Written by Classical Liberal
(You can read Part I here)
This broader understanding of culture war issues in the mid-late 2010s and 2020s is associated with a political strategy called ‘owning the libs’. Conservative media figures employing this strategy, prominently Ben Shapiro, emphasise and expand upon culture war issues to upset progressives. According to Nicole Hemmer of Columbia University, this strategy substitutes the cohesive conservative ideology during the Cold War. Instead, it holds a conservative voting bloc together despite the lack of shared policy preferences among the bloc’s members.
Several conflicts about diversity in popular culture occurring in the 2010s, such as the Gamergate controversy, Comicsgate, and the Sad Puppies science fiction voting campaign, were identified in the media as examples of the culture war. For instance, journalist Caitlin Dewey described Gamergate as a ‘proxy war’ for a larger culture war between those who want greater inclusion of women and minorities in cultural institutions versus anti-feminists and traditionalists who do not. The perception that culture war conflict had been demoted from electoral politics to popular culture led writer Jack Meserve to call popular movies, games and writing the ‘last front in the culture war’ in 2015.
These conflicts about representation in popular culture re-emerged into electoral politics via the alt-right and alt-lite movements. According to media scholar Whitney Phillips, Gamergate ‘prototyped’ strategies of harassment and controversy-stoking that proved helpful in political strategy. For example, Republican political strategist Steve Bannon publicised pop-culture conflicts during the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, encouraging a young audience to ‘come in through Gamergate or whatever and then get turned onto politics and Trump’.
Several media outlets have described the Law and Justice party of Poland and Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Aleksandar Vučić of Serbia, and Janez Janša of Slovenia as igniting culture wars in their respective countries by encouraging fights over LGBT rights, legal abortion, and other topics. In the UK, the Conservative Party has similarly been described as attempting to ignite culture wars in regards to ‘conservative values’ under the tenure of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Sunder Katwala has observed that British conservatives import American culture wars issues, hoping that the conflicts will benefit conservatives in British elections as they have in American elections.
Since James Davison Hunter first applied the concept of culture wars to American life, the idea has been subject to questions about whether ‘culture wars’ names a natural phenomenon? And if so, whether the phenomenon it describes is a cause of, or merely a result of, membership in groups like political parties and religions. Culture wars have also been subject to the criticism of artificial, imposed, or asymmetric conflicts rather than authentic differences between cultures.
Researchers have differed about the scientific validity of the notion of a culture war. Some claim it does not describe actual behaviour or describes only the behaviour of a small political elite. Others claim culture war is real and widespread, and even that it is fundamental to explaining Americans’ political behaviour and beliefs.
Political scientist Alan Wolfe participated in a series of scholarly debates in the 1990s and 2000s against Hunter, claiming that Hunter’s concept of culture wars did not accurately describe the opinions or behaviour of Americans, which Wolfe claimed were more united than polarised.
A meta-analysis of opinion data from 1992 to 2012 published in the American Political Science Review concluded that opinions on culture war topics lead people to revise their political views, party, and religious orientations. In contrast to a common belief that political party and religious membership shape opinion on culture war topics. The researchers view culture war attitudes as ‘foundational elements in ordinary citizens’ political and religious belief systems’.
Some commentators have said that culture wars are created or perpetuated by political special interest groups, by reactionary social movements, by dynamics within the Republican Party, or by electoral politics as a whole. These authors view culture war not as an unavoidable result of widespread cultural differences but as a technique used to create in-groups and out-groups for a political purpose.
Political commentator E. J. Dionne has written that culture war is an electoral technique to exploit differences and grievances, remarking that the natural, cultural division is ‘between those who want to have a culture war and those who don’t’.
Sociologist Scott Melzer says that conservative, reactive organisations and movements create culture wars; because members of these movements possess a ‘sense of victimization at the hands of a liberal culture run amok. In their eyes, immigrants, gays, women, the poor, and other groups are (undeservedly) granted special rights and privileges’. Melzer writes about the example of the National Rifle Association, which he says intentionally created a culture war to unite conservative groups, particularly groups of white men, against a common perceived threat. However, Melzer is a progressive academic with a woke plan who cannot be trusted to give an objective analysis. Nevertheless, what he says somewhat mockingly is true. The silent majority feels victimised, and with just cause. Minorities are indeed undeservedly granted special rights and privileges.
