The Culture War

Anna sent me a link to an opinion piece (The Triumph of Culture Over Politics) in the Wall Street Journal and asked for my reaction. As I read it hurriedly yesterday, my first reaction was: "Another liberal writer sets up a superficial, conservative straw man, then knocks him down with a bunch of intellectual gobblydygook. My political philosophy is much more complex and nuanced than that." However, too much pizza before bed caused me to ruminate, hence this early morning post.

Seigel's premise is that "Liberals always think there's something broken in politics. Conservatives always think there's something wrong with the culture." He explains: "Let me clarify what the word "culture" means in this context, a la the Christian right and Mr. Bloom's descendants. If hearing the word "culture" makes you think of Rossini, the latest translation of "Anna Karenina," the Guggenheim Museum or "The Wire," then you're probably a liberal -- or, at least, an unreconstructed "cosmopolitan" conservative. But if the word culture means for you forms of courtship, or sexual preference, or the relationship between parents and children, or the set of rituals that revolve around the ownership and use of a gun, or, most passionately of all, ways of living, and believing, and rejoicing, and suffering, and dying that are hallowed by the religion you practice and embodied in the church you belong to -- if for you, culture does not primarily signify opera or HBO, then you are probably celebrating Sarah Palin's ragged, real-seeming life. In that case, you are what might be called either a heartland or a Bloomian conservative."

It's pretty clear as you read the piece if you couldn't tell from the above, that Siegel sees liberals as enlightened and conservatives as stupid, and he laments the success the of Republicans in appealing to the intellectually vapid masses. Obama is the new Adlai Stevenson -- McCain the new Eisenhower; Obama is "complex" -- McCain the "action hero."

But as the pizza worked its magic, I realized how much of what Siegel wrote is valid. I do believe that "culture" is much more than opera, that our "culture" (in the anthropological sense he belittles) has been severely damaged by the left, and that the destruction of the cultural/societal values and norms of western civilization, if left unchecked, may well have long-term disasterous consequences . Liberals have been quite successful in redefining words and thus changing the nature of the debate. I'm reminded of the liberal comment when the Boy Scouts were first under attack over excluding gay scoutmasters: "You folks think morality is all about sex; but it's really about caring for the poor." Well, yes. When I recited the scout promise as a boy, I did understand "being morally clean" to be about sex -- and a bit more. And being "cultured" used to mean refined -- enjoying opera, yes -- but also the opposite of "vulgar" (now redefined to mean (i) unappreciative of what used to be called "vulgar" or (ii) racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc.).

So I ruminate: The (pseudo-) intellectual liberal believes culture is about opera; marriage is an artifice to discrimate against gays; the first amendment is about protecting pornography; the most important constitutional right is the right of a mother to kill her unborn young; and man is just one species among many and is responsible for destroying the planet. Foolish me -- I thought culture was about standards and values to which our society aspires; that marriage was a religious and civil acknowledgement of the fundamental importance of the family to society; that the first amendment was first and foremost about protecting political speech; that the killing of the innocent was to be abhored; and that we (mankind) were the object of creation, given dominion over the earth and all things therein and charged with being wise stewards -- not for snail darters or even polar bears, but for ourselves and our posterity. So I'll confess to being a cultural conservative.

But there is much more to my brand of conservatism. I, too, believe government is broken. I think something is wrong when our local government can't get a road built (after 40 years of talk) or figure out how to dispose of our trash (after 20), but instead bans plastic bags and seeks to legitimize illegal drug use. I wonder when our (Republican) governor finds nothing much wrong with the CEO of the state visitors' bureau using his government computer to send porn to his friends but is appalled and demands his resignation when she learns he also forwarded racist and sexist jokes about Obama and Hillary. (The news story noted the crude words used. "Crude" in any other context would be seen as an attempt to impose values.)

I was amazed at the pride with which our Congresswoman recently boasted of her efforts to get earmarks for our district. "If we don't get the money, someone else will!" Liberals decry the $2-3 trillion spent on the war in Iraq as a waste. (I doubt most Iraqis see it that way.) But what about the $20-30 trillion or more spent on the war on poverty with little or no lasting effect (see this piece). National defense -- a primary responsibility of our federal goverment -- now takes about 15% of the federal budget. In 1960 when I was debating federal aid to education, it took 50%. Social programs and transfer payments -- with no bases in the Constitution -- now constitute the vast majority of federal spending.

So I do after all agree with Seigel -- on both counts. I am concerned about what's happened to our culture, and I agree that government is broken. I'm just not so sure which side of the debate is most superficial.

And I'm going to be tired all day!