Who Has Really Lost the Real Culture War?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Bill Scher has recently published a piece “How Republicans Lost the Culture War” on Politico. Scher claims that Republicans surrendered in the Culture War following “several capitulations and recalibrations by Republicans on other social issues.” Scher cites abortion, birth control, and gay marriage as the battles that Republicans lost which culminated in their alleged defeat in the Culture War.

Evidence that Scher is confused about the true scope and nature of the Culture War is found where he accepts Patrick J. Buchanan’s definition of the Culture War from his famous speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention:

When Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, Republicans lost the opening battle in the culture war, at least as defined by Buchanan in the summer of 1992: “In that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side.”

The Real Culture War did not begin in 1992. It had been raging long before Bill Clinton hit the political scene. In fact, the Real Culture War has been raging since perhaps the beginning of civilization. In my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong, I explain that the Real Culture War is not a recently begun American battle between conservatives and liberals on a handful of social issues. The Real Culture War is an ancient and ongoing struggle between Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism is the view that the most basic unit of metaphysical analysis is the individual human being whereas Collectivism is the view that the most basic unit is collective society. Individualism stands for the proposition that all human beings possess inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, and property whereas Collectivism holds that rights are created and bestowed by government. Neither the political right nor the left in American politics holds a monopoly on Collectivism. Collectivist views have been espoused all over the political spectrum by those who worship state power and believe that human beings only have value as part of the state, society, etc. Collectivism has included a wide array of political ideologies— communism, fascism/Nazism, progressivism, environmentalism, neoconservatism, racism, religionism, corporatism, labor unionism, etc.

Issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and contraception were merely minor skirmishes in the Real Culture War. Republicans have “won” the majority of the battles in the Real Culture War. Oddly, so have the Democrats. This is because both mainstream American political parties are Collectivist, and Collectivism has been winning the most recent battles in this ancient universal struggle. The neoconservative philosophy which dominates the Republican Party and the neo-progressive philosophy which dominates the Democratic Party are both extreme forms of Collectivism with great similarities to communism and fascism.

Collectivists believe in despotic police states, and both the neoconservatives and neo-progressives have supported the PATRIOT Act, the NSA domestic spying dragnet, the NDAA, the War on Drugs, etc. Collectivists also believe in Orwellian continuous war which allows them to increase the power of the state both internationally and domestically. The War on Terror has spread its tentacles to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. Leno Panetta has recently stated in regards to the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that Americans should prepare themselves for 30 years of war. The United States has already been at war for 13 years, and there is no end in sight. Even more alarmingly, the Constitution no longer seems to apply. Congress no longer declares war. Instead, the Imperial President unilaterally wages war like a Caesar. Collectivists also believe in central control of the economy, and the American economy is increasingly regulated by government. Both Republicans and Democrats believe in corporatism. It’s simply a matter of each party having a slightly different roster of corporate cronies.

Mainstream Republicans are not losing the Real Culture War. Neither are the Democrats. These two parties are two wings of the same Collectivist warfare/welfare party. It is individual Americans who are losing. But, it is also individual Americans who have it in their power to stand up, fight back, and win the Real Culture War.

(For a much more detailed discussion of Individualism, Collectivism, and the Real Culture War, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

 

Is the “Umbrella Revolution” Bad for Hong Kong?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Hong Kong’s current “Umbrella Revolution” is a vibrant protest movement led by young people who are demanding more political freedom. The movement was begun by a group called Occupy Central With Love & Peace, which is led by Hong Kong University law professor Benny Tai. The movement earned its nickname in honor of the umbrellas that its members carry as a way of repelling pepper spray that government officers have employed against protesters. What the members of the “Umbrella Revolution” want is democracy. They seek the ability to nominate and directly elect the leader of Hong Kong—known as the Chief Executive. As it currently stands, candidates for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive must be vetted by a group of “tycoons, oligarchs and pro-Beijing figures.”

