The Enemy Within
A right-wing author sees liberal conspiracies everywhere he looks. By Cara Boekeloo, Calvin College
Monday, June 18, 2007
Conservatives, in general, are big on conspiracy theories. That’s not to say liberals are immune from bizarre, disjointed ramblings (just look at the 9/11 truth movement), but mainstream conservative pundits—unlike mainstream liberal pundits—regularly paint their ideological opponents as not just wrong, but part of a larger conspiracy to undermine America. This conspiracy includes feminists, environmentalists, health care reform proponents, and just about every other liberal advocacy group. Needless to say, it gets pretty complicated, and it can be hard to keep track of which liberal interest group is seeking to destroy our nation in which manner.
So it was refreshing to find a conservative figure able to helpfully synthesize every facet of the grand liberal conspiracy. That person was Phil Kent, who on June 14 gave a presentation at the Heritage Foundation entitled “Foundations of Betrayal: How the Liberal Super-Rich Undermine America.” Good suits, balding middle aged men, and lots of women wearing pearls: All of the ingredients of a good conservative audience were in place, and this overwhelmingly white audience had come to feast on a veritable buffet of interrelated conspiracy theories. The event, based upon Kent’s newly released book of the same title, didn’t score many points for originality. Kent accused the left of its typical crimes: advancing immoral sexuality, orchestrating a green movement that will destroy society, and funding radical Islamic groups.
While he admitted that the purpose of his speech was “shamelessly hocking my book,” Kent still took the time to help his audience “navigate the murky world, the underbelly of foundations.” For Kent, this underbelly consists of groups that are “extremely radical, extremely active in undermining America.”
The “number-one villain,” said Kent, “is the Ford Foundation.” Henry Ford, a “captain of capitalism,” and his son were both good conservatives, Kent explained, but after their deaths the Ford Foundation strayed in its values (presumably Kent is lamenting the abandonment of old Henry’s rabid anti-Semitism). Kent blamed this on a liberal consultant who led the organization to fund “not only liberal but also communist organizations.” This extremist agenda eventually came to encompass a push for “changing the sexual culture,” “open borders,” a “radical green agenda of which Greenpeace is an infamous spawn,” and, most alarmingly, “funding radical Islamic organizations.”
Kent also seems to think that genuine conservatives should only have boring sex, if his views on pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey are any indication. “Kinsey’s goal was to change America,” said Kent. “His was the Bill Clinton philosophy of the ’50s and ’60s—if it feels good, do it.” The problem with Kinsey, according to Kent, is that he undermined the traditional relations between husband and wife and pushed “women’s liberation studies, gay studies, and transgender studies, which are the trendy thing for left-wing organizations.”
In Kent’s view, left-wing organizations have also pushed the “radical” agenda of open borders. Referencing a recent article in Foreign Affairs that proposed a transnational North American highway, Kent stated, “That’s just what we need, more Mexican trucks on the highway.” He then accused progressive foundations of “floating a trial balloon with the hope of changing America. They fund internationalist schemes at the expense of sovereignty.” In addition, liberal organizations have no respect for the English language. They hold “a dagger poised at the heart of cultural America.”
But that’s not all. Liberal foundations are also going to destroy America through their pro-environment scheming. “They are exaggerating the green movement as a way to take control of America,” said Kent. These foundations are proselytizing a “green eco-religion. They want to take the Holy Bible out of churches and replace it with the gospel of Al Gore.”
Taking a page from the esteemed David Horowitz, whose site discoverthenetworks.org he credited with “helping me connect the dots,” Kent repeatedly referenced the now-common conservative argument that the most dangerous thing about the liberals is their proclivity for funding radical Islamic organizations. “The ACLU rejected grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because they were linked to terrorists,” said Kent. “And if they’re worried about it, we should be too.” Unfortunately for his argument, this is a rather gross misrepresentation of what really happened. As The New York Times reported on Oct. 19, 2004, the ACLU “rejected $1.15 million from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying their effort to ensure that none of their money inadvertently underwrites terrorism or other unacceptable activities is a threat to civil liberties.” So Kent’s story is almost the exact opposite of reality; the ACLU didn’t reject the money because of terrorism ties, but rather because it felt Ford and Rockefeller were being too restrictive in their efforts to keep their money clean.
