BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, radio broadcasters used a special-effects technique called “the echo chamber.” Mystery programs like “The Shadow,” for instance, began with an echo-chambered male voice asking, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” Then, the same voice would answer, “The Shadow knows!” and promptly break into insane laughter.
The hero of this weekly radio mystery was a mild-mannered private detective named Lamont Cranston, who could make himself invisible whenever he needed to eavesdrop or sneak up on a bad guy. As a child, it never occurred to me what Lamont might have done if others could have made him invisible.
I only became became aware of this scary possibility when I entered the no-man’s land of adolescence. That’s when I began to reflect on a favorite saying of my parents’ generation: “Children should be seen, not heard.” In their world, I wasn’t supposed to be heard at all. The long-term effect of such an oppressive child-rearing rule was to make me, and probably many of my contemporaries, feel as if we could do nothing but echo our parents’ politics and social values.
Until JFK was assassinated in 1963, few of my generation had any interest in national or local politics. Few of us bothered to question the higher authorities in our lives — which, in the 1970s, proved to be angry white women. This, after all, was the era when feminists were declaring: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
That wisecrack might have been amusing if it weren’t enforced by some pretty radical changes in our nation’s customs and laws. All across suburban America, the Stepford Wives were in revolt — first, through clandestine “consciousness raising” meetings; then, with the almost simultaneous decision of Roe v. Wade and passage of no-fault divorce laws in 1973. By then, affirmative action had completely transformed hiring and promotion practices in the workplace, and latchkey kids became almost as commonplace in the suburbs as they were in inner-city slums. As for those of us who objected to all this, like The Shadow, we had become invisible.
Now, four decades later, I often feel as if I’m trapped in an echo chamber of completely obsolescent ideas and ideals. Few of my contemporaries seem to know what I’m talking about. Although I marched shoulder to shoulder with many of these Americans for racial equality and against the Vietnam War during the 1960s, today we rarely see eye to eye.
I’ve long suspected the root cause for most of these irreconcilable differences is in the way we use words. Since the 1970s, political correctness has become such a pervasive benchmark in human communications that America is today a de facto bilingual nation. Though we all still use words like “justice” and “liberty,” “life” and “death,” each of these key words in our national vocabulary has taken on diametrically opposite meanings.
As historian Diane Ravitch demonstrated in her 2003 study “The Language Police,” textbook publishers nationwide have deliberately and systematically purged every trace of Western cultural tradition from our public lexicon. The mass communications media have reinforced this revisionist trend, and “activist judges” are now doing everything they can to make it established precedent.
All of this seems to me no less than a crusade to rewrite our nation’s history in Marxist terms. Gorbachev may have taken down his wall, but our nation’s intellectual elites have adopted his Marxist perspective as their own. Hence, we are now engaged in a civil war of words that undermines our faith in the free enterprise system and weakens our resolve in the global war on terror — a war no modern civilization can afford to lose.
It’s instructive to consider this current crisis in the context of our nation’s early history. In an 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote: “Inequalities of Mind and Body are so established by God Almighty in the Constitution of Human Nature that no Art or policy can ever plane them down to a level.”
In these words, the “conservative” Federalist Adams was trying to refute the “liberal” Republican Jefferson’s claim that our representative government must be based on the idea that “all men are created equal.” Adams rejected this idea because, like many 18th-century thinkers, he believed man in his natural state is a beast whose impulses must be controlled by the rule of law. In other words, Adams would have agreed with The Shadow about the evil in mens’ hearts.
Like most idealists of his time and ours, though, Jefferson never even asked, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” After all, to do so would be to acknowledge the “natural depravity” of man — or what those of us raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition would call Original Sin.
Jefferson rejected such traditional beliefs. In fact, following in the wavering philosophical footsteps of Rousseau and countenancing the bloody politics of Robespierre, Jefferson and his followers had pledged their lives to overthrowing all forms of hierarchical religious and political authority. Judging by our current secularized state, Jefferson won his argument with Adams.
How predictable it is, though, that we are now all locked in an echo chamber with a man who loves to hear only the sound of his own voice.
