A Liberal Judge Lights a Fuse

Last week, when Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger came out, I felt a dreadful fear.

My fear was not about what gay marriage would do to the institution of traditional marriage. I reckon that marriage is not as fragile as conservatives fear, although one should never underestimate the damage a liberal wrecking crew can do. Marriage is more than a "cultural construct." To use a liberal argument, the science is in on marriage. It is a profoundly Darwinian, evolutionary adaptation that will long survive the fashionable twists and turns in liberal jurisprudence.

No, I fear what this decision, if confirmed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, will do to the politics of the United States.

It seems pretty clear that Judge Walker imagines that his decision, brimming with findings of fact from social science, will be a decisive victory in the culture war and resolve forever the question of gay marriage.

No doubt in addition to his knowledge of social science, the judge is familiar with the the last chaps who pinned all their hopes on decisive victory: the Germans, inspired by the immortal Clausewitz. It was a brilliant concept, and an understandable response to Germany's strategic problems. But look how it turned out. Germany scored a decisive victory against the Russians in 1914-18 but got ground down to defeat on the Western Front. Then, in 1939-45, Germany scored a decisive victory against France but got ground down to the most decisive defeat in all history by the Russians.

Our liberal friends are also wedded to the decisive victory. They achieved decisive victories on race with Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts, but turned the whole South against the Democratic Party. They achieved a decisive victory on abortion with Roe v. Wade, but raised up a whole movement of rejection against them. Obama-Pelosi-Reid scored a decisive victory on ObamaCare and then paraded in the streets to stuff it in the faces of the racist Tea Partiers who rose up to reject the government takeover.

Another decisive victory, and liberals will create a veto-proof majority of the American people united against liberals and everything they stand for.

But I do not fear too much the conflict that liberals are conjuring up with their decisive victories. One way or another, liberals will get what is coming to them. I fear what the conflict will do to conservatives. I fear it will make us more like liberals, for in learning to fight the oppressors, we often become them.

Look what the culture war has done to liberals.

Seventy years ago, liberals set out to fight against the white Southern obsession with race. Now, after America has elected a black president, liberals can think of nothing but race. An African-American acquaintance confidently told me recently that opposition to President Obama was all about race. 

Liberals have been fighting for half a century against "homophobia," by which I think they mean hatred rather than fear of homosexuals. But a gay acquaintance recently told me how he "loathed" Sarah Palin. 

Then there are the feminists. It was the marginalization, the humiliation of women that brought them into the streets and the lobbies. So what do they do? They have gamed the education system to humiliate boys. Ask 11-year-old Sam Besserman about that.

All these nice folks belong to "protected classes," a liberal euphemism for privileged classes. What is it about privilege that makes people into such haters?

I found an answer in South Pacific, from the old days when liberals were talking guardedly about race. You'll remember the song:

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to year
It's got to be drummed
in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

Er, no, liberals.  You've got it completely backwards. It is not true that

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are 6 or 7 or 8
To hate all the people
your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught

On the contrary, the hard thing to do is to teach people at any age not to hate people their relatives hate. That is why most religions feature forgiveness and the settling of feuds. Given that liberals completely misunderstand hate, it's not surprising that our big challenge is to teach liberals not to hate.

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
And Alinsky has made both you and your mate
To hate all the people
the liberals hate
You've got to be carefully taught

And that's why I fear the bomb that Judge Walker has tossed into the public square. His decision will conjure up a generation of conservative culture warriors who may come to embrace and perfect the very liberal cruelties they fight to defeat. He might teach conservatives to hate.

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com. At americanmanifesto.org he is blogging and writing An American Manifesto: Life After Liberalism.
Last week, when Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger came out, I felt a dreadful fear.

My fear was not about what gay marriage would do to the institution of traditional marriage. I reckon that marriage is not as fragile as conservatives fear, although one should never underestimate the damage a liberal wrecking crew can do. Marriage is more than a "cultural construct." To use a liberal argument, the science is in on marriage. It is a profoundly Darwinian, evolutionary adaptation that will long survive the fashionable twists and turns in liberal jurisprudence.

No, I fear what this decision, if confirmed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, will do to the politics of the United States.

It seems pretty clear that Judge Walker imagines that his decision, brimming with findings of fact from social science, will be a decisive victory in the culture war and resolve forever the question of gay marriage.

No doubt in addition to his knowledge of social science, the judge is familiar with the the last chaps who pinned all their hopes on decisive victory: the Germans, inspired by the immortal Clausewitz. It was a brilliant concept, and an understandable response to Germany's strategic problems. But look how it turned out. Germany scored a decisive victory against the Russians in 1914-18 but got ground down to defeat on the Western Front. Then, in 1939-45, Germany scored a decisive victory against France but got ground down to the most decisive defeat in all history by the Russians.

Our liberal friends are also wedded to the decisive victory. They achieved decisive victories on race with Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts, but turned the whole South against the Democratic Party. They achieved a decisive victory on abortion with Roe v. Wade, but raised up a whole movement of rejection against them. Obama-Pelosi-Reid scored a decisive victory on ObamaCare and then paraded in the streets to stuff it in the faces of the racist Tea Partiers who rose up to reject the government takeover.

Another decisive victory, and liberals will create a veto-proof majority of the American people united against liberals and everything they stand for.

But I do not fear too much the conflict that liberals are conjuring up with their decisive victories. One way or another, liberals will get what is coming to them. I fear what the conflict will do to conservatives. I fear it will make us more like liberals, for in learning to fight the oppressors, we often become them.

Look what the culture war has done to liberals.

Seventy years ago, liberals set out to fight against the white Southern obsession with race. Now, after America has elected a black president, liberals can think of nothing but race. An African-American acquaintance confidently told me recently that opposition to President Obama was all about race. 

Liberals have been fighting for half a century against "homophobia," by which I think they mean hatred rather than fear of homosexuals. But a gay acquaintance recently told me how he "loathed" Sarah Palin. 

Then there are the feminists. It was the marginalization, the humiliation of women that brought them into the streets and the lobbies. So what do they do? They have gamed the education system to humiliate boys. Ask 11-year-old Sam Besserman about that.

All these nice folks belong to "protected classes," a liberal euphemism for privileged classes. What is it about privilege that makes people into such haters?

I found an answer in South Pacific, from the old days when liberals were talking guardedly about race. You'll remember the song:

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to year
It's got to be drummed
in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

Er, no, liberals.  You've got it completely backwards. It is not true that

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are 6 or 7 or 8
To hate all the people
your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught

On the contrary, the hard thing to do is to teach people at any age not to hate people their relatives hate. That is why most religions feature forgiveness and the settling of feuds. Given that liberals completely misunderstand hate, it's not surprising that our big challenge is to teach liberals not to hate.

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
And Alinsky has made both you and your mate
To hate all the people
the liberals hate
You've got to be carefully taught

And that's why I fear the bomb that Judge Walker has tossed into the public square. His decision will conjure up a generation of conservative culture warriors who may come to embrace and perfect the very liberal cruelties they fight to defeat. He might teach conservatives to hate.

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com. At americanmanifesto.org he is blogging and writing An American Manifesto: Life After Liberalism.