0711 War of the Worlds
“Can’t we all get along?” is the proclaimed message of liberal social activism. The idea seems so appealing that many conservatives are tempted to surrender to it. After all, is not love the best ideal? The answer is yes; depending on the definition used and how it is applied. The modern social-political battleground is much too fragmented to expect a shared understanding of love among segments of society that no longer share common understandings of what truth, goodness and integrity mean.
The root of the problem lies in the clash of two vastly different worlds who spar by brandishing similar vocabularies containing different meanings. Liberals tend to be pro-active, practical and morally revisionist. Different is good; change is best. Conservatives by contrast tend to be reactive, idealist and morally preservationist. Differences have boundaries; change is avoided.
In the war of the worlds the battle-scarred examples can be seen every day. In two recent and seemingly unrelated events, the clashes were between profoundly disconnected worlds. In both situations conservative loyalty to the tried-and-true met liberal demands and manipulations for change.
One case in point was letter-writer Olsson’s (Sentinel, Oct. 17) challenge to recognize America’s suicidal self-degradation. She specifically cited aggressive homosexual activism, the well-documented militancy of that movement and the malevolent destructiveness of the lifestyle. Liberals clearly could not comprehend her message. For preserving what God has declared for over 4,000 years as one of the gold standards in sexual morality and recognizing genuine social research, she was ridiculed and Scripture was mutilated by claiming concepts for it which its Author finds offensive.
In another example, on August second, a U.S. House of Representatives vote was narrowly won by Republicans – and then not won. After a measure was defeated that would continue welfare benefits to illegal aliens, Democrat leadership brazenly violated House rules and thereby changed the outcome. The required record of a first vote was not kept and the Congressional Record may have been altered.
In the first case most responses were based upon liberal assumptions that all moral standards evolve, sexuality is whatever each person makes it and, most dangerous of all, that one’s impulses and drives define who they are. Detractors buried Olson’s challenge in mythical if not heterophobic assertions rather than with proven facts because those facts do not exist. Reputable verifiable studies, ones without grievous flaws and/or funding from sympathizers, hold nothing in them to indicate that gender confusion and misplaced attractions, including in children of all ages, are not learned behavior.
In the second case a micro-process of democracy was victimized because fluid liberal ethical codes promote using whatever means their end goal justifies, even if it means trashing what conservatives call integrity or violating corporately established policies.
What boils liberal blood faster than anything else is assertive conservatism. Assertive conservatism means not timidly waiting for liberals to define the next critical slide toward the decimation of classic American culture, but embracing activism, as uncomfortable as it may be. Assertive conservatism must exhibit biblical meekness, the fruit of truth’s power implemented humbly and controlled by love.
The most effective weapon for conservative activism is simply the principle of accountability; accountability for claims made, decisions rendered and commitments promised. Accountability will ask questions, demand concise answers and make the answers known. Both the process and the conservative using the process are ultimately accountable to God. He is the Master who acts in history through human loyalty to His expectations. He demands working fidelity to His standards of moral purity, no less in political maneuverings than in private sexual choices.