By Selwyn Duke

Quite a while ago, I wrote a piece titled "Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism?" in which I explained the process by which the right loses the culture war and why the I won't call myself a "conservative."  A good example of the fault I describe in the article was exhibited on Thursday night, when Bill O'Reilly opined on his cable news program that the war over Christmas has been won except for a "few skirmishes," as I think he put it. 

The war on Christmas, of course, refers to the effort by the left to purge the public and even commercial spheres of sentiments and symbols of the Yuletide season.  And the pugnacious pundit is perceiving something real, in that we have won a battle; businesses are largely seeing the light and, at least for the moment, are not capitulating to the activist grinches who make preposterous claims such as the assertion that a sign acknowledging the reason for the season is offensive.  Yet, O'Reilly's belief that the war is largely won bespeaks of an inability to see the big picture.

What O'Reilly is viewing is a relatively brief snapshot of time; what he is failing to see is the obvious pattern of the last 40 to 50 years.  There was a time when no one questioned the presence of a nativity scene on public property, as such a thing accords with the norms of American history.  Now, however, such a display is either disallowed or must be "balanced" with symbols of other faiths, in deference to a ridiculous misinterpretation of the First Amendment.  Even more outrageously, many if not most school calenders now avoid the word Christmas and label the season's vacation time as "Winter Break."  And these are only two examples of the successful purging of the sentiments and symbols of our foundational faith from the public arena.  If this is what you call winning a war, I'd hate to experience a loss.

What people such as O'Reilly don't understand is that they are defining victory as successful but temporary defensive actions, as a reduction in the rate of loss of their own territory, not as a seizing of the adversary's.  It's a fascinating phenomenon, and here is part of what I said about it in the aforementioned piece:

We often talk of
compromise, but does compromising with those who always advance but never
retreat constitute fairness? The left
proposes policy, “settles” for a half-measure, and we leave the table thinking
it an equitable outcome. The problem is
that since virtually all the changes suggested are liberal in nature, constant
compromise and granting of concessions guarantees constant movement toward the
left. So we see erstwhile secure
territory that is now under attack and revel in victory when we repel a few of
the enemy's charges. But we don’t
realize that we are defining victory as a reduction in the rate of loss of our
heartland, while the enemy defines it as the expansion of its empire. We compromise our way to tyranny.

It’s like a young boxer who
never throws punches and, consequently, becomes quite adept at blocking vicious
blows – and inured to taking them. He
emerges from the ring with a twinkle in black and blue eyes, flashes a smile
revealing two lost teeth, proudly shows off bruised forearms and says, “Look,
Dad! I blocked ninety-percent of the
punches today! This is my greatest
victory ever!” 

This is the unnoticed 800-lb. gorilla in the middle of the room of social change.  Conservatives are content taking blows as long as they can occasionally take pride in their bobbing, weaving and blocking.  Maybe they're punchy.

             © 2008 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved