Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

The Rise of Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Staff

By Angelo M. Codevilla

 

Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”

“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.”

 

 

The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself. Because all progressives, Communists included, claim to be about creating new human realities, they are perpetually at war against nature’s laws and limits. But since reality does not yield, progressives end up pretending that they themselves embody those new realities. Hence, any progressive movement’s nominal goal eventually ends up being subordinated to the urgent, all-important question of the movement’s own power. Because that power is insecure as long as others are able to question the truth of what the progressives say about themselves and the world, progressive movements end up struggling not so much to create the promised new realities as to force people to speak and act as if these were real: as if what is correct politically—i.e., what thoughts serve the party’s interest—were correct factually.

 

Communist states furnish only the most prominent examples of such attempted groupthink. Progressive parties everywhere have sought to monopolize educational and cultural institutions in order to force those under their thumbs to sing their tunes or to shut up. But having brought about the opposite of the prosperity, health, wisdom, or happiness that their ideology advertised, they have been unable to force folks to ignore the gap between political correctness and reality.

 

Especially since the Soviet Empire’s implosion, leftists have argued that Communism failed to create utopia not because of any shortage of military or economic power but rather because it could not overcome this gap. Is the lesson for today’s progressives, therefore, to push P.C. even harder, to place even harsher penalties on dissenters? Many of today’s more discerning European and American progressives, in possession of government’s and society’s commanding heights, knowing that they cannot wield Soviet-style repression and yet intent on beating down increasing popular resistance to their projects, look for another approach to crushing cultural resistance. Increasingly they cite the name of Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), a brilliant Communist theoretician for whom “cultural hegemony” is the very purpose of the struggle as well as its principal instrument. His writings envisage a totalitarianism that eliminates the very possibility of cultural resistance to progressivism. But owing more to Machiavelli than to Marx or Lenin, they are more than a little complex about the means and are far from identical with the raw sort of power over culture enforced by the Soviet Empire or, for that matter, that is rife among us today.

 

My purpose here is to explain how progressives have understood and conducted their cultural war from the days of Lenin, and how Gramsci’s own ambiguous writings illustrate the choices they face in conducting that war in our time and circumstances—especially with regard to political correctness in our present culture war.

 

Culture Wars

 

Every form of progressivism bases itself on the claim of a special, “scientific,” knowledge of what is wrong with humanity and how to fix it. The formula is straightforward: the world is not as it should be because society’s basic, “structural” feature is ordered badly. Everything else is “superstructural,” meaning that it merely reflects society’s fundamental feature. For Marx and his followers that feature is conflict over the means of production in “present-day society.” From the dawn of time, this class warfare has led to “contradictions”: between types of work, town and country, oppressors or oppressed, and so on. The proletariat’s victory in that conflict will establish a new reality by crushing all contradictions out of existence. Other branches of progressivism point to a different structural problem. For Freudians it’s sexual maladjustment, for followers of Rousseau it’s social constraint, for positivists it is the insufficient application of scientific method, for others it is oppression of one race by another. Once control of society passes exclusively into the hands of the proper set of progressives, each sect’s contradictions must disappear as the basic structural problem is straightened out.

 

But wherever progressives have gained power, all manner of contradictions have remained and new ones have arisen. Progressive movements have reacted to this failure by becoming their own reason for being. Theoretically, the Revolution is about the power and necessity to recreate mankind. In practice, for almost all progressive movements it is about gaining power for the revolutionaries and making war on those who stand in their way. For example, transcending private property, the division of labor, and political oppression was never Marxism-Leninism’s core motive any more than worker/peasant proletarians were ever its core protagonists. In fact, Communism is an ideology by, of, and for ideologues, that ends up empowering and celebrating those very ideologues. This is as true of progressivism’s other branches as it is of Marxism.

 

Lenin’s seminal contribution was explicitly to recognize the revolutionary party’s paramount primacy, and to turn the party’s power and prestige from a means to revolution into the Revolution’s candid end. Lenin’s writings, like Marx’s, contain no positive description of future economic arrangements. The Soviet economy, for all its inefficiencies, functioned with Swiss precision as an engine of privilege for some and of murderous deprivation for others. The Communist Party had transcended communism. The key to understanding what progressive parties in power do is the insight, emphasized by “elite theorists” like Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, that any organization’s practical objectives turn out to be what serves the interests and proclivities of its leaders.

 

What serves progressive revolutionaries’ interests is not in doubt. Although each of progressivism’s branches differs in how it defines society’s “structural” fault, in its own name for the human reality that it seeks to overcome, and in the means by which to achieve its ends, progressives from the 19th century to our time are well nigh identical in their personal predilections—in what and whom they hate even more than in what they love. They see the culture of what Marxists call “bourgeois morality” as the negation of their identity and authority. That identity, their identity, is to be promoted, endlessly, by endless warfare against that culture. That is why the cultural campaigns of otherwise dissimilar progressives have been so similar. Leninist Russia no less than various Western democrats have tried to eradicate religion, to make it difficult for men, women, and children to exist as families, and to demand that their subjects join them in celebrating the new order that reflects their identity. Note well: cultural warfare’s substantive goal is less important than the affirmation of the warriors’ own identity. This is what explains the animus with which progressives have waged their culture wars.

 

Yet, notwithstanding progressivism’s premise that individual minds merely reflect society’s basic structure and hence are incapable of reasoning independently about true and false, better and worse, reality forces progressives to admit that individuals often choose how they think or act despite lacking the “structural” basis for doing so, or that they act contrary to the economic, social, or racial “classes” into which progressive theories divide mankind. They call this freedom of the human mind “false consciousness.”

 

Fighting against false consciousness is one reason why Communists and other progressives end up treating cultural matters supposedly “superstructural” as if they were structural and basic. They do so by pressuring people constantly to validate progressivism’s theories, to concelebrate victories over those on the “wrong” side of history by exerting control over who says what to whom.

 

The Soviet Model

 

The Soviet regime aimed at the forcible transcendence of “bourgeois culture” by using its totalitarian power to the maximum. By destroying nearly all churches, killing nearly all priests, punishing even the hint of dissent, as well as by making rejection of bourgeois culture a condition for ascending to the ruling class, it succeeded in pushing the old culture to near-destruction. But, rather than establishing a new and better culture, much less the final and best, this step turned out instead to destroy the very basis of Soviet power.

 

Progressive regimes demand that persons who express themselves in public (even in private) affirm any and all things that pertain to the regime’s identity lest they lose access to jobs or privileges, and be exposed to the shunning or ire of regime supporters—if not treated as criminals. But even totalitarian regimes can reward or punish only a few people at a time. Tacit collaboration by millions who bite their lip is even more essential than lip service by thousands of favor seekers. Hence, to stimulate at least passive cooperation, the party strives to give the impression that “everybody” is already on its side.

 

But why then did the Communist Party always spare a few churches? Why report criticisms of itself from abroad? Why, from time to time, did the party publicize dissidents from its ranks? Whenever the party would mount a campaign on behalf of one of its cultural-political causes, it would designate a few persons to personify the opposition, and direct all socially acceptable organs and spokespersons to unload their worst upon them. Why, from the Soviet Union to China to Cuba, would the party school its young cadres by taking them to observe and mock church services attended by poor, old, socially repulsive outcasts? In part, because each smiting of cultural enemies reinforced the cadre’s identity. It made them feel better about themselves, and more powerful. Had there been no remnants of the old society, or dissidents, the party might have manufactured them.

 

But continued efforts to force people to celebrate the party’s ersatz reality, to affirm things that they know are not true and to deny others they know to be true—to live by lies—requires breaking them, reducing them to a sense of fearful isolation, destroying their self-esteem and their capacity to trust others. George Orwell’s novel 1984 dramatized this culture war’s ends and means: nothing less than the substitution of the party’s authority for the reality conveyed by human senses and reason. Big Brother’s agent, having berated the hapless Winston for preferring his own views to society’s dictates, finished breaking his spirit by holding up four fingers and demanding that Winston acknowledge seeing five.

 

Thus did the Soviet regime create dysfunctional, cynical, and resentful subjects. Because Communism confused destruction of “bourgeois culture” with cultural conquest, it won all the cultural battles while losing its culture war long before it collapsed politically. As Communists identified themselves in people’s minds with falsehood and fraud, people came to identify truth with anything other than the officials and their doctrines. Inevitably, they also identified them with corruption and privation. And so it was that, whenever the authorities announced that the harvest had been good, the people hoarded potatoes; and that more and more people who knew nothing of Christianity except that the authorities had anathematized it, started wearing crosses.

 

The Road Not Taken

 

Few progressives have been humble enough to understand the Soviet experience and hence to search for a better path to replacing “bourgeois” culture with their own. Antonio Gramsci blazed such a trail, but, given its ambiguities, progressives have followed it in very different directions.

 

Gramsci started from mixed philosophical premises. First, orthodox Marxism: “There is no such thing as ‘human nature,’ fixed and immutable,” he wrote. Rather, “human nature is the sum of historically determined social relationships.” The modern prince’s job is to change it. Wholly unorthodox, however, was his scorn for Marxism’s insistence that economic factors are fundamental while all else is superstructural. No, “stuff like that is for common folk,” a “little formula” for “half-baked intellectuals who don’t want to work their brains.” For Gramsci, economic relations were just one part of social reality, the chief parts of which were intellectual and moral. He retained Aristotelian roots. For him, physical science is “the reflection of an unchanging reality” in which “teleology” and “final causality” exist. But orthodox Marxism and Aristotle come together in what he calls “the dialectic,” the point of which is to create a new reality out of the old.

 

Gramsci co-founded Italy’s Communist Party in 1921. In 1926, Mussolini jailed him. By the time he died eleven years later, he had composed twelve “prison notebooks.” In private correspondence, he criticized Stalin’s literary judgment and deemed his attacks on Leon Trotsky “irresponsible and dangerous.” But publicly, he supported every turn of the Soviet Party line—even giving his party boss, Palmiro Togliatti, authority to modify his writings. Imprisoned and in failing health, he was intellectually freer and physically safer than if he had been exposed to the intra-Communist purges that killed so many of his comrades.

 

Gramsci’s concept of “cultural hegemony” also swung both ways. Its emphasis on transforming the enemy rather than killing him outright was at odds with the Communist Party’s brute-force approach. His focus on cultural matters, reversing as it did the standard distinction between structure and superstructure, suggested belief in the mind’s autonomy. On the other hand, the very idea of persuading minds not through reasoning on what is true and false, good and bad, according to nature, but rather by creating a new historical reality, is precisely what he shares with Marx and other progressives—indeed with the fountainhead of modern thought, Niccolò Machiavelli.

 

Gramsci turned to Machiavelli more than to Marx to discover how best to replace the existing order and to secure that replacement. Chapter V of Machiavelli’s The Prince stated that “the only secure way” to control a people who had been accustomed to live under its own laws is to destroy it. But Machiavelli’s objective was to conquer people though their minds, not to destroy them. In Chapter VI of The Prince he wrote that nothing is more difficult than to establish “new modes and orders,” that this requires “persuading” peoples of certain things, that it is necessary “when they no longer believe to make them believe by force,” and that this is especially difficult for “unarmed prophets.” But Machiavelli also wrote that, if such prophets succeed in inculcating a new set of beliefs, they can count on being “powerful, secure, honored and happy.” He clarified this insight in Discourses on Livy Book II, chapter 5: “when it happens that the founders of the new religion speak a different language, the destruction of the old religion is easily effected.” The Machiavellian revolutionary, then, must inculcate new ways of thinking and speaking that amount to a new language. In the Discourse Upon Our Language, Machiavelli had compared using one’s own language to infiltrate the enemy’s thoughts with Rome’s use of its own troops to control allied armies. This is the template that Gramsci superimposed on the problems of the Communist revolution—a template made by one “unarmed prophet” for use by others.

