The Culture Wars: Part 4 The Tactics of Radical Modern Liberalism

In my first three articles in this series, I covered the basic description of the culture wars, how the modern liberal favors radical egalitarianism (total equality of outcomes, which comes from socialism/communism) and radical individualism (total freedom to do whatever you want). I also covered that the origins of the movement lie in the world views of Marxism, Secular Humanism and Post Modernism, and the true birth of the modern liberal movement came in 1962 with the birth of Sixties radicalism.

In this article we’re going to look at the tactics of the radical left. My belief is that these tactics have been very effective, and that a lack of understanding of these tactics has caused conservatives to be largely caught flat-footed.

But by understanding these tactics, we can know what to expect and conservatives can be more effective in dealing with the onslaught of modern liberalism into our culture.

Tactics

The tactics of the radical left that I’ll cover in this article are:

A. Pushing for the most radical position (dialectic materialism or the "wife who wants $200" trick)
B. Total attack on any conservative position
C. Claiming victimization and squawking loudly
D. Making ridiculous assertions, accusations or comparisons, which are repeated by other liberals, and carried for weeks by the media
E. Character assassination of effective individuals
F. Total support from the mainstream media
G. Exclusion of conservative ideas from higher education
H. Propaganda from Hollywood, music, etc.
I. Redefining words such as "tolerance" and "intolerance"
J. Wrapping the radical agenda in the mantle of "rights"
K. Judicial activism

A. Pushing for the Most Radical Position (Dialectic Materialism or the "Wife Who Wants $200" Trick)

One of the tricks the radical left has been using effectively for years is pushing for the most radical position possible.

George Wythe College Founder Oliver De Mille, stated in a lecture that the world socialist movement has effectively used the concept of dialectic materialism. This is the concept that you have an idea (thesis), then another idea against it (antithesis), and from the combination of those two you get a third idea (synthesis). The world socialists have put out the idea of communism, it runs into the idea of capitalism, and out of the merging of the two you get socialism, a milder version of communism. De Mille theorizes that the world socialists were after this result the entire time.

While the concept of dialectic materialism has been totally invalidated by some philosophers, there may be some credence to this interpretation of it.

However, I see this tactic as more what I would call the "Wife who wants $200" trick. Here’s how it works. A wife wants $200 to go shopping, so she goes to her husband and says "Honey, I need $1,000 to buy new clothes," along with an explanation of why she needs the $1,000. After the husband stops stammering and picks himself up off the floor, he says "Honey, there’s no way I can give you $1,000. Here’s $200." Now the wife will be appropriately sad (if she is a good actress) and say "Well, it’s not nearly enough but I’ll make do." And she runs off happily to the store. Of course if she’d asked for $200, he would have probably given her $40 or thereabouts.

It’s funny, until you realize that this is exactly the trick that the radical left is pulling on conservatives in America. They push for the most radical position possible, so that they get something less, but perhaps what they really wanted.

Gays push not just for acceptance of their lifestyle, but for us all to completely embrace it and even help them disseminate it. Education programs nationwide treat the gay lifestyle as completely normal. Gay marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts by the state supreme court, and there are rumblings elsewhere in the country for the same thing, despite widespread public opposition. In some other countries it is now illegal to say anything critical of homosexuality. Look for similar efforts in the US despite our free speech rights.

B. Total attack on any conservative position

Liberals have been attacking conservatives and trying to demonize them for longer than I’ve been alive. Read Ann Coulter’s book "Slander," which outlines not just how this has been happening but also how the mainstream news media has been playing along, giving liberals a pass on and broadly disseminating even the most outrageous attacks.

Conservatives and their positions are said to be "stupid," "greedy," "bigoted," "uncompassionate," "homophobic," "sexist," and of course, "racist." And there are the required comparisons to Adolph Hitler and everything Nazi, but not to Stalin and Castro, who are the liberals’ heroes.

C. Claiming victimization and squawking loudly

The victim parade has become a top tactic of the left. Groups claim that they have been victimized, they squawk as loudly as possible, and people rush to appease them to get them to stop squawking.

As Bernard Goldberg says in his new book, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America," in a chapter entitled "I’m Offended, Therefore I Am":

"I heard someplace that about 70 percent of all Americans have a special advantage: they’re disadvantaged.

"In other words, they’re black, Hispanic, Indian, female, gay, disabled, fat, blind, mute, depressed, angry, perfume-sensitive, unable to pay attention in class, won’t pay attention in class, non-English speaking, or …. Hell, just fill in the blank.

"The great thing about being disadvantaged is that you get all sorts of advantages. You get affirmative action points and government contracts and special consideration at diversity-obsessed colleges and corporations."

So the lesson is, if you want special treatment, just start complaining as loudly as possible. It is likely someone will give you what you want just to shut you up.

