The term "culture war" blasted upon the American consciousness in 1992 at the Republican National Convention. Pat Buchanan made an address to the GOP that year, and defined this relatively new phrase as a "war for the nation's soul." That year marked the time our nation recognized it was fighting something from within — a pervasive secularism that threatened to create a government of socialism.
Seventeen years later, we have an America with significant social change, and a drastically weakened economy. Our status of creditor nation has been delivered to China.
To start with, there are major signs of socialism in our politics and media. Consider this quote from U.S. Rep. Bob Latta of Ohio, when asked by the Toledo Blade if America could consider itself a socialist country: "We might not be quite there yet, but when magazines are talking about socialism, I think it's time for Americans to look at the Constitution and say, 'Is this what we were handed by our forefathers in September of 1787?' and I think not," Mr. Latta said. "I think America is a much better country than what we're doing now."
Our forefathers fought for freedom as defined by the U.S. Constitution, but that included laws specifying personal responsibility. Yes, this inherited freedom includes free speech and a host of other rights. Yet, at some point, all of these mentioned rights can cross the line of responsible behavior. All freedom has a price, and that involves holding all of us accountable. The ideology that framed our country's constitution doesn't appeal to a people who wish for a "big brother" state. For anything else other than what we now have entails that individuals yield their freedom, in order that they be cared for by the state.
Freedom of religion, as defined by the First Amendment, comes to mind. The price to practice this freedom demands us to respect the religion of others. The right does not allow a religion that wishes to see the destruction of another people and their beliefs!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lono
I could not disagree more. First off, I think our 'freedom of religion' is horseshit. Every single day as a child I recited the pledge of allegiance every day, which included god, before I even knew what it meant.
To hold office in the US, you swear on a bible. Look at your currency, it all espouses god. That isn't freedom of thought, I say that.
As for Obama making America socialist, you are wrong. Bush started this with the TARP funds. He pushed us to bail out the banks that he didn't have the sack to regulate. The WHOLE tarp thing went down on Bush's watch.
As for what President Obama is doing, he is doing exactly what he said he would when we elected him. It's why we elected him.
While this is plenty expensive, I am happy to finally see tax dollars be spent in the USA. Bush was the king of spending, it just all went to everyone else. Pakistan got 10 BILLION in aid, what did that get us? bin Laden? Nope, nothing. While Pakistan got that aid, GW Bush vetoed and infrastracture bill.
Remember the deadly freeway collapse? Remember the NYC black out? Our infrastructure is shit, and the president refused to allow congress to work to repair it.
Don't fight America, fight for America.
2 - jman
you'll see Obama cool aid drinkers... typical liberal, justifies Obama's actions with Bush's. Gee, that's real smart...
Get the F out of the country, if saying the pledge of alligence bothers you. If it were up to liberals, we would all be "butt porking" our boyfriends in the middle of the streets like some giant Greek orgy without any consequences. You see, liberals have no morals. They think morals are offensive and hate speech..
3 - Cindy
jman,
They think
moralsmorons are offensive...There you go.
H&C,
One of your pals has stopped by to visit you.
4 - Roger Nowosielski
That's cute. But now you're gonna incur his wrath.
5 - Arch Conservative
Well Cindy seeing as it's more common to see a liberal sticking up for the rights of illegal aliens or pedophiles than the rights of unborn babies in the womb I'd say it's more accurate to say their morality is suspect rather than saying they have no morals.
6 - Cindy
Arch,
That wasn't intended as a reflection on conservatives. Only a reflection on the poster.
7 - Roger Nowosielski
Come on, Arch, we don't wan't to have that debate. I don't know about illegals, but I'm certain she doesn't approve of pedophiles.
8 - Cindy
I don't believe in aliens of any kind.
9 - Roger Nowosielski
Not even from the Orion constellation?
10 - Roger Nowosielski
jman is the man.
11 - Cindy
especially not from the orion constellation :-)
12 - bliffle
Socialism? The author is surprised to see socialism?
We've had socialism in this country for as long as I can remember. It's all been directed at major US corporations. Even now we are instituting more socialism to give away trillions to financial corporations.
Most Presidents and other rulers have been Corporate Statists. Just look at George W Bush: increased the US debt by $5trillion with loose spending and big socialistic handouts.
I guess the author is worried that some of this socialistic handout might end up going to individuals. But most of the socialized corps are fronts for rich and powerful people, so it DOES go to people.
Maybe that's OK because they are rich people, not those nasty poor and middleclass people.
13 - Roger Nowosielski
Nasty, poor and brutish! You might as well quote from Hobbes, bliffle.
14 - Cindy
That wouldn't do, as I noticed Hobbes has a limited imagination.
15 - Cindy
On to remember Locke next.
16 - Cindy
Hobbes reminds me of something I read. Who talked about the "noble savage"? It was some other "insightful" white guy.
17 - Roger Nowosielski
Not really, Cindy. He had quite a problem trying to reconcile the radical changes in philosophical, theological and political thinking of his time. All considering, he had done a marvelous job and opened the door to Locke and Rousseau.
A pioneer.
18 - Cindy
Yes, in his time. But hardly very useful now considering what is understood about his bias toward "the savage".
19 - Roger Nowosielski
But the state of nature was only a philosophical construct - in order to account for a progression to a civil society - a thought-experiment and a lever.
20 - Cindy
But you'll have to explain to me why a mythical construct that does not prove to be real (you know like in the sense of anthropologically) is so worthwhile to base present decisions on.
21 - Cindy
My understanding of things comes from social science. How people really behave. Not thought experiments.
22 - handyguy
Oh you two! So in-tee-lek-shu-al and all.
23 - Cindy
Sigmund Freud wasted an entire generation's time with his wacky ideas.
It seems like it was necessary at one time, but impractical in the present. As I would have to ignore everything I have learned. Or try to force it into outdated presumptions.
24 - Roger Nowosielski
It's what's called in philosophy as a "move." In this particular case, it provided an opportunity to account for the state and to justify the existence of the state. There was no need to do that in antiquity (Greece) because the state arouse under circumstances which did not call for any explanation. But it was different in Hobbes's era when the monarchy was under attack (Cromwell) and theological views as regards God's manifesting his presence in the natural world were being questioned.
25 - Cindy
Yes, so that is what I see. It had a historical context that was useful. And then thought progressed along.