 

Machiavelli is the point of departure in a section of Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks that describes how the party is to rule as “the modern prince.” But the modern prince’s task is so big that it can be undertaken seriously only by a party (in some 50 references he leaves out the word “Communist”), which he defines as “an organism; a complex, collective element of society which has already begun to crystallize as a collective will that has become conscious of itself through action.” This prince, this party, has to be “the organizer and the active expression of moral and intellectual reform...that cannot be tied to an economic program.” Rather, when economic reform grows out of moral and intellectual reform, from “germs of collective will that tend to become universal and total,” then it can become the basis of the secularization of all life and custom.

 

The party-prince accomplishes this by being Jacobin “in the historic and conceptual sense.” Gramsci writes: “that is what Machiavelli meant by reform of the militia, which the Jacobins did in the French Revolution.” The party must gather consensus from each of society’s discrete parts by persuading—inducing—people who had never thought of such things to join in ways of life radically different from their own. The party develops “its organized force” by a “minutely careful, molecular, capillary process manifested in an endless quantity of books and pamphlets, of articles in magazines and newspapers, and by personal debates repeated infinitely and which, in their gigantic altogether, comprise the work out of which arises a collective will with a certain homogeneity.” But note well that the Jacobins used no little coercion to achieve their “nation in arms.”

 

Which is it then for Gramsci? Does the party inspire or perhaps cajole consensus—or does it force it? His answer is ambiguous: “Machiavelli affirms rather clearly that the state is to be run by fixed principles by which virtuous citizens can live secure against arbitrary treatment. Justly, however, Machiavelli reduces all to politics, to the art of governing men, of assuring their permanent consensus.” The matter, he writes, must be regarded from the “‘double perspective’...[that] corresponds to the double nature of Machiavelli’s centaur, beastly and human, of force and consensus, of authority and hegemony...of tactics and strategy.” Indeed that is Machiavelli’s point: whatever it takes.

 

The key to Gramsci’s generalities and subtleties is to be found in his gingerly discussion of the relationship between the party and Christianity. “Although other political parties may no longer exist, there will always exist de facto parties or tendencies...in such parties, cultural matters predominate...hence, political controversies take on cultural forms and, as such, tend to become irresolvable.” Translation: the progressive party-state (the party acting as a government, the government acting as a party) cannot escape the role of authoritative—perhaps forceful—mediator of societal conflicts having to do with cultural matters and must see to it that they are resolved its way.

 

Specifically: as Gramsci was writing, Mussolini’s 1929 Concordat with the Vatican was proving to be his most successful political maneuver. By removing the formal enmity between the Church and the post-French-Revolution state, making Catholicism the state religion and paying its hierarchy, Mussolini had turned Italy’s most pervasive cultural institution from an enemy to a friendly vassal. Thousands of priests and millions of their flock would bend thoughts, words, and deeds to fit the party-state’s definition of good citizenship. Gramsci described the post-Concordat Church as having “become an integral part of the State, of political society monopolized by a certain privileged group that aggregated the Church unto itself the better to sustain its monopoly with the support of that part of civil society represented by the Church.” A morally and intellectually compromised Church in the fascist state’s hands, Mussolini hoped and Gramsci feared, would redefine its teachings and its social presence to fascist specifications. The alternative to this subversion—denigrating and restricting the Church in the name of fascism—would have pushed many Catholics to embrace their doctrine’s fundamentals ever more tightly in opposition to the party. The Concordat was the effective template for the rest of what Mussolini called the corporate state.

 

Gramsci called the same phenomenon a “blocco storico,” historic bloc, that aggregates society’s various sectors under the party-state’s direction. The intellectuals, said Gramsci, are the blocco’s leading element. In any given epoch they weld workers, peasants, the church, and other groups into a unit in which the people live and move and have their being, and from within which it is difficult if not impossible to imagine alternatives. Power, used judiciously, acts on people the way the sun acts on sunflowers. Within this bloc, ideas may retain their names while changing in substance, while a new language grows organically. As Gramsci noted, Machiavelli had argued that language is the key to the mastery of consciousness—a mastery more secure than anything that force alone can achieve. But note that Machiavelli’s metaphors on linguistic warfare all refer to violence. How much force does it take to make this historic bloc cohere and to keep recalcitrants in it? Gramsci’s silence seems to say; “whatever may be needed.” After all, Mussolini used as much as he thought he needed.

 

In sum, Mussolini, not Stalin; forceful seduction, not rape, is Gramsci’s practical advice regarding “cultural hegemony.” He imputes this preference to Machiavelli, who “wants to create new relationships among forces and must occupy himself with that which should be.” But this is not “an arbitrary choice, nor is it merely desire, love with the clouds.” A political man such as Machiavelli is a creator and inciter “who does not create from nothingness, nor does he move in the empty whirl of his desires and dreams. He grounds himself on the effectual truth...a relationship of forces in constant movement and equilibrium.” Gramsci means to replace Western culture by subverting it, by doing what it takes to compel it to redefine itself, rather than by picking fights with it.

 

Gramsci’s Choice

 

The Gramscian vision of hegemony over culture is not a panacea. In practice, today’s progressive intellectuals are in the same fix as Marx, Lenin, or Mussolini: society’s socioeconomic forces are not beating down the doors to join any Gramscian “historic bloc,” any more than “the workers” had rushed to be the Marxist revolution’s battering ram. Today’s progressive intellectuals, deeply engaged in cultural warfare, face the same choices as Lenin or Mussolini: weld together society’s disparate cultural sectors authoritatively and judiciously, or destroy them. The choice is basically between Mussolinian seduction or Leninist rape.

 

This difference in preference is, roughly, what divides continental European Gramscians from Anglo-American ones.

 

By the 1970s, socialist parties in Europe had achieved something like monopolies of political power. But the “working classes” came to resent the cultural preferences that the socialists imposed, in addition to their unsatisfactory government. In our time, socialist parties in Europe poll in the teens or single digits. Some progressive politicians have sought the reason and the remedy for this by reference to Gramsci—primarily to the Mussolinian version of Gramscian politics. The French socialist Gael Brustier in his book, A Demain Gramsci (Bye-Bye Gramsci, 2015) is prototypical.

