The choice for governor in Illinois, as a friend of mine put it, looks more like the Democratic Party primary than it does the general election. On one side we have the incumbent Pat Quinn, who is just what you’d expect from a Democrat in Illinois. On the other side we have Bruce Rauner, a candidate that wants to raise taxes, spend more on the bloated public schools, presents budget numbers that don’t add up, and supports every extreme cultural policy the liberals are pushing.
Yet many conservatives think that Illinois is in such bad fiscal shape they must vote for the guy with the “R” by his name because he’s the “lesser of two evils.” As I’ve outlined in the articles linked here, Rauner is not the lesser evil because he will further damage the Illinois Republican Party and Pat Quinn will not.
In those articles I addressed party politics, Rauner’s views on education, his budget numbers, and the many settled lawsuits against his company GTCR. Now it’s time to discuss Rauner’s left-wing views on society and his embrace of Cultural Marxism. Rauner has stated that he has “no social agenda.” Laurie Higgins rightly points out that since Rauner has stated that he is “pro choice” and that he won’t seek to repeal the same-sex pseudo-marriage law in Illinois, he definitely does have a social agenda.
Is it really that difficult to see how cultural decline leads to bigger government? Is it just a coincidence that moral decay has paralleled a worsening fiscal climate in the U.S.? My answer to both questions is “no” — you cannot successfully disconnect the “social issues” and the “economic issues” if your goal is limiting government and returning to fiscal sanity.
Single issue Republican voters — that is, those who think only economic issues matter — need to get caught up on what has been taking place in America since at least the 1960s. Here’s Christopher Cantrell writing at American Thinker:
[Marxists] turned from economic Marxism to cultural Marxism. Blow up the middle class’s hard-won social peace with identity politics and everyone a victim.
Why did they turn to the culture? Here’s Matt Barber:
Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.
This information is new to many people, no doubt, because those on the political left and single-issue Republican candidates don’t talk about it. Again, here’s Matt Barber:
If achieving these specific communist goals was the final “progressive” step toward the larger goal of securing communist governance in America, then, tragically, “progressives” have realized that larger goal.
Yep, the economic issues have been successfully connected to the social issues by guess who — the radical political left wingers. Here’s Phyllis Schlafly:
Marx hated the bourgeois family, not only because it provided the means of transmission and accumulation of private property, but also because the family controlled the formation and education of children. Marx wanted to break the family so that children could be raised and educated communally, free from patriarchal ties and religious beliefs.
With all that history, which should be familiar to every educated American, it’s incredible that we’re now seeing the worst of Marxist ideas, the deconstruction of the family, presented in the name of libertarianism and even conservatism.
Here is my message to Rauner’s supporters: You can’t have one kind of economy and another kind of culture. You can’t have one kind of society and another kind of government.
Up next: Cultural Marxism will crush your fiscal conservatism.
