Two Roots of the Culture War

The election is over. The chattering classes and the pajama brigade (bloggers writing from home) are now pounding out their explanations for the result. (I’m pleased to find that there are a few sensible liberal voices out there. Most liberal columnists are so busy stereotyping conservatives and evangelicals that they are unlikely to hear the sensible voices. More about that in a later posting.)

The culture war – or at least the extreme bitterness in the culture war – is rooted, I suggest, in two disastrous governmental decisions:

• Roe v. Wade
• President Johnson’s decision to go to war without seeking a declaration of war from congress

In both cases, the bitterness stems from the arrogation of power by one branch of government over Congress. In both cases, respect life and justice issues are involved. Conservatives and liberals care about these deeply. Their anger is fueled by the lack of access to representation, they believed theirs through James Madison’s magnificent and inspired document: the Constitution.

I’ve blogged about both of these before.

I made extensive use of the work of James Davidson Hunter on my posting on the bitter fruit of the culture wars. Roe v. Wade took the power of decision out of the hands of the voters and made it necessary for liberals and conservatives to fight for control of the Judicial Branch of government. Had the issue been left to the voters, a compromise could have been reached, as it has been in Europe. This compromise could have been adjusted over time. Instead, the language of rights (as in “a woman’s right to choose” and “right to life”) becomes absolute. Each side stereotypes the other.

Col Harry Summers’ book On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War makes the case that President Johnson’s failure to ask for a declaration of war led to our defeat. Since he went to congress asking for only a vague resolution, LBJ never set forth a clear purpose the war. Once the war started to look like a quagmire, many people began to ask why they should support a war in which the government did not have clear objectives. Once they turned against the war, victory was denied, even though the military were winning all of the major battles. For my detailed analysis of this and the lessons learned look here. Conservatives saw opposition to the war as unpatriotic betrayal. Liberals saw the war as an unjust militarism. As the 2004 campaign has shown the bitterness and stereotyping is still with us.

Both governmental arrogations of power influenced the current election. Neither is likely to be resolved soon.

My problem with this line of analysis is that I end up placing more confidence in our “congress –critters” (please note the use of the non sexist yet politically incorrect term). I recognize that they have their own mix of talent, personal and political ambitions, self-delusions and genuine desire to serve. At least they have to answer to the voters every other year.

Comments

[ELC]

I'm sorry to have to correct you, Herb, but the proper terminology is Jammies Brigade.

;-)