Private means private

The assault on Augusta National in Georgia represents the end to the concept of the separation of state and society.

The executors of cultural cleansing, which has far surpassed any legitimacy that historical injustice provided, are on their final hunt. It is now time for them to remove a distasteful legacy from the civil rights era and that is the concept that civil rights laws should not apply to private organizations.

There has been a silent struggle against private organization for some time with the very liberal interpretations of “government money,” but they have not worked on wealthy or stubborn organizations. Liberals would like citizens to dwell on the social justice aspect of the controversy. However, all Americans should think about the total ramifications of any laws that might be weaseled out of this argument. In a diverse society that will need to define the meaning and boundaries of “multiculturalism,” it will benefit everyone to have organizations that escape the reach of cultural elites.

For this commentary to have any legitimate meaning, I must first submit that I view a big and distinct difference between state and society; one cannot interchange the two separate unities without exception. The 1964 civil rights bill granted political rights that had been denied because of cultural reasons. It was not a social engineering bill designed to restructure society. Society might have been restructured, but it was not under the direction of the government except in enforcing political rights. Having access to public schools is a political right, not a major social development. The real meaning and ramifications of the ’60s is still in debate and far too touchy of a subject for me to write about, but it’s important that my assumptions are understood.

Liberal elites are now on the warpath to wipe out, with force if necessary, any leaguing taste of the pre-1960 America in public and meaningless ways. The ’90s were dominated by the quest to make the limousine liberals feel better at cocktail parties while the base of the party was still no better off. The new aggressive and self-righteous tone makes them even more ridiculous than usual. Has the level of alcoholism and obesity in Native American reservations fallen because several sport teams have been renamed? Has education between whites and blacks become equal because the confederate flag is out of Georgia? Do Hispanics want to integrate into American society more because Speedy Gonzales was taken off the air?

Wait, Hispanic groups did succeed in getting Speedy back on the air. I guess the white liberals got that one wrong, and don’t care about symbolic value. Symbolism only has value to those who have the time and means to appeal abstract thought. Symbolism is powerful, however, in uniting people who have no business in being united in the first place.

The symbolic assault on Augusta is another waste of money, and even more important, a waste of the America people’s attention. It is an attempt by liberals to frame social engineering in emotional terms, so they will not have to have a constitutional debate. For the constitution is the modern liberal’s greatest enemy, which explains his desire for judicial rule and strong bureaucratic control.

The debate over the Masters is not about equality for women, because women can still play golf in America despite Augusta’s rules. Nor will the stupid argument made by the women’s groups, who claim that the only difference between all women’s clubs and Augusta is that the Masters is a public event. Once again, it is the symbolism, not the overall effects, that is the goal.

The arrogant person who made that statement is the one who should be embarrassed, not Augusta for their age-old policy. If one does not like Augusta, then don’t watch the Masters or go there. But that is not what the objectors want to do. As a last retreat they may run to the claim that they are just using their rights to protest, but their agenda is legal coercion. They wish to create public outrage, not to cause isolated incidents, but to pass legalization that will eliminate the whole concept of private life.

Readers, think beyond women’s issues and try to see what happens when liberal justice officials define the vague concept of “hate speech” as anything that disagrees with their agenda. Remember the zero tolerance policies about drugs and weapons in schools. Great idea – antibiotics and nail clippers got students expelled. The same idiots that enforced zero tolerance laws will be enforcing these no privacy laws.

Liberals believe that government policies will allow the “natural desire” of citizens from different backgrounds to come together; all that is needed is to break down walls. Breaking down a few walls will make a room bigger, but breaking down too many will cause the house to fall down. Citizens interact at work and in public. When they come together it should be on their own terms.

Unregulated non-government organizations (which McCain made dangerously powerful) need to be defeated publicly to prove that private institutions are run by the owners. Government money needs to be redefined to mean only money directly approved in a specific bill, not Medicare. Liberals must be told that there is a big difference between the state and society, and America is great because of freedom. In the end everyone, including women, will benefit because Augusta chooses its own Descente.