 

“The Left,” writes Brustier, “is no longer in a position of cultural hegemony” because it lost its grip on “what Gramsci called ‘the common sense,’ the complex of ideas and beliefs that people take for granted.” It lost that grip because it mistook the positions of power that it had conquered for power itself. Hence, while the Left “nourished illusions about itself,” the Right was “winning a vigorous cultural war” by “profiting from collective anguish provoked by decline and loss of class status” among ordinary people. While the Left was winning power, “the Right was winning minds.” Brustier concludes by asking “What is to be done with power in which no one believes any longer?”

 

That slap in his comrades’ faces is factually mistaken only in that it confuses the Right with the de-cultured masses of Europeans who reject the formal or informal “uniparty” coalitions that are the legacy of the Left’s cultural-political hegemony. In fact, as in former Soviet lands, progressive hegemony in Europe produced people who believe in nothing. Nevertheless, these people inhabit a world very different from that in which leftist intellectuals live. Progressives, Brustier warns, must not attribute this cultural difference to “false consciousness.” He recalls that Gramsci taught: “the people are neither blind nor stupid nor slaves.” Gramsci’s whole point, Brustier reminds his comrades, was to lead classes who really are different from the intellectuals to adhere to them. “Therefore, fighting over values is, in itself, a negation of cultural hegemony.” He complains, that his colleagues make themselves feel good by singing “The Internationale.” But by way of answering to the problems of today, they offer only “submission.” Behaving this way is counterproductive.

 

Brustier cites “the disdain in which the Socialist Party has held the Catholic world” as a typical error, spoiling any chance of cultural hegemony. This should have been clear to the Left, he declares, well before a million Frenchmen demonstrated in the streets of Paris against the socialist government’s extension of marriage to homosexuals in 2013 and 2014. By promulgating that law, the Left had insulted “the way in which that world makes sense of its members’ daily experiences.” By calling hundreds of thousands of young people “old bigots,” it made enemies of people who had not been enemies before. What sense does it make, he wonders, to pick fights with people whom we cannot coerce? That law made the socialists feel good. But what did championing it do to advance the socialist revolution? By this Gramscian standard, the law is stupid.

 

But, by that standard, writes Brustier, the American comrades are even more stupid. Following the advice of such as Noam Chomsky, American Leftists had gone so far as to “recognize a number of enemies of ‘the empire’ (the United States) as potential allies...this certainly does not correspond with the feelings of the American people’s majority.” By doing such things, argues Brustier, the U.S. Left is making itself a “political fringe.”

 

American progressive intellectuals, however, see themselves as the soul of the Democratic Party, which is at the head of America’s ruling class. Not yet having experienced the kind of rejection that their European counterparts have, they revel in their success in changing American culture over the past half-century, and look to Gramscian notions of cultural hegemony as confirming their practice of forcing their own cultural identities onto America. The Democratic Party’s constituencies already endorse its intellectuals’ aim not to convince the rest of society, but to subdue it. For them, this is the Revolution. They have chosen the Leninist rather than the Mussolinian alternative.

 

They reason that America’s socio-political order is founded on racism, patriarchy, genocidal imperialism, as well as economic exploitation. Gramsci’s “historic bloc” can come about through the joint pursuit of racial justice, gender justice, economic justice, and anti-imperialism. The Revolution is all about the oppressed classes uniting to inflict upon the oppressors the retribution that each of the oppressed yearns for. This intersubjective community includes the several groups whose identity negates a piece of American culture—religious, racial, sexual, economic. Together, they negate it all.

 

Regardless of what Gramsci wrote or meant about using the party-state’s power over cultural institutions to subvert and transform the rest of society, for the American Left cultural hegemony means using this power to suffocate Judeo-Christian civilization in its several cradles; to allow in public discourse only such thoughts as serve the identity of the party’s constituent groups; and to denigrate, delegitimize, and possibly outlaw all others. In short, it means political correctness as we know it.

 

Political Correctness

 

For most Americans who have heard of Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, it signifies P.C.’s suffocating purpose. But because P.C. consists precisely of what Gramsci condemned as picking fights with the common sense of people whom it cannot wholly control, the American Left’s understanding of cultural hegemony suggests that its culture war will not end as it intends.

 

Beginning in the 1960s, from Boston to Berkeley, the teachers of America’s teachers absorbed and taught a new, CliffsNotes-style sacred history: America was born tainted by Western Civilization’s original sins—racism, sexism, greed, genocide against natives and the environment, all wrapped in religious obscurantism, and on the basis of hypocritical promises of freedom and equality. Secular saints from Herbert Croly and Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama have been redeeming those promises, placing America on the path of greater justice in the face of resistance from the mass of Americans who are racist, sexist, but above all stupid. To consider such persons on the same basis as their betters would be, as President Obama has called it, “false equivalence.”

 

Thus credentialed, molded, and opinionated, a uniform class now presides over nearly all federal, and state, government bureaucracies, over the media, the educational establishment, and major corporations. Like a fraternity, it requires speaking the “in” language signifying that one is on the right side, and joins to bring grief upon “outsider” Americans who run afoul of its members. Video the illegal trafficking in aborted babies’ body parts by government-financed Planned Parenthood, as did David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, and you end up indicted for a felony as the ruling class media tells the world that the video really does not show what it shows.

 

No more than its European counterparts does America’s progressive ruling class offer any vision of truth, goodness, beauty, or advantage to attract the rest of society to itself. Like its European kin, all that American progressivism offers is obedience to the ruling class, enforced by political correctness. Nor is there any endpoint to what is politically correct, any more than there ever was to Communism. Here and now, as everywhere and always, it comes down to glorifying the party and humbling the rest.

 

If cultural hegemony merely meant achieving the progressive ruling class’s near monopoly of America’s cultural institutions, the conflict ended a generation ago: the rulers won. But because the ruling class acts as if the old culture’s recalcitrant remnants merit ever more intensive efforts to crush them, cultural hegemony by P.C. means an endless cycle of insult and resentment, guaranteeing the conflict’s permanence. By contrast, Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony (following Machiavelli), sought a definitive victory: the transformation and synthesis of society’s several cultural strains into something that so transcends them that no one could possibly look backward—e.g., as Christianity obviated the gods of Rome and of the barbarians alike. Most important, Machiavelli, followed by Gramsci, sought cultural hegemony’s seal on power as a means to a greater end: for Machiavelli, that meant political grandeur like that of Rome (or maybe Renaissance Spain). For Gramsci, it meant achieving the Marxist utopia.

 

Why does the American Left demand ever-new P.C. obeisances? In 2012 no one would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S. law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called “homophobia,” subject to fines and near-outlaw status. Not until 2015-16 did it occur to anyone that requiring persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the same pathology. Why had not these become part of the P.C. demands previously? Why is there no canon of P.C. that, once filled, would require no further additions?

 

Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself. Much less is it about creating a definable common culture or achieving some definable good. On the retail level, it is about the American’s ruling class’s felt need to squeeze the last drops of voter participation out of the Democratic Party’s habitual constituencies. On the wholesale level, it is a war on civilization waged to indulge identity politics.

 

How Does This Movie End?

 

The imposition of P.C. has no logical end because feeling better about one’s self by confessing other people’s sins, humiliating and hurting them, is an addictive pleasure the appetite for which grows with each satisfaction. The more fault I find in thee, the holier (or, at least, the trendier) I am than thou. The worse you are, the better I am and the more power I should have over you. America’s ruling class seems to have adopted the view that the rest of America should be treated as inmates in reeducation camps. As Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet argued earlier this year in a blog post, this means not “trying to accommodate the losers, who—remember—defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War.”

 

This vicarious yearning for the power of victors in civil war, however, has nothing to do with Gramsci, never mind with Machiavelli, who thought in terms of subverting the enemies one does not kill, rather than of reveling in breaking their spirit by inflicting indignities. People, he wrote, “are to be caressed or extinguished.” Insulting people who are not permanently disempowered is fun—but of the expensive and dangerous kind, because it engenders at least as much sullenness and revolt as submission.

 

The question that Gael Brustier asked of the French Socialist Party can be asked of America’s ruling class: what do you think you are doing? By demanding ever more insulting conditions of potential allies, you jeopardize a campaign of subversion that is going very well for you. Why issue calls to arms to your enemies?

 

Consider the main enemy: religion. America’s mainline Protestant denominations have long since delivered their (diminishing) flocks to the ruling class’s progressive priorities. Pope Francis advertises his refusal to judge attacks on Western civilization, including the murder of priests. His commitment of the Catholic Church to the building of “a new humanity,” as he put it at July’s World Youth Day in Krakow, opens the Catholic Church to redefining Christianity to progressive missions in progressive terms, a mission already accomplished at Georgetown University, Notre Dame, and other former bastions of American Catholicism now turned into bastions of American progressivism. Evangelical leaders seem eager not to be left behind. Gramsci would have advised that enlisting America’s religious establishments in the service of the ruling class’s larger priorities need not have cost nearly as much as Mussolini paid in 1929. Refraining from frontal challenges to essentials would be enough.

 

Instead, America’s progressives add insult to injury by imposing same-sex marriage, homosexuality, “global warming,” and other fashions because they really have no priorities beyond themselves. America’s progressive rulers, like France’s, act less as politicians gathering support than as conquerors who enjoy punishing captives without worry that the tables may turn.

 

But as the turning point against progressive cultural hegemony came to other lands, it seems to be coming to America as well. Gramsci had written of Machiavelli’s prince and of his own “new prince” that his realm would be one in which all good citizens could feel secure from arbitrariness. But arbitrariness is precisely what our masters of P.C. have fastened onto the American political system.

 

Consider our ruling class’s very latest demand: Americans must agree that someone with a penis can be a woman, while someone else with a vagina can be a man. Complying with such arbitrariness is beyond human capacity. In Orwell’s 1984, as noted, Big Brother’s agent demanded that Winston acknowledge seeing five fingers while he was holding up four. But that is small stuff next to what the U.S. ruling class is demanding of a free people. Because courts and agencies just impose their diktats, without bothering to try to persuade, millions of precisely the kind of citizens who prize stability have become willing to take a wrecking ball to what little remains of the American republic, not caring so much what happens next.

 

It is surprising that, in 2015-16, our ruling class was surprised by Donald Trump. Though he remained obedient to most of P.C.’s specific demands and remained largely a liberal Democrat, it sufficed for him to disdain P.C. in general, and to insult its purveyors, for Trump to become liberalism’s Public Enemy Number One. William Galston’s column in the Wall Street Journal barely begins to get a sense of how his class’s Leninist seizure of America’s culture has miscarried.

[Trump’s] campaign has ruthlessly exposed the illusions of well-educated middle-class professionals—people like me. We believed that changes in law and public norms had gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across partisan and ideological lines....

 

Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole.

The point is not Trump, but the fact that though the ruling class pushed Western civilization aside, it did not replace it with any cultural hegemony in the Gramscian-Machiavellian sense. Rather, by pushing P.C. defined as inflicting indignities, the progressives destroyed the legitimacy of any and all authority, foremost their own.

 

My 2010 article for the American Spectator, “The Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution,” argued that “some two-thirds of Americans—a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents—lack a vehicle in electoral politics.” Resentment of the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes with which the ruling class has permeated American life, along with its cultural war enforced by P.C., meant that “Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled.” I noted: “Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court’s or an official’s unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.”

 

That is because a majority of Americans—realizing that the Constitution and the laws have ceased to protect them from unending injuries to their way of life; aggravated by being insulted as “irredemable” and “deplorable” racists, sexists, etc.; eager for relief and, yes, for payback with interest; knowing that the ruling class is closed to argument from those it considers its inferiors—have no option but to turn the tables in the hope that, suffering the same kind of insulting oppression, the ruling class might learn the value of treating others as they themselves like to be treated. More likely, doing this would be one more turn in the spiral of reprisals typical of revolutions. And yet, there seems no way of avoiding this.

 

What is to be done with a political system in which no one any longer believes? This is a revolutionary question because America’s ruling class largely destroyed, along with its own credibility, the respect for truth, and the culture of restraint that had made the American people unique stewards of freedom and prosperity. Willful masses alienated from civilization turn all too naturally to revolutions’ natural leaders. Donald Trump only foreshadows the implacable men who, Abraham Lincoln warned, belong to the “family of the lion and the tribe of the eagle.”

 

In short, the P.C. “changes in law and public norms” (to quote Galston again) that the ruling class imposed on the rest of America, rather than having “gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across partisan and ideological lines” as the ruling class imagined (and as Gramsci would have approved) have set off a revolution—of which we can be sure only that it won’t be pretty.

 

Source: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=8932

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Gillibrand Makes Her First Political Flip Flop Since Announcing Presidential Run

      By Molly Prince - Gillibrand Makes Her First Political Flip Flop Since Announcing Presidential Run Molly Prince on January 16, 2019 Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand reversed her position on allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses only a day after she announced that she would be seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2020. During her presidential campaign kickoff on Wednesday, Gillibrand told reporters in just outside of Troy, New York that she is now supportive of granting illegal immigrants the ability to procure a drivers’ license, reported the New York Daily News. “I think we have to make it possible for people to provide for their families,” the New York senator said. “We need comprehensive immigration reform.Without doing that, you’re not going to get the problem solved for the rest of the country.” Gillibrand notably expressed her opposition to the proposal in 2007 while she was serving as the congresswoman for New York’s 20th Congressional District, according to The Free Beacon. Instead, she supported legislation requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship prior to obtaining a driver’s license. Gillibrand announced on Tuesday that she is launching an exploratory committee to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. Only months earlier, she pledged prior to her midterm election she would serve her full six-year term if re-elected to the Senate. After she handily won re-election by 33 points in November, she seemingly walked back that pledge. Following Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Gillibrand is the second senator, and second female senator, to declare their plans to begin the legal process of running for president in 2020. Gillibrand’s campaign will likely focus on intersectionality and gender politics as she tries to carve out a niche in a potentially crowded Democratic primary field. She attended a private meeting with roughly 20 feminist leaders on Saturday, including feminist Gloria Steinem, asking for their assistance with her impending presidential run. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Gillibrand Makes Her First Political Flip Flop Since Announcing Presidential Run is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Christian Just Voting For Whichever Political Party Less Likely To Make His Faith Illegal One Day

      CENTERVILLE, FL—Local Christian man Larry Michaels admitted Wednesday that he just votes for whichever political party is less likely to make his faith illegal one day. The post Christian Just Voting For Whichever Political Party Less Likely To Make His Faith Illegal One Day appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • The Signs of Political Idolatry

      by Timothy J. Keller   One of the signs that an object is functioning as an idol is that fear becomes one of the chief characteristics of life. When we center our lives on the idol, we become dependent on it. If our counterfeit god is threatened in any way, our response is complete panic. We do not say, ‘What a shame, how difficult,’ but rather ‘This is the end! There’s no hope!’   This may be a reason why so many people now respond to U.S. political trends in such an extreme way. When either party wins an election, a certain percentage of the losing side talks openly about leaving the country. They become agitated and fearful for the future. They have put the kind of hope in their political leaders and policies that once was reserved for God and the work of the gospel. When their political leaders are out of power, they experience a death. They believe that if their policies and people are not in power, everything will fall apart. They refuse to admit how much agreement they actually have with the other party, and instead focus on the points of disagreement. The points of contention overshadow everything else, and a poisonous environment is created.   Another sign of idolatry in our politics is that opponents are not considered to be simply mistaken but to be evil. After the last presidential election, my eighty-four-year-old mother observed, ‘It used to be that whoever was elected as your president, even if he wasn’t the one you voted for, he was still your president. That doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.’ After each election, there is now a significant number of people who see the incoming president lacking moral legitimacy. The increasing political polarization and bitterness we see in U.S. politics today is a sign that we have made political activism into a form of religion. How does idolatry produce fear and demonization?   Dutch-Canadian philosopher Al Wolters taught that in the biblical view of things, the main problem in life is sin, and the only solution is God and his grace. The alternative to this view is to identify something besides sin as the main problem with the world and something besides God as the main remedy. That demonizes something that is not completely bad, and makes and idol out of something that cannot be the ultimate good.   …In political idolatry, we make a god out of having power.   Source: https://www.monergism.com/signs-political-idolatry

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • Bernie Sanders Accused Of Using Government To Target Company That Ran Political Ad Against Him

