Sir Winston Churchill’s observation, "If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
I recently attended the service for “the crazy uncle” every family has, some more so, some less… but every family as at least one eccentric family member; often brilliant, usually fun and definitely interesting if you take the time to get to know them. We spent a couple days there with his wife and friends on their territory; usually they came to visit us for the holidays.
He, his wife and their friends were all brilliant academic elites, students and then professors from the Ivy League and Stanford or had evolved into journalists. One of their friends was so thrilled to mention that they had seen Chelsea Clinton at the local coffee shop they frequent, but never once was former Republican Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice who teaches at Stanford and also frequents that shop mentioned; and then there was the small shrine to Obama in the office at the house. It was my greatest joy to watch their faces when my husband said, “My wife is a Sarah Palin supporter!”, someone the left fears greatly because she tells the truth, relates to the average American and stands up for traditional American values. It lead to quite the conversation and a lot of eye-opening corrections to unending misinformation on their part, which again proves that someone can be brilliant and highly educated yet extremely under or misinformed! In fact a cousin had actually interviewed Sarah Palin for her newspaper and went on and on in amazement about how nice Sarah the whole family was, as if she just couldn’t let that sink in and stick.
Their home was a place I could have moved into immediately: floor to ceiling overflowing book cases on every wall filled with books, record albums, old theater billets and souvenirs; an organic garden in the backyard that any prepper or survivalist would die for, an herb garden in the atrium and a mixture of shade and fruit trees covering the front of the house; interesting pieces of antiquity and art sprinkled throughout, and a collection of dogs and cats… all rescued.
So I asked myself… how could all these people, mostly in their 70’s and 80’s be so brilliant, so interesting and so culturally rounded in many ways, yet be so off the mark politically and so removed from the average American… or the average person from anywhere that works with their hands or creates jobs, produces products and services and realizes it is someone greater than themselves or the government that watches over them?
And then it hit me, they really were the academics, radicals and community organizers of yester year, like the parents of the radical Progressives presently running our government and lodged in our White House, who produced a generation of offspring just like them, because they never left the cocoon that they inhabit. Everyone they know lives in a vacuum where they all support each others thoughts and theories. They are the children of the left who mentally remained bleeding-heart coddled 20-year-olds, and never actually lived in the real world to gather common sense or practical experiences and most remained in academia, inherited money or lived on the government (job) rolls or even on the dole; thereby remaining emotional children… sounds a lot like 1600 Pennsylvania Ave these days!
What is the most worrisome about this is that The (so-called) Greatest Generation (Kindle) also coddled their children, wanting to spare them the hardships they experienced, so you have the Greatest Generation that produced the spoiled baby-boomers who went from wanting to change the world to wanting to possess things, and then became helicopter parents that spoiled and indulged another generation, often out of guilt, because both parents were always gone. Add these kids to the pool and you have a group of academics and organizers ready to lead a give-me generation into a nanny state that logically in the end won’t be able to support them, but wants to control them.
Ann Coulter: Why Socialists Think the Way They Do…
The "root cause" of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America (Kindle), is based. (Yet because Progressives are all schooled in the Alinsky way (Kindle), they project their fear and fear mongering onto their enemy… Conservatives.)
Le Bon’s 1896 book, "The Crowd; Study of the Popular Mind (Hardback/Kindle)," was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.
With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts.
The liberal Democrat, socialist or in Hillary Clinton’s own famous debate comment in 2007 after being asked if she was a liberal: “I prefer to think of myself as a Progressive!” (Video) brain and perspective brings us to the attitude that President Obama said he would negotiate with Russian President Putin, after all his public insults and political maneuvering, but not with the Republicans (GOP) about our budget or ObamaCare because he and the Democrats would rather shut down the government so they can blame the Republicans, even though the House with a Republican majority has a plan and passed a budget for everything but ObamaCare, than negotiate in good faith about the (Un)Affordable Care Act, a law that is unpopular with a majority of Americans and will ultimately bankrupt the U.S.
American Thinker: Why Millennials Won’t Turn ‘Conservative’…
Every so often the wonks of wishful thinking give us an article about how blacks are becoming Republicans, how Hispanics are supposedly a natural GOP constituency, or, as is the subject here today, how the millennial generation is turning "conservative." Perhaps pundits asserting the last thing recall Winston Churchill’s observation, "If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain." And perhaps they overlook that it’s possible to raise a brainless generation.
Don’t think, as one might, that this will be a typical analysis sneering at the proverbial "next generation" using the perceived gold standard of one’s own. After all, I realize that my generation is the tree the millennial nut fell from. Placing matters in further perspective, it’s true that older and younger generations ever slam each other; it’s also true that they both are always partially right. Lastly, I’ll say that I don’t at all consider the WWII FDR voters the "greatest generation," though it makes for a nice narrative. The greatest generation was the one that founded our nation and wondered if we could "keep" its republic, and there has been a consistent, but accelerating, degeneration ever since.