Bruce Robinson is a writer and former Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Great article Bruce. Hope to see more of you on a regular bases. The Forum Page needs balance and critical thinking. Good job and a great contribution to the local paper which I like very much. Keep at it Bruce. Thank you.
Bruce longs for the days when women knew their place.
Apparently you do not know Bruce. Making a comment like that shows you know nothing about Bruce. Try reading the article again and you may understand what he is saying. Believe me Mike you are wrong.
Well, he did say that few of his contemporaries seem to know what he is talking about.
Thats because they are Liberals. Very simple answer.
You excel at very simple answers.
That is a very schoolyard bully, Putin type comment.
Hank do you know Bruce?
You excel at simple answers. Even Bruce would be embarrassed by them.
You seem to know so much about Bruce why not ask him yourself. You will not because you know what will happen. Hiding under the rules of the left will not help you Hank.
What are the “rules of the left” Bob?
Why ask me. You should know you are apparently following them. o whAT.
I want to make sure I am following them according to your definition. Please advise.
Hank it seems you are having a comprehension issue. All you do is ask questions. Do you not understand your own political and personal leanings. We will not be able to help you with that. I suggest you just to a quick self help study.
I would suggest the same for you Bob but I am sure that you are the least qualified person to help yourself.
And the question about socialism, which is a term you used but do not understand, will apparently remain unanswered.
No need to answer you have all the ANSWERS.
Most intelligent thing you’ve said in … ever.
Bruce, well done.
The points you make are being proven by some of the responses.
I will say Adams made a good point:
“he (Adams) believed man in his natural state is a beast whose impulses must be controlled by the rule of law.
Unfortunately those running the country (as well as their supporters) feel they are above the rule of law.
How do they feel they are above the law?
Perhaps some readers would be interested in reading F. A. Hayet’s The Road to Serfdom, which provides a pretty accurate history and analysis of the progressive/sociaist movement.
Do you mean Hayek?
Bob Said: No need to answer you have all the ANSWERS.
Bob, having answers is the easy part; having the right answers is a different matter altogether.
You are so right Dennis. Wonder what Hank has to say about the underdog winning in the Florida House race.
Underdog? For a seat held by Republicans for the last 60 years?
Follow the polls and the resukts of the 2008, 2012 and Sinks last election results for the district. He was a definite underdog. Sorry Hank.
“He” … Ha, you are not following this very closely after all!
Bob,
It is probable that Sink sank because the electorate found her to be too bossy.
Why not say what you mean? Sink was a bitch who deserved to lose.
A memorable quote from HH:
“Sink was a bitch who deserved to lose.”— Hank Harrison 3/12/2014
No Dennis, that’s what you were saying. I just translated for those of us who can’t hear your unreconstructed dog whistles.
Typical that were too dense to understand basic English sentence structure. I should have known after occasionally subjecting myself to your sophomoric columns.
Hank said: “Typical that were too dense to understand basic English sentence structure.
LOL.
Nice structure in that one Hank.
Bob,
You are right:
Alex Sink rises to top in Florida special election
More than a dozen operatives and officials from both parties interviewed by POLITICO were almost unanimous that Democrat Alex Sink, her party’s 2010 nominee for Florida governor, has emerged as the unambiguous favorite in the race.
That’s a district that was always going to be an uphill slog for a Democrat. Doesn’t signify anything nationally.
You know better than anyone how hard it is to have the right answers. You haven’t had one in years.
Well let me try you Hank. Are the Republicans going to take back the Senate in 2014? If not, why? Your chance to be tested.
I don’t know and at this point I don’t care. Whatever gains they make they’ll lose in 2016. The composition of the state Legislature has a much greater impact on our lives — yours and mine. So how much is Jerry going to be reelected by? And how are Republicans going to stave off extinction in California?
Paraphrasing: “What does Jerry have to do with this? Quit changing the subject.”
Paraphrasing, misrepresenting, what’s the difference?
Bob,
Fortunately there is no Senate race in Florida this election cycle, as know how the game is played in that state.
Proverbial tip of the iceberg being exposed once again, must be global warming.
Speaking of right answers, here is one I know you will love, Hank:
“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.” – Sarah Palin ( 2008)
Another gem from your heroine:
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.” Gee, I wish she were in the White House.