D. Making ridiculous assertions, accusations or comparisons, which are repeated by other liberals, and carried for weeks by the media

This full tactic is to make ridiculous, unfounded or unproven assertions, accusations or comparisons, critical of some Republican(s), which are then repeated by other liberal politicians or other liberal figures. The press then carries these statements for weeks or months, and the liberal figures or politicians continue to repeat the statements, for as long as it remains politically advantageous. The truth or provability of the attacks is completely irrelevant.

The most recent example of this was Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Minority Whip of the Senate, who made statements on the floor of the Senate on June 14th, comparing the actions of our military at Guantanamo Bay to those of the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or the Khmer Rouge, the Communist Party of Cambodia.

The absurdity of his comparison is clear when one considers one simple fact, that the Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Khmer Rouge are all known for murdering millions (yes millions) of people. To date not one single person has died at Guantanamo.

But that fact is irrelevant. But Durbin’s comments are part of a Democratic Party campaign in recent weeks to criticize our efforts at Guantanamo, to try to characterize the work of our military there in holding prisoners of war from Iraq and Afghanistan as cruel and inhumane, and thereby to make President Bush look bad.

Prior to this, we had a Democratic Party campaign to try to make House Speaker Tom Delay look as bad as possible, by implying or stating that he had broken some laws in relation to some trips he took abroad. To date no evidence has been presented proving that he broke any laws, and no charges have been brought. But that did not keep a parade of Democratic leaders including DNC Chairman Howard Dean from attacking him in the press for weeks.

Why did the attacks on Delay stop? The strategy of Democratic leaders changed, that’s all. They figured they had made all the political hay they were going to make from attacks on Delay, so they switched to the new campaign of attacking the Bush administration’s actions in running Guantanamo Bay.

Another example of this strategy was the way the Democrats and the press relentlessly attacked President Bush during the entire year of the 2004 election cycle. Remember the claims that Bush had somehow acted improperly while in the National Guard? To date there has been no evidence found of this, but that did not keep uncounted accusations being made of the President by Democrats, faithfully reported by the media. The White House repeatedly released information showing the accusations as false, which was repeatedly denounced as "not good enough." The culmination of this particular campaign was Dan Rather’s report on 60 Minutes II, which because it was based on forged documents, basically ended Rather’s career and severely damaged the credibility of CBS News.

E. Character assassination of effective individuals

See above on Tom Delay.

Notice what is happening right now to Karl Rove. The left is convinced that Rove is the evil genius behind Bush’s Presidential wins and are determined to take him down no matter the cost.

Remember the character assassination that Clarence Thomas was subjected to during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings? How about former federal judge Robert Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan and voted down by the Democratically controlled Congress. The hatchet job on Bork was so severe that the term, "Borked" was coined in order to describe anyone who has their character unfairly destroyed. I just finished a book by Bork and he is one of the sharpest guys around in understanding what is happening in our modern culture. No wonder the left had to destroy him and keep him off the Supreme Court at all costs.

These non-stop attempts at character assassination tend to prove something I have thought for several years, which is that the Democrats politically are out of ammo. They’ve got nothing. The only way they can attempt to stay in the game is character assassination of those that are winning for the other side.

F. Total support from the mainstream media

The mainstream news media is biased towards the left, will run any attack line on Republicans that the left puts out (without question), and will forgive or develop amnesia or simply not report on any mistakes or flaws of the Democrats. They will even not report a story if it hurts the left. But if it hurts the right, they will run it for weeks and weeks and weeks, as often as possible on page 1.

I have written two articles on the liberal bias of the media (1 and 2). I also recommend the following books which document liberal media bias:
Bias by Bernard Goldberg
Slander by Ann Coulter
Treason by Ann Coulter
The New Thought Police by Tammy Bruce
Off with Their Heads by Dick Morris
Journalistic Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted by Bob Kohn
Weapons of Mass Distortion by Brent Bozell

The Bob Kohn book gives the most detail on how one can systematically bias the way one reports the news (not commentary), but some may find it hard to read as the first book. I recommend the Goldberg and Coulter books first.

It’s been my contention for some time that if the liberal mainstream media were eliminated overnight and simply replaced by a news media that presented both sides, that the US population would shift overnight from 40% conservative, 40% moderate, 20% liberal (which it has been for many years); to 70% conservative, 15% moderate and 15% liberal.

G. Exclusion of conservative ideas from higher education

Over the last 50 years, our universities have turned into propaganda machines for every radical liberal cause known to man, from radical feminism, gay activism, socialism/communism, rabid anti-Americanism, and multi-culturalism (the idea that all cultures are equal in value), to the destruction of moral values and replacement of them with the "if it feels good, do it" "philosophy."

Not only are radical liberal causes championed (and rewarded), but conservative viewpoints are actively excluded (and punished). Some writers who have been documenting this abuse are: author and former radical himself David Horowitz (www.frontpagemag.com), Professor, author and columnist Mike S. Adams of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, (www.dradams.org) and author and speaker Daniel J. Flynn (author of "Why the Left Hates America" and "Intellectual Morons").