Like any good conspiracy theory, Kent’s has an evil overlord pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Ruling the masses of “shiftless, lazy liberals” is a man that Kent, eliciting gasps, referred to as the “Dr. Evil of the left-wing foundation world”— George Soros. “This man hates us,” said Kent, arguing that Soros’ foundations see the United States as the biggest obstacle to a stable and just world. “Frankly, they want to kill us,” he added gravely.
A telling moment came when an audience member asked, “Can’t the liberals reverse your argument and say that conservative organizations such as Heritage have an agenda as well?” Yes, Kent admitted, conservative and Christian fundamentalist foundations have an agenda. “But they aren’t undermining America.” He then added, without a hint of irony, “There’s unfairness where liberals band together to attack the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations.” Not that a conservative like Kent would ever do such a thing himself, of course.
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
|
!
Hilarious account of this event. Thanks for suffering through it, Cara, so we didn’t have to.
These folks are nuts. Must the all that Vanilla sex.
— bob - Jun 18, 03:22 PM - #It is almost scary that people would even attend such an event or purchase such a book. I remember the fear and disappointment I felt when I found an Ann Coulter book on my mother’s book shelf. You really fear for the people who lap up this nonsense because they don’t know any better. As a side note I threw the Coulter book away and replaced it with a nice friendly book on Manatees …
— Westbrook - Jun 19, 02:44 PM - #George Soros…GASP! How dare you mention the devil’s name!
— zmarks - Jun 19, 09:20 PM - #Westbrook “threw away” the Coulter book, either because he can’t read and there were no pictures, or else because he is a nazi who would burn books.
— rick - Jun 21, 09:04 PM - #either way, had he bothered to read any of the book he might have been amazed to learn some documented (!) and indisputable facts which would make him very uncomfortable.
it’s always the left that “burns” books. hitler would be proud of you.
lol, rick, it goes to show what you know…Hitler was on the RIGHT...wake up and look at the history of the right flank.
— Sam - Jun 22, 12:34 PM - #Phil Kent and the Heritage Foundation are extremely dangerous people. They know better. This book is a caculated way to try to “brainwash” those of good will and turn this country into a fascist one. It will not work.
— Herb J - Jun 22, 01:43 PM - #Thank you for the article, but I think there is one weakness, and it bothered me: “Presumably, Kent is lamenting the abandonment of old Henry’s rabid anti-Semitism” It might be true, and I think it’s certainly appropriate to mention the anti-semitism here, and questioning whether Kent might be anti-semitic is legit, but this comes off as a cheap-shot – making an accusation by allusion, which means you don’t have to back it up. If you think this is part of his problem, show us. If there is no evidence, don’t accuse. What we do have is bad enough.
— Rebecca - Jun 23, 07:41 AM - #Speaking of Vanilla sex … just thought I’d take the opportunity to trot out the 2004 ABC Primetime Live poll that found that more Republicans than Democrats are satisfied with their sex lives, but don’t worry, guys; more Democrats fake orgasms than Republicans, so you probably won’t notice the difference.
(God bless unscientific polling data!)
(And Hitler’s ideals were arguably more left-of-center than right-of-center, as currently defined positions; we know, for instance, that he would be in favor of the prevailing Middle Eastern attitude toward the survival of Israel and not that of the right!)
— Calix - Jul 6, 04:15 PM - #Hmmm. George Soros? A pretty nasty and very evil man, reallyl. As an ethnic Jew he helped the Nazis kill his bretheren, yet he has publicly stated that he feels no remorse (his reasoning goes that if he didn’t do it, someone else would). He also made a lot of money (a billion dollars) in 1992 temporarily destroying the British Pound Sterling. This man has no morals and spends tens of millions per year advancing radical left agenda. I used to be a “progressive” and scoffed at remarks about Soros, but didn’t really know anything about him (which I am sure most of you scoffing do not) but if you actually do some reading into who this man is I am afraid you would be rather frightened…. Check this guy out if you dare…
— S. Palmer - Jul 19, 04:30 PM - #It makes sense that S Palmer would be upset about Soros. Being rich, free and alive is after all a combination conservatives believe they and they alone should hold the monopoly on. Of course, Soros spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting democracy in Eastern Europe may be considered a ‘radical left agenda’ by some. It’s just that those people are usually so far beyond the radical right that anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan is of course actively destroying America.
It’s almost hard to believe such beliefs were thrown out in November.
— JR - Jul 25, 06:26 PM - #