Culture Warrior, Page 3

  The Times employs four columnists who utterly despise the Bush administration: Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich. In the year 2005 and the first two weeks of 2006, these individuals filed an astounding 149 columns lambasting the Bush administration; that was 47 percent of their entire work output. I mean, how much loathing do you need? The Times should just put up a daily headline on its op-ed page: “WE HATE BUSH.” Why bother with the repetitive analysis? And remember, the New York Times is the Big Kahuna among the secular media; that paper sets the agenda for the S-P press.

  So here’s my conclusion based on the data: U.S. journalism is essentially in the grip of a pack mentality. Most media people are well educated and many come from affluent homes. Also, a good number are urban dwellers who see themselves as sophisticated gatekeepers of the common good. These people don’t really have much in common with the “folks,” but hey, everybody needs a guiding light to deliver them from the traditional darkness, right?

  The split between “we” the people and the media is especially severe in the spiritual arena. A survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors shows that the rate of atheism among journalists is about 20 percent, significantly higher than among the general population, where it stands at about 9 percent. When one in five media warriors does not believe in the existence of a supreme being, it’s not hard to figure out why many press people support secular causes like unrestricted abortion, gay marriage, and restraints on public displays of faith.

  This media “group-think” mentality is so powerful that even some establishment journalists are dismayed. Marie Arana, a Washington Post editor, was quoted in her own paper as saying: “The elephant in our newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions…. We’re not very subtle about it at this paper. If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive [my emphasis], a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.”

  Asked for a reaction to Ms. Arana’s comments, Washington Post editor in chief Leonard Downie replied that he was “concerned” if some staffers openly displayed political preferences. But Downie went on to say that his newspaper has “a diverse staff when it comes to ideological backgrounds.”

  Sure, and I’m Puff Daddy or whatever his name is this morning. Just imagine if a Washington Post reporter waltzed into the newsroom tomorrow and said: “Man, I love that O’Reilly Factor! What a great program!” That would do the guy’s career a lot of good, don’t you think?

  Now, I know perfectly well that most Americans are not locked onto newspaper editorial pages—certainly not the way I am—but consider this: The same kind of group-think you have on the opinion pages is often on display throughout the rest of the paper. This is especially true among feature writers like book, movie, and TV critics. It is here where the culture war sappers do their finest work.

  In his book Hollywood Nation, author James Hirsen did some terrific research. Going through America’s largest newspapers, he compared the reviews for Michael Moore’s movie Fahrenheit 9/11 to those of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ.

  Surprise. The critics, showing that group-think tendency again, loved Moore and hated Gibson. Here’s a sample taken from Hirsen’s book:

  • the New York Times’s A.O. Scott called Moore a “credit to the Republic” but found that Gibson had “exploited” the death of Jesus.

  • the Washington Post’s Ann Hornaday called Fahrenheit Moore’s “finest artistic moment.” She criticized Gibson for bad history.

  • the Los Angeles Times’s Kenneth Turan said Moore presented a “persuasive and unrelenting case.” But Gibson’s film was “inaccessible for all but the devout.”

  • And the Boston Globe’s Ty Burr urged readers to see Moore’s movie but warned people that The Passion would leave them “battered and empty-handed.”

  Hirsen lists many other Gibson slams and Moore hurrahs to make his case that newspaper critics and feature writers are overwhelmingly liberal and many are committed secular-progressives. Why should you care what these people write? Because they can set trends, demonize projects they don’t like, and define success in our popular culture. In other words, they have power. It is true that the folks have the final say (Gibson’s Passion was an enormous success), but too many writers on popular culture are in the business of promoting the secular and damaging the traditional. No question.

  The atmosphere has become so poisonous that I now rarely talk to the print press, and, as you know, I am a major blabbermouth. I’ve been burned time and time again by writers who took my words out of context and provided snide commentary leading into my quotes. Again, not whining—just reporting. Believe me; I have the clips to prove the case that pervasive secular bias is rampant in America’s print press. Here’s still more evidence, in case you are not believing me. (Is that even possible?)

  The Tribune Company out of Chicago runs a chain of newspapers, primarily liberal, throughout the United States; papers like the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, and Newsday on Long Island. Business at those papers, and many others in the United States, is not good. So the Tribune Company laid off almost one thousand workers.

  That, of course, is a sad situation, but one group was particularly outraged. MoveOn, a far-left outfit dedicated to advancing the S-P cause and assassinating the characters of traditional Americans, presented Tribune CEO Dennis Fitzpatrick with a petition demanding that the cuts be stopped. MoveOn claimed the downsizing “undermined important watchdog journalism.”

  Sure. If you believe MoveOn cares about “watchdog journalism,” you probably also believe George Clooney wants me as an overnight guest at his Italian villa. The fanatical S-P organization clearly knows that the newspapers run by the Tribune Company are a reliable S-P ally. Do you think MoveOn would petition against cuts on the Wall Street Journal editorial page? If so, you might also believe Howard Dean and I go camping together each summer in the Green Mountains. Bottom line: The more American newspapers decline, the worse things will be for the S-Ps, unless a miracle happens and newspapers become more fair and balanced.

  In addition to the overwhelming liberal presence in print, TV comedians like David Letterman, Jay Leno, and the cast of Saturday Night Live all lean to the left, as do their stables of gag writers. If you think such people are not important to the culture wars, you’ve been in a coma for the past ten years. Huge percentages of Americans, including many people in their twenties, report that they get much of their “news” from TV comedians. That might sound like a joke, but it’s absolutely true.

  It’s also true that on any given night, TV political humor is spread all around the ideological spectrum. But do the body counts: It’s the conservatives who are mocked the most. The cumulative effect of print and TV commentary that largely denigrates conservative thought and traditional values cannot be overestimated. It builds up in the minds of many Americans. It becomes huge.

  At this point, however, it is important to reiterate that the culture war is not between conservatives and liberals. Although it’s true that most conservative Americans tend to be traditionalists, there are many people who hold liberal political views who are appalled at the goals and tactics of the secular-progressive movement. Perhaps the best example of this is Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who, of course, ran for vice president on the Al Gore ticket (Gore is very S-P). Lieberman, and others like him, respect the nation’s religious traditions and do not want radical changes in our established societal mores. They are liberal traditionalists. Another example would be Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a traditional guy who is also a committed Democrat.

  It would be a big mistake, then, for conservative traditionalists to make enemies out of liberals who still see their country as a good and worthy enterprise. They should be welcomed into the fray. No
, it is the people who see America as evil that traditionalists should be concerned about. It is the radicals who want a complete overhaul of American culture and law who are the targets of this book, not liberal thinkers. For example, I firmly believe John and Robert Kennedy would be traditional culture warriors if they were on the scene today. JFK wanted you to “do” for the country, while RFK was a staunch Catholic who had a blood feud with Castro. Ironically, the traditional posture of the Kennedy brothers might pit them against their youngest sibling, Teddy, one of America’s biggest S-P enablers.

  A good battle plan merits repetition. So, again, defining all liberals as secular-progressives is a huge tactical mistake. You see conservatives falling into this error every day, especially on talk radio. At this point, traditionalists of all stripes need to understand who the real enemy is and cultivate all the allies they can get.

  American culture, in my opinion, has deteriorated drastically in large part because the ACLU, thanks to its enormous power, gets a free pass from most of the media. Many of the approximately four hundred thousand members of the ACLU are rabid in their support of the organization and are fanatically committed to the S-P cause. But there are a good number of other ACLUers who, I believe, have no idea of the group’s true radicalism. They buy the smoke-screen propaganda and think the ACLU’s primary mission is looking out for your civil liberties.

  Well, let’s examine the record.

  Founded in 1920 by a man named Roger Baldwin, a dedicated secular zealot, the ACLU began as an openly radical group, quickly discovered that was a dangerous misstep, then took a strategic turn into “patriotism.” According to author Peggy Lamson, a Baldwin biographer, he explained this strategy with chilling clarity: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

  In the book The ACLU vs. America, by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, Baldwin’s plan is also revealed unmistakably. The authors quote a letter he wrote to a supporter: “Do steer away from making it [the ACLU] look like a Socialist enterprise…we want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really for the folks…”

  Eighty-nine years later, the ACLU is still using Baldwin’s strategy, wrapping itself in the flag and defending the rights of the “folks.” Unless, of course, the folks are Christians, Boy Scouts, parents who want to know if their underage daughters are having abortions, or concerned Americans who want sexual predators who hurt children held accountable. Those folks need not apply for ACLU membership.

  The present-day ACLU is headed by Anthony Romero, a committed far-left culture warrior who formerly worked for the Ford Foundation, conveniently a great source of funding for radical left causes. (Started with funds contributed by Henry Ford and his son Edsel, the foundation is now independent of the Ford Motor Company or the Ford family.)

  An openly gay activist, Romero has brought a ton of money to the ACLU by energizing wealthy radicals such as Peter Lewis and George Soros (more on him later). Romero is leading the charge to change the United States into a secular-progressive nation and is an effective and fanatical general for the S-P movement. He is a first-rate propagandist, unrelenting in his quest to bring down America’s Judeo-Christian traditions. By the way, Romero has given orders to all his ACLU cohorts never to appear on The O’Reilly Factor. I must be the enemy! I take that as a great compliment, although Romero is welcome to come on the program anytime to set me straight.

