By Selwyn Duke

Every so often the wonks of wishful thinking give us an
article about how blacks are becoming Republicans, how Hispanics are supposedly
a natural GOP constituency, or, as is the subject here today, how the
millennial generation is turning “conservative.” Perhaps pundits asserting the
last thing recall Winston Churchill’s observation, “If you're not a liberal at 20,
you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.” And
perhaps they overlook that it’s possible to raise a brainless generation.

Don’t think, as one might, that this will be a typical
analysis sneering at the proverbial “next generation” using the perceived gold
standard of one’s own. After all, I realize that my generation is the tree the
millennial nut fell from. Placing matters in further perspective, it’s true
that older and younger generations ever slam each other; it’s also true that
they both are always partially right. Lastly, I’ll say that I don’t at all
consider the WWII FDR voters the “greatest generation,” though it makes for a nice
narrative. The greatest generation was the one that founded our nation and wondered if we could “keep” its
republic, and there has been a consistent, but accelerating, degeneration ever
since.

In discussing our latest movement toward idiocracy, my
starting point will be a Sept. 4 American Thinker article
written by one Chriss Street. In making his case for millennial hope, Mr.
Street points out that while 61 percent of millennials voted for Barack Obama
in 2012, his approval among them has now sunk to 46 percent. But this is a
deceptive statistic. For an approval rating amounts to the judging of a
candidate relative to people’s ideal personal standard for the presidency,
whereas in an election he is judged relative to another specific candidate for the presidency. And if Obama were again
running against Mitt Romney — with all the usual media propaganda — does anyone
really think he’d lose millennials to the governor? No doubt more would stay
home, but I suspect the president would enjoy something close to his 2012
support among those who casted votes.

Moreover, millennials may have soured on Obama somewhat, but
this reflects cynicism more than conservatism. Of course, that they’d be
cynical is no surprise; they’ve been raised in an unraveling West in which
feckless, morally confused adults in their homes, schools, government, houses
of worship and elsewhere have let them down. Nonetheless, cynicism is not traditionalism;
in fact, it
is a form of naiveté. Believing all people act out of selfish motives, the
cynic instinctively paints everyone with the same brush. And such a person can
hardly distinguish well among candidates.

Mr. Street also tells us that, “in 2008, 37.4%
of incoming freshman women and 30.5% men identified themselves as liberals
or leftists, the most in 35 years.” The reality, though, is even worse than
this indicates. First consider that self-reporting is more about perception
than reality. For starters, it always underestimates leftist numbers, as likely
a majority of “moderates” are liberals who — usually because of self-delusion
(a leftist bailiwick) and a desire to sound “reasonable” — don’t brand
themselves what they really are; bear in mind when pondering this that liberals
are generally solipsistic and fancy that they define the center, and also
realize that the label “liberal” has been discredited enough so that many won’t
don it. Yet even more significant here is that it isn’t just people’s
perceptions that shift — the definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” do,
too.

Consider that while a conservative in 1952 America was
staunchly anti-communist, a conservative in the Soviet Union at the time was a communist. And “conservatives” in
Western Europe are often our liberals’ ideological soul mates. This isn’t for
lack of truth in political advertising. Rather, it’s because the only
consistent definition of “conservative” is “a desire to maintain the status quo”
while “liberal’s” only consistent definition involves a desire to change it.
This means “conservatism” is always changing: tomorrow’s version will reflect
today’s liberalism’s success in altering the status quo. Conservatism is the
caboose to liberalism’s locomotive (I treat this in-depth here).

This explains a few things. First, it’s often pointed out
that a healthy plurality in America describes itself as conservative. Is this
surprising? All it really means is that many, many people align themselves with
the status quo — and if this weren’t the case, the status quo wouldn’t be the
status quo. Second, some insist that millennials will move toward conservatism,
and this is true in that most people become somewhat more traditional with age.
Yet it’s also true that conservatism will move toward them.

That is to say, as “conservatism” drifts “left,” it follows
that millennials will “become more conservative” even if they stay in the same place, in that they will be situated
more on the post-shift political spectrum’s right side; this is just as how a
person can become poorer in a definitional sense if the poverty line standard
is altered.

That so few recognize this reflects the relativism of our
time, where we label ourselves with provisional terms and measure ourselves
against other people (it’s people who define the political spectrum). If we
want to see matters clearly, however, we must define them differently: in
absolute terms.

In other words, what do millennials actually believe? Well,
never before has an American generation been so tolerant of intolerable sexual
practices, so supportive of faux marriage and skeptical of actual marriage, so
relativistic and disconnected from Christianity (church attendance is one of
the best predictors of voting habits). Never before has an American generation
been to their degree socially “liberal.”

This brings us to the claim that millennials are, at least, fiscally
conservative. Now, not only is convincing evidence of this elusive, but considering
it a saving grace is essentially saying that it profits a man to gain the world
but lose his soul. Regardless, however, while the social liberalism/fiscal
conservatism marriage may exist in particular cases, I suspect that in
principle it is an impossibility.

For instance, speaking of principle versus particular, if
you ask people, “Do you believe government should balance its budget and be
frugal,” of course they’ll say yes. But if you ask them if they’re willing to
relinquish their particular piece of the pie (government college aid?), their
tune changes. Espousing fiscal responsibility requires only a voice; achieving
it requires virtue.

Second, consider the side-effects of social liberalism in
modern times. And this should be prefaced by saying that since this explanation
warrants a book, my treatment here will necessarily be lacking. But just as an
example, social liberalism means loose sexual mores. Loose sexual mores mean a
high rate of single motherhood (today it’s 42 percent…and rising). And what
does this mean? Since the modern West won’t let these women twist in the wind,
the government will step into the breach and play daddy with handouts and/or
mommy with tax-funded daycare. It is unavoidable.

And in point of fact, this cultural decay brings us to the
real reason for political drift. It was something about which the Founding
Fathers — as well as great thinkers throughout Christendom’s history — spoke
much. Ben Franklin warned, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they
have more need of masters.” British philosopher Edmund Burke observed, “It is
written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds
cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” And John Adams wrote in
1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Question: does “moral and religious” describe us today?

Of course, some will now say, “But why do you think
millennials supported Ron Paul? They want liberty!” Sure they do.

So does a tiger in a zoo.

So does a toddler.

Neither, however, can be allowed to roam free in
civilization without hurting himself or others. And the less people are
civilized growing up, the closer they will be to that infantile or animalistic
state — and the more they have need of cages
and masters.

The truth? Government can be no better than the public’s
virtue, though it can be worse. And this morality-government relationship is
evident in voting patterns. Is it a coincidence that every group orthodox
Christians label immoral — those involved in “alternative” sexual deathstyles,
criminally inclined inner-city dwellers, effete college professors, grunge-type
youths scarred with multiple tattoos and body piercings — vote left? “What
fellowship hath light with darkness?” The darkness hates the light. When people
have sins they yearn to rationalize away, the last thing they’ll do is support leaders
who would uphold, even just through word, a moral standard condemning their
passions.

Providing specificity as to how this affects government is
another book-worthy topic, so I’ll offer just two examples. We’ve heard about
those ruggedly individualistic Americans who’d rather live in poverty in
Appalachia than accept government handouts and those spirit-of-entitlement
types who protest violently when they don’t receive them. And society will
always contain both kinds, but the ratio can vary greatly. In a nation characterized
by self-sufficiency, honor and virtue, a redistributionist will find barren
ground. But if a spirit of greed, covetousness and thievery prevails, people
will be susceptible to the demagogic appeal, “You’ve been cheated, but give me
power and I’ll get you your piece of the pie, comrade!” Or consider lust. If people
resolved to be chaste outside of marriage, do you think the abortion movement
or taxpayer funded contraception appeal could gain traction?

So how do you make a civilization susceptible to dark
demagogues?

Make it love the darkness.

I wouldn’t first and foremost spend time on intellectual
appeals. As the Soviets once did (as explained by ex-KGB
defector Yuri Bezmenov) I’d seek to undermine the morality of the target
nation. I’d spread the idea that morality is really “values” and values are
relative — all just a matter of perspective, you see. Once this was accepted
and people no longer believed in the rules of morality, it would be as if they ceased
believing in the rules of human nutrition: not thinking any food could actually
be “bad,” they’d be governed only by taste and would try, and could develop an
affinity for, anything — even perhaps poison. Vice corresponds to this on the
moral menu.

I’d then get them hooked on their bad moral diet through
inundation. Stoke their lust’s fires via highly sexualized entertainment, and
portray violence as just as casual and cool, so lashing out at others seems the
norm. I’d engorge their egos with media messages about how they could determine
their own morality so that, as the serpent said, “you will be like God.” I’d
provide co-ed dorms and a general party atmosphere at universities, creating
“occasions of sin” that will ensure the kids have as much as possible they need
to justify. And after robbing them of moral judgment and creating a visceral
craving for vice, I’d fill their heads full of anti-Western, anti-Christian —
in fact, anti-goodness — ideas in college classrooms. When I was done with
them, they’d not only possess the discernment of a man in the midst of a
drug-fueled orgy, their egos would be so bloated they’d consider their
ignorance wisdom.

Speaking of wisdom, when conservatives indulge wishful
thinking and suppose that millennials will “wake up,” they ignore that we
actually need a shake up, something that changes the cultural trajectory on
which we’ve long been (so if an asteroid strikes the Earth, millennials may
turn into conservatives — of course, they instead may turn into cavemen, too). Until
then, whatever the keepers of the flame plan had better require the
participation of only a zealous minority. For the masses will not wake up when beset
by a cultural narcolepsy in which nightmares are fancied nice dreams.

            Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com 

                                    © 2013 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved