Why Liberals Are Winning the Culture Wars
And why the GOP keep starting them.
"The liberal side on cultural questions does have the Constitution largely on its side. It has the Bill of Rights on its side in terms of liberty," says religious historian Stephen Prothero, whose new book is titled Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars (Even When They Lose Elections).
"And typically," continues Prothero, "the culture wars is an effort to restrict our liberty, rather than to expand our liberty." For this reason, according to Prothero, conservatives are the big losers when it comes to the culture wars.
That idea might not sit well with Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, who likes to be known for his associations with "winners." And while Trump has taken the politicos by surprise, Prothero says Trump's brand of social conservatism is nothing new.
"I think Trump just stands in a really long line of cultural warriors who want to exclude Catholics from the American family, who want to exclude Mormons from the American family, and in his case want to exclude Muslims from the American family," says Prothero.
Prothero recently sat down with Reason TV's Todd Krainin to discuss America's long history of cultural wars, religious liberty, and why he thinks liberals are the cultural war winners.
About 18 minutes.
Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Winkler and Joshua Swain. Music by Jingle Punks.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They sure are when it comes to having sex at colleges!
In the sense that liberal men get accused of rape and then get sent to rape cages?
Pyrrhic victory at best.
I'm telling you, this is why communism continues to sell and fascism doesn't. It's all about branding and marketing; it doesn't matter what the outcome is.
"A better world for all workers!" is a happy warm sentiment that sells a hell of a lot more t-shirts* than, "Hey...let's kill the fucking Jews!" Even if the outcomes are largely the same.
It's the same principal at work here. Every one of the liberal positions in the modern culture wars sounds nicer and more inclusive than the conservative counter-views, regardless of how well or not any of this shit works in reality.
*I assume that t-shirt sales are the main way in which tyrannical movements are initially financed.
I don't know what world "we will take your guns for your own safety, citizen!" Sounds better than "you have a human right to self defense" in.
And i don't want to know either.
"Look at all these massacres all the time. Do you want more dead kids just so a bunch of rednecks can shoot beer cans in their back yards?"
This message isn't aimed at gun owners. It's aimed at the significant proportion of the voting public which do not own guns. Note that in the populous northeast, the numbers are 7% lower than in the next lowest region. And even then, nowhere breaks 40%.
Also of course, there are a lot of other culture war issues.
I bet if you chopped the North East in two by extending the north Mass. border through New York, the north part would be one of the more gun owning parts of the country.
I hate always getting lumped in with Mass. and CT and NY and NJ.
I hate getting lumped in NJ.
I once got lumped in NJ, and let me tell you, it was no picnic.
I understand that I am losing the linguistic battle here, but I don't see anything liberal about the pro-gun-control position.
"Liberal" used to be a good word with an actual meaning. I like to think it still has some meaning distinct from left-wing progressivism.
"Liberal" used to be a good word with an actual meaning
You mean back in Victorian times? That was mean classical liberals still had influence.
Not even that long ago. Yes, it's been taken over by the left for some time now, but left-liberals were a different sort than the socialists and progressives.
left-liberals were a different sort than the socialists and progressives.
I'm wondering what exactly the sort of liberals you are referring to? If are referring to past liberal Democrats then well they supported Wilson, FDR and LBJ....
All of them? I'm saying such people existed. Not that they were necessarily politically dominant. I wouldn't call any of those 3 presidents "liberal" in any sense.
Could you name at least one of these American left-liberal personality, official or politician since 1933? I'm seriously confused as to what you are talking about? Are you talking about some random people or some actual public figures? "liberal Democrats" have been pretty statist since Bryan's time.
Also are you referring to your own liftetime? Or some remnant of the Democrats or some actual political strains with some actual clout?
Well, the way the left words it is:
We will take THEIR guns away for EVERYONE'S safety!" ("Their" is always some OTHER tribe/group: criminals, the mentally ill, Republicans, whites, always some OTHER group.)
It's called "Canada." Dammit.
Yeah, but when you change Jew to "Zionist" or even "Neo-conservative", you can actually still sell it quite well..
When you compare communism and racism, you are comparing two brands of leftism. Not left and right. Are you aware of that?
I dunno 'bout that. Self-described communists look dull, bored, & boring?at best, stoic. But self-described fascists tend to look like they're having fun, flambuoyant, snazzy. Communists look like they're always working, while fascists look like they're on a perpetual vacation. Communists want to be the same, world over, while fascists' fascism is always distinctive to their time & country.
Plus they had the snazziest uniforms.
mencken's complaint about the wealthy industrialists of his time was that they did boring cliched shit like give to charirty.
Fascism isn't about "let's kill the fucking Jews", it's about "let's stick it to the rich to hand out lots of free shit to the middle class": free health care, free retirement benefits, free education, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/qbrtbq8
"Jews" just stood for "profiteers, bankers, and capitalists". Today's progressives use the terms "the 1 percent" and "privileged white males", but it pretty much means the same thing.
The middle class talks a lot about socialism, but they generally wouldn't vote for a real socialist, because a real socialist would start by taking away their stuff. (Sanders isn't a socialist, and European nations generally aren't socialist either.)
I'm just guessing here, but thinking these liberals "with the Constitution on their side" must not be the same ones who clamor for virtual [if not literal] abolition of the 2nd Amendment and don't say things like "free speech is good, respect is better."
The only way that statement makes sense is if by "liberal" he means classically liberal, in other words, libertarians. And the reason the left is winning the culture wars is because they have completed the Gramscian long march through the institutions. The left controls the education system, news media, and entertainment media. And they use it to their advantage.
"The left" doesn't "control" those institutions, it's just that when you're unsuccessful enough in life to become a teacher, journalist, or starving artist, your interests align with those of the left. You can't change that; there is no "control" that can be shared or handed over to anybody else.
The solution is really to destroy those institutions. Journalism and the media businesses are under attack by technology and being replaced by open, shared, participatory platforms. Entertainment is likewise under attack by technology and being replaced with gaming and user-created content. Education is the toughest nut to crack because it has government-mandates, licensing, and monopolies backing it up.
Is the author replacing progressive with liberal in this story? If so, it's a big mistake. Because liberals always considered themselves respectful of other people's opinions and rights (especially free association). Whereas the progressives are shoving the rights of others out the window by jamming public accommodation laws down their throats as well as by using public health officials to enforce their morality.
IOW, liberals largely sat out the culture wars of the last generation and let progressIves co-opt their name.
...to the detriment of us all.
The left-liberal may be somewhat of a dying breed. But I think it is still a worthy distinction to be made between liberals and authoritarian progressives and socialists.
The progressives still think themselves respectful of others opinions and rights. They so sick sider some opinions and rights to be beyond the pale of civilized society, and so do not have to be respected. They do not see this as contradictory so going by progressive self regard on civil rights is no guide to their preferred policies
The liberal side on cultural questions does have the Constitution largely on its side. It has the Bill of Rights on its side in terms of liberty
So how do gun grabbers, anti-freedom of association, anti-corporate speechers, anti-hate speechers and universal healthcare people fit?
The second paragraph wasn't supposed to be italicized.
They are anything but liberal.
Politically the word "liberal" is ruined. But culturally it still has some actual meaning of leave people alone. Or so I will insist on believing.
Let's just call the left what they really are......"evil".
Evil is a little harsh. How about sinister?
The Bill of Rights includes the Ninth and the Tenth, which the SC routinely violate to let the progressives have their culture war "wins".
Without the rogue SC, the culture wars would be decided by the people, not a bare majority of a unelected star chamber.
This Prothero, asshole, doesn't know what he is talking about.
It depends on how one looks at it I reckon, I know many gays saying they've won a battle but are losing the war. That is, they've been completely normalized to the point where gay relationships completely mirror the boring straight ones.
How exactly is that losing? They can still conduct their relationships however they want. I guess it's like the people who don't want pot legalized because then it might get all icky and corporationey.
They can conduct them however, that doesn't mean they'll be viewed in the same light.
The distinct rebellious counter-culture will die, that's how it's losing. (Just for example, look at drag queens being banned at Pride events). The left idea of "liberation" that was pushed heavily at one time has turned completely around.
I do think that there will be a large drop in gay contributions to culture due to them no longer having a unique perspective and that'll be a shame. Whether that's overall a bad thing though, I couldn't say.
But the main reason why there is any such thing as a "gay" contribution to culture is because of the dominant cultural bigotry toward gays. So I can't really see calling it a loss. Though I see what people mean when they talk about it that way. People have that kind of nostalgia for lots of things.
I'd just call it change, and mostly for the better.
"But the main reason why there is any such thing as a "gay" contribution to culture is because of the dominant cultural bigotry toward gays."
I think that's correct, but it isn't necessary. I think a clear line between bigotry and near-total assimilation can be established and maintained.
Nostalgia does seem to be a big factor here at this point, but it's very clear from the left-radical perspective it's definitely a loss. I don't have a foot in either camp, but I can't say that I'll enjoy the future pride parade consists of boring, appropriately-dressed married couples arguing about their in-laws.
I consider it very sad that anyone would largely define their entire persona based on what gender they like to fuck.
It's very much a case of "defined by your enemies". So once again... if you don't like it, blame straight people.
(1) Homosexuals didn't have any choice in the matter; their entire persona was defined that way by society.
(2) It's actually heterosexual males who frequently define their entire persona based on what gender they like to fuck, because much of heterosexual male culture revolves around acquiring wealth and status in order to attract women. That's why you find a lot of gay men in the same kinds of jobs as women; money and status don't matter much to gay men.
It's not like anybody's complaining nobody donates to the abolitionists anymore.
Drag queens banned from Pride events? Lemme guess... "punching down" on real women? Female cultural appropriation?
Yeah. It's like there's no fucking point to being gay anymore. What's the point of being gay if it doesn't make everybody hate you?
i think it's more like they got what they thought they wanted and it's not everything they imagined, so occams razor, it must be discrimination. it couldnt possibly be that lifelong state sanctioned monogamy is not the whole point of life. I think some people just like feeling like they're jesus (as in standing up for the "little guy" against the villain du jour). as to below, they're losing that feeling.
the culture wars is an effort to restrict our liberty, rather than to expand our liberty
So does he mean both sides or does he mean that the "liberals" want to expand liberty? If the latter then well the "liberals" still do want the government to enforce their morality on people...
Stephen Prothero? Voice of London Stephen Prothero?
Oh wait, that was his brother Lewis. They sound kinda close.
Liberals, what is that? I heard about those back in the 70s, but I think they had already gone extinct.
Yes it is true that "liberals" sound nicer in their slogans. Libertarians can sound pretty nice too but the problem is dealing with the allegations that reducing a spending increase form 10% to 9.5% means libertarians want to bayonet babies on pikes, send women to rape camps and send gays and blacks to gas chambers and cause 200% unemployment destroy civilization itself.
Are Liberals Winning the Culture Wars?
Liberals are the only ones keeping score, and they often change the scoring rules.
moving the goalposts IS progress
He simply moves labels about so that whoever does stuff he doesn't like is a "conservative" and their opponents are "liberals."
Checking out the chapter headings of his book on Amazon, I see that he suggests that the anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon crusades of the 19th century are about conservative culture warriors versus "liberal" (meaning proggy) defense of religious freedom.
Look at who was actually fighting the Catholics and Mormons. Check out the Massachusetts Know-Nothings, who in addition to fighting the Church were also running up taxes and the state debt for public-works programs. Catholics and Catholic immigrants were denounced for being *anti-liberal* - against "progress."
The Republican Party pushed through the laws against Mormons. Their 1856 platform called slavery and polygamy twin relics of barbarism and pledged to get rid of both in the federal territories. President Abraham "Mr. Conservative" Lincoln signed the first anti-Mormon law in 1862.
Prohibition - I think Prothero recognizes that this policy was promoted by proggies, I'm not sure how he magically changes this into a conservative crusade.
Big fucking deal. Your pet church didn't get preferential status, so you've got a whole history lesson for the world. GET OVER IT.
To be fair, although Catholicism and LDS should be tolerated by the state, for people to oppose them otherwise for the idiotic and oppressive ideologies that they are is entirely justified and reasonable.
I think its a mistake to take 'culture-wars' (which are a constant) and align them with political-parties and/or conservative/liberal ideas.
neither are "winning" or "losing". Culture changes gradually, and different groups attempt to capitalize on these changes (or resistance to change) if they think they can benefit from it.
One might as well call "Libertarians" the great culture-war "winners" - yet if you did that, you'd realize how shallow the idea of 'winning' really is.
Neither Liberals nor Conservatives have won shit in the culture wars, because what they both desire most of all is CONTROL.
The mere existence of any continued conflict is evidence that no one is 'winning'. The center will always be changing and one day's 'winners' will simply change the terms of the conflict in order to keep fighting for the sake of fighting.
as someone else once said re: Culture War = "It is not victory they desire, but (endless) War itself"
Reason is pretty mendacious on culture-war issues since they themselves advocate a culture war of their own which they "started".
I'm two years married and that pisses the "right" off so much.
So this guy? Winner.
Or, to put it in other words: real people's real lives are impacted by the "culture wars". So while the "losers" generally don't lose much (no one is going to force Santorum to marry Huckabee, get an abortion, pray in a Mosque, or go to therapy), the "winners" generally do win a bunch (I'm married now, my sisters retain the right and ability to get abortions in their states, and Mosques continue to be built where there are enough Muslims to pay for and populate them, and mental illness is increasingly being recognized and treated as a disease rather then a personal failing).
These aren't abstract ideas. Real lives are impacted. Mostly on the side of people fighting "for" something. The people fighting "against" things are mostly trying to force their beliefs on other people.
"mental illness is increasingly being recognized and treated as a disease rather then a personal failing"
It could be either.
Your mental illness of thinking you are physically attracted to a person of the same sex could be a disease, though if you have paired up with someone of the same sex, to make a cultural point, then it is a personal failing.
Meanwhile, you are reaping the governmental benefits of calling yourself "married" while producing none of the things society granted those benefits for, your sisters claim a "right" and get to murder unborn children, and people, who adhere to an ideology in complete opposition to what America was founded on, are being allowed to open possible radicalization centers.
And you say there are no losers?
I don't think you actually understood what i was saying at all.
Of course gays getting married is better than not.
that change is not a sign of anyone "winning" some war. Its just a sign of a perpetually-evolving cultural center. Politicians don't make changes happen = they jump in front of things that are already happening and pretend-fight.
And why the GOP keep starting them.
Is it really accurate to say they "start" them? Is there a consensus until a socon complains? Did demanding legal abortion or attacking Roe vs. Wade "start" the culture war?
The GOP's reactions to culture changes has almost always been responsive to efforts by progressives.
It is just that the treasonous media always portrays the reaction as the first salvo.
Pretty much. All you have to do is look at video games. Social justice has perhaps not completely ruined them, but it's certainly changed things dramatically.
Companies no longer bring over certain titles from Japan (Dead or Alive Xtreme for instance), or if they do bring over a "problematic" title, they censor parts of it to appease feminists.
Perhaps we need a new word to describe the difference between Liberal, liberal, Left and stop labeling with broad strokes of black/white, right/wrong, Left/Right - Libertarianistic maybe?
??My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
Clik This Link inYour Browser??....
???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com ?
This guy's got plenty right, but he's pegged Trump & his supporters ridiculously wrong.
The reason conservatives always lose in the culture wars is simple: They can never move forward. Change in any direction is anti-conservative. There, I said the same thing the interviewee did, but much simpler.
That part's easy to see. What he may not get, but which John here often explains, is that "liberals" don't have to move in any predictable direction to win. They're always deciding on a new direction to move in, & never get there (so always have a complaint). However, they "win" in the sense not of reaching their goal, but moving towards it...then moving the goal elsewhere & changing direction.
I see this Prothero guy conflates liberals w/ progressives. Idiot.
This whole book is semantic play--the kinds of semantic play leftists and statists indulge in--and all too often get away with--to place themselves always on the 'right side of history'
Leftists/statists were/are against civil rights--let's be honest, they want to have humans they can use as servitor animals--once it was slaves, now it is a large class of illegals
Leftists/statists were(are?) against women's suffrage and equal rights.
Leftists/statists support/ed many forms of prohibition.
I could go on.
The important thing is, after they lose, they use their prevalence in the media and education systems to paint history as if they were the ones supporting the positions they were actually vehemently against. Thus we get the spectacle of 'liberal' heroes who were klansmen, eugenicists, segregationists and all sorts of 'ists' that appear, on the surface, to be anathema to liberal ideals.
This book is nothing more that a further example of this.
Not sure what he means by "liberals" here. I have one of his books in one of my history classes right now, and it is actually pretty good. Shame if he means "progressive" when he says "liberal".
"Excluding people from the American family"??? WTF does that even mean?
Anybody who says bullshit like this can't be taken seriously.
He finally does get around to saying that Liberal = Democrat and Conservative = Republican. I wish he would have gotten around to the fact that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (read: personal bailouts) is a HUGE reason that the left wins.
The guy is an intellectual, first.
You can't really pin this on liberals or conservatives. The people who are winning the culture wars are those who care about individual liberty and those people exist on both sides.
yep. which is sort of what i was saying above. its not 'liberals' or 'conservatives'.
but then no one would ever claim libertarians are "winners" because we're apparently this super-minority that doesn't matter.
Libertarians endorse gay-marriage etc for 30 years.... and yet even though the "liberal" candidates for president in 2008 were both *opposed* to gay marriage... we're told "THE LIBERALS ARE WINNING" when gay marriage suddenly arrives.
Reason is pretty mendacious on culture-war issues since they themselves advocate a culture war of their own which they "started".
????? ?? ??
250
Thank you so much for giving everyone such a nice chance to read critical reviews from this blog.
mafia 3 torrent
Gta San Andreas Torrent
Great article thanks
flash games
flash games 69
They will implode eventually.
Hopefully before they completely destroy western civilization.
Even if/when they implode, they will still leave their stank all over everything they have touched.
Yep. I believe it was a Reason article that talked about all these "Victim" groups being juggled by the left that will eventually all start turning on each other over who is a bigger victim and who is aggressing and microaggressing against who. Then the house of cards will come crashing down. I can't wait.