  Finally, in the first ten years of the Fox Newschannel’s existence, I have succeeded in unmasking much of the ACLU’s true agenda. Of course, not everyone agrees with me about the group, but I have their attention. In a letter to me dated December 23, 2002, ACLU media relations director Emily Whitfield wrote:

  Dear Mr. O’Reilly:

  I write to offer you sincere thanks on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union. After your characterization of the ACLU as a “fascist” organization and your undefined call for “intense scrutiny” of the organization, we had the best day all year of online donations and new memberships…

  I’m sure this unintended consequence presents as much of a pleasant surprise to you as it does to us. Please keep up the good work.

  I’ll try, Ms. Whitfield. And the next time you see your Daddy Warbucks, George Soros, please tell him this: You can’t put a price on the truth.

  Behind every effective political or social movement, there is a guiding philosopher to articulate theory and, sometimes, strategy. For communism it was Karl Marx. For democracy it was Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries. And for secular-progressivism it is George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley (the mother ship for S-P academia).

  A complimentary letter from my biggest fans.

  Chances are you’ve never heard of Lakoff himself; he is a shadowy guy. Although he’s written several books and occasionally appears in far-left forums, mainly he guides radical left thought from his California perch and decries the horrors of “conservatism.”

  Lakoff’s philosophy is easy enough to understand, and I’ll define it by taking his own words from the book Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate:

  • “If you work hard; play by the rules; and serve your family, community, and nation, the nation should provide [my italics] a decent standard of living…”

  You undoubtedly recognize this for what it is: standard-issue socialism, according to which the central government owes its compliant citizens economic prosperity. In other words, the government is there to provide.

  • “Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.”

  Again, another top ten hit from the socialism playlist: Control free enterprise by having a centralized government dictate what is in the public’s interest and what is not. Fidel Castro loves this Lakoff guy.

  • “It is the job of government to promote and, if possible, provide… more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life…”

  George Lakoff, the Yoda of the secular-progressives.

  There’s that “provide” word again. I actually agree with this guy about more freedom and a better environment—who doesn’t want those things? But then Lakoff goes off the rails, demanding “greater fulfillment in life.” How nuts is that? Jimmy Carter’s gonna come to my house when my roof leaks? Ronald Reagan owes me a pep talk if I’m depressed? Bill Clinton should act as a therapist for my screwed-up kid? George W. Bush should be clearing the brush from our yards?

  Lakoff really believes this nonsense. His vision is that first and foremost, a central government should make sure we all have fulfilling lives. Talk about a nanny state! No, this is worse, much worse—this is a Dr. Phil state!

  Lakoff goes on to avow the following: Businesses should not adversely affect the public good; the United States should have a “values based foreign policy”; every American has a right to “state-of-the-art,” affordable health care, and every child has the right to “high-quality early childhood education.” Hold it. Doesn’t every American deserve a masseuse, too? After all, how can we have fulfilling lives if our backs hurt?

  What Lakoff absolutely wants to do is set up an enormous central government that provides (that word again) cradle-to-grave security and entitlements to 300 million people. And who would rule that central government? Well, people who think like George Lakoff, that’s who; enlightened souls who can judge behavior and mandate social change in such a way that justice is perfect every time. In other words, Jesus would return to earth to run the United States. (Jesus the man—not the deity. Separation of church and state, you see.)

  Herewith some other pearls of wisdom
from George Lakoff, the Yoda of the S-P movement:

  • “There is no such thing as a self made man.” (All success is due to societal assistance.)

  • “The United States has systematically promoted a terrorism of its own…”

  • “In the ‘nurturant’ parent model, discipline arises not from painful physical punishment, but through the promotion of responsible behavior via empathetic connection…” (Translation: Lakoff would outlaw spanking.)

  • “In the ‘nurturant’ form of religion, your spiritual experience has to do with your connection to other people and the world…” (This means the “higher power” concept is out; atheism is the way to go and would be subtly promoted by the government.)

  Interestingly, the very far-left Atlanta Journal-Constitution is pushing Lakoff’s central societal vision, that the “rich” owe everybody else, hard. On January 4, 2006, columnist Harris Green wrote: “Whatever the rich receive, it is not due entirely to their own talent and effort, as many would have us believe. They owe their parents. They owe the teachers and counselors and clergy who taught them and civilized them. They owe the farmers and truckers and grocery store workers who put food on their tables, and the firefighters and police officers and emergency medical technicians who protected them from harm and further harm. The list of people they owe is endless. Therefore, whatever success they achieve in life is due mostly to the talents and efforts of a legion of people.”

  This is standard-issue communist thought. The rich (affluent) owe everybody else, and therefore the government has a right to take assets from the rich (affluent) to pay the debt. The S-P movement will vehemently deny any sympathy with communist doctrine, but that is as big a lie as telling a successful person that the guy who sold him breakfast deserves part of his income that day. This secular-progressive belief in income redistribution and government seizure of private property is extremely important to keep in mind.