What Is the Real Culture War?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

What is the Culture War? Bill O’Reilly of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News is viewed by many as the authority on it. However, as I argue in my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong, O’Reilly is completely mistaken in viewing the Culture War as a battle between so-called traditionalists and secular-progressives. The following is an excerpt from the Introduction of my new book, which is now available on Amazon in both print and Kindle formats:

The concept of a Culture War was first given tangible linguistic form in the guise of the German Kulturkampf. The Kulturkampf was a campaign of totalitarian discrimination waged by Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck against German Catholics circa 1871–1887. Bismarck, displaying the paranoia typical of authoritarian despots, became convinced that Catholicism was a threat to his empire. In order to combat this perceived threat, Bismarck instituted the Kulturkampf (“culture struggle”) against Catholicism by depriving German Catholics of their political voice and by transforming Catholic parochial schools into government-run schools.

The concept of a Culture War entered the realm of American scholarship in 1992 with the publication of Culture Wars: the Struggle to Define America by University of Virginia sociologist James Davidson Hunter. Professor Hunter defines “culture conflict” in the following manner:

I define cultural conflict very simply as political and social hostility rooted in different systems of moral understanding. The end to which these hostilities tend is the domination of one cultural and moral ethos over all others. Let it be clear, the principles and ideals that mark these competing systems of moral understanding are by no means trifling but always have a character of ultimacy to them. They are not merely attitudes that can change on a whim but basic commitments and beliefs that provide a source of identity, purpose, and togetherness for the people who live by them. It is for precisely this reason that political action rooted in these principles and ideals tends to be so passionate.

Professor Hunter more specifically identifies the American Culture War as an intellectual and moral struggle between orthodoxy and progressivism. He defines orthodoxy as the worldview by which there is “commitment on the part of its adherents to an external, definable, and transcendent authority.” This objective and transcendent authority “defines, at least in the abstract, a consistent, unchangeable measure of value, purpose, goodness, and identity, both personal and collective.” This objective and transcendent authority also “tells us what is good, what is true, how we should live, and who we are.” He defines progressivism as the worldview in which “moral authority tends to be defined by the spirit of the modern age, a spirit of rationalism and subjectivism.” Politically, he says, “it nearly goes without saying that those who embrace the orthodox impulse are almost always cultural conservatives, while those who embrace progressivist moral assumptions tend toward a liberal or libertarian social agenda.”

Hunter’s concept of an American Culture War was transformed from an academic concept to a political call to action by Patrick J. Buchanan in his 1992 Address to the Republican National Convention:

Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so to the Buchanan Brigades out there, we have to come home and stand beside George Bush.

In this call to battle to his “Buchanan Brigades” in the Culture War, the paleo-conservative Buchanan rants against “the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women” and against “the raw sewage of pornography that so terribly pollutes our popular culture.” Twelve years later, Buchanan would succinctly characterize the Culture War as “a radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation.”

Several months after Buchanan’s famous speech, Fox News pundit and blowhard Bill O’Reilly, host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” “reinvented” Hunter and Buchanan’s concept of the Culture War. He castigated the network television news departments for their “core liberal philosophies” and accused them of not serving “traditional and conservative Americans”:

There is no question that the daily headline service provided by the big three networks is valuable. But it is a random, often timid, reportage. The intense culture war in America is often ignored or presented in a one-sided manner. Even network news supporters would have to admit that the presentations are extremely politically correct. For example, the joke in the industry is that the only time you hear a pro-life point of view is when some nut blows up an abortion clinic.

O’Reilly, former joke writer for “Uncle Ted’s Ghoul School”—a 1970s late night B-movie horror show on a local station in Scranton, Pennsylvania—and former host of trashy tabloid news show “Inside Edition,” ran with this borrowed idea and published the book Culture Warrior in 2006. Rebranding the adherents of Hunter’s orthodoxy as traditionalists and adherents of Hunter’s progressivism as secular-progressives, O’Reilly attempts to make the case that secular-progressives—or SPs as O’Reilly likes to “opine”—are destroying the very fabric of the United States and that traditionalists must unite and rally to defeat them. However, O’Reilly’s SPs are bogeymen that do not actually exist. O’Reilly simply lumps all those which he wishes to vilify—progressives, socialists, secularists, civil libertarians, etc.—into one straw man under a unified banner. In reality those under this SP banner are as likely to be in opposition to one another as they are to be fellow travelers. With the bully pulpit of his popular television program “The O’Reilly Factor,” he was able to popularize the notion of a Culture War in a way that Hunter and Buchanan were not.

