Our language controls our political thought

"Modern English . . . is full of bad habits which spread by imitation . . . If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration."–George Orwell, 1946 Had George Orwell, author of those dystopian classics 1984 and Animal Farm, lived long enough to notice the gradual academic takeover of the English language I do not doubt that he would be highly critical. The questionable academic terms now used by practically everyone, whatever their politics, are Culture, Values and Ideology. These terms not only mischaracterize those basic American principles and institutions which are most near and dear to us but actually undermine them.

Let us begin with culture. Today this term, the contribution of 19^th century German philosophy, is used as a synonym for society (or any group of people), which makes little sense. Originally culture meant deliberate cultivation of plants, as in agriculture. But if agriculture were understood in the same way as, say, gang culture, then agriculture could be the growing of weeds with perhaps a few whiskey bottles strewn about. Political philosopher Leo Strauss had this insight many years ago.

Not long ago culture referred to the realm of good taste, especially the fine arts. A cultured person could appreciate the best products of human art--e.g., music, painting, sculpture, plays, operas-- whereas an uncultured person did not. Of course, this is inconsistent with the popular idea that all tastes are equally legitimate, one man’s art somehow being another man’s vulgarity. This cheapens what is truly excellent.

This leads us to values. The term cannot be understood without reference to its supposed opposite, namely facts. The German social scientist, Max Weber, taught what he called the "fact-value distinction," which holds that facts are irreducible realities, while values are merely subjective tastes.

Only a boorish person would insist that what he likes is what everyone else should like, but value is a very broad term that includes not only taste but moral and political principles. We may prefer republican forms of government over despotic ones, but other peoples may feel otherwise. "Who are we," it is so often said, "to impose our values on others?"

If this is so, then not only do we not have a right to impose our political system on others; our preference for rule by the people is intrinsically no better than any other. Thus, it is unsurprising that many Americans' attachment to our Constitution is now lukewarm at best.

Finally, we come to ideology. This too is a contribution of German thought, particularly Karl Marx, who understood ideology as the rationalization of the ruling class for its dominance. He is famous for describing politics as nothing more than the organized oppression of one class by another. The real force in human life, he argued, was control of the means of production. With the Communist revolution, supposedly no one would control production and the state could be reduced to mere administration with no more politics.

What a cruel joke that turned out to be! The fact that Marx was wrong in his analysis did not stop his followers from imposing tyrannical regimes in Russia, China and elsewhere which never led to a "withering away of the state." Nor did it stop a lot of non-Communists from adopting his understanding of ideology for their own purposes.

Whenever someone influenced by the alleged insights of Marxism seeks to discredit an opposing viewpoint, he will call it an ideology. The object may be similar to Marx’s, viz., that the opposing view rationalizes a class interest, or that the viewpoint is unrealistic or at variance with the facts.

Ideology is surely not with difficulties, but it is often applied unfairly to political philosophies which are not only not rationalizations, unrealistic or at variance with the facts, but which are grounded in human nature. The best known to us is found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men by the consent of the governed . . . "

The terms, Culture, Values and Ideology, are inconsistent with and subversive of free republican government. Free society is not any old culture but one which is in accordance with human nature. Liberty is not merely a value but the right of every human being. And the political philosophy of the Declaration is not an ideology but based on "the laws of nature and of nature’s God."

If we would perpetuate our precious heritage, we need to watch our language. Academic weasel words won’t cut it.

Fame is fool's gold

Except for flipping burgers at Jack-In-The-Box, I earned my first paycheck as a professional actress. My mother put me on the stage when I was three years old, and her enchantment with Hollywood was not unlike that of Mama Rose, the determined stage mother in Gypsy. I like to affectionately refer to her effect on my early childhood as a little like "Ethel Merman on steroids." Consequently, I've always been fascinated by the public's obsession with fame and the famous. From my vantage point, the trend has only intensified since my early days, shaking my tutu on the stage at Elitch Gardens. Michael Jackson began his life as the extension of his parents' drive and ambition and we watched his particular way of dealing with it as he grew into an adult performer. Like so many others who are not famous, he was a child as an adult because he was forced into adulthood, as a child. That's a cultural phenomenon for another article. Living as an extension of others was all he had ever known, and he recreated that pattern which came to enslave him yet again.

