Debt’s not all folks: Left’s non-stop as­sault on moral­ity

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary -

Over the past 90 years, a re­lent­less cam­paign has un­folded to over­throw Judeo-Chris­tian moral­ity and re­place it with an amoral­ity that says de­sires them­selves val­i­date choices.

This cam­paign has been ad­vanced largely by hi­jack­ing the rubric and moral cap­i­tal of the black civil rights move­ment and mis­ap­ply­ing it to vo­li­tional be­hav­ior. The changes, which move us closer to bar­barism, are en­forced via me­dia that pounce on even the slight­est hes­i­ta­tion to em­brace the new im­moral­ity.

In ear­lier days, peo­ple who op­posed the porni­fi­ca­tion of cul­ture were de­nounced as “prudes” un­til they fi­nally gave up or were se­duced by the dark side. Peo­ple who op­posed abor­tion were falsely ac­cused of want­ing to harm women. And peo­ple who op­posed uni­lat­eral di­vorce were smeared as lack­ing com­pas­sion for those in un­happy unions.

The cur­rent tar­get of this un­holy cam­paign is the per­ver­sion of mar­riage. For the first time, a Repub­li­can-con­trolled state Se­nate cham­ber pro­vided the mar­gin of vic­tory for a state law re­defin­ing mar­riage away from the man-woman re­quire­ment. Soon, there will be no bride needed or no groom for a New York mar­riage li­cense. Mean­while, lib­eral judges all over the coun­try are rul­ing that pref­er­ence for tra­di­tional moral­ity is an­i­mated solely by “hate.”

This rad­i­cal ad­vance is oc­cur­ring partly be­cause of the on­go­ing me­dia pro­pa­ganda that sup­presses any se­ri­ous dis­cus­sion of the con­se­quences of sex­ual dys­func­tion. But it’s also oc­cur­ring be­cause of the eco­nomic drama un­fold­ing in Wash­ing­ton. The left does not waste crises that it pur­pose­fully cre­ates.

Some ma­jor Repub­li­can fig­ures have floated the idea of a “truce” on so­cial is­sues while ex­pand­ing the “big tent” to in­clude the sin lobby. Ac­cord­ing to Web­ster’s, a truce is “a sus­pen­sion of hos­til­i­ties, as be­tween armies, for a spec­i­fied pe­riod, by agree­ment.”

If only one side de­clares a truce while the other side keeps fight­ing, it’s not re­ally a truce, is it? It’s a sur­ren­der. The left is not about to call a truce in the cul­ture war. Sens­ing dis­ar­ray, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has stepped up its at­tacks on the moral or­der even while it runs our econ­omy off a cliff.

Part of the prob­lem is that Tea Party and Repub­li­can lead- ers, in cor­rectly di­ag­nos­ing that Amer­i­cans are ter­ri­fied over the eco­nomic cri­sis, are con­cen­trat­ing on fis­cal is­sues. Fair enough. That’s what’s on ev­ery­one’s mind. But it is not enough, and it’s short­sighted.

A free, self-gov­ern­ing repub­lic can work only if a nation has a self-re­new­ing sup­ply of so­cial cap­i­tal, which comes pri­mar­ily from strong, in­tact mar­riages and fam­i­lies.

Ken Black­well and Ken Klukowski write the fol­low­ing in their new book, “Resur­gent: How Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ser­vatism Can Save Amer­ica: “You can­not stop a decades-long march to­ward a so­cial­ist and au­thor­i­tar­ian state if the fam­ily breaks down. Those who say we need to main­tain a laser fo­cus on gov­ern­ment spend­ing miss the for­est for the trees, or refuse to ac­cept what the Founders em­braced. If we bal­ance the bud­get and rein in gov­ern­ment but do not re­build and pro­tect fam­i­lies, then the pop­u­lar will for gov­ern­ment in­ter­ven­tion will ir­re­sistibly grow over time.”

Sur­veys show the vast ma­jor­ity of Tea Party mem­bers are also so­cially con­ser­va­tive. Yet most ma­jor Tea Party lead­ers have bought the idea that breath­ing a word about Presi- dent Obama’s ti­tanic as­saults on the moral or­der will cost them in­de­pen­dent sup­port. The po­lit­i­cal left has long been at war with sex­ual morals for strate­gic rea­sons. Peo­ple con­di­tioned to think as short-term op­por­tunists in­stead of as mem­bers of the fam­ily tree with longterm moral obli­ga­tions are eas­ier to ma­nip­u­late. Given the false prom­ise of a pain­less fu­ture free from in­di­vid­ual re­spon­si­bil­ity, they are less likely to rec­og­nize, much less op­pose, tres­passes on their lib­erty, such as Oba­macare.

Even­tu­ally, they don’t even no­tice that the Con­sti­tu­tion, which is sup­posed to be a check on gov­ern­ment, has turned into a blank check for statists. Can you imag­ine an ear­lier gen­er­a­tion of Amer­i­cans nod­ding meekly while the gov­ern­ment, un­der threat of force, dic­tates that they can buy only poi­soned light bulbs?

In his 1884 opus “Ori­gin of the Fam­ily, Pri­vate Prop­erty and the State,” Karl Marx’s coau­thor, Friedrich En­gels, ar­gued for “free love” as a byprod­uct of the ad­vance of com­mu­nism: “With the trans­fer of the means of pro­duc­tion into com­mon own­er­ship, the sin­gle fam­ily ceases to be the eco­nomic unit of so­ci­ety. The care and ed­u­ca­tion of the chil­dren be­comes a pub­lic af­fair; so­ci­ety looks af­ter all chil­dren alike, whether they are le­git­i­mate or not. This re­moves all the anx­i­ety about the ‘con­se­quences.’ Will not that suf­fice to bring about the grad­ual growth of un­con­strained sex­ual in­ter­course and with it a more tol­er­ant pub­lic opin­ion?” Who knew that a com­mie philoso­pher like En­gels prob­a­bly could make a liv­ing to­day as a “Sex and the City” scriptwriter?

It’s not too late to save what’s left of mar­riage and to re­order pub­lic poli­cies to strengthen rather than cor­rode the sanc­tity of the home. There are ef­forts un­der way in sev­eral states to pass con­sti­tu­tional mar­riage amend­ments, adding to the 30 that al­ready have them. The abor­tion in­dus­try is los­ing pub­lic sup­port. And many young peo­ple are dis­cov­er­ing that the hookup cul­ture is a dead end.

A great reser­voir of sen­ti­ment for the per­ma­nent things is wait­ing to be tapped. What’s needed first is moral lead­er­ship from those who pur­port to be lead­ers.

Robert Knight is se­nior fel­low for the Amer­i­can Civil Rights Union and a colum­nist for The Wash­ing­ton Times.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.