In discussing our latest movement toward idiocracy, my starting point will be a Sept. 4 American Thinker article written by one Chriss Street. In making his case for millennial hope, Mr. Street points out that while 61 percent of millennials voted for Barack Obama in 2012, his approval among them has now sunk to 46 percent. But this is a deceptive statistic. For an approval rating amounts to the judging of a candidate relative to people’s ideal personal standard for the presidency, whereas in an election he is judged relative to another specific candidate for the presidency. And if Obama were again running against Mitt Romney — with all the usual media propaganda — does anyone really think he’d lose millennials to the governor? No doubt more would stay home, but I suspect the president would enjoy something close to his 2012 support among those who cast votes.
Moreover, millennials may have soured on Obama somewhat, but this reflects cynicism more than conservatism. Of course, that they’d be cynical is no surprise; they’ve been raised in an unraveling West in which feckless, morally-confused adults in their homes, schools, government, houses of worship and elsewhere have let them down. Nonetheless, cynicism is not traditionalism; in fact, it is a form of naiveté. Believing all people act out of selfish motives, the cynic instinctively paints everyone with the same brush. And such a person can hardly distinguish well among candidates.
Mr. Street also tells us that, "in 2008, 37.4% of incoming freshman women and 30.5% men identified themselves as liberals or leftists, the most in 35 years." The reality, though, is even worse than this indicates. First consider that self-reporting is more about perception than reality. For starters, it always underestimates leftist numbers, as likely a majority of "moderates" are liberals who — usually because of self-delusion (a leftist bailiwick) and a desire to sound "reasonable" — don’t brand themselves what they really are; bear in mind when pondering this that liberals are generally solipsistic and fancy that they define the center, and also realize that the label "liberal" has been discredited enough so that many won’t don it. Yet even more significant here is that it isn’t just people’s perceptions that shift — the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" do, too.
Consider that while a conservative in 1952 America was staunchly anti-communist, a conservative in the Soviet Union at the time was a communist. And "conservatives" in Western Europe are often our liberals’ ideological soulmates. This isn’t for lack of truth in political advertising. Rather, it’s because the only consistent definition of "conservative" is "a desire to maintain the status quo" while "liberal’s" only consistent definition involves a desire to change it. This means "conservatism" is always changing: tomorrow’s version will reflect today’s liberalism’s success in altering the status quo. Conservatism is the caboose to liberalism’s locomotive (I treat this in-depth here).
This explains a few things. First, it’s often pointed out that a healthy plurality in America describes itself as conservative. Is this surprising? All it really means is that many, many people align themselves with the status quo — and if this weren’t the case, the status quo wouldn’t be the status quo. Second, some insist that millennials will move toward conservatism, and this is true in that most people become somewhat more traditional with age. Yet it’s also true that conservatism will move toward them.
That is to say, as "conservatism" drifts "left," it follows that millennials will "become more conservative" even if they stay in the same place, in that they will be situated more on the post-shift political spectrum’s right side; this is just as how a person can become poorer in a definitional sense if the poverty line standard is altered.
That so few recognize this reflects the relativism of our time, where we label ourselves with provisional terms and measure ourselves against other people (it’s people who define the political spectrum). If we want to see matters clearly, however, we must define them differently: in absolute terms.
In other words, what do millennials actually believe? Well, never before has an American generation been so tolerant of intolerable sexual practices, so supportive of faux marriage and skeptical of actual marriage, so relativistic and disconnected from Christianity (church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting habits). Never before has an American generation been to their degree socially "liberal."
This brings us to the claim that millennials are, at least, fiscally conservative. Now, not only is convincing evidence of this elusive, but considering it a saving grace is essentially saying that it profits a man to gain the world but lose his soul. Regardless, however, while the social liberalism/fiscal conservatism marriage may exist in particular cases, I suspect that in principle it is an impossibility.
For instance, speaking of principle versus particular, if you ask people, "Do you believe government should balance its budget and be frugal," of course they’ll say yes. But if you ask them if they’re willing to relinquish their particular piece of the pie (government college aid?), their tune changes. Espousing fiscal responsibility requires only a voice; achieving it requires virtue.
Second, consider the side-effects of social liberalism in modern times. And this should be prefaced by saying that since this explanation warrants a book, my treatment here will necessarily be lacking. But just as an example, social liberalism means loose sexual mores. Loose sexual mores mean a high rate of single motherhood (today it’s 42 percent… and rising). And what does this mean? Since the modern West won’t let these women twist in the wind, the government will step into the breach and play daddy with handouts and/or mommy with tax-funded daycare. It is unavoidable.
And in point of fact, this cultural decay brings us to the real reason for political drift. It was something about which the Founding Fathers — as well as great thinkers throughout Christendom’s history — spoke much. Ben Franklin warned, "As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." British philosopher Edmund Burke observed, "It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." And John Adams wrote in 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Question: does "moral and religious" describe us today?
Of course, some will now say, "But why do you think millennials supported Ron Paul? They want liberty!" Sure they do.
So does a tiger in a zoo.
So does a toddler.
Neither, however, can be allowed to roam free in civilization without hurting himself or others. And the less people are civilized growing up, the closer they will be to that infantile or animalistic state — and the more they have need of cages and masters.
The truth? Government can be no better than the public’s virtue, though it can be worse. And this morality-government relationship is evident in voting patterns. Is it a coincidence that every group orthodox Christians label immoral — those involved in "alternative" sexual deathstyles, criminally inclined inner-city dwellers, effete college professors, grunge-type youths scarred with multiple tattoos and body piercings — vote left? "What fellowship hath light with darkness?" The darkness hates the light. When people have sins they yearn to rationalize away, the last thing they’ll do is support leaders who would uphold, even just through word, a moral standard condemning their passions.
Providing specificity as to how this affects government is another book-worthy topic, so I’ll offer just two examples. We’ve heard about those ruggedly individualistic Americans who’d rather live in poverty in Appalachia than accept government handouts and those spirit-of-entitlement types who protest violently when they don’t receive them. And society will always contain both kinds, but the ratio can vary greatly. In a nation characterized by self-sufficiency, honor, and virtue, a redistributionist will find barren ground. But if a spirit of greed, covetousness, and thievery prevails, people will be susceptible to the demagogic appeal, "You’ve been cheated, but give me power and I’ll get you your piece of the pie, comrade!" Or consider lust. If people resolved to be chaste outside of marriage, do you think the abortion movement or taxpayer funded contraception appeal could gain traction?
So how do you make a civilization susceptible to dark demagogues?
Make it love the darkness.
I wouldn’t first and foremost spend time on intellectual appeals. As the Soviets once did (as explained by ex-KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov) I’d seek to undermine the morality of the target nation. I’d spread the idea that morality is really "values" and values are relative — all just a matter of perspective, you see. Once this was accepted and people no longer believed in the rules of morality, it would be as if they ceased believing in the rules of human nutrition: not thinking any food could actually be "bad," they’d be governed only by taste and would try, and could develop an affinity for, anything — even perhaps poison. Vice corresponds to this on the moral menu.
I’d then get them hooked on their bad moral diet through inundation. Stoke their lust’s fires via highly sexualized entertainment, and portray violence as just as casual and cool, so lashing out at others seems the norm. I’d engorge their egos with media messages about how they could determine their own morality so that, as the serpent said, "you will be like God." I’d provide co-ed dorms and a general party atmosphere at universities, creating "occasions of sin" that will ensure the kids have as much as possible they need to justify. And after robbing them of moral judgment and creating a visceral craving for vice, I’d fill their heads full of anti-Western, anti-Christian — in fact, anti-goodness — ideas in college classrooms. When I was done with them, they’d not only possess the discernment of a man in the midst of a drug-fueled orgy, their egos would be so bloated they’d consider their ignorance wisdom.
Speaking of wisdom, when conservatives indulge wishful thinking and suppose that millennials will "wake up," they ignore that we actually need a shakeup, something that changes the cultural trajectory on which we’ve long been (so if an asteroid strikes the Earth, millennials may turn into conservatives — of course, they instead may turn into cavemen, too). Until then, whatever the keepers of the flame plan had better require the participation of only a zealous minority. For the masses will not wake up when beset by a cultural narcolepsy in which nightmares are fancied nice dreams.
But it is not hopeless. It will take each one of us who remembers what American Exceptionalism was; each of us who read and learned history from original sources that taught us the Founder’s true intent, to get involved. Each of us that values individual freedom and a society based on law needs to actively become part of a coalition of people willing to work together to reinstate our Bill of Rights, fix the educational system, use common sense and return America to a country that operates for the good of the people instead of the whims of the elite. Ronald Reagan was known as the great compromiser and was willing to work with those with whom he could find common ground a majority of the time, realizing that you won’t agree on everything. There are constitutionalists, independents, Libertarians, conservatives, tea party activists (which is less a classic political movement than a frustrated state of mind), and others who are just frustrated, who can all agree on a lot of important issues. We can all fit under the Republican Tent. It is time that we join forces.
It is also time that we educate our children and grandchildren about the important issues, about America’s history, their family history, their religion, and American traditions and culture as well as those of their forefathers. The day we stopped putting America first, stopped teaching common values, stopped taking our kids to church and synagogue, and stopped talking to each other about politics, society and religion, is the day those who hate America and wanted to fundamentally change her took hold. It is time to stand-up and fight for what we believe in, if not for ourselves, for future generations. After all, we didn’t give them the tools to do it for themselves. And, You Cannot Love and Honor What You Don’t Know or Don’t Miss!
And if you are looking for an issue or a place to begin taking a stand… We are in the middle of a huge important battle right now: See Tea Party vs. Progressives on ObamaCare.