Similarly, religion scholar Susan B. Ridgely has written that culture wars were made possible by Focus on the Family. This organisation produced conservative Christian ‘alternative news’ that began to bifurcate American media consumption, promoting a particular ‘traditional family’ archetype to one part of the population, particularly conservative religious women. Ridgely says that this tradition was depicted as under liberal attack, which necessitated a culture war to defend the practice.
Political scientists Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins have written about an asymmetry between the US’s two major political parties. Saying the Republican Party should be understood as an ideological movement built to wage political conflict. The Democratic Party is a coalition of social groups with less ability to impose ideological discipline on members. This asymmetry encourages Republicans to perpetuate and draw new issues into culture wars because Republicans are well equipped to fight such battles. Yet again, progressive academics conveniently ignore the violence caused by the radical left in the USA, namely Black Lives Matter and Antifa. And that Republicans are only fighting a culture war because the extreme left forced it upon them.
We must not let progressive academics pull the wool over our eyes and convince us that either the culture war is a figment of our imagination or something waged by the right against the left. After all, we know that the culture war exists and that the silent majority are its victims. Just look at all of the PC nonsense being imposed upon us by a political class that is essentially either too scared to stand up for British values or actively working to undermine them.
… and, right on cue, along comes smirking Samantha with her ludicrous six figure salary — ready to undermine the Armed Forces and deflect them from their primary purpose – straight from the marxy playbook of the White House dominated females – malice, racialism, division: all woven into a toxic, hardly adult slop and ready to be tossed where it will inflict maximum mayhem – & sniggering from the enemies and their positioned Trojan horses …
Boris?
Conservative Values?
L.O.L.
It all goes back to karl Marx.
“Critical Theory” stems from Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings
The world, according to critical theorists, is binary. There are oppressors and there are the oppressed. The oppressors are straight, white, Christian males. If you grew up poor and worked your entire life to provide a decent home for your family you are a “privileged oppressor” simply because of your skin colour, sexual orientation, political opinions and religious beliefs. Everyone else is “oppressed.” Critical Theory is a thought system of destruction and pure bigotry. This is by design. You’re not safe if you happen to be a member of the oppressed class either. You still have “privilege” and must do your part to destroy your own form of oppression on those with less “privilege.”
For example:
If you are black, but happen to be a straight man, you are still an oppressor to women, gays, trans, and disabled people.
If you are black, but happen to be a straight woman, you are still an oppressor to gay, trans, and disabled people.
If you are a gay black trans man, you are still an oppressor to disable people.
If you are a gay black trans man who is disabled, but happens to be a conservative, you are an oppressor to Democrats.
Confused yet? You should be.
Critical theory is designed to divide and conquer. It’s a system of revolution, suffering, chaos, and violence.
We are now seeing it start to manifest in our culture, media, business, politics, and even our churches.
We,the plebs, are being reduced to the lowest common denominator in preparation for the great NEW socialist Utopia. That word is mis- used. Its original meaning is “No Place”.That’s right. a “Cloud Cuckoo Land”.
George Orwell summed it up when he said “… all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”… And who are they?
Just look at who attends the WEF shindigs in Davos. A depressing number are from the UK.
Very informative read demonstrating the depths to which the political class of Left and Right are prepared to stoop to gain/maintain power. Can’t blame them – there is real wealth, power and networks to be gotten that can last a lifetime for themselves and their children. Playing musical chair politics is very bad for the ordinary Joe but the grumbling general public persist in going along with this silly game.
Anyone glimpsing at American election time could be forgiven for thinking the voter has no choice but to vote for Republicans or Democrats. There are ‘Independent’ candidates too!!! Why on earth do the Americans not break this toxic merry-go-round and dump them both? Same goes for the UK. Pritti Patel is the current actor playing the tough cop to whip up a kind of ‘culture war’ to win over the usual useful idiots to vote Tory. She knows she won’t deliver but it works for her Party so why stop a winning run!
All establishment parties are in hoc to either corporations, foundations, billionaires, unions, academia, think tanks, pressure groups or NGOs. Time for the pathetic ‘silent majority’ to either shut up all together or to turn the tables on the establishment parties and stop playing their rigged game. Vote Independent or NOTA.
It all makes sense. Now what ?
A list might help.
using letters of a sinle word. If poss.
At last ! A useful purpose for crossworders.