Two Culture Wars

There is a minor and a major culture war, and if we lose the second, the first won't matter at all. The war between liberals and conservatives, as heated as it has become recently, is as nothing compared to the war between the West, with its Enlightenment values, and militant Islam. For example, liberals and conservatives in the West basically agree about the desirability of church-state separation, differing only on its interpretation. There is unanimity on the basic point that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," interpreted to mean that the government shall have no authority to set up any religion as the state religion. Indeed, there is core agreement on any number of issues including universal suffrage, free speech, and equality of opportunity. From my conservative point of view, liberals simply put extreme interpretations on the core tenets. For example, they apparently think that the protection afforded by the "freedom of speech" clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends to cultural polluters like Howard Stern; we conservatives, however, know that it is serious political dissent, such as that practiced by the likes of Noam Chomsky, that alone deserves protection.

(show)

The really dangerous culture war is that between the proponents of Enlightenment values and the Islamo-totalitarians. The beheading of Nicholas Berg, the fatal stabbing of Dutch filmmaker van Gogh, and other atrocities by Arab terrorists focus the issue. The brutal murder of innocent civilians to make a political statement is not something we condone in the West, but it is something they not only condone but practice.



My minor/major culture war scheme is upset by the fact that many liberals in the West have become, and many more are becoming, radical leftists out to subvert the very principles that they as leftists supposedly support. Thus arises the phenomenon of the schizoid Left. For example, from the time of the French Revolution on, the Left has been anti-clerical and ever more anti-religious. But now we witness the bizarre spectacle of leftists aligning themselves with the most extreme type of religious fundamentalism on the face of the earth.



For a second example, consider that lefties traditionally display a prominent libertine and bohemian wobble. Why then do they cozy up to Islamic fanatics who murder homosexuals, stone adulterers, and circumcise females? Third, the Left, as part of the Enlightenment project, champions science over superstition. Yet, in the last 400 years or so, scarcely anything of any scientific value has emanated from the Islamic world. The same goes for philosophy. Tiny Israel in the mere 56 years of its existence has cranked out more genuine philosophy that the whole of the Islamic world has in 400 years. So what does the Left do? It waxes anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic.



The nihilism of the Left -- its denial of value and true being to anything that actually exists and provably works -- may be turning in upon itself. Unable to destroy Western civilization under its own steam, it aligns itself with Islamists, who, were they to attain power, would of course mercilessly exterminate all leftists. A curious sort of Selbstaufhebung.



So perhaps I was a bit hasty in my intitial schematization. The major war, of course, is against militant Islam. But if liberals keep moving to the Left, then the minor war against liberals may become indistinguishable from the major jihad against the Islamo-fascists.

(hide)

Comments

[Robert]

Bill, I agree with most everything in your post; especially nice to see is the point that liberals and conservatives in America agree in principle on many issues. They often think they are at extreme ends of a political spectrum, but by historical standards are basically centrists. Your French Revolutionist included some serious leftists, for example. My reading of the First Amendment does, however, include the protection of Mr. Stern and his ilk. The plain text, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." seems to me to be limited only by the "crying fire in a crowded theater" examples. I don't think we can fit Stern under these limitations. I do think that political dissent is the most important of protected speech.

[Bill Vallicella]

Robert, Thanks for the comment. I hope you return often -- even though you did clean my clock in Saturday's ICC chess game. I should have sac'ed my knight to capture your passed pawn. You would have been up a bishop, but I would have run your clock out as you were in serious Zeitnot. But I digress. You are probably a bit more libertarian than I am. Do you think that the cultural pollution we are awash in has no effect on people's behavior, that it has nothing to do with the incidence of rapes, murders, etc? If you admit that it has some effect, then how distinguish it from the crowded theater example?

[Robert]

Bill, These are difficult and interesting questions. Short answer: I do think the cultural pollution has a negative effect on society. But making government the arbiter of acceptable speech is more dangerous yet. It's a very short trip from telling comedians they can't use the 'f' word to telling them they'll be jailed, or worse, for undermining the security of the state by making fun of its leaders. I believe the way to improve the culture is through persuasion and education--blogs like yours, for example. I will concede, however, that some of the material being put out there for the consumption of minds is dangerously close to incitement to riot, which is not protected speech. See my email in regard to our game (I hope you received one).

[Bill Vallicella]

Robert, Government must be kept in check. That is a principle central to conservatism. So I agree that gov't censorship is dangerous. Ideally, there would be no need for it. But if things get bad enough, then we may need it. Robert Bork raises this question in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, but it has been a good while since I cracked that book. By the way, that title by itself should win an award. I am afraid that rational persuasion and education will not work against the truly evil. It is not that they lack intelligence or information, but that they possess malignant wills. Force is required to stop them. I don't want to throw you into the libertarian box, but sometimes I think that libertarians makes the same mistake that liberals and leftists do: they are too sanguine about human improvability; their conception of our predicament is too roseate. It is curious to me how the extremes meet on this point. Strange bedfellows.

[Robert]

I am afraid that rational persuasion and education will not work against the truly evil. It is not that they lack intelligence or information, but that they possess malignant wills. Force is required to stop them. Bill, Point taken. Looking around us, looking hard with no illusions, one must wonder how long the culture can continue like this before the bill comes due. But what must be done? I would be interested in what force must be applied, and where.

[Bill Vallicella]

Robert, I often ask myself this question. If I were about ready to kick off, it wouldn't bother me so much. But I could be around for another thirty years. My father made it to 84, and he didn't take care of himself; I do. In thirty years, a lot can happen. There are increasing numbers of people who don't understand or value the rule of law, to mention only one problem. Consider the southern border and the refusal of the current administration to defend it. What is to be done? Homeschool your kids, withdraw financial support from left-leaning organizations, boycott Hollywood trash, support conservative organizations, never vote for a liberal, get out of the Democrat party . . . It has to start at the level of the individual. What I have just said is unsatisfactory, of course, but these are tough questions.