It seems inevitable that the “Umbrella Movement” will be put down by Beijing. There are frightening indications that China may declare martial law in Hong Kong and use the military to crush the protest movement. If history is any indication, the “Umbrella Movement” may be ended in a violent manner as were the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Hong Kong’s current Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying justifies the practice of collectivist oligarchs choosing Hong Kong’s leaders. He argues that the democratic reform proposed by the “Umbrella Movement” is unacceptable because it would give poorer residents a dominant voice in politics. Leung claims that the current anti-democratic political process in Hong Kong will “insulate Hong Kong’s next chief executive from popular pressure to create a welfare state and allow the government to implement more business-friendly policies to address economic inequality.”

Does Leung’s point have any validity at all? John Adams coined the phrase “tyranny of the majority,” which Alexis de Tocqueville later popularized in his book Democracy in America. The genius of the American form of Constitutional Republic is that it prevents tyranny of the majority by which 51% of voters would have the power to do whatever they wished to the remaining 49%. It has often been said: “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” Would poor Hong Kong citizens inevitably force their elected leaders to turn the famously free market city into a welfare state?

The interesting thing is that there is a tension between Hong Kong’s free market economics and Beijing’s totalitarianism. Creating a collectivist welfare state in which a large percentage of the population is dependent on the central government for bread and circuses is one of the most efficient ways to ensure that the government will retain and increase its power. Hong Kong’s free market economic policies are likely to eventually further increase affluence and create a populace that is less dependent on government, and hence less afraid to stand up to it.

Tyranny of the majority and the populist desire of the poor for a welfare state are only dangers when there is not a Constitution that protects the nation from such things. The American welfare state was not created until the Supreme Court stopped enforcing the letter of the Constitution. Fear of economic tyranny of the impoverished majority is not a valid excuse for Hong Kong to deny its citizens democratic reform. Leung is defending one form of Collectivism in which a group of corporatist and governmental “philosopher-kings” dominate the people. The bogeyman that Leung fearmongers against is a communist one in which a 21st century Marxist “philosopher-king” version of Mao and his or her cronies will dominate the people in the name of the people. What Hong Kong needs to do is defend free markets and the economic rule of law while granting even greater democratic reforms and social freedoms to its people. Freedom and the fair enforcement of the rule of law in defense of natural rights to life, liberty, and property is the recipe for affluence. Oligarchy will always eventually stifle wealth and impoverish the people as it did in China and North Korea.

(For a much more detailed discussion of how Individualism and freedom lead to affluence while Collectivism leads to poverty, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

On the California Plastic Bag Ban

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

In California, Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Senate Bill 270 into law. This new law bans single-use plastic bags at California grocery stores and the like. The law gives customers a choice: “Purchase a reusable bag, or pay at least 10 cents for a paper bag or a multiuse plastic carrier that meets a set of state durability standards.” This is not a new concept in California. Over 100 California municipalities had already enacted similar bans on single-use plastic bags based on the conclusion that “the amount of waste generated by plastic bags outweighs the convenience.” Immediately following the enactment of this new California law, an industry group called the American Progressive Bag Alliance vowed to collect enough signatures to place a referendum on the 2016 ballot to overturn this ban.

Is this latest California Nanny State law really necessary? Are single-use plastic bags overrunning California and threatening to despoil the natural beauty of the Golden State? Clemson Professor Daniel K. Benjamin has pointed out that garbage dumps do not take up a large amount of land in the United States: “Ted Turner’s Flying D ranch outside Bozeman, Montana, could handle all of America’s trash for the next century—with 50,000 acres left over for his bison.” The real problem, if there is one, is simply a matter of litter. If these single-use plastic bags are winding up on the ground, government simply needs to enforce laws against littering. With all of the actual social and economic problems facing California, banning single-use plastic bags appear to be a solution in search of a problem.

Who will benefit from this new law? Manufacturers of reusable bags and state-approved multiuse plastic carriers for one. State bureaucrats, who will now have more tax money to award to their cronies or use curtailing the liberties of Californians, for another.

Who will be hurt most? Manufacturers of single-use plastic bags will be harmed. However, more egregiously, poor consumers will be harmed. Forcing the less affluent to purchase reusable shopping bags or pay a tax of at least 10 cents for each paper bag is yet another regressive means of redistributing wealth from the poor to government and its corporatist puppet masters. This is all nothing but a collectivist plot by environmentalists and neo-progressives in California to force their misguided vision upon the state and harm the poor.

(For a much more detailed discussion of the Collectivist nature of Environmentalism and Neo-Progressivism, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)