      By Molly Prince - The office of Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders is being accused of wielding its political power in order to seek retribution against a Vermont business owner who ran an ad attacking Sanders over his hypocrisy. Rodolphe “Skip” Vallee, the CEO of St. Albans-based gasoline distributor and retailer R.L. Vallee, is alleging that Sanders and his senior press adviser, Daniel McLean, conspired against the business owner by drumming up a class-action lawsuit, according to federal court documents. Vallee, who owns more than 45 gas stations in and around Vermont, produced an anti-Sanders television advertisement that aired locally in September 2014. The advertisement criticized Sanders for lambasting “the rich” over receiving tax breaks and golden parachutes, while his wife Jane Sanders received a $200,000 golden parachute after her involvement in a land deal helped to bankrupt Burlington College while she was president. The Vermont senator’s office called the ad “pathetic” and referred to Vallee as a “junior varsity version of the Koch brothers.” Only a week later, Sanders and McLean allegedly sat down with members of the Vermont attorney general’s office where the duo broached suspicion that Vallee’s company was participating in price-fixing. Assistant Vermont Attorney General Ryan Kriger was one of the officials who met with Bernie Sanders and McLean. His hand recorded notes during the meeting noted that the office of the attorney general should “bring [a] case [against Vallee] just to make a point,” reported Seven Days, an independent Vermont newspaper. It is not clear whether Bernie Sanders or McLean originally made the comment. Following the meeting, McLean sent correspondence to Kriger multiple times inquiring whether or not former Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell would take legal action against Vallee. Sorrell ultimately declined to pursue any legal action, however, just over a year later, two law firms filed a $100 million class-action lawsuit against R.L. Vallee and three other companies alleging anti-competitive practices. In the months following Bernie Sanders and McLeans’ meeting with the AG’s office, and leading up to the filing, McLean corresponded with attorneys at both law firms involved in the lawsuit, some of which was via his personal email account. Vallee subpoenaed McLean in November seeking a deposition and access to thousands of documents from Bernie Sanders’ office. The Vermont senator’s office responded by calling the request a “fishing expedition” and argued that McLean, in his official capacity as a federal employee, could not be subpoenaed. Vallee’s attorneys fired back Thursday claiming that by asserting sovereign immunity “it strains credulity that Mr. McLean’s official duties as a press aide for a United States Senator” included “attempting to persuade the [Federal Trade Commission] or Vermont Attorney General’s Office to bring a public enforcement action against Vermont companies” and “coordinating with Washington, D.C.-based counsel to develop a private, class-action litigation against Vermont constituents (‘just to make a point’).” Vallee has helped to elect Republican politicians by fundraising hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was appointed the position of U.S. ambassador to Slovakia by former President George W. Bush in 2005. Bernie Sanders’ office did not return the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Bernie Sanders Accused Of Using Government To Target Company That Ran Political Ad Against Him is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • President Bush Scrapped Together Political Career Out of Setbacks

