Babalu Blog: A soft people

January 22, 2007

A soft people

I am depressed. Not the clinical variety, where a myriad of medications would take the edge off my personality and turn me into a no-persanality moderate. No, I am politically and intellectually depressed. A common condition, I think, in these halcyon days of liberal ascendancy, where I see very little hope of a sunrise after the sunset of November 7, 2006. I am depressed about the future course our country will take. I am depressed because I see the instability (for lack of a better word) that awaits our version of the 1930s and 40s rushing toward us, with all its attendant violence and intensity.

Today, I heard Rush Limbaugh read a column that is spot-on about the crises we face. I think it nails our condition (and the principal cause of my depression) pretty accurately. It is titled "Soft people, hard people" and it is written by Selwyn Duke. Your comments are enthusiastically requested.

If the 1976 western The Last Hard Men has it right, we Occidentals metamorphosed into jellyfish sometime around the early twentieth century. Although this title is more movie marketing than historical statement, there may be something to it. After all, Robert Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, was motivated by the belief that western boys were becoming too soft when he originated the Boy Scouts in 1907.
Regardless of the origin and rapidity of our transition from he-men to she-men, one thing is for certain: We have become a very soft people.

When pondering this, I think about how it is now common to see men cry publicly. Just recently George Bush Sr. broke down while rendering a speech, something unthinkable a generation ago. Why, presidential aspirant Edmund Muskie saw his campaign scuttled by a few inopportune tears in 1972. And before you score me for not embracing the metrosexual model, remember the impression this gives the rest of the world. Feminization may be fashionable, but it doesn't engender respect among the more patriarchal peoples.

Then I think about our unwillingness to discipline our children, something to which our jungle-like schools bear witness. And should someone use punitive measures harsher than the euphemistically named "time-out" — something that may actually work — he is often excoriated for damaging the little darlings' "self-esteem." And a spanking? Perish the thought. We're told this could scar a child irreparably (although we seldom ponder the ravages of pickling a young brain with Ritalin), and the idea is so foreign to many parents they cannot even conceive of placing a hand on their cherubim's sanctified little posteriors.

In contrast, the people of the Third World — and especially the Moslem fanatics who have designs on the West — are hard as stone. We fret over the fact that Saddam Hussein endured some taunts during his execution, while next door in Saudi Arabia they may still chop off the hand of a thief. We cater to the religious wants of incarcerated terrorists, providing everything from the Koran and prayer rugs to desired foods, and the soft set still laments the terrible privation these poor victims must endure. In contrast, the terrorist's brethren often disallow the practice of other religions in the Abode of Islam. We let illegal aliens run roughshod over our nation, sometimes bestowing government benefits upon them, then still feel guilty about not exalting them sufficiently. In the Third World, however, foreigners are often treated like second-class citizens. Under the Mexican Constitution, one foreign-born will never enjoy the full rights of citizenship. In many Moslem societies, a certain kind of second-class status is reserved for "infidels"; it's called dhimmitude.

All this is not surprising. After all, luxury and living high soften the sinews and, regrettably, sometimes also the head. The hand that spends its entire existence inside a velvet glove will remain soft and delicate. The one wielding workmen's tools dawn till dusk becomes calloused and hard, more able to inflict injury and more resistant to it.

I know, I know what's coming. That's what makes us better than the nations in question, proclaim some, allowing themselves a rare foray into the realm of cultural superiority (what ever happened to the notion that all cultures are morally equal?). As for me, I'm not awash in moral relativism, but neither do I fall victim to blind cultural chauvinism. For, anyone who believes we have a monopoly on virtue is living in a fantasy-world of smug self-delusion. Don't get me wrong, we are better in some very significant ways, but also worse in a few ominous ones. We lack certain manly virtues, qualities on which national survival may hinge.

There is an immutable truth of human nature: When soft people clash with hard people, the soft are vanquished. That is, unless they become harder.

People may laugh. That's crazy, say they, we have the greatest military in the world, the most advanced technology, and a nuclear umbrella. Yes, that's true. But first, I don't claim we'll fall tomorrow, next month, or next year. Even more significantly, though, external enemies would not initiate our undoing. The fact is that no body, no matter how strong, imposing and well-armored, can survive an untreated disease metastasizing rapidly within. The smallest bacteria can kill giants as easily as dwarves.

And that is what ails us. Every time an action designed to preserve western civilization is taken or even proposed, a great internecine battle ensues. We capture combatants on the battlefield and then spend millions in legal fees debating whether to adjudicate their cases in civil or military courts. We rightly scrutinize Imams making a scene at an airport and then spend millions more arguing about so-called "racial profiling." And it's incessant. Every act nowadays, from singling out illegals for deportation and the suspicious for scrutiny to getting swatted by "Tigger" to a six-year-old boy giving a girl a peck on the cheek, is met with hand-wringing and a disproportionate reaction. And far too often litigation results, costing us valuable resources.

And let's be very clear: Every dollar in currency and passion we spend on litigation is one less we have to fight those who would see us in ashes. This means fewer resources — in terms of not just money but also attention and zeal — to secure our borders, ensure domestic tranquility and root out terrorists within and without. A united people would confront threats as a monolithic front; we are expending ourselves fighting a cold civil war. And the end result is that the lawyers get richer, we get weaker, and the hard people, waiting and watching in the darkness, laugh louder.

Lest I be misunderstood, I don't suggest we become the Hunnish Empire. It's noble to recognize that Saddam Hussein's tormentors might have demonstrated more dignity. It's a sign of civilization to expect our troops to behave as professional soldiers, not rampaging warriors. And it's most divine to realize all God's children are valuable in His eyes. But to the excesses of justice, correction or interrogation, we react not with measured admonition but with hysteria. Our civility should be the fruits of manly virtue, but it's the putrescence of pusillanimity.

And here I think of G.K. Chesterton's profound description of our condition:

"Nowadays, we have Christian values floating around detached from one another. Consequently, we see scientists who care only about truth but have no pity, and humanitarians who care only about pity but have no truth."

The Moslem world is one extreme, we are the other, the humanitarians who have no truth. Why can't we control seven-year-olds, prosecute a war efficiently or strike fear into the hearts of criminals? It's all for the same reason. We're soft-headed pseudo-humanitarians to whom the kind of action or punishment necessary to deter evil behavior seems medieval. This is why we had a national conniption when teenage vandal Michael Faye was to receive a typical Singaporean punishment, caning, for his misdeeds. We should bear in mind that you can walk Singapore's streets safely in the dark of night. The same cannot be said of ours.

Oh, this is just the price of freedom, some say? They are wrong. This is the price of abused freedom.

You may think I'm missing the boat, that the problem lies not with the weak but with the malicious, those who are the enemy within. And, of course, but for their meddlesome hands, we wouldn't be at this precipice. But a minority tyrannizes only at the deference of the majority. For instance, if enough of us rejected the media that disseminated footage of Abu Ghraib far and wide while refusing to show Muslim beheadings, we'd not have reporters who were more internationalist than nationalist.

And a juxtaposition of Abu Ghraib and Moslem beheadings tells the tale, as too many of us are epitomized by panties while our adversaries are by swords. While they bat nary an eye at the torture of an innocent, we eat ourselves alive over the humiliation of the guilty. But what is truly humiliating is when the hard people laugh, watching the soft people play the fools, bray at one another, and commit cultural suicide.

And make no mistake, they laugh. Why do you think the Mexican government distributed literature instructing its citizens on how to best violate our southern border? Why did Islamists issue advice on how to play the victim card in the American legal system? They don't tolerate such under their dominion, but they know about our lawsuits, protests, pandering politicians and capitulating clergy. They know the game. They know us. And they don't really think we're barbaric or unjust.

They just think we're weak and stupid.

Soft people and hard people, two sides of the same world. Of course, we were harder too, a long, long, long time ago. But it would be nice to find that happy medium, something that seems ever elusive. A bane of man is that he jumps from blind prejudice to blind tolerance and back again, without ever making a stopover at the ethereal land known as enlightened distinction.

Will we find it within ourselves to strike that balance? That is doubtful. But fairly certain is that we won't much longer have the luxury of being a soft republic. With enemies on both sides of the gate, it's only a matter of time before we see a 9/11 that is not a 9/11, but 9/11 squared. Thus, to use a play on Otto Von Bismarck's metaphor, we can proceed with a velvet glove, but within must lie an iron fist. We have no other choice. Unless, that is, we fancy death a viable option.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selwyn Duke is a columnist, public speaker, and Internet entrepreneur whose work has been published widely online and in print. His articles appear at RenewAmerica, American Thinker, The Conservative Voice, and Blogcritics, as well as many other sites. He has been featured in The American Conservative (Pat Buchanan's magazine), on the Rush Limbaugh Show, and has a regular column in Christian Music Perspective.

