New Rhetoric for a New Politics

In a recent article, Rachel Alexander noted, “The left has figured out how to successfully push through its agenda by using one simple tactic: demonizing the right. Even if there is no truth to the cruel labels, the left has figured out they work. Repeat the words ‘bigot,’ ‘hate,’ ‘sexist’ and ‘intolerant’ enough and they will start to stick…. Instead, we naively think we can stick to debating the substance of issues and the truth will win out.” This powerful insight into the workings of our national political landscape should be a call to arms for all conservatives.

We need to make spears with sharper points in the communication wars of our culture. Conservative rhetoric needs to go in a new direction in order to refresh the grass roots, to confound the opposition, and to tell the truth. 

First let us consider the anti-abortion movement which calls itself “pro-life.” It sounds so positive -- what could be more desirable than life? “Life” is even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Life is an inalienable right -- the cornerstone of all other inalienable rights. If you are not alive, you cannot have rights. 

Yet, how is this penultimate right treated by the left? “Pro-life” is treated as part of the “war on women’s health.” Female contraception and abortion are essential “rights” [sic] for healthy living. So now, pro-life is tainted with the imagery of anti-health.  Having life without health is deemed by many to be a non-starter. Pro-lifers are thus caricatured as attacking approximately half the population, who now are presumably living healthy, sexually charged lives free of the confinements brought on by pregnancy. The left thus depicts pro-lifers as fanatics who see fit to defend “fetuses” that even their moms do not want. By a clever manipulation of the nexus between political rhetoric and the political landscape, the left manages to hold its ground or even gain ground.

The sense of empowerment that comes from a negative categorization of abortion opponents suggests that a similar negative polarization be adopted to counter their strategy. The “pro-choice” supporters should be characterized incessantly as making war on infants and children. Yes, it is part of the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party in particular to sustain an anti-childhood program. They want to destroy babies in the womb; they want to take babies away from their natural parents with universal pre-K and pre-pre-K; they want to demonstrate to the generations that U.S. history is the history of so-called “white privilege”; they want to have standardized tests determine the curricula rather than the curricula determine the tests; they want to collect a database through Common Core that will enable the federal government to direct children’s lives; and they want to grow the homosexual population by using schools to teach the “normalcy” of homosexual interactions, even teaching the various forms of coitus at an early age. 

Thus, “anti-child” begins with promotion of abortion, but proceeds through an educational agenda that is anti-white, anti-literacy, anti-heterosexual, and anti-freedom or anti-autonomy (i.e., government controlled lives).

The Left wants white children to feel guilty simply because they are white (“white privilege”).They want to indoctrinate children into the belief that non-white cultures and non-white peoples are superior to white people. Anti-child gradually morphs into anti-white as well. The heterosexual, middle class ideal/norm is systematically being debunked by the left. The legitimization of homosexuality and the attack on white culture are all of a piece. You see the ultimate goal is not about “acceptance” of homosexuality, but the replacement of the norms and values of society. The philosopher Frederich Nietzsche called this replacement “the transvaluation of values.” Karl Marx called this change the “replacement of bourgeois values with proletarian, revolutionary values.” And our eclectic, arrogant president has referred to this change simply as the “transformation of America.”

Do you not see the thrust of history as we move through the daily news cycles? All children are to be indoctrinated not only into the legitimacy of homosexuality, but into its attractiveness as a normal lifestyle. Normal heterosexual relationships and marriage are to be devalued, and, eventually, inferior to homosexual relationships and marriage. Long term, the radical left that controls the Democratic Party hopes to persuade a weirdly docile society that the ideal of homosexual coupling, although only “accomplished” [sic] by a minority of the population, will be an “elite experience” open only to those who are properly accepting of it. What today is considered normal or historical man-woman relations is to be relegated to the ashbin of history as a second-class form of interpersonal engagement. 

White heterosexual persons are to become the least desirable category of society. Parallel with the message that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality is the message that white children are subnormal and inferior to non-Caucasian people. All the writing and talk about “white privilege” and “white micro-aggression” is a prelude to “white inferiority.” 

Therefore, just as we need to begin speaking about “pro-choice” as anti-child, we need to begin speaking of the gay movement as anti-heterosexual (thereby changing the terms of the debate); and, at the same time, declare the comments of race baiters such as Al Sharpton and the POTUS as anti-white. When the president, reflected upon racial progress over the past 50-60 years, he added that nonetheless the “long shadow of history [regarding blacks in America] could not be ignored.” However, his statement was not simply a comment about our history. Clearly, it was anti-white. Mobilization of people against the president would be aided by using the term “anti-white” rather than treating his remark merely as an historical, albeit self-serving, observation. (One might also translate the narcissist-in-chief as meaning that progress in race in the USA is demonstrated by your election of me; but insofar as I do not get every single thing I want, and insofar as there is still an opposition to my views and dictates (however muted), the “long shadow” of racism persists.)

Or, compare “anti-white” to references to certain grass roots activists as “race baiters.” “Race baiter” suggests the anger and demagoguery of the person being so designated, but no opposition is created to said race baiters. That is the key idea – conservatives must not only express opposition but create opposition. Opposition is generated only when members of a group feel threatened and at the same time believe they have been armed with a concept that gives them pushback. To call someone a race baiter is to be dismissive of that race baiter, but opposition to them requires more focus. To call them anti-white or white haters would be more effective than calling them race baiters.  

When the race baiters start complaining about how blacks are suffering at the hands of the majority white society, would it not be refreshing and true if a conservative speaker, writer, or politician would say, “You are using anti-white rhetoric and sending a message of hate.”