by Jack Golden

In the March 2024 issue of the Hillsdale Forum, Tomasz Ignatik penned the thoughtful essay “The Rout of the Culture War,” in which he contemplated the extent of conservatives’ success in the battle to “stem the tide of cultural decay” and “revitalize the values of the forgotten Western Tradition.” As Mr. Ignatik tells it, conservative victories in the culture war are “often symbolic,” marked only by “ill-defined standards” that will, it is hoped, “magically rally an army…shivered and scattered throughout the disparate realms of ideology.” These mediocre successes occur on three fronts: the political, the religious, and the social. In the first, legislators and commentators “try to turn the tide of common opinion.” In the second, churches and other religious organizers employ every means at their disposal to influence the young through events and entertainment. In the third, alternative educational ventures and non-profit organizations attempt to better educate the young and channel interest toward specific issues. 

Unfortunately, he says, “none of these methods are effective.” All take a “defensive stance, shoring up what they have under the guise of an offensive strike at a corrupt culture.” Private schools only end up teaching students who are receptive to the material and religious movements rarely reach anyone outside their immediate congregation. He acknowledges that “defensive measures do have their purpose,” but rightly points out that one cannot achieve victory “by circling around with linked shields waiting for the enemy to throw themselves upon your spears.” Mr. Ignatik argues that it is time for conservatives to go on the offensive, striking the enemy “where he is weak,” “avoiding the points of great contention” because “an overt attempt to directly attack the issue and convert others” may fail for no other reason than that it can be seen coming. In short, conservatives need to embrace guerrilla tactics, maneuvering undetected until such time as the environment they’ve created overcomes their opponents by sheer weight of goodness. To that end, he suggests that we return to building beautiful buildings, making better movies, cheering impressive athletes, and living beautiful lives. If the things we make and the lives we lead are excellent, we will “tip the balance of the multitudes” and storm the hearts of our fellow man. 

There is plenty to discuss here, and much of it quite thoughtful. On the political front, I agree rather wholeheartedly with Mr. Ignatik.  It is perfectly logical to suggest that careful strategy works better than brute force in politics. As Montesquieu says in the Spirit of the Laws, “It is sometimes good for laws not to appear to go so directly toward the end they propose.” It is, moreover, rather difficult to contradict his assertion that conservative political victories tend to be symbolic only. The failed abortion referenda in Ohio and Kansas in the last couple years allow me to put the point more cynically: we keep losing, but at least our principles remain intact.

I must disagree with Mr. Ignatik’s assertion that new schools and religious movements are as ineffective as failed political means. He argues that they too take a purely defensive stance, even accusing them of a sort of dishonesty: defense disguised as offense. He believes that conservative social and religious efforts only reinforce current positions without creating new inroads. I think this is simply mistaken. At the risk of tooting my own horn as a newly hired Hillsdale K-12 teacher, I must point out that the growing presence of the Hillsdale K-12 network is itself proof that new schools are very obviously offensive maneuvers. The length of the student waitlist at each of these schools is proof that the ground once held in monopoly by the public education system is ripe for the taking. And the good news is, we’re taking it. Dr. Arnn consistently observes that “our college has become important,” but that statement would be unnecessary unless it was true that educational alternatives are eating away at the ground once thought irrevocably lost. I’m not arguing that the left failed in their long slow march through American educational institutions. I’m arguing instead that we’re already underway in our own march. True, we have a long way to go, but that’s a very different statement than “this is not effective.” 

On the religious front, Christian protesters were advocating for the appeal of Roe v. Wade for decades before the Supreme Court got around to doing it. The inherent absurdity of the transgender phenomenon is likewise forcing many Christians to make more robust arguments defending both the differences between men and women and the rights of children. In short, the decaying culture has forced Christians to rise to the challenge set out in 1 Peter to increase their readiness to answer questions from people who don’t have our same hope.

The decaying culture has forced Christians to rise to the challenge set out in 1 Peter—namely, to increase their readiness to answer questions from people who don’t have our same hope. 

I must also point out that the term “conservative” necessarily implies defense, not offense. The entire point of conservatism is that there is something to conserve and protect. In fact, I would suggest that the reason for conservative defeat in the culture war is not that our offense is nonexistent, but that our defenses have not been strong enough. The problem might actually be the reverse of the one Mr. Ignatik sees. It’s not that we aren’t attacking—we are, and clearly so in the religious and social spheres. It’s that we haven’t defended well enough. For example, that so many more people, Christians and non-Christians alike, are confused about the nature of marriage now than before is not evidence that the left’s assault on marriage was particularly strong, but that our defenses have been peculiarly weak.

The term “conservative” necessarily implies defense, not offense. The entire point of conservatism is that there is something to conserve and protect.

Mr. Ignatik’s critique of conservative efforts in the culture war is, effectively, that we’ve been preaching to the choir and not to the sinners. But of course, the choir needs to hear the sermon too. It is of the utmost necessity that we maintain “safe havens for the faithful,” or there will be nowhere left to rest and recover. Exhausted defenders are more easily overcome. If we don’t provide schools for the people most receptive to the Western Tradition, they will no longer be taught that tradition. Being convinced of an idea requires being open to that idea. 

It’s not that we aren’t attacking. It’s that we haven’t defended well enough. 

Finally, when Mr. Ignatik says we must attack where our opponents are weak, I agree. The only difference in our positions is that I think the points of greatest contention that he thinks we should avoid are actually the points where the enemy is weakest. When you find the weak link in the armor, hit it with everything you have. There is no convincing argument for abortion as a moral good: of course abortion is the murder of an innocent human life because what else could the fetus possibly be? Of course men and women are insurmountably different; cast a glance at every athletic competition in which males compete against females for proof of what common sense already tells you. Or, ask the USA Women’s Soccer team, who got themselves beat by 15 year old boys and retired Canadian men (5-2 and 12-0 respectively). Of course children should not be taught gender ideology or alternative sexual practices in elementary school, because that is both obviously inappropriate and a blatant usurpation of parental authority. The reason movies like What Is a Woman? and clips of parents rebuking school boards across the country are so effective is because the strongest defense (and offense) we have is simply to bring attention to what our opponents are doing. It’s not that they have a weak link in their armor: it’s that their armor is a mirage.

It’s not that they have a weak link in their armor: it’s that their armor is a mirage.

There is beautiful simplicity in Mr. Ignatik’s argument. Preaching to the choir is not enough. Legislation isn’t enough. So, build prettier buildings, tell nobler stories, train stronger bodies, and live better lives. In short, restore genuine creativity to our culture. He’s right that those are all transformational endeavors that might turn the tide of the war. But I might encourage him to cheer up: we’re winning more than he seems to think we are. Lest we risk discouraging the social and religious endeavors that are meeting slowly but surely with success, we should not fail to notice their effectiveness. And for our own sake, we cannot stop preaching to the choir. 

Jack Golden is an M.A. student in the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship.