A Nation Of Wimps?

no wimps

In a recent column for Townhall John Hawkins asks an important question. When Did America Turn Into Such A Nation Of Wimps? Yes, he probably knows several answers for this question, and so do many other intelligent people, but it seems proper to address it anyway. So, for what it is worth, here is one answer that provides some interesting insight on the reasons.

Back around 1979 this writer began working on a lawsuit involving an organization that some people labeled a “religious cult”. The organization enjoyed some years of popularity after which it was involved in a number of violent episodes and eventually two of its members ended up on trial for attempted murder. The bad publicity left it dire straights from which it never recovered leading to its demise in 1991. When asked about what happened, a former member of the group made in interesting statement. He declared that the top leadership came to believe its own propaganda. This propaganda, which I saw in original organization records, contained a wide variety of self-aggrandizing pronouncements that were our of line with reality. And so it goes with America today. Why did America become a nation of wimps? Because it began to believe propaganda; not self-aggrandizing propaganda, but negative propaganda that likewise bore and bears no connection to reality.

America, on the other hand, has done exactly the opposite. It has believed negative propaganda spewed, partly by outsiders, but also, partly by members of its own citizenry. As a result it has begun believing that it is an illegitimate nation and that its supposed greatness is actually a sign of evil and corruption. As this propaganda campaign has progressed the level of anti-American sentiment has increased, to the extent that now the number of people who have drunk the Kool-Aid is sufficient to severely impact the American political process. In fact, it is likely that this sentiment was in part responsible for the election of the first blatantly anti-American President in history.

An example of this phenomenon occurred some years ago when the student senate of the University of Washington refused to honor alumnus Gregory “Pappy” Boyington who led the famous Black Sheep squadron in WWII. As it was originally reported, one member of the student senate questioned “whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people,” and whether “a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.” Another suggested that there were “many monuments at UW already commemorating rich white men.”

This silly rhetoric was a product of the ignorance and propagandized viewpoints of the students involved. Boyington was never wealthy nor was he “white;” he was, in modern parlance, Native American. Aside from his heroics as a pilot, military leader, Medal of Honor recipient, and survivor of a Japanese POW camp, he was an ordinary American. Thankfully, the University eventually erected a Medal of Honor Memorial on the college grounds in which Boyington’s name appears.

But the main question here really has nothing to do with Maj. Boyington, but rather the perception that a member of the Marine Corps should not be honored because he “killed people” or was “rich” or “white.” Should not a man be honored for his achievements, regardless of his background and shouldn’t his achievements stand on themselves as a reason for honor or respect? Should not honorable service in the nation’s military be also an object of respect instead of ridicule? Or should we erect statues to people who achieved and contributed nothing to their society and are otherwise complete unknowns? Monuments of this sort are generally erected not only to honor the memory of someone, but to inspire others as well. Or are we, today, supposed to be inspired by people who are famous for being famous; who are YouTube icons, or who make fools of themselves for publicity.

The main question that should be asked is why people are willing to fall for this idiocy. Why would a nation of people suddenly desert rational pride in their achievements in science, technology, and as the guardians of liberty in the world and replace it with apparent self-loathing and a desire for national self-emasculation. The answer lies in one fact; that government has found it useful for Americans to be less independent, less patriotic and less enamored of their nation, regardless of its achievements. The goal was to focus the attention of the public not on the nation, but on the political class and “leaders” in much the same fashion as authoritarian regimes have done in the past. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others have all done the same thing. The difference between their efforts and what has occurred in the USA is that the foreign authoritarians have all had nationalistic and/or expansionistic designs. These designs have not manifested in the present regime, therefore they are still focused on destroying the old culture. Creating a new, likely militaristic culture, can wait until the population idolizes Barack Obama instead of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and so on.

The answer to all this is that the nation is being pushed in the direction of whimpiness because it is in the best interests of the political class for it to happen. A population that is unwilling to protect its own interests and sees itself as somehow unworthy is easy pickings for a would-be dictatorship or for foreign aggression.

As a number of commentators have suggested, the United States today bear are striking resemblance to Germany’s post WWI Weimar Republic and that the world situation s likewise chaotic. If they are correct then it bodes ill for the next generation.

Comments are closed.