyn is exactly correct ... this is a cultural battle, not a political battle. The same is true for the Middle East ... it is a cultural war, not a political war. That's what makes it different than all the previous ones.
 
When has any republican president done anything to get rid of illegals completely?

Ted Kennedy pushed SEVEN amnesties into law. None was followed by a reduction in illegal immigration.

1. In 1986, Ted Kennedy's blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirements for actual reductions in illegal immigration.

2. In 1994, Ted Kennedy's Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.

3. In 1997, Ted Kennedy's extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.

4. In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.

5. In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

6. In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy's 1986 amnesty.

7. In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.
TheTownCrier R.I.P. Sen. Ted Kennedy 1932- 2009


We all believed Ted Kennedy.

Silly us.

We know better than to trust a Liberal as a result.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Steyn is exactly correct ... this is a cultural battle, not a political battle. The same is true for the Middle East ... it is a cultural war, not a political war. That's what makes it different than all the previous ones.
So the Culture War in China was a fake event?
 
When has any republican president done anything to get rid of illegals completely?

Ted Kennedy pushed SEVEN amnesties into law. None was followed by a reduction in illegal immigration.

1. In 1986, Ted Kennedy's blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirements for actual reductions in illegal immigration.

2. In 1994, Ted Kennedy's Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.

3. In 1997, Ted Kennedy's extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.

4. In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.

5. In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

6. In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy's 1986 amnesty.

7. In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.
TheTownCrier R.I.P. Sen. Ted Kennedy 1932- 2009


We all believed Ted Kennedy.

Silly us.

We know better than to trust a Liberal as a result.
He was a capitalist elite first and a senator second...
 
The losers of the culture war are weeping.

Good. When confederates are weeping, the nation wins.

Mojo the Mystic says, "May the Ayatollah's dogma devour your pussy!"

39072.jpg


Heyyy-ohhh!

;)
 
Last edited:
The culture was will determined by women and by the millennials.

The far right lost a long time ago.
 
When has any republican president done anything to get rid of illegals completely?

Ted Kennedy pushed SEVEN amnesties into law. None was followed by a reduction in illegal immigration.

1. In 1986, Ted Kennedy's blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirements for actual reductions in illegal immigration.

2. In 1994, Ted Kennedy's Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.

3. In 1997, Ted Kennedy's extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.

4. In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.

5. In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

6. In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy's 1986 amnesty.

7. In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.
TheTownCrier R.I.P. Sen. Ted Kennedy 1932- 2009


We all believed Ted Kennedy.

Silly us.

We know better than to trust a Liberal as a result.
He was a capitalist elite first and a senator second...

He lived off of the sometimes dirty, sleazy and deadly deeds of his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, a literal self made millionaire at a time when the Irish were as despised as ...gotcha! There's no comparison with them and Blacks.

However, the Irish were the low man in what was the East Coast totem pole and he excelled in spite of the bigotry that existed toward his kind.

And he became a multi-millionaire when a million dollars was A LOT OF MONEY!!!
 
Mr. Steyn is exactly correct ... this is a cultural battle, not a political battle. The same is true for the Middle East ... it is a cultural war, not a political war. That's what makes it different than all the previous ones.

All wars are political.

Always have been.

The Exciting Conclusion to Defining Contemporary War!
(The article concludes our four part series on "Defining Contemporary War." For new readers, please read part 1, part 2, and part 3)

Clausewitz called war, “politics by other means” and generally I agree with him... with a few caveats.

All war is political. Violence executed on massive levels requires the organization of mass numbers of people. To tie them together they must have a reason, and that reason--even if cultural or religious--is ultimately political.

I go further than Clausewitz. Clausewitz wrote his theory for nation-states and standing armies. To him, warfare was the extension of politics because it began after diplomacy ended. In current military conflicts raging around the globe, diplomacy, fighting, and reconstruction all go on simultaneously. Clearly, warfare is now between groups, not states, and our terminology defining warfare must reflect this.

And the groups waging violence are political. Frankly, in contemporary warfare violent groups can no longer stay apolitical. Politics and warfare go hand and hand. Whether it is a standing army or a transnational terrorist group, each has to use politics--either persuasion or coercion--to coordinate and organize limited resources to achieve a political result. We need to bring Clausewitz into the fourth generation.

The difference between modern, 4th generation war (as characterized the wars in Somailia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Mexican drug wars) and the previous generations of war (epitomized by the Civil War, World War I, and World War II) is that large standing armies no longer meet in a decisive battle. Large armies may meet on the field of battle, but that rarely solves the conflict. Warfare continues long after major combat operations conclude. Without the decisive battle, the solution to violent conflict is political.

War has gone from nation states fighting each other to nation-states fighting political groups, ethnic factions, religious affiliations, economic classes, or even individuals fighting each other. Of course, war has always included sub-national actors, but until the Cold War they could never dominate the fight. As America has learned repeatedly in Iraq and Afghanistan, non-government actors can hurt you as easily as another nation can. Though smaller, they will fight for longer and harder. Their motivation is always the same: political ends through violent means. War is political; and once the warfighter understands that, then the key to unlocking the dilemma of contemporary warfare presents itself.

We fight political war.

For Clausewitz, warfare was the extension of politics into a new realm, a transformation of diplomacy into something else. For the insurgent, the counter-insurgent, the revolutionary, or the fourth generation soldier, politics is warfare. Warfare is political.

Calling conflicts political war aids the warfighter at every level. Strategically, leaders must set clear political goals. Wavering on the goals will cost the commander support, or create a politically tenuous situation at home. Operationally, in political war the greatest gains on a battlefield come from securing the support of key leaders and the support of the population. This political support goes much farther than killing or capturing the enemy. Tactically, allowing needless civilian casualties (whether or not your army caused them) is bad politics, and thus ineffective warfare.

