From Sun Tzu to Clauswitz, theorists of war have recognized that the destruction of an enemy from within is as noteworthy as invasion from without. Moreover, the spirit, what might be described as the essential moral core of the state, must remain resolute to defend national interests against those who would destroy or conquer.
It is against this backdrop that I raise concerns about the war on terrorism and the rapid strides of radicalization in domestic life. In the interest of full disclosure, this concern emanates from an apparent complacency about domestic life evident among my fellow conservatives who have either forgotten the lessons of the culture war or choose to ignore them in their haste to fight foreign foes.
For example, David Brooks, author of Bobos In Paradise, seemingly ignores the deep seated moral consequences of middle class financial analysts who go to S and M clubs in the evening. National Review editors contend homosexual marriages are virtually inevitable so there is little sense in resistance. Major conservative voices have been conspicuously quiescent about recent Supreme Court cases that have undermined equal treatment of the law and Judeo Christian foundations of American life. Even President Bush who spoke out forcefully against race based admissions policies in higher education, commended the Supreme Court for its decision to ensconce race as a central admissions criterion in the Gratz and Gruder cases.
What this apathetic conservatism does not address is whether the United States can sustain the will and cohesion to face its enemies when the very sinews of national purpose are being weakened? Stated another way: Can national will be mobilized when decadence and misguided radical ideas undermine the meaning and purpose of "the American idea"?
Mobilizing the nation to fight is always difficult after an event that outrages the public - such as the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - fades from memory. It is even more complicated when bread and circuses in the form of risqué T.V. programs are a national distraction, when the radical sensibility gains acceptance through homosexual unions or the now common belief that whatever you do in the privacy of your home is acceptable. One might well ask: "What are we fighting for? The right to watch Sex and The City and to legitimate gay weddings?"
So far in the direction of expansive personal rights have we gone that a sense of duty is often overlooked. Don't get me wrong, I am an a vowed believer in individual rights, but when a nation is at war – which is sometimes forgotten – it is necessary to marshal the requisite fortitude through the reassertion of national principles, which include the raison d' etre for America and its exceptional laws and conditions. The United States would be a different nation if it lost its religious foundation, the rule of law, a belief in private property and, yes, individual rights.
The Founding Fathers didn't write a Constitution for the purpose of protecting MTV. There was a realization that we the people could have a republic if we could defend it. Yet I wonder whether a self indulgent, sex obsessed popular culture isn't an enemy of national resolve. And I wonder as well whether my conservative colleagues who once fought valiantly against the onslaught of decadence have thrown in the towel. More importantly, I wonder whether this aversion to the culture war will have an adverse effect on foreign wars.
My detractors might say, so far so good. We have titillating t.v. and a military capable of fighting brilliantly. We have lost the culture war, but we are winning the war on terror. Perhaps.
Will there come a time when a large portion of the nation loses sight of what it is defending? Can the conditions of personal license and the need for discipline, duty and loyalty coexist?
I write with cautionary intent. Surely I am not a Cassandra or an undeviating pessimist. In fact, American history is replete with examples of national resilience and I, like most Americans, harbor a faith in the future.
What may be a departure from the past, however, is that the voices that normally defend our traditions have been silent. Conservatives who have faith in preserving the best in our traditions are either on the sidelines cheering solely for the war effort or making concessions to cultural revolutionaries. They seem to have overlooked the nexus between internal moral strength and military muscle. They seem to ignore the manifold ways in which the acceptance of self indulgent ideas can sap the resolution needed to fight.
Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute, John M. Olin Professor of Humanities, NYU, Publisher of American Outlook, Author of the recently published book, Decade of Denial, Lexington Books. He's reachable through: www.benadorassociates.com
©2003 Herbert London
Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend