The cause of obsession with the cultural and social aspect of its citizens is that of the media, religion, entertainment and sports brouhaha. In the old days of New York, some had suggested that Yankee fans were elite liberals, Dodger fans were in the main Brooklyn Jewish New Dealers and Italian Palm Sunday church-goers while the Giant fans were a sad mixture of Republicans and Conservatives. Generally no one really gave a damn because it was all about the love of the game. There was also mild resentment that the Irish took over Manhattan on St. Patrick’s Day in behalf of its parade leading to the Italian’s demanding a Columbus Day Parade, both of which never rose to the level of serious conflict or hatred — despite gang wars that have always been the culture of populous cities.

Could it be the fear factor of terrorism is making the nation paranoid and insecure in all aspect of society and making us unable to differentiate between threat and taste? If Catholics began to resent the evangelical movement as a threat to the single true faith, then the religious right would have a justified beef. If evangelicals suggest a candidate who happens to be Catholic is a but an occasional church-goer and an abortionist, then those who believe in choice — church-going or not — have a legitimate right to protest, not only the evangelicals but the Catholic Church which also concurs. To argue that abortion should not be supported by government would be legitimate, except that no faith-based organization would come forth to protect the health of a woman who decides to “murder” her child regardless of circumstance. Not only that, but most faith-based groups are unwilling to even permit contraceptive devices to enter their lexicon other than unrealistic abstinence. There is no question that all parents — oblivious to their own wayward younger years — would prefer virginity among their brood, but unless chained to the cellar post, teenagers will be teenagers. Overwhelmingly most parents forgive their child’s defiant sex-orientation from the norm, why, then, must the nation be so vindictive toward gays? Overwhelmingly parents forgive their daughter’s indiscreet sexual activity, and though some parents might argue against abortion, most would be for it as an economic issue for them and a psychological and practical matter for the daughter, who is not as brave as a Hester Prynne.

Owning guns became a political issue when automatic rifles became available for hunters and criminals, and animal lovers and police enforcement began to protest widespread sale of these weapons. Suddenly it became a Second and Tenth Amendment right of the individual and state, rather than the legitimized protection of animals, law enforcement and state militia.

Finally, most cultural issues are a matter of greed and bravado. The single mother on welfare is besmirched — never the bastard who couldn’t keep it zipped — she’s an ignorant whore and expects society to pay for her mistakes, forgetting that she could conceivably be considered a heroine for not having an abortion. “If I can work two jobs so should she — let the lazy grandmother take care of the brats.” Few realize that many “single mothers” are widows, and the nation is obliged to assist in the support of her children — the nation’s future citizens. As for the “whore” she, too, wishes to rear her children as productive citizens; thereby the nation needs to look further down the line to acknowledge that childhood neglect leads to costlier problems.

In addition, what harm is there to the rights of NASCAR if I am indifferent to the sport? Does that mean I am automatically against big cars, and for stricter auto-emissions? And even if I am does that imply a non sequitur leading to barring auto racing — just as pro-gun alleges that gun-laws are against happy hunting? Who cares that Whoopi Goldberg jokes nastily about Bush? Does that imply that Rush Limbaugh should be censured, too, or for that matter relegated to the restricted airwaves of Lawrence Stern? Why should there be a dual standard of criticism — one for the President and quite another for the Presidential candidate? And is it not devastatingly symbolic that Hollywood money is from punky and funky actors, but that corporate money or private donations is somehow minted as a warranty for intelligent and benevolent politics? The misconception that liberals somehow are at war with the rich even though they are responsible for the longevity of Ted Kennedy, the nomination of Kerry and Edwards, election of John Kennedy and FDR — all of whom are or were wealthy — omits the crucial factor that these men have deep concerns for the “little” people as opposed to the wealthy in the likes of Bush, Reagan, and Cheney who champion the oligarchic investment class and no such sentiment in their midst as the Kennedy legacy: because of your gift of wealth be kind to your country.

Admittedly most politicians send their children to prominent private schools and yet the liberals among them support public education and are against vouchers. However, this is not a contradiction: they are clearly realistic to admit that minimal vouchers to poor people will not get their children into a quality private school, perhaps a parochial school but is a violation of separation of church and state. The liberal also know that behind vouchers is a Christian right ploy to proselytize the faith. Rather, the liberals believe that it would be a disgrace to abandon public education which has been so much a part of building this nation. How can so many millions who have benefited from public education now feel threatened by funds to improve it?

Why, then, are we so defensive when it comes to different lifestyles and subcultures that are not aimed at changing our own values? There is, of course, one exception: there are too many religions hell bent on changing our national values.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 11, 2004.