© Copyright 2007 by Selwyn Duke

Posted by George Moneo at January 22, 2007 02:50 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.babalublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/hut.cgi/4560

Comments

Yep; heard Rush read it and thought about the line, "When soft people clash with hard people, the soft are vanquished." Sobering. Sometimes it looks like the wimps and the wicked are winning and the culture is running headlong into collective suicide, doesn't it? It ignores the signs of the times. But I have faith in God and in the backbone still found in parts of this country. It's just that too many people have been lulled to sleep and need awakening.

Posted by: Gigi at January 22, 2007 03:23 PM

It is spot on, remember this? "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.-

Wake up America, do you really believe that Pelosi & Hillary are capable of leading our nation? I ask, when was the last time an American was convicted of treason?

Posted by: Ziva at January 22, 2007 03:25 PM

Velvet glove with an Iron fist, quite amazing

Have you guys ever seen the movie Idiocracy?? It is a comedy, but the point of the movie is that Idiots reproduce more than Intelligent people so in the end you get a bunch of idiots rulling and running the country. It kind off reminded me of some Latin American countries. And the sad part is that it is not very far away from what is happening.

Posted by: qbanartemisa at January 22, 2007 03:31 PM

It would help if the guy had some basic facts straight. And a juxtaposition of Abu Ghraib and Moslem beheadings tells the tale, as too many of us are epitomized by panties while our adversaries are by swords. While they bat nary an eye at the torture of an innocent, we eat ourselves alive over the humiliation of the guilty.

Um, there was more than just panty placement going on at Abu Gharib. People were raped and murdered without any evidence they were guilty of any crime.

Posted by: MMerchant at January 22, 2007 03:53 PM

Note - the second and third sentences of my first paragraph are quotes from the column. The formatting didn't take.

Posted by: MMerchant at January 22, 2007 03:55 PM

Raped and murdered? At Abu Ghraib? By our troops? And the media missed that story and you have it, MMerchant? Please do us a favor and grow a brain before spewing your bullshit again.

Posted by: George L. Moneo at January 22, 2007 03:57 PM

The media missed the story because they don't have access to the evidence. The Congress, however, has seen it. Since you don't trust non-Republicans, I'll only quote the following witnesses.

"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here." - Sen. Lindsey Graham

"It was pretty disgusting, not what you'd expect from Americans," - Senator Norm Coleman.

"I don't know how the hell these people got into our army," - Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

Posted by: MMerchant at January 22, 2007 04:04 PM

lei el articulo,muy bueno..esta salvajemente escrito,mas claro ni el agua..A VER SI LOS "SOFT PEOPLE" de por aqui abren los ojos...pero bueno,creo que todo es resultado de la decadencia de occidente como cultura y poder,estamos demasiado "desarrollados" para nuestro propio bien..demasiado "blandos",debido a nuestro desarrollo,demasiado corruptos y tolerantes,gracias a nuestro desarrollo..por eso repito algo que puse en un post del articulo sobre lo de "posada protest"...PA'LUCHAR CONTRA LOS BARBAROS..TIENES QUE SER MAS SALVAJE QUE ELLOS..SI VAS A LUCHAR CONTRA "DEMOCRATAS" PUES SE "DEMOCRATA"....y que no haya "depress" people around here,,we have a lot of pills,massages parlors,gyms,food,and a lot more to "combat" depression..

Posted by: tony44 at January 22, 2007 04:11 PM

That still does not substantiate rape and murder. But that is irrelevant to the point of the article anyway.

His point is correct. It is a matter of internal decay.

Posted by: harpofly at January 22, 2007 04:18 PM

Great post!

Ziva, your quote reminded me of another one ... by Stalin:

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."

It's scary how we are witnessing the above happening ... what will it take for all those who are oblivious to grasp reality? Oh ... Apathy!!

I wish you well :) Melek

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values."~Ayn Rand

Posted by: Melek at January 22, 2007 04:50 PM

If we had been a hard culture we would never have allowed you Cubans to lead the charge to re-establish Spanish as the predominate language of Miami/Florida, pushing out our own language and culture in turn.

Sorry if it offends, but it's true. I find the Hispanicization of the United States just as painful as the Islamization of it would be, maybe more painful because we did give you refuge from a cruel dictator.