      By American Media Institute - By Josh Yasmeh As the nation mourns the death of former President George H.W. Bush many obituaries have focused on the man and his accomplishments. Yet, most of those tributes have overlooked how his iron character was  forged – and how he often came close to political disaster. Bush passed away this past week at the age of 94 – just seven months after the death of wife Barbara and following a lifetime of service to his country. He also has the last elected Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower who wasn’t universally reviled by the opposing party. His valor was evident as a young man when he defied his parents’ wishes and joined the Navy the day he turned 18 to defend his country in World War II. As a combat pilot who carried out many successful missions, during one operation Bush’s plane was shot down once by the Japanese in; he was forced to bail out from his damaged warplane over open ocean and eventually saved by U.S. submarine. His brothers in arms weren’t as lucky, and two crewmen on his plane were never seen again. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Bush would be haunted by the belief that he could have done something, anything to save their lives. Even after leaving office he would symbolically re-enact the jump with commercial parachute jumps. That loss in an otherwise stellar war career was just the beginning of the trials and tribulations he was destined to face during his long career in public service. To shake the ghost of war and emerge from the shadows of his father – Wall Street banker and U.S. Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT) – Bush and his young wife Barbara moved to Texas to chase the American dream of black gold. At his core, Bush was an oil man. And while he could have headed his family’s east coast-based business, comfortably settling into an executive role, he was keen to shake the perception that he was the privileged son of one of America’s wealthiest family. Bush chose to push back against being pigeon-holed and consequently named his oil company Zapata Oil after the Mexican revolutionary and outlaw. Quiet and polished, Bush worked within the structures of his patrician world to leave a legacy that was neither conformist nor entirely radical and defined by resilience in the face of setbacks. In Texas, Bush would experience another crippling loss when his daughter Robin died of leukemia just two months before her fourth birthday. Bush spent many a night comforting his wife as she cried herself to sleep. But it was in these moments of hardship, of unimaginable despair that Bush gained the fortitude necessary to lead his beloved country out of the abyss of the Cold War. He was a product of what psychologists call post-traumatic growth, a man who wasn’t defined by trauma but harnessed the power of grief to propel him forward into the tumultuous world of American politics. Bush’s political career began in 1960 when he won a congressional seat in Texas but, by the end of the decade, it has campaign had appeared to have stalled. Bush became a political pawn of President Nixon who urged him to run against Senator Ralph Yarborough – a strong Nixon critic. Bush lost the election to the popular Yarborough badly (53%-46%). Nixon who had urged Bush to relinquish his congressional seat to run for the senate sheepishly offered him a position as a special assistant to the president in 1970. However, Bush convinced Nixon that he was better suited as ambassador to the United Nations. Nixon came to put great stock in Bush. Eventually, Nixon tapped him to become the U.S. liaison to communist China – the U.S. still did not have formal ties with China then. While serving in China, Bush decided to baptize his daughter Dorothy. She became the first person publicly baptized in the People’s Republic of China since 1949. Holding his baby in his arms, Bush couldn’t help think of the loss of Robin all those years ago. Dorothy would be the Bush’s last child. Sandwiching his service Bush’s service in China (1974-75) was a series of other high profile jobs. These included Ambassador to the United Nations (1971-73); Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973-74) and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1976-77) Perhaps as a result of the influence of his father, Senator Prescott Bush, a genteel senator from Connecticut, Bush was the last moderate Eisenhower Republican not afraid to develop a streak of bipartisanship. He even casually suggested to incoming President Carter that he stay on as CIA chief. After all, the Cold War was at its peak, and the national security establishment felt as though a steady hand was needed at the country’s top intelligence post. But Carter passed on Bush, who soon set his eyes on the presidency. Bush had built a political career by maintaining a Rolodex of 10,000 important individuals and perhaps, more importantly, writing anyone who did him a favor a handwritten thank you. These connections and the establishment Republican view that his main opponent, Ronald Reagan, was too conservative, seemed to position him well for the 1980 primary. Bush’s moderation, however, failed to win him many friends amongst the conservative right who he spent decades wooing. Many conservatives, never fully embraced him despite his aggressive courtship. In the early 1960s, this meant bringing controversial John Birch Society loyalists into the Republican mainstream. In the 1990s, it meant personally carrying the bag of Rush Limbaugh when the conservative radio personality was invited to spend a night at the White House. At times, he picked fights with the free-market wing of the party. While running for president in 1980, he characterized Ronald Reagan’s supply-side  economic views as “Voodoo Economic Policy.” Such statements misjudged the national mood and after winning the Iowa caucus, his campaign fizzled with Bush winning only even states before dropping out in May. His political career seemed over. Ronald Reagan’s first choice for Vice-President was a “dream-ticket” with former President Gerald Ford. When negotiations broke down with Ford at the Republican convention, Bush was Reagan’s last minute choice. Once again, Bush had risen from defeat. The two proved to be a great team. Bush wasn’t the great communicator that Reagan was, but he nobody worked harder to help Reagan develop and carry out his policies. No one was more loyal. He helped elevate the vice presidency, symbolized his weekly, one-on-one lunch with the president.  Bush was the wonk of the Reagan administration, the man who checked his emotions in ways that made him both respected from a policy standpoint but somewhat unrelatable from a public relations perspective. “Win this one for the Gipper,” Reagan told the Republican National Convention in 1988 in reference to Bush. Bush had been called a “wimp” by Newsweek in 1987 but, this was largely a stage-managed act. Anyone who was the former head of the CIA and combat fighter pilot knew how to play hardball and Bush famously decided to “go negative” with the Willie Horton ads. These targeted his opponent, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, as soft on crime after having given furlough to a prisoner who went on to a commit a murder. Indeed, Dukakis’ ineptitude was a boon for Bush. When Dukakis posed in a tank to make himself appear more macho, the Bush campaign was quick to remind people Bush was an actual combat veteran. Powered by Reagan’s success, Bush won a landslide victory in 1988 to become the 41st president of the United States. In doing so, Bush became the first U.S. vice presidential candidate elected directly to the presidency since Martin Van Buren in 1836. As president, Bush put his heart into foreign policy, perhaps more so than domestic politics. He watched as the Berlin Wall fell and Iran ended its in a gory war with Iraq. Though at the time Bush was criticized for failing to publicly display enthusiasm over the collapse of the Soviet Union, historians would later praise his prudence, crediting him with the relatively smooth reunification of Germany. Despite being called a “wimp” by Newsweek in 1987, Bush didn’t hesitate to use American power in Panama, Iraq, and Somalia. “Nobody should starve on Christmas,” Bush said in the closing days of his presidency when he committed some 20,000 U.S. troops to a U.N. mission in Somalia. It was the first large-scale deployment of U.S. troops to Africa since World War II. While subsequent presidents ignored the chaos in the geopolitically important country, President Donald Trump has recently announced the re-opening of the U.S. embassy there and deployed the first regular U.S. combat troops there since the early 1990s. The success of these military operations paved the way for more hubristic applications of American military power by the neoconservatives under his son George W. Bush. “This cannot stand, this aggression against Kuwait,” Bush said in 1990 in an impromptu press conference with reporters on the White House Lawn following Saddam’s occupation of oil-rich Kuwait. Bush hoped his foreign policy accomplishments, most notably his victory in the First Gulf War – the first major American military operation since the Vietnam War – would allow him the galvanize domestic support to pass a tax increase that contradicted his famous “Read My Lips” tax pledge – itself a homage to the film “Dirty Harry.” And though Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker managed to put together a remarkable international coalition to efficiently execute Operation Desert Storm, these victories in the global arena failed to win him adequate backing at home. The 1992 election saw the emergence of Bill Clinton, a young, charming, saxophone playing  Arkansas governor who outshined the older, more austere Bush. Clinton appeared hungrier. He was more ambitious and was ironically seen as the Democratic version of Bush’s old boss, Ronald Reagan. Despite a willingness to defy Republican orthodoxy, he fell short of realizing his long-term ambitions as many “Reagan Democrats” switched to support Clinton in the 1992 election. Riding the coattails of the Reagan presidency into office in 1988, Bush never received America’s full support outside of the shadow of his charismatic predecessor. Adding insult to injury, Ross Perot launched a third-party campaign to challenge Bush – an unorthodox, outsider challenge from a neophyte that would later influence Donald Trump’s presidential run in 2016. Bush admitted that he had trouble with “The vision thing” and never gave voters a clear reason why he should be re-elected. The “Reagan Democrats” switched to support Bill Clinton in the 1992 election in part because the media had portrayed the economy is faltering when in fact GDP grew by 4% that year. Given these dynamics, it perhaps wasn’t all too surprising that Clinton, a relative newcomer to the national stage and a former draft dodger defeated an experienced and established war hero by large margins. Bush won only 37 percent of the vote in the three-way race. It was another tough setback. After leaving office, Bush settled into retirement but was still outspoken about what he saw as incompetence. He was critical of two former associates, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, who helped guide his son’s decision to go to war in Iraq following 9/11. Bush, ironically, may have influenced his son’s decision to fight when it was revealed that Saddam Hussein had launched a plan to assassinate the former president because of the Gulf War. Besides his enduring service to his country, Bush’s greatest accomplishment was his family which he helped turn into a political dynasty. He fathered six children during his 73-year marriage with Barbara, Bush cultivated a political dynasty that continues to steer the course of the country’s fate. His eldest son and most famous son, George W. Bush was elected as president in 2000, narrowly defeating Bill Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, in what appeared to a classic example of poetic justice less than a decade after Bush Sr.’s electoral loss to Clinton. Bush’s second son, John Ellis, known to most as Jeb, lost a primary bid for the Republican presidential nomination to Donald Trump in 2016, but still managed to make his father proud during his long stint as the bilingual Governor of Florida. Like all great figures, Bush will be remembered for victories. But was his response to tragedy and defeat that revealed the true measure of his character. “There are times when the future seems thick as a fog; you sit and wait, hoping the mists will lift and reveal the right path. But this is a time when the future seems a door you can walk right through into a room called tomorrow,” Bush famously said in his inaugural address which might as well explain his political path as well. Source: American Media Institute President Bush Scrapped Together Political Career Out of Setbacks is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.