David Huntwork is a conservative activist, blogger, and columnist and the proud father of three daughters. The son, grandson, and great-grandson of Ministers of the Gospel he brings a unique blended background of theology and ideology to the great debates of the day. He believes that Faith, Family, and Freedom is the formula for success and the key to a good life and a healthy nation. David blogs at Constitutionclub.org. You can contact him at
Apocalypticism has exploded in popularity and, while nuclear war and pandemics have always been a starting point, the concept of the Zombie Apocalypse trumps them all. The appeal and wild popularity of shows like The Walking Dead, movies like World War Z, and the slew of apocalyptic, gloom and doom series and specials on cable television continues to grow by leaps and bounds. But the reasons behind such interest are often subconscious at times and not fully understood.
The Leftist activist and agitator Noam Chomsky was recently asked “why there’s this preoccupation with the apocalypse and with zombies right now in our culture?” I concurred with the first part of his response which was thatthat he felt the focus on zombies was “a reflection of fear and desperation” by “an unusually frightened country.” But quickly the obsessive liberal impulse to blame America first and foremost for all ills, real and imagined including the public’s obsession with a zombie apocalypse, rose irresistibly to the surface.
He went through the history of fear in popular culture as outlined in the book War Stars by Bruce Franklin. Although the fear is embodied in various forms, he sees a common thread throughout:
“There are a couple of themes that run through it that are pretty striking. For one thing, one major theme in popular literature is that we are about to face destruction from some terrible, awesome enemy. And at the last-minute we are saved by a superhero or a super weapon, or in recent years high school kids going to the hills to chase away the Russians, things like that. That’s one theme that runs through constantly. And there’s a sub-theme. It turns out this enemy, this horrible enemy that’s about to destroy us, is somebody we’re crushing.”
The raging, twenty-four-seven political debates that virtually consume social media, many news sites, and entire cable stations is mostly filled with cheap shots, one-liners, bumper sticker slogans, and the same tired, half-truth arguments.
The endless, partisan maneuvering and jockeying for power among the political parties and branches of government often completely masks the fact that the culture and policy wars are not just clashes between squabbling political parties, but often are really basic conflicts between fundamentally different belief systems, world views, and ideological viewpoints. But that is increasingly lost in the world of thirty second sound bites, character assassination, talking heads, opponent bashing and pundit sloganeering as well as in the blaring informational and sensory overload the average American is subjected to on a daily basis.
It is also frustrating that political and ideological labels are thrown so haphazardly around with wild abandon. Neo-Marxists call themselves progressives. Liberals call themselves moderates. Libertarians and Objectivists routinely cloak themselves in the conservative label. And let us not even begin to dwell on the various names they call each other. Rarely does the general populace know, or even care, what anyone actually stands for and believes in. Let alone why.
One can reasonably presume how today’s Left would characterize and attack the person I am about to describe to you. Without a doubt, he would be characterized as some sort of dangerous, right-wing, tea-bagging, homophobic, Christian Neanderthal who should be maligned, attacked, marginalized, silenced, and driven from power. Character assassination has become the weapon of choice for those who so forcefully peddle the liberal/progressive ideology. It is relentlessly used to silence all those who stand in opposition to the myriad of ‘isms’ they champion as they seek to “fundamentally transform” the country and society. I sincerely doubt they would spare him.
He was the commanding General of the Army and later a two-term president. Unwavering and dedicated, he had a deep-set of personal beliefs and never faltered from his chosen path.
He called morality “a necessary spring of popular government” and while in command of the army he ordered “vice and immorality of every kind discouraged.” Accustomed to undertaking daily devotions, he ordered worship for the army every Sunday and had twenty thousand Bibles imported for the troops. He even had the audacity to state “to the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” Can you imagine how those who worship at the altar of the ‘separation of church and state’ would react to such actions and utterances?
Time and time again I have been accused of being on the “wrong side of history” when it comes to the arguments over abortion and, especially, to so-called gay marriage. This linguistic fad has exploded in use lately as if history itself is the sole arbitrator of what is right and true. It is the weapon of utter dismissiveness that is boldly and routinely wielded by the Left.
One should, in reality, not be interested in being on the “right side of history,” but on the right side of right and wrong.
The most recent and sudden burst of Leftist momentum in the culture wars have Progressives engaging in histrionic vitriol on a massive scale. Progressives make the fundamental mistake of feeling that being in lockstep with, or creating, social fads and whims of popular opinion at this particular moment in history is equivalent of being on the “right side of history.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
History is full of misguided ideological isms that seized the moment and manipulated cultures, societies, and circumstances all the while declaring themselves on the “right side of history.” The “right side of history” argument is an appeal to the authority of an imagined future that hasn’t even happened yet and an attempt to convince the opposition that resistance is futile while their agenda is inevitable. Few in our present generation fully realize that national socialism, fascism, Marxism, and even anarchism were each considered by a great number of people not that long ago the new, great, and inevitable ideology that would usher in a new utopian age.