Posted by: Suzan at January 22, 2007 06:10 PM

Suzan, no Cuban or any other U.S. resident who happens to speak Spanish is making you learn Spanish, nor are they denying you your right of free speech, religion, life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Islamic law would do exactly that. Give us a break, if you don't like the fact that large numbers of Hispanics have settled in the U.S. you are entitled to that opinion but if you're going to compare them to Islamofacist barbarians you just sound racist and ignorant.

Posted by: Ziva at January 22, 2007 07:27 PM

Suzan: Anyone who operates in this country by use of solely the Spanish language (and but for few notable aberrations) is placing himself/herself in the loser side of the economic equation as well as of the freedom equation, most will be nothing more than second class citizens. By your tone it is perceived that you would prefer the very real possibility of Islam domination to that of a ridiculously impossible so called "Hispanic" rule by first generation refugees or migrants, none of my children even remotely dominate Spanish as it is the case for most second generation Americans, I myself gave some of the very best years of my life to protecting the American Way of Life from those bent on imposing their hatred on America, my own son today guards our peaceful sleep with his life, sleep tight Ms. Suzan for rough men stand ready to do violance upon those willing to harm America and as long as we raise enough of them American values will be upheld.

Posted by: Doorgunner at January 22, 2007 07:38 PM

"If we had been a hard culture we would never have allowed you Cubans to lead the charge to re-establish Spanish as the predominate language of Miami/Florida, pushing out our own language and culture in turn."

I think the column in general is silly, but I'll indulge a bit in this hard/soft theme because of what you wrote.

A question: What is "soft" and what is "hard"? The author seems to imply the former is synonymous with weakness. As for what you wrote, is having the confidence that your country can absorb these people and handle the challenges and opportunities that come with that a "soft" or "weak" approach? Just the opposite.

By the same token, insisting on high standards for ourselves is not soft. A refusal to inflict atrocities on the innocent is not soft.

Posted by: MMerchant at January 22, 2007 07:39 PM

lieberman called the anti-surge crowd pussies.

link:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/01/lieberman-calls-dem-doves-in-congress.html

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at January 22, 2007 08:17 PM

Suzan, what's your heritage?

Posted by: George L. Moneo at January 22, 2007 08:48 PM

Last time I checked, no one is forcing anyone to speak Spanish .... perhaps market forces do, but that's our system, which has made the country great. The same objections Suzan voices was heard by the Irish, Italians, and Jewish immigrants, among others. If you don't like hearing Spanish in Miami, you can always pack up and leave to North Dakota. (No offense to the heartland.) Second and third generation hispanics, for the most part, don't have a good command of the language. So chill.

Posted by: Gigi at January 22, 2007 09:51 PM

Suzan,

Sorry to be rude but that xenophobic bullshit is just that, bullshit. Anyone that says that Hispanics don't want to learn English is full of it. I work in Spanish language advertising and so I'm very familiar with which companies spend a lot of money speaking to Spanish speakers. Do you know who the biggest spender on Spanish language media is?

It's a company called Lexicon Marketing. Do you know what Lexicon Marketing is in the business of? Ingles sin barreras, or English without barriers. That's the name of the best selling "Learn English at home" course.

Please, please, please take your uninformed xenophobia somewhere else.

Posted by: conductor at January 22, 2007 11:06 PM

Nic temere nic timide

Posted by: jsb at January 23, 2007 07:41 AM

George : I think Susan's heritage is comemierda(oops I am sorry Susan,let me explain .COME=TO EAT,MIERDA=SHIT put them together Susan and u have shiteater).Yep George I know I am 100% sure her heritage is comemierda and I bet anyone $200 right now Christobal Colon is LOL.

Posted by: PLP at January 23, 2007 07:51 AM

My mom teaches Spanish to mainly Mexican immigrants trying to improve their lives and/or study for their citizenship exams. The students just *love* her, and she finds it very rewarding. From all I hear from her, if you told the women she teaches, "I'm going to tie your kids to a chair, and they can't get up until they speak English," the typical response would be "Do you want me to hold him down while you are tying?"

The way I figure it, about 100-150 years ago, there were a bunch of darker-skinned folks speaking some Romance language or another flooding to our shores, who didn't speak a lick of English.

We called them Italians (at least when being polite).

Can anybody say that Italian-Americans haven't mightily contributed to America? To those who think we can't make Americans out of Hispanic people, I say hey, they are at least from 'roun' 'ear.

Posted by: R S at January 23, 2007 09:15 AM

Goodness what a rude welcome for a new poster.