See also my article on liberal bias on college campuses.

H. Propaganda from Hollywood, music, etc.

I have written a previous article on liberal bias in Hollywood. The vast majority of Hollywood stars and pop music stars are liberal and support way-left, liberal causes, from animal rights, to radical environmentalism, to anti-war statements and demonstrations, to radical feminism, to gay rights.

The true danger is that not only do these stars consistently make far-left-wing statements to the press which are quoted all over, but their liberal attitudes are consistently reflected in the TV shows and movies we are fed.

Have you watched Saturday Night Live over the years? At some point in recent years, something interesting happened. Gays started appearing in some of the skits, then in just about all the skits. Now you can’t even watch the show without being force-fed pro-gay messages and humor.

Have you noticed any of these trends in movies and on TV in recent years?

1. Shows getting more violent
2. Shows having more blatant sexual content, more soft-core porn and profanity becoming accepted. Bono from the rock group U2 even used the F-word recently on a live TV awards show, and it was not censored out and the network was not fined.
3. Christians are portrayed as dumb, intolerant, etc. Liberals are always portrayed as good, compassionate, smart, etc. (West Wing, etc.)
4. Businessmen are portrayed as evil
5. Fathers are portrayed as stupid
6. People who are conservatives are never portrayed in a positive light (one recent exception: "Maid in Manhattan" with Jennifer Lopez and Ralph Fiennes)
7. Hollywood producing mostly R-rated movies despite the fact that G and PG movies have historically always been the highest grossing movies.
8. Being force-fed pro-gay messages

I. Redefining words such as "tolerance" and "intolerance"

Daniel J. Flynn, in his excellent book "Intellectual Morons," in referring to George Orwell’s 1984:

"Walk onto any of a great number of college campuses today and life imitates art. University administrators and professors preach the gospel of ‘tolerance’ but are completely intolerant of anyone who might challenge the liberal orthodoxy."

According to Flynn, Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), a German émigré who became an influential writer and college professor in the US, is the person originally responsible for this real-life 1984 "Newspeak." Flynn states:

"Nothing better sums up the modern academic Left’s Orwellian dishonesty than what Marcuse called ‘liberating tolerance,’ which he defined as ‘intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.’"

So today, the definition of "tolerance" has been completely reversed. Liberals who are intolerant of any conservative idea or speech, are said to be "tolerant." And any conservative speech, particularly when it criticizes any of the moral degradation that radical individualism is causing, are said to be "intolerant."

J. Wrapping the radical agenda in the mantle of "rights"

Robert Bork, in "Slouching Towards Gamorrah," points out that many radical liberals wrap their issue in the mantle of "rights," thus more or less defeating any criticism. We are then lead to accept things, because it’s supposedly an issue of "rights," that we would never otherwise accept.

For example, gay marriage is said to be an issue of rights. Denying gays the right to marry denies them certain legal benefits that married couples enjoy.

Animals are said to have rights, and "animal-rights" activist Ingrid Newkirk of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) say that animals and people are equal and that the yearly killing of chickens for food worldwide is equivalent to the Holocaust.

So we hear about "gay rights," "animal rights," the "right to die," "reproductive rights" (the right to an abortion), "criminal rights," and of course, the "right to privacy."

K. Judicial activism

It has been a tactic of the left for the last 50-60 years, to use the courts to advance their agenda. The reason for this is that liberals have discovered, that despite having a total media monopoly prior to the year 2000, having a 7 to 1 majority of professors on college campuses, and practically owning Hollywood and the music industry – in other words, owning all the major channels of communication in today’s world, they are still unable to get a majority of the American public to go along with their radical ideas.

For reasons that are not totally clear, judges appear to tend toward the left, the longer they are on the bench. And the Supreme Court as well as the federal appeals courts just below them, started slowly advancing beyond their proper Constitutional authority in the 1950s. They began not interpreting the Constitution, but bending and shaping the Constitution to fit their ideology. Liberal judges formed the idea that the Constitution was a "living document" that had to change with the times, or was even out of date.

And so the appeals courts and the Supreme Court have become the final word in our society on moral issues such as abortion, segregation, affirmative action and more. The problem is that they have gone well beyond the proper limits of power for the judiciary, in effect creating new laws that should have been created via the legislative process.

Read the books "Slouching Towards Gamorrah" by Robert Bork and "Winning the Future" by Newt Gingrich, for details on how this power grab by the courts has taken place and the destructive effects it has had.

Recently, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, has retired. Chief Justice Renquist will probably also retire within the next year. This provides an opportunity for Bush to reverse or at least reduce the judicial activism of the Supreme Court by appointing "originalists," i.e. judges who strictly interpret the original meaning of the Constitution, like Justices Scalia and Thomas. Hopefully, Justice John G. Roberts will be a strict originalist.