Originally Posted By alexbook "Culture Warrior" Bill O'Reilly Style: O'Reilly on the page is less strident and more focused than on air. Still, he offers up literally dozens of controversial assertions, many only tangentially related to the points he's trying to make. Thesis: O'Reilly asserts that: 1. There is a conflict for control of the United States between "secular-progressives" ("S-Ps") and "traditionalists" ("T-Warriors"). 2. Most Americans share the T-Warriors' values, but are unaware of the conflict. 3. The S-Ps are winning, thanks to superior strategy and resources. Purpose: "Culture Warriors" has two purposes: 1. Convincing more uninvolved people to become active T-Warriors. 2. Instructing T-Warriors in the strategies needed to achieve victory over the S-Ps. Paranoia: O'Reilly seems to be honestly convinced that the S-P "army" is a well-organized, thoroughly disciplined, heavily funded, monolithic band of America-hating "soldiers." He believes S-P "soldiers," "officers," and "generals" have infiltrated media, government, and educational institutions, and that they take orders from their "jefe" George Soros and his chief strategist George Lakoff. Media: O'Reilly believes that the media is more important than the government in America. He believes that the only media outlets that can be trusted are Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and (possibly) the Drudge Report. Other organizations (including talk radio) are either run by the S-P or by opportunists who will say anything to make money. "O'Reilly Tzu": The only hope is to adopt the T-Warrior philosophy, as outlined in this book. Though he is not the only traditionalist fighting the S-P forces, O'Reilly believes that he is uniquely gifted with a clear vision of how victory is to be achieved. Review: I found this book very difficult to read, partly because of how strongly I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly, and partly because of his rambling, egotistical style. I give it 1 and a half stars out of 4.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Review: I found this book very difficult to read, partly because of how strongly I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly, and partly because of his rambling, egotistical style. I give it 1 and a half stars out of 4.>> So in other words it's the same as any of his other books, or books written by other tv and radio pundits.
Originally Posted By DlandJB O'Reilly seems to be honestly convinced that the S-P "army" is a well-organized, thoroughly disciplined, heavily funded, monolithic band of America-hating "soldiers." He believes S-P "soldiers," "officers," and "generals" have infiltrated media, government, and educational institutions, and that they take orders from their "jefe" George Soros and his chief strategist George Lakoff.>>> Hee hee hee. What a maroon. These people can't even decide where to have lunch. They are all so busy jockeying to lead, that nothing gets done. I've always been grudgingly admiring of Grover Norquist's weekly gathering of right wing folk to discuss strategy and ideas. Everyone comes out of that meeting with the same talking points and the same agenda. Even the White House sends a representative. (I understand that Norquist's ties to Abramoff are now under investigation). Clearly organization is not a strong suit on the left these days.
Originally Posted By mele <<"O'Reilly Tzu": The only hope is to adopt the T-Warrior philosophy, as outlined in this book. Though he is not the only traditionalist fighting the S-P forces, O'Reilly believes that he is uniquely gifted with a clear vision of how victory is to be achieved.>> CULT.
Originally Posted By fkurucz FWIW, there is a culture war going on. O'Reilly's vision of it might be flawed, but its there.
Originally Posted By fkurucz And what I mean by flawed is that I do not share his view that the majority are "traditionalists". >>O'Reilly seems to be honestly convinced that the S-P "army" is a well-organized, thoroughly disciplined, heavily funded, monolithic band of America-hating "soldiers."<< I'm wouldn't say that they are America hating or monolithic, but they do strike me as well organized. For the most part they seem to get what they want.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>So in other words it's the same as any of his other books, or books written by other tv and radio pundits.<< I haven't read any of his other books, so I can't really compare. I tried to come at this with an open mind. ----- >>FWIW, there is a culture war going on. O'Reilly's vision of it might be flawed, but its there.<< I would say that most societies tend to be shaped by competing forces of progressivism and traditionalism. I don't find the "war" metaphor to be particularly useful or accurate, since the competition need not be (and should not be) violent, nor is it likely that either side will "win" the competition. In the long run, society will change, probably in unexpected ways that neither the progressives nor the traditionalists could ever anticipate.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I don't find the "war" metaphor to be particularly useful or accurate, since the competition need not be (and should not be) violent, nor is it likely that either side will "win" the competition.<< A war doesn't need to be violent. But the left and the right both have their agendas, and neither side seems to be willing to accomodate the other. Both have an all or nothing attitude. It concerns me that "traditionalists" are dropping out of society. They are homeschoooling their kids and are replacing many social structures with their own. For instance: have you ever heard of the Royal Rangers? They are basically a sectarian replacement for the Boy Scouts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And what do "they" want?<< As I said, the secular left is not monolithic, but I suspect that they would be delighted if all Fundamental and Evangelicals were to pack and leave the country. Anyway, I think that we have reached a point where the left and the right are no longer able to dialogue, and this probably due to a lack (or at least a shortage) of common values. Now I have noticed that the left insists that there is no culture war going on, rather than engage tradionalists in dialogue. It is my opinion that the left does this because things have been mostly going its way and it doesn't want to compromise (and to be fair the traditionalists aren't all that keen on compromise either). I think that its for these reasons that the traditionalists are choosing the path of complete disengagement, perhaps borrowing a page from groups like the Amish.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, maybe they can go live in villages and pretend it's still the 15th century.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^This is exactly what I am talking about. The left puts on airs of tolerance and understanding, and in the same breath utters put downs like this one. It also confirms what I said before: "I suspect that they would be delighted if all Fundamental and Evangelicals were to pack and leave the country."
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^And its this sort of attitude that has kept me from voting Democrat, even though I am thoroughly disgusted with the GOP.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <but I suspect that they would be delighted if all Fundamental and Evangelicals were to pack and leave the country.> Me, I'd be perfectly happy if they'd just believe whatever they want to believe, but leave the rest of us alone about it. They can believe, for example, that homosexuality is a bad thing if they want to, but when they actively work to prevent states from even enacting simple non-discrimination laws (which they do - which is why it's legal to fire someone for being gay in 38 states), then they impact my life directly. <Now I have noticed that the left insists that there is no culture war going on, rather than engage tradionalists in dialogue. It is my opinion that the left does this because things have been mostly going its way > I'm quite intrigued by this actually, fkuricz, because you're a thoughtful person. What, exactly has the left been getting its way on lately? I can't think of a whole lot.
Originally Posted By mele Saying "Yes, maybe they can go live in villages and pretend it's still the 15th century." is no worse than saying "I suspect that they would be delighted if all Fundamental and Evangelicals were to pack and leave the country." And you said it BEFORE jon said what he said. It's also is a complete exaggeration and totally unprovable. Plus, how many times have liberals been told to love America or leave it? That is VASTLY more common than a liberal saying that to a conservative.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Exactly, both sides are engaging in this behavior. Hence there is a culture war. Both sides want their values to be imposed on others. I'm not saying who is right or wrong. Just that there is indeed a culture war going on.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm quite intrigued by this actually, fkuricz, because you're a thoughtful person. What, exactly has the left been getting its way on lately? I can't think of a whole lot.<< Compare the status quo with that from say 40 years ago: Abortion on demand is the law of the land. While in many some states discrimination against homosexuals is still legal, in many states much progress has been made in that cause, including same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Public schools have been fully secularized. Observance of religion in the public square has been marginalized (a good example was the valedictorian girl who had the PA yanked on her when she was stating to mention how her faith plays a major role in her life). I would say that these changes have happened slowly over the decades, kind of like the frog in the pot of water thats being slowly heated to boling. When I discuss these issues with Evangelicals I often sense resignation on their part. Many feel that the US is a lost cause and they are increasingly choosing to withdraw from the public square all together (I can't say that I know of a single Evangelical family that still sends their kids to public school. There is even talk amongst Evangelicals of migrating to a few key states in the south and seceeding from the US (some people are actually starting to migrate to Southern Carolina). As I said before, this concerns me, because I believe that it will only intensify the culture war even more. Evangelicals feel very threatened, and I don't see how marginalizing them or making fun of them will help in any way.
Originally Posted By mele I disagree that there is a "war". There will always be people who want to be traditional and people who want to change but to call it a "war" or to say that this is something new is really just ignoring thousands of years of history. Maybe more accurate: The media is trying to manipulate people into thinking there is a war when there really isn't.
Originally Posted By mele <<When I discuss these issues with Evangelicals I often sense resignation on their part. >> You mean their resigned that they can't tell other people how to live their lives? How upsetting it must be to no longer be able to make all of the rules for everyone else.