I hope you will allow me the courtesty of a response:

Suzan, no Cuban or any other U.S. resident who happens to speak Spanish is making you learn Spanish, nor are they denying you your right of free speech, religion, life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Islamic law would do
exactly that. Give us a break, if you don't like the fact that large numbers of Hispanics have settled in the U.S. you are entitled to that opinion but if you're going to compare them to Islamofacist barbarians you just sound racist and ignorant.

Posted by Ziva at January 22, 2007 07:27 PM

ANSWER: My post was not about Islam vs. Hispanic culture, my post was about one culture pushing out another and the painful effects felt by the culture this is being pushed out. Don't you find it ironic that on a thread where everyone is worrying about Islam taking over,k there are people who call me "xenophobic" because I feel pain that my Anglo-American culture -- the foundational culture of this country -- is being pushed out and marginalized by Hispanic language and culture in large parts of our nation?

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:09 PM

Posted by Doorgunner at January 22, 2007 07:38 PM

ANSWER: See above. My post was not specfiically comparing Islamization to Hispanicization (I know full well how much Islam sucks), but about one culture/language pushing out another. Can you deny that Hispanic culture and language is pushing out Anglo-American language and culutre in large parts of our country? I have heard from numerous sources that you can no longer get a job in the Miami area unless you speak Spanish. How is that a native-born citizen of an English-speaking country can no longer get a job in his own country unless he speaks Spanish? BTW, the same is increasingly true of Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, etc. If we had been a "hard" culture as we once were, we would have made sure that newly arrived immigrants did not push out the culture/job prospects of the native-born population.

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:13 PM

Suzan, what's your heritage?

Posted by George L. Moneo at January 22, 2007 08:48 PM

ANSWER: I was born as something called "American" and was that for the first 30 years of my life. Because of forces beyond my control, I am now something called an "Anglo."

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:14 PM

Posted by: Gigi at January 22, 2007 09:51 PM

ANSWER: Again, calling me "xenophobic" on a thread devoted to wories about "Islamization" would seem comically ironic. The irony apparently escapes you. PS, if we had required mandatory Angloization for 20th Century Latin American immigrants -- as we did for 19th-Century non-English speaking European immigrants -- there would be no use for "Spanish language advertising' in this country at all.

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:16 PM

Whoops, sorry, wrong answer to wrong question. Again for "Gigi":

Posted by: Gigi at January 22, 2007 09:51 PM

Some day "market forces" may force YOU to speak Arabic in order to get a job in your own neighborhood, and also force you to tolerate having a mosque blare the azan into your ears five times per day. Well, too bad, when that happens you can always pack up and leave for North Dakota :) PS what made this country great is rooted in hundreds of years of Anglo-Saxon law, culture and traditions, starting with the Magna Carta and even further back, the Saxon Dooms. The fact that Anglo-America (Canada and the US) is far advanced in every way above Hispano-America, would seem to bear that idea out.

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:20 PM

and NOW for "conductor":

Please, please, please take your uninformed xenophobia somewhere else.

Posted by: conductor at January 22, 2007 11:06 PM

ANSWER: ANSWER: Again, calling me "xenophobic" on a thread devoted to wories about "Islamization" would seem comically ironic. The irony apparently escapes you. PS, if we had required mandatory Angloization for 20th Century Latin American immigrants -- as we did for 19th-Century non-English speaking European immigrants -- there would be no use for "Spanish language advertising' in this country at all.

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:16 PM

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:22 PM

The way I figure it, about 100-150 years ago, there were a bunch of darker-skinned folks speaking some Romance language or another flooding to our shores, who didn't speak a lick of English.

We called them Italians (at least when being polite).

Can anybody say that Italian-Americans haven't mightily contributed to America? To those who think we can't make Americans out of Hispanic people, I say hey, they are at least from 'roun' 'ear.

Posted by: R S at January 23, 2007 09:15 AM

ANSWER: False analogy. The Italians were forcibly Angloized, back in the days when were were a "hard" people -- and Teddy Roosevelt, being the epitome of a "hard" President -- declared that there was only room for one language in the country: English. There was no bilingual everything back then, and no "multi-culturalism" that encouraged immigrants to keep their own culture instead of assimilating into the traditional Anglo-American culture. When was the State of the Union speech ever translated into Italian? German? Polish? Chinese?

Posted by: Suzan at January 24, 2007 10:26 PM

January 22, 2007

A soft people

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment