It is incredible how a failed theory–Marxism–continues to make inroads into the hearts and minds of millions of fellow Americans. A new poll out the other week found that for the first time, a majority of Democrats say they prefer socialism over capitalism.
FoxBusiness.com reports: “A new Fox News poll showed that more Democrats favor socialism over capitalism, in a sharp reversal from just a year and a half ago. The poll…showed that 59% of registered Democratic voters who participated had a positive view of socialism, compared to just 49% who felt that way about capitalism.”
It’s possible in some cases that they are just simply mistaken about definitions–that they think capitalism means greed, whereas socialism means sharing.
No, capitalism means freedom to earn, whereas socialism means the government is free to steal from those who earn.
Everywhere around the world, we see the bitter fruit of Marxism. Everywhere his ideas have been put into practice, death, misery, loss of basic freedoms, and poverty follow. Can anybody name a square inch spot on the planet, anywhere, where Marxism has brought anything good? Certainly not in China, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
And yet there are millions of Americans who have been brainwashed into thinking that Marxism is good, that it means compassionately sharing with others. No, it effectively means the government stealing from its citizens…for the sake of the ruling class to be enriched.
Here’s an example: Most Cubans live on $44 (U.S.) per month. In contrast, when Fidel Castro died in 2016, his net worth was estimated at $900 million. In America, wealth is created by providing value in voluntary exchanges, and there is no inherent limit on it. But in a Marxist setting like Castro’s Cuba, the government controls the economy, and it’s a zero sum game. Castro’s wealth was at the expense of the Cuban people.
Even Critical Race Theory, which is tearing many school boards apart, is merely repackaged Marxism, enforcing the never-ending Marxist principle of “oppressor” versus “oppressed.”
And all of this gets back to a miserable anti-Christian man in 19th century Germany–Karl Marx. I recently learned from Dr. Paul Kengor something I didn’t know about Marx–his favorite quote. It speaks volumes. Kengor is a bestselling author and a professor of history and political science at Grove City College. I’ve interviewed him many times.
In his latest book, The Devil and Karl Marx, Kengor points out that Marx loved the line that comes from the devil character, Mephistopheles, in Goethe’s Faust: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”
Dr. Kengor elaborates: “Friends said Marx would chant this. He would recite this–’Everything that exists deserves to perish. Everything that exists deserves to perish.’ This is a philosophy that’s about tearing down, burning the foundation, leveling the house, to where you have Marx standing there in the smoldering embers, saying, ‘Now we are ready to begin.’ So anybody that thinks that this is a philosophy that is just about helping one another or sharing the wealth or redistributing wealth, they do not understand Marx and Marxism.”
And what do we see in our streets today? Destruction, riots, tear it all down. Let’s build a new and supposedly better world.
Ironically, Marx couldn’t even feed his own family. Even when he received a windfall of cash, he selfishly spent it all on himself. Marx couldn’t balance his own checkbook, but he presumed to tell the rest of the world how to run their economies. And everywhere his ideas have been implemented, they’ve driven their economies right into the ground.
Some people may naively assume that you can have socialism without the violence. But that is not the case. As Marx stated: “Socialism cannot be brought into existence without revolution.”
And what has been the results of atheistic communism because of Marx? Kengor writes, “A legacy of over one hundred million dead, not to mention the robbing of so many basic liberties and incalculable harm to so many souls has been nothing short of diabolical–truly a satanic scourge, a killing machine…It plagues us to this day.” (The Devil and Karl Marx, p. 402).
When there is no God to whom we must give an account, then the state can become god. That was certainly true in the minds of many a totalitarian dictator.
Why has America lasted all these years? For all the problems of America’s founding, the founders said our rights from God. The God factor is the key to America’s enduring success.
In contrast to Marx’s philosophy that everything should perish, Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” What a better approach to the world–and with infinitely better results all around the planet.
Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is the executive director of the Providence Forum, an outreach of D. James Kennedy Ministries, where Jerry also serves as senior producer and an on-air host. He has written/co-written 33 books, including George Washington’s Sacred Fire (with Providence Forum founder Peter Lillback, Ph.D.) and What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (with D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.). http://www.djkm.org? @newcombejerry www.jerrynewcombe.com
Christopher F. Rufo is founder and director of Battlefront, a public policy research center. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and a former Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. As executive director at the Documentary Foundation, he has directed four films for PBS, including most recently America Lost, which explores life in Youngstown, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Stockton, California. He is also a contributing editor of City Journal, where he covers topics including critical race theory, homelessness, addiction, and crime.
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021.
Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.
In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.
During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.
By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.
But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the U.S. lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. The vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.
But the radical Left has proved resilient and enduring—which is where critical race theory comes in.
WHAT IT IS
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.
There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”
One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.
An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.
HOW IT WORKS
What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.
This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”
I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.
This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented towards broadly-held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states, even in red states, and it is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.
Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.
Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”
Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.
Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm, which is friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.
No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving “cultural hegemony” in America’s public institutions. More and more, it is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.
Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?
There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.
We already see examples of governmental action. Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government. President Biden rescinded this order on his first day in office, but it provides a model for governors and municipal leaders to follow. This year, several state legislatures have introduced bills to achieve the same goal: preventing public institutions from conducting programs that stereotype, scapegoat, or demean people on the basis of race. And I have organized a coalition of attorneys to file lawsuits against schools and government agencies that impose critical race theory-based programs on grounds of the First Amendment (which protects citizens from compelled speech), the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides equal protection under the law), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race).
On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to do battle against critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—which violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.
In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.
Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists.
Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America.
Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.
One thing Progressives, Secular humanists and Neo-Pagans have in common is their disdain for the belief in “American exceptionalism”. This belief has been fundamental to how Americans have viewed their country from the beginning. It is the belief that America’s role in the world is unique, idealistic and constructive of a greater world good.
American leaders as different in their religious views as James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams all supported the inculcation of Judeo-Christian values by public education. In 1789, the day after the establishment of the First Amendment, Congress passed a resolution calling for a day of national prayer. From the historical evidence it is clear that Jefferson’s “Wall of separation between Church and State” had a number of openings to allow Judeo-Christian moral instruction to pass through. Historian Paul Johnson stated it this way: “The Founding Fathers saw education and religion going hand in hand.” The Northwest Ordinance which promoted the settlement of the frontier west stated: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government… and the happiness of mankind… the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Those means throughout most of American history included moral training based upon Judeo-Christian sources. From our beginning as a nation our leaders took note of the symbiotic relationship between religious faith and stable government. Washington wrote: “[o]f all the dispositions and habits which led to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”
But more than the recognition that the survival of a democratic society depends on a highly moral citizenry was the acceptance of the grander theme of “American exceptionalism”. The earliest examples of this belief come from colonial times. John Winthrop’s use of Biblical language, promoting “… a city on a hill” that would provide and enlightened example for the world or William Penn’s “Holy experiment” in religious toleration acted out in Pennsylvania.
America’s second president John Adams linked the two beliefs together writing: “One of the great advantages of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principles of the law of nature and nations, love your neighbor as yourself, and do to other as you would that others should do to you…” Even America’s most famous skeptic Thomas Jefferson said America was “the world’s best hope” and during a very dark period of the American Civil War Lincoln used similar language saying that America was “the last best hope of the earth”. Modern Presidents like JFK and Ronald Reagan both promoted the theme of “American exceptionalism”. The belief in “American exceptionalism” played a key role in America’s struggle for independence. On this topic Paul Johnson writes: “America had been founded primarily for religious purposes… There is no question that the Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act…”
“ Progressives “ scoff at the notion of America as a Christian nation. In one sense they are correct. Faith and especially the Christian faith is a matter of individual choice. The great reformer Martin Luther said it best over 500 years ago, “As a man must die by himself, he must believe by himself”. Part of the belief in “American exceptionalism” means promoting religious toleration as well as all the other basic human rights that Americans believe in.
Christians are not a nation of believers, they are believers that inhabit many nations but what is historically certain is the claim that the Judeo-Christian, moral-spiritual value system has been the basis of America’s, dominant culture from the beginning. The earliest and most important documents found in a search of American history provide a treasure trove of information supporting this thesis. To list only a few would include:
“The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Mecklenburg Declaration, Washington’s First Inaugural Address, Washington’s Farewell Address, The United States Constitution, The First Charter of Virginia, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, The Federalist Papers, The Proclamation of Amnesty 1863. All of these documents declare a faith in God in general and many a faith in Jesus Christ specifically.
For atheists, agnostics and secular humanists all religions are created equal, equally mythological, purely the product of human imagination. This being the case all religions must be culturally bound and limited in application. Secular humanist can accept universal truth in any field of knowledge except religious belief. This mind-set is closed off to the possibility that any religion can be more truthful than any other. To promote a belief in religious truth which is absolute, universal and timeless is for the secular humanist a necessary impossibility and even worse an act of bigotry and small mindedness.
Beginning in the 1960’s, there began an on- going attack on the belief that America has a special mission to perform in the world beyond a material or secular function. In the 60’s and 70’s America transitioned from the most admired country in the world to the most repudiated. The disaster we call Vietnam served to fuel an angry counter-culture led by left-wing radicals. The new radicals were hybrids, half Marxist, half hippie. These were the naïve Greta Thunbergs of the 60’s and 70’s whose utopian visions were boosted by LSD. Those who lived through this period can well remember the popularity of large wall-posters featuring Marx, Mao, Castro and Che Guevara. The ideological pedigree of the Left-wing movements of this period are even more certain. The “Black Panthers” were Marxist-Leninists, the “Weathermen” followed the teachings of Leon Trotsky, the “Free Speech “movement found inspiration in Mao.
In their attack today “Progressives “, are still emphasizing a materialist agenda with big government as the only agent of change. Their view point is more agnostic, leaving little room for “American exceptionalism”. Carl Sagon’s pronouncement that there are, “Billion upon billions of stars”, is more their style. Except in material terms mankind’s importance and knowledge is reduced to insignificance, dwarfed in comparison with a vast universe. “American exceptionalism” implies a purposeful creator and Secular humanists flee from divine purpose as the ultimate outrage. The problem with down- sizing America’s purpose and values is it leaves little scope for motivating a nation to resist hateful ideologies and authoritarian governments in the future. The leadership of Totalitarian systems are, full of implacable men who believe in implacable certitudes. Marxism and Nazism had no problem motivating millions of people to die for their cause. ISIS and the Taliban have no problem motivating suicide attacks. The English philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: “Rationalism and anti-rationalism have existed side by side since the beginning of Greek civilization…” What this means for the future of the world is that there will always be challenges and revolts against the humane and civilized conduct of human life. A civilization has to have something at its core to believe in beyond the mundane.
The “Progressives” are busy chipping away at the confidence of a great nation to play a meaningful role in the future of the world and by undermining the belief in “American exceptionalism” they are leaving us with a superficial value system that can neither protect ourselves or improve the life of the world.
William D. Howard is a freelance writer who has been published in both secular and religious formats. He had a long career as an educator and has traveled in over 40 countries.
By preserving culture and supporting children, the nuclear family consequently becomes the highest and most effective form of empowerment.
By now, people are realizing that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is less an organization committed to improving the black community, and more a Marxist group exploiting racial tensions to push its agenda. According to a recent poll, “70 percent of respondents think that the movement has not improved race relations, with 38 percent saying Black Lives Matter has made race relations worse.” After so much agitation and protest, BLM has little to show for itself besides fomenting chaos in urban America and coaxing millions of dollars from white elites hoping to expiate feelings of guilt.
Besides the lackluster outcome of its campaign, what has bothered people most about BLM is its core beliefs, which often stray from the concerns of many black Americans. In particular, BLM opposes the nuclear family: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
The logic of this statement suggests that children do better without parents and outside the home. Rather, the “village” will raise them. More than any other belief of BLM, this one against the nuclear family threatens the most harm to Americans of all races. Dismantling it leaves children extremely vulnerable to social ills.
As former NFL athlete Marcellus Wiley brilliantly explains, children in broken homes “are 5 times more likely to commit suicide, 6 times more likely to be in poverty, 9 times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison, 32 times more likely to run away from home.” Far from taking responsibility for the children, BLM’s proverbial village usually swallows them whole.
So why does BLM include this claim in its creed? When all evidence suggests that eliminating the nuclear family immeasurably harms minorities, how does an organization advocating on their behalf justify this stance? Answering these questions is worthwhile not only because it highlights the essential virtues of the nuclear family, but it also offers a way to address the great decline in family life already happening.
Families Transmit Culture and Cultivate Empathy
First and foremost, the nuclear family is a civilization’s primary means of cultural transmission. Parents pass on their values, faith, and traditions to their children, who then do the same for the next generation. A person’s politics, religious beliefs, and life goals are largely determined by his parents, who set the expectations. Whatever a school might teach or church might preach, parents usually have the final say for a child growing up, even after they become teenagers.
This is why BLM and progressive activists in general detest the family. They rightly see it as the main obstacle to their cultural revolution. Sure, they will start with toppling statues, painting ugly murals, rewriting history, and canceling dissenting views, but the keystone of culture is the family. A loving home will stubbornly continue to thwart the leftist propaganda projected everywhere. A self-sufficient unit, a nuclear family can preserve its way of life and insulate from damaging outside forces.
Acknowledging this, leftists will defend their hostility by contending that families continue to nurture prejudice and backward views. According to many leftists, the only thing the toxic home passes on to future generations is intolerance and ignorance. This is the stated reason for many pivotal leftists’ desire, such as John Dewey, to separate children from parents.
On the contrary, the nuclear family teaches tolerance and empathy. One can choose his friends, but he cannot choose his family. Respecting the dignity of others regardless of their merits arises from continual interaction with imperfect, unchosen family members.
As Rusty Reno wrote in the American Mind, “The family is a school of loyalty.” Without family, people might never learn to trust others, especially strangers with a different background. They might become intolerant, fearful, and ultimately lonely — perfect candidates for radicalization.
Family Is Empowering
By preserving culture and supporting children, the nuclear family consequently becomes the highest and most effective form of empowerment. Unfortunately, one person’s empowerment is another person’s privilege. Thus, in the name of social justice, BLM would rather deny all people this privilege than extend it to the less fortunate.
To its credit, BLM understands the real importance of the nuclear family, which is why activists explicitly attack it. For far too long, however, the majority of Americans have not understood this and have allowed the family to disintegrate. It wasn’t Plato’s “Republic,” Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” or Marx’s “State” taking children from their parents so they could be indoctrinated and assigned a role in the system. It was a culture that permitted abortion and no-fault divorce, redefined marriage and sex, and replaced fathers with the welfare state. And it was parents who outsourced their children to mediocre schools and mind-numbing screens.
What was once the apex of human experience is now seen as a terrible burden. Unsurprisingly, millennials don’t want to marry or become parents, nor does Gen Z, which accounts for the below-replacement U.S. fertility rates the last few years. Inundated with leftist narratives through popular culture, many young adults would prefer to cohabitate, own a dog, and binge-watch “The Office.” If they yearn for something more meaningful, they can engage in slacktivism and support causes such as BLM.
Long before Americans see the effect of the upcoming demographic winter, wherein adult diapers outsell children’s diapers and every social entitlement goes bankrupt, they will see a collapse in the culture. Without family acting as a cultural bulwark preserving American ideals in the face of ubiquitous leftist messaging, society will slip into dysfunction and chaos.
To put America first, one must put family first. It’s not enough to simply disagree and prove organizations like BLM wrong. Conservatives and patriotic Americans must support the nuclear family. Without family, the community becomes the mass, a collection of people without ideals to hold them together. With family, the community and its members become stronger, and Americans can finally attain and experience the kind of social harmony and justice they so desire.
Auguste Meyrat is an English teacher in the Dallas area. He holds an MA in humanities and an MEd in educational leadership. He is the senior editor of The Everyman and has written essays for The Federalist, The American Conservative, and The Imaginative Conservative, as well as the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. Follow him on Twitter.