Hollywood values certainly didn't help matters, as appearances are everything in Hollywood. I was not surprised to learn that Jackson himself did much of the 'leaking" designed to keep him in the public consciousness. But what is it that makes the public so drawn to the hype that Hollywood dishes out, even when we know there is a feeble wizard behind the curtain, manipulating what we see and how we see it? Why have so many others aspired to this lifestyle despite the ugly underbelly and the serious, dangerous pitfalls? Isn't that what is behind the explosion of Facebook, YouTube and reality TV?

The thirst for fame can be as powerful a drug as Oxycontin. The more intense the addiction, the less likely one is to believe that they are "enough" just as they are. Such a deep sense of inadequacy can never be healed by the illusion of adoration by thousands or even millions, who know only the packaged image rather than the real person, with all too human frailties. A true friend after all, is one who knows you---and likes you anyway.

Those who have attained the coveted commodity can never live up to the romanticized image either, even if they've begun to believe their own hype. Some feel like an imposter and others find a depth of lonliness in so much superficiality. In many cases, the same adoring fans hide jealous glee when the idol falls of his pedestal. Isn't our First Commandment about idolotry? It is as relevant today as ever before.

Perhaps this is one of the root causes for the rampant drug use, profound depression and high suicide rate in Hollywood. The same goes for those who will do anything necessary to join the ranks. I have nothing against "show biz" but I've grown to love the small realities of life and the knowledge that truth is always more fascinating than fiction. It takes longer than we would like In some cases, but eventually, the truth will out.

Could some of this be an explanation for the idol worship of Barack Obama? That's a cultural phenomenon for another article.

Family ties through music

Recently I attended a wedding of a friend at church, followed by the customary reception. After a delightful meal, some charming innovations to commemorate the occasion and the cutting of the cake, there followed hours of dancing, slow and fast, as also is customary. What struck me in this quite ordinary and conventional setting was how a kind of folk music has returned to our society that had been practically banished long ago by the popularity of ballroom dancing with the waltz, foxtrot and two-step and the decline of what was called folk dancing, not to mention square dancing. The latter are by no means dead but it would be inaccurate to say that their appeal had not been eclipsed by the dancing of couples as distinguished from larger groupings. As a children, many of us developed a decided prejudice against folk dancing as quite beyond the pale, for squares and old fogies. But those who have attended ethnic weddings, as we tend to call them, particularly Jewish and Greek (or just seen movies), experience, if only vicariously, group dancing on as big a scale as the number of people in attendance will encourage. Young and old, "cool" and "uncool," will join hands and dance with abandon with no reservations about being out of place, or worse, mixing adult dancing with kid dancing. I still recall a comment made by a friend who suggested that we not object to loud, raucous music played by young people because it is "their" music. That divide always has bothered me.

However, partly because I am widowed and partly because I like the exercise, I have taken to the floor and "danced' for hours to whatever music was being played, occasionally but not often well, and enjoying it. (I just learned how to line dance too.) At the wedding last week I danced with my 30-something daughter and two teenagers from her church youth group and realized that it might just as well be a Jewish or Greek wedding, because adults were dancing with children and bonding by means of music. Indeed, the bride was holding a small child and dancing around the room, quite common these days. I realized that some of the music was the sort that I have long disdained, especially "rap," but because the occasion called for a sort of communal expression, I danced to whatever was playing.

I used to criticize the rather unstructured form of dancing that has become so popular, on the grounds that there were no partners per se. But that presupposed that the only legitimate form of dancing was the kind I grew up with. (Granted, growing up in the 1950s, as I did, meant learning to dance to rock 'n roll, etc.) As a parent I tried to impress upon my children the virtues of slow dancing, and that lesson has been learned well enough. But now I'm just having fun and glad that the generation gap can be bridged at least under the circumstances which originally threatened to foreclose that possibility. If it is natural for families and friends to bond, then nature has found a novel way to reassert itself. That's a gain.

Open season on conservatives

Jonah Goldberg points out how the left is stringing together two disconnected acts, the killing of abortionist George Tiller and the Holocaust museum shooting, to paint conservatives in dangerous light. Here's the link.The crux of the argument should be no surprise to anyone who reads the mainstream media -- namely, that angry right-wingers are taking their guns and going hunting for women, minorities, disabled people and anyone else who stands for "truth, justice and the (progressive) American way". Such broad, general linkages are in themselves offensive, of course -- but that doesn't get in the way of what Goldberg rightly calls "the whole point of these exercises (which) is to paint the Right as an undifferentiated blob of evil."

An equally interesting aspect of Goldberg's argument is the link he sees to a particularly virulent strain of anti-Semitism on the left. The left seems to think that U.S. foreign policy is in the clutches of the Jews -- a grip that liberal commentators link clearly to Bush-style neoconservatism:

After all, for years, mainstream liberalism and other outposts of paranoid Bush hatred have portrayed neoconservatives - usually code for conservative Jews and other supporters of Israel - as an alien, pernicious cabal. "They have penetrated the culture at nearly every level from the halls of academia to the halls of the Pentagon," observed the New York Times. "They've accumulated the wherewithal financially [and] professionally to broadcast what they think over the airwaves to the masses or over cocktails to those at the highest levels of government."

NBC's Chris Matthews routinely used the word "neocon" as if it was code for "traitor." He asked one guest whether White House neocons are "loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president." Von Brunn may have wondered the same thing, which is why he reportedly had the offices of Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard on his hit list.

Unhinged Bush-hater Andrew Sullivan insists that "The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right." Leading liberal intellectual Michael Lind warned about the alarming fact that "the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique" of neoconservative plotters.

Even with Bush out of the picture, some see the problem emerging again. Just this week, Jeremiah Wright, the president's longtime mentor and pastor, whined that "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me."

It is easy to see why I and others see Obama as a less-than-stalwart friend of Israel. The sentiment Goldberg outlines -- a view that has been echoed by prominent academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their book "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" seems consistent with Obama's recent pressure on Israel to roll-back West Bank settlements and pursue a "two state" solution with the Palestinians -- not to mention his desire to engage in high-level diplomacy with the greatest existential threat to Israel -- the Islamic Republic of Iran His recent speech in Cairo to the "Muslim world" also carried a theme that was critical of Israel's efforts at self-defense -- a message that wasn't lost on the Israelis. Taken together, it is clear that the Obama administration sees the stalwart support of Israel -- a bedrock of U.S. Foreign Policy since the state of Israel was formed in 1947 -- as a something that is consistent with Bush Administration Middle East policy that it is trying to distance itself from.

At the root of all this, of course, is an effort to de-legitimize conservatism by linking it to radical movements that the left can easily define as "evil". It allows commentators in the mainstream media to demonize conservatives as being on the fringe, and thus makes it acceptable to make disparaging remarks against them. When Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California, had the guts to give her opinion on gay marriage, the left wing media pounced, calling her all kinds of names in a bevy of personal attacks. Such is also the case with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and others. If you can successfully paint those who hold conservative views as worthy of scorn, it is open season. Is this is the post-partisan, hope-filled change that Obama has promised?

Donald Douglas, who I have linked to frequently, has an important take on this -- and it is worth reading. He calls it nothing short of a "civil war" -- traditional values versus a "postmodernism" that has moral relativism as its foundation:

As regular readers well know, it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today. Leftist radicalism and demonology is manifested not just in the corrosive political discourse of the online fever swamps, but on television with the likes of David Letterman and Keith Olbermann. Most importantly, radical postmodernism has reached the apex of power, with President Barack Obama's post-structural presidency. In general, the present danger from the left isn't the potential for violence or rebellion, it's the slow erosion of right and wrong in politics, and the steady weakening of America's exceptionalism and moral resolve in the face of domestic and international crises. The United States will be just another nation, if the leftists have their way. Excellence will be prohibited. Everyone will be "equal." No foreign nations will threaten us, and in time the U.S. will go the way of all other great hegemonic powers.

This is perfectly said -- and a wake up call to those who see the United States as a good and decent country where the tradition of hard work, individual liberty and political and religious freedom make it the envy of the world. Those values are under attack now from all quarters, and we ignore it at our peril.

From Europe, hope for conservatism

The left in this country has made much of the big electoral victories that the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 -- and for good reason.  Not since 1977, when Jimmy Carter swept to victory along with huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, has there been such lopsided partisan rule in this country. With Al Franken seemingly a lock to win the Minnesota Senate seat, the Democrats are on the verge of a 60 vote "supra majority" that is virtually filibuster proof. The immediate future seems to all be swinging the left's way, and all the things that come with it are now a foregone conclusion: major health care reform, tax increases, deficit spending and a spate of intensive, restrictive environmental regulation. But will it last? As we know, Jimmy Carter's 1977 victory gave way in just four years to the Reagan Revolution -- and though Barack Obama is much more politically sophisticated than was Carter, a former Georgia peanut farmer who was poorly schooled in the ways of Washington, there are many similarities thus far between the two presidencies. Carter took over after a period of eight years of Republican rule and in the wake of an unpopular war and scandal; his campaign was based on a promise to "change" Washington -- to clean up government and restore the nation's image in the world. The economy he inherited was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation -- and Carter's typical "tax and spend" policies made both worse. He oversaw the expansion of government with the creation of the Departments of Energy and Education, instituted price controls and rationing on energy, oversaw the bailout of a Detroit automaker (Chrysler) and pursued Middle East Peace by promoting the cause of the Arab states over those of Israel.

Sound familiar?

But it is not a lost cause, for as Carter gave way to Reagan, Obama's left-wing policies and programs may lead to a new conservative revolution.  In fact, there are now signs from Europe that the purported "death of conservatism" has been greatly exaggerated. As the BBC reports tonight, in European Parliament elections this weekend it appears that Center-right parties have made major gains: "Centre-right parties have done well in elections to the European Parliament at the expense of the left. Far-right and anti-immigrant parties also made gains, as turnout figures plunged to between 43 and 44%.

The UK Labour Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party were heading for historic defeats.

• French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP trounced socialist opponents, while greens from the Europe-Ecologie party also made gains
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing centre-right grouping lost ground but finished ahead of its rivals. The Social Democrats, Ms Merkel's partners in the grand coalition, saw their worst election showing since World War II
• In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right coalition is ahead of the socialist opposition, with 36% of the vote
• In the UK, the governing Labour Party is expecting a serious defeat, gaining its lower share of the vote for a century
• Spain's governing Socialists were slightly behind the opposition Popular Party, according to partial results
• Poland's governing centre-right Civic Platform has gained ground at the expense of the Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party
• Early results show Portugal's ruling Socialists dropped a massive 18 percentage points, losing out mainly to Greens and far-left parties

It is no surprise, of course, that the UK Labour party under the inept leadership of Gordon Browne is in trouble, but the general performance of Center-right parties elsewhere shows that the leftward swing of Europe is now at a low-ebb. The victories in recent years of Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy and Merkel in Germany has put Center-right leadership in power in the three largest European states; should David Cameron of the Conservative party in the UK sweep to power in the next general election sometime in 2010, it will be a clean sweep. Granted, conservatism in Europe is of a different sort than that in the U.S., operating as it does within an extensive social democratic framework. But the fact remains that Europe is showing a fatigue with the kind of leftist socialism that has been in vogue there over the past decade.

Will the same thing happen here? Will America reject the big government policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid in 2010 and 2012? Or will it take longer for the fatigue associated with big government, over-reguation and high taxation to set in?

My guess is that it will. Whatever Obama's personal popularity, the fact remains that America is essentially still a center-right country that generally dislikes both big government and high taxes. It won't be long until the honeymoon associated with the economic crisis of 2008-09 to run its course; Obama will soon own the deficit spending we are embarking on, and when Americans get a taste of Canada-style health care (and taxes), it won't be pretty.

It took Carter to give us Reagan. Obama will give us another historic opportunity to move the nation back toward individual liberty and economic freedom.