Political war.

The contemporary operating environment can be called all sorts of things, but we prefer political war. Using terms like low intensity, irregular or unconventional cloud the kernel of truth about warfare. Political war describes the root causes of every insurgency, civil war, revolution, or guerilla struggle waged on our planet today better than any other term.

- See more at: The Exciting Conclusion to Defining Contemporary War - On Violence
 
.

I don't know how much I'd agree with Stein on his various points, but I've long said that our decaying culture is leading to the decay of the country.

From what entertains us to those we choose to lead us, everything is a reflection of our culture.

Not good.

.
 
I do not think it is especially wise to try to separate culture and politics, myself. Politics is simply the name we use for the process that codifies cultural mores into law, and the resulting political struggle is ALWAYS over culture.

As for all this "liberal" vs "conservative" stuff, the real battle in regards to culture isn't internecine. It is now global, and those of us in the west who fail to recognize that are a step behind those who are pressing forth the battle. We are in a war of culture, and that war pits the enlightenment values of western civilization against the barbarism of Islam. In this war we are ALL liberal, since our western values are the product of a process of liberalization that Islam is resisting.

The problem as I see it is that in order to continue on with these liberal values, we need to CONSERVE them, and so from that standpoint, the very terms we use tend to cloud the issue as they fail to address the seeming paradox.

You want to talk about politics, culture and war? They are interrelated rather than separate concepts and we are in the middle of a cultural war whether we want to be or not.
 
You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican Party is in.

that is obviously false. You can have a conservative government and a conservative country if the country is conservative enough to elect a conservative govt. Now we have a left of center govt and a left of center country.

This represents a failure of our best thinkers from whom the country gets its political ideas. In short, the advance of treasonous liberalism in America is caused by the advance of treasonous liberalism in the Ivy League. So if you want to change the country and the govt you have to change the Ivy league.​
 
I agree with this concept 100 percent. Culture is ultimately the deciding factor in the fate of our nation, and the culture's gone hard left. What do you expect, though? The left runs Hollywood. That simple. Movies and television, for a couple generations now, have been telling us that the need of the many outweighs the need of the few, that rich people are generally both evil and unhappy, that romantic love is the only key to true happiness, that money is the root of all evil, that a person's motives are more important than the outcomes of their actions. . . I could go on and on. Essentially, the dipshits watching the boob tube and not thinking for themselves (probably 90 percent of the populace) have been force-fed the moral concepts that play right into the increasingly communist philosophy of modern liberalism. Anti-wealth collectivism is the name of the game, so says the bluish glow of our TV God, and it makes sense cuz our teachers, from K thru 12 and beyond, have always told us the same. Point blank, the left has long won the culture war.

You could almost view this as a direct indictment of the left's policies. If culture drives the country and adjusting the elected officials only slows the victorious march of the culture, then the left owns the direction of the country and its results. The left owns the economy, which is currently balancing precariously atop a government-made bubble. The left also probably owns the dumbing down of our society. Just as the teacher's unions say, the teachers can only do so much. If the children don't give a shit about learning, you can't force the information to stay in their heads, and guess what? The children don't give a fuck about learning. Popular culture in this country doesn't respect intellect. In fact, we've endured several generations of dunderheads equating intelligence with social awkwardness and physical weakness, and I'm not talking about the bullies perpetuating that shit in the schools. I'm talking about the dunderheads pushing social concepts like the poindexter and tv characters like Steve Urkle. When's the last time you saw a sitcom wherein the smart kid was also the cool kid? Probably back somewhere before color television.

The left won the culture war, and the culture told us that being smart is lame. Coincidence?
 
I agree with this concept 100 percent. Culture is ultimately the deciding factor in the fate of our nation, and the culture's gone hard left. What do you expect, though? The left runs Hollywood. That simple. Movies and television, for a couple generations now, have been telling us that the need of the many outweighs the need of the few, that rich people are generally both evil and unhappy, that romantic love is the only key to true happiness, that money is the root of all evil, that a person's motives are more important than the outcomes of their actions. . . I could go on and on. Essentially, the dipshits watching the boob tube and not thinking for themselves (probably 90 percent of the populace) have been force-fed the moral concepts that play right into the increasingly communist philosophy of modern liberalism. Anti-wealth collectivism is the name of the game, so says the bluish glow of our TV God, and it makes sense cuz our teachers, from K thru 12 and beyond, have always told us the same. Point blank, the left has long won the culture war.

You could almost view this as a direct indictment of the left's policies. If culture drives the country and adjusting the elected officials only slows the victorious march of the culture, then the left owns the direction of the country and its results. The left owns the economy, which is currently balancing precariously atop a government-made bubble. The left also probably owns the dumbing down of our society. Just as the teacher's unions say, the teachers can only do so much. If the children don't give a shit about learning, you can't force the information to stay in their heads, and guess what? The children don't give a fuck about learning. Popular culture in this country doesn't respect intellect. In fact, we've endured several generations of dunderheads equating intelligence with social awkwardness and physical weakness, and I'm not talking about the bullies perpetuating that shit in the schools. I'm talking about the dunderheads pushing social concepts like the poindexter and tv characters like Steve Urkle. When's the last time you saw a sitcom wherein the smart kid was also the cool kid? Probably back somewhere before color television.

The left won the culture war, and the culture told us that being smart is lame. Coincidence?

yes, something like 70% feel the country is on the wrong path but few know that the country's path is the liberal path.
 

Forum List

Back
Top