O’Reilly—following Hunter and Buchanan—is correct in stating that there is a Culture War raging in the United States. However, he does not dig deeply enough. The Real Culture War has been raging for thousands of years. It is probably as old as human civilization itself. The Real Culture War pits individualism versus collectivism. Individualism is the view that the basic metaphysical unit of social analysis is the individual. Individualism states that human beings have intrinsic value and possess the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. This view was held by the Founding Fathers. Collectivism is the view that the basic metaphysical unit of social analysis is the collective—society. Collectivism states that human beings only have value in virtue of their relationship to the collective. This view was held by Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as well as American leaders Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Such collectivist dictators historically view themselves as being “Philosopher-Kings” (PKs) in the Platonist mould. However, unlike Plato’s model of enlightened leadership by which leaders must possess esoteric knowledge, these PKs are nothing but tyrants who wish to exempt themselves from the totalitarian collectivism that they seek to force upon the people. It is these PKs and their minions—and not SPs—that are the true enemy of freedom.

In characterizing the Culture War as a struggle between traditionalists and SPs, O’Reilly oversimplifies the battle. Ultimately, traditionalism and secular-progressivism—at least the coherent progressivist elements of it—are two forms of collectivism. His account of the Culture War is akin to writing a book about World War II and describing it as a battle between fascism and communism by conveniently ignoring the important role that democratic nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom played in the war. In effect, O’Reilly blindly ignores one side of the conflict and instead focuses entirely on an internal battle being waged within one side of the war.

In what follows, Bill O’Reilly’s conception of the Culture War will be analyzed and critiqued. It will be argued that he gets the concept of the Culture War totally wrong. The true parameters of the Real Culture War—historical and intellectual battle lines between individualism and collectivism—will be presented in detail. The intellectual foundations of individualism and collectivism will be examined, and it will be argued that individualism is the superior worldview because individualism leads to peace, prosperity, and freedom whereas collectivism invariably leads to war, poverty, and tyranny. First, specific formulations of collectivism—communism, fascism/Nazism, progressivism, environmentalism, neoconservatism, racism, religionism, corporatism, and labor unionism—will be fully exposed and critiqued. Next, an alternate conception of the individual state will be developed and defended while building the night-watchman state from first principles. Finally, modern threats to individualism within the United States will be described in detail, and a plan of action for what individualists can do to win the Real Culture War will be recapitulated.

(More details about The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong can be found at my website.)

Individualism, Collectivism, and News

by Gerard Emershaw

Bill Maher, host of HBO's “Real Time,” recently ranted about how the individualized nature of the internet and of modern culture in general has caused Americans to lose their sense of commonality. According to Maher, “as a culture, we don't have enough in common anymore.” Maher explains:

And that's because the Internet, which was supposed to unite the world, has become too adept at serving us personalized content. Do you know what I saw on Yahoo's front page this morning? No, you don't, because mine isn't the same as yours. People get news feed now that just spit back customized stories based on what we've clicked on in the past. So I for example, might see a lot of stories about -- pot, American history and, of course, Christian mingle. Whereas Ted Nugent just gets ads for Prozac and bullets.

Maher goes on to attack a new Facebook app called 'Paper,' which is a personalized online paper:

And boy, does it make you stupider. 'Paper' tracks the news you're interested in and gives you more of that and less of everything else, never burdening you with contradictory information or telling you anything new. That's what makes it 'news.' But only seeing the stuff that already confirms the opinions you already have isn't news—it's Fox News. The reason so many Americans, for example, think climate change is a hoax is that their only source for science news is Glenn Beck, Fox and Matt Drudge, the cracker trifecta.

Newspapers may be old-fashioned, but here's what we're losing if you never see one; they are trying to tell you what's actually important, not just what's important to you. You may not read the whole paper but you at least see headlines, making you aware that something's going on outside of your micro-targeted world of fashion or music or wiccans or zombies or whatever you're in to.

Maher, the progressive firebrand, demonstrates the typical collectivist notion that human beings are not capable of making important decisions on their own. Not the masses at least. Elites like Bill Maher are perfectly capable of determining on their own what is important. Presumably Bill Maher believes that he is capable of deciding what news stories are important to cover on “Real Time.” What makes him so special? Why can he decide yet the vast majority of his fellow Americans are stupid and need a newspaper owned by some mainstream corporatist entity—presumably a progressive newspaper such as The New York Times.

It is obvious that Maher believes that the stupid American masses—especially stupid Americans who dare think for themselves rather than accept progressive dogmas—must be spoon-fed what he perceives to be “the truth.” His climate change example is instructive here. Despite evidence that climate change is debatable at best and dubious at worst, Maher insists that all Americans should be indoctrinated with climate change hysteria.

If the individual is not capable of deciding how he or she wishes to have news content customized, then who should decide? What makes Maher qualified to decide instead of Beck, Drudge, or Fox? But really, what makes any of them qualified to make such a decision?

The individual is the best judge of what news content he or she wishes to read. In some cases this may lead to a biased diet of news content and opinion that narrowly fits one's political leanings. However, human beings possess a natural right to liberty, and this means that there is a right to be narrow-minded.

The loss of commonality in American culture is not due to the internet providing the opportunity for individualized news or entertainment. Such customization should lead to a greater richness in which individuals have a greater diversity to share with others. The true division in contemporary American society is due to the elites who control special interests—political parties, corporations, unions, PACs, etc.—attempting to divide and conquer the American public. Such entities can only gain power over the people if the people are brainwashed into believing their preferred dogmas. Rival collectivist entities set the American people against each other, creating division. The mainstream collectivist powers that be would prefer that they were the only players in the news arena. Alternative news sources threaten the typical collectivist right-left paradigm and threaten to break the stranglehold that these mainstream sources and their corporatist puppet masters have over what is perceived as “reality.”

Art and Freedom

by Gerard Emershaw

"Poppies Forever" ©2013 Stephanie Lynne Schmidt

 

On May 10, 1933, university students in Nazi Germany burned over 25,000 volumes of “un-German” books. The Nazis did not just ban and burn books. The totalitarian regime banned countless art forms and sent many artists to concentration camps:

The designation “Entartete Kunst” or “Degenerate Art” was applied to virtually all modern art including abstract art and a-tonal music, to all works produced by Jewish artists (living or dead), to contemporary American popular art, to art that was thought to undermine German or Aryan cultural ideals, to art that did not support the war effort. In addition to a large number of Jewish musicians, painters, writers, and others imprisoned in the camps, some of the most universally-loved and greatest works of art by Jewish artists were banned.

The Soviet Union likewise engaged in pervasive censorship of art. Pornographic images were banned and historical photographs that proved embarrassing to the regime were censored by having individuals “disappeared.” For example, “enemies of the state” such as Trotsky were removed from photographs. The Soviet government also strictly censored printed matter, film, radio, and television. Art forms such as Impressionism and Cubism were censored because they were viewed as “decadent” and “bourgeois” Classical music with themes not approved by the government was banned as was jazz and avant garde music. Rock music was banned. During the height of Beatlemania, not only were Beatles records banned in the Soviet Union, but electric guitars were as well. The Soviet regime mandated and promoted “Socialist realism” across the arts. This was propagandistic art which glorified the working classes and delivered the political doctrine of communism.

Despots have always feared and loathed art. The rise of highly technological totalitarian regimes in the 20th century allowed dictators to widely censor art as never before. Plato can be viewed as the intellectual architect of totalitarianism. His Republic is one of the earliest and most chilling blueprints for a totalitarian collectivist society. Plato viewed what we call reality as nothing but a copy of the true underlying reality of the Forms. For Plato art in all its varieties was nothing but a copy of a copy of true reality. Such a perversion of reality was seen as a dangerous and corrupting force. Because of this metaphysical dogma, Plato advocated censorship of art and the banning of most representational art—whether literary, dramatic, sculptural, painted, or musical.

What is it about art in all its forms that is seen as so dangerous to statist collectivist dictators? Overt political writings with messages that threaten the dogmas of the regime are obviously forms of art that totalitarian governments would seek to censor. However, much of what was targeted by the Nazis and Soviets had nothing to do with politics. For example, a recording of a jazz instrumental or a Cubist painting pose no obvious threat to the doctrines of fascism or Marxism. The answer is that the Nazis and Soviets understood that the true threat of art is the freedom of thought that its production and enjoyment encourage and unleash.

Staring at an empty canvas, a blank page, a blinking cursor on an empty computer screen, an unformed lump of clay, a blank sheet of staff paper, a block of wood, or any collection of raw materials, the artist (or artisan or craftsman) enjoys the kind of complete and utter freedom that would typically be reserved to gods. While all forms of art typically involve materials and tools, in an important sense all artistic endeavor is a form of creation ex nihilo. From his or her mind, the artist brings life. In the imagination, anything is possible, and when one realizes that anything is possible in the mind, soon one realizes that anything is possible in the world. When artists and art lovers viscerally feel that anything is possible, they are no longer so willing to accept things the way that they are. A disdain for an oppressive status quo and a desire for change are always the twin enemies of despotism.

Art is deeply connected with what it is to be human. Art is connected with thoughts, emotions, sensations, memories, concepts, morality, and memes in countless ways. Artistic expression and experience connects each of these components of human experience to one other and to the world in infinite ways. When such human horizons are continually broadened through creativity, human beings become more human and less prone to being transformed into collectivized automatons. Even slaves cannot fully be enslaved as long as they can be intellectually and spiritually free through art. The spirituals sung by American slaves prior to emancipation shows how the cruel masters could control the body but could not control the spirit.  

The artistic process is inevitably an expression of deep individualism. It becomes nearly impossible for any true artist to be collectivized. A musician playing even the most familiar tune will ultimately end up breathing new and individualized life into the piece. Consider Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the 1969 Woodstock festival or John Coltrane’s 1961 version of “My Favorite Things.” Put simply, art opens up a Pandora’s Box of individualism. George Orwell understood this when writing his novel Nineteen Eight-Four. In that novel, Oceanian “art” was produced by machines called versificators. These machines produced mindless novels, magazines, tunes, and movies. In order to dehumanize and collectivize the people completely, it would be necessary to take humanity out of art. Even if it were possible for computers to write novels, films, songs, etc. and to produce paintings, sculptures, crafts, etc., the works which these machines would produce—even if they resembled the work of human hacks—would only inspire human beings to create their own art. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression become nearly impossible for even the most despotic governments to completely thwart and artistic expression proves to be the most immortal form of free speech.

Art promotes freedom. This is true even in the economic sphere. Consider all of the industries which have collapses in the United States. Even the once mighty automotive industry had to seek a bailout during the current recession. Despite the economic collapse, industries tied into the arts did not require bailouts. American movies, television shows, music, video games, and books remain among the nation’s most lucrative domestic industries as well as most lucrative exports. While the economic downturn had a negative effect on many art museums and forced some to sell works of art in order to remain open, widespread closures of museums did not occur, and wonderfully creative new works continue to be produced each day.

Some may lament that turning art completely into a commodity has somehow cheapened it. Others may lament that capitalism has led to the popularization of loud, dumb movies, silly reality television shows, violent video games, pulp “beach” novels, mindless pop music, and crass paintings and sculptures. However, the truth is that the cream often rises to the top in the worlds of art and pop culture. The work that is most critically acclaimed often becomes popular. When acclaimed work does not become popular, more often than not, it nevertheless becomes profitable. Even when it does not, the success of the entertainment industry as a whole has caused entertainment corporations to seek to satisfy tastes of all kinds in all sorts of niches. As a result, fans of all forms of art and all genres within each form are more likely to have access to art that inspires them. Modern technologies such as the internet have allowed art to become even more widely accessible to more and more people.  

Some may complain that Americans are far too entertained and that the amount of entertainment that they seek through the arts becomes akin to Roman bread and circuses. While at times Americans ignore important events which are occurring in the world because of entertainment induced myopia, overall the effect of art is positive. Many artists use the arts in order to educate and inform. The entertainment industries produce wealth and create opportunity and jobs. Most importantly, art makes human beings more human, and true human beings are difficult if not impossible to fully dehumanize.