You Say You Want a Revolution, Part 2

 

Here’s what this post, and last week’s post are about: The cultural changes in the media that Ricochet readers don’t like didn’t happen by pure accident. They took decades. We propose equally patient, persistent, but ruthlessly effective efforts to push culture in another direction over the next 20-plus years. We are chewing over how to create or capture a big chunk of tomorrow’s media and the arts. It’s a myth that nothing can be done about the entertainment business. Success is Hollywood’s definitive history teacher.

@drewinwisconsin raises a tough point. He said, “So that’s probably why it’s important to try to change or break the current system rather than try to build an equivalent system that will have no users. Consider how much power and scope Google+ had, and it still couldn’t survive against Facebook. And that’s Google — already a malignant influence.”

@sabrdance asks, “What do we mean by a believable path to get there?”

I mean believable in real world terms. A Jonathan Edwards-style Great Awakening would obviously make all of this tactical maneuvering about the mere media moot. Let’s assume that won’t happen and we end up having to do this ourselves.

My distinguished colleague @Barfly asks: “I’m looking for a characterization of the state we’re aiming for. Society is trying to digest a major transformational technology, the educational system has been broken by affluence and tolerance, of all things, and the barbarians are at the gates armed with all of the above. We can’t expect any of these things to work out in our favor unless we know where we want to go. You must have some vision of where those six or sixty things lead – is that coming in the next installment?”

Here we are, now you be the judge. We’re facing a composite force with a dozen power centers. Among many other tasks, we first need to capture one or more of them or build its equal from scratch. We’ll get around to discussing both.

What’s a Long Game to capture a mindshare of Hollywood? Create something like the Sundance Institute and duplicate their success at making it the arbiter of what’s new and valuable. Like Sundance, win the credibility and the authority to hold screenings and festivals, to present awards and honors to praise the good and shame the bad. Hollywood is particularly susceptible to this. Sprinkle our “graduates” and allies widely through the industry, like raisins in raisin bread. Do you want to make heads explode? Let either the First Lady or Ivanka take a leadership role. Hire young women to make programs and announce a continuing scholarship and apprenticeship program, ours.

In the late Eighties and early Nineties, the street locations and bare breasts of underground movies turned into something more respectable called independent cinema, and people criticized Sundance for showing and promoting films that were, they sniffed, insufficiently political. Sundance said, accurately, that they were dedicated to pushing change through the choices of what they decided to show. When that was deemed not enough, Sundance has also bankrolled some independent films that leaned forward—that is, leaned farther Left–becoming in effect a competitor of their own partners. Like Android’s regular endorsement of a Nexus-quality mobile phone, rotated through the major manufacturers, the Sundance label on an “indie” is a trusted mark of quality. They don’t have to make all the radical films, just the key ones. Smart.

How would our first generation of film projects begin? Make an early (but affordable) splash to announce you’ve arrived on the scene. There’s only, oh, about a hundred ways to respond to the bizzaroid cultural atmosphere of our times. One suggestion: we constantly see efforts to honor women in history/herstory. Fine; great idea. Do our version, because nobody thinks we’d be interested in this. Elevate forgotten, politically unconventional female intellectuals like Clare Booth Luce and Dixy Lee Ray, as well as living writers like Liz Trotta and Amity Shlaes, and make an inexpensive bio series for streaming, to inspire girls and give them different role models than today’s dull lineup.

We can and should learn our Machiavellian lessons from how the other guys did it. Face it, they were good at it; look around you. For roughly sixty years, the culture of the media calls itself progressive, however broadly defined. No one central authority set that in motion, but over the decades, time and time again, lots of helpers stepped in to change movies and TV. It didn’t happen overnight. That change ebbed and flowed. Like King Canute, we can’t command tidal forces, but like good civil engineers, we can put them to work. Turn the tide in our direction.

As in politics, the progressive surge of Hollywood’s do-your-own-thing Sixties ran aground in the stagnating, crime-plagued Seventies. A couple of major hits can shape the attitudes and moods of a decade—think of the three years that took us from “The French Connection” to “The Godfather” to “Death Wish”.

Break that down for a moment, because it shows a persistent Hollywood weakness, a tendency towards unanticipated outcomes that resembles Mickey Mouse in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”. “The French Connection” was rare in 1971 for declaring “The time is right for an out-and-out thriller”. It was a trend-setter. Cop movies took the place that westerns once had on the American screen; one bold, unappreciated real man up against smug, lawyer-sanctioned lawlessness. In other words, for all its vague gestures towards the supposed futility of the war against heroin, it had an objectively conservative effect on its audience. The filmmakers didn’t mind, but they were surprised.

“The Godfather” was supposed to be based on one central idea: crime and capitalism are deeply intertwined. Comparisons between the civilian authorities and the mob are always dismissive. Mario Puzo was angry at Francis Coppola for dropping what Puzo considered the single indispensable line in the novel: “A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns”. Actually, this pseudo-Marxist quip has, I have to admit, spread across the aisle. It’s not without a point. But “Godfather’s” unprecedented success wasn’t based on its acute critique of capitalist ethics and the Mafia in Cuba, but in an unexpected emotional reaction: they loved the idea of a Godfather, because in a time when the cities had become dangerous, he was a protector, the dispenser of instant, final street justice. The biggest of criminals was a welcome force against random crime, the most widely despised feature of the era. “Dirty Harry” all but gave up on due process. “Death Wish” took it farther.

Lasting change must be persistent. The Sixties wave stalled and actually reversed by the dawn of the Eighties. What made 1977’s “Star Wars” so different, a turning point for stunned Hollywood, was optimism, faith, and fun. That can and does happen. It can happen again. Think of Pixar’s hits over the past quarter century. Could you imagine, for example, animation and storytelling of Pixar’s quality, but guided by a creative team from the Babylon Bee? I could.

Google wasn’t built in a day. Suppose that when Rupert Murdoch bought Fox, he not only created a different kind of news channel but a different kind of movie studio. Suppose he teamed up with fellow conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz, who created Walden Media to produce the Narnia films. Suppose they realized they needed tech in depth to create and own streaming platforms. The biggest and most durable computer trade show of the era was owned by conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson. None of these team-ups happened. But none of it was impossible; if they’d done it, none of it could have been blocked by other media players. And if Rupe, Phil, and Shelly had figured out how to make money at it, which those three guys were rather good at doing, everyone else in Hollywood would have been aware of the development potential of all that empty real estate they’ve left fallow in the center and on the right.

That’s one of the self-limiting factors of my suggestions: If we’re right about what the public really wants, everybody will slowly, reluctantly, grudgingly compete with us. I couldn’t be more pleased at that prospect. In a century of fascism and communism, Hollywood stands proud for what the town has always believed in: plagiarism.

Of course, plutocratic bosses willing to take a chance can only carry a social movement so far. Ambitious writers who see daylight between the pillars of today’s deadening culture are obviously crucial. Form some embryonic institutions that will staff and guide the project. We already have a few, so start by supporting and enhancing them. We’ll need a farm team, its talent discovered and promoted by a media-based tribute to the success of The Federalist Society, with an unbending vision. It should be led by younger people because they’re going to have to maintain that focus, energy, and clarity of goals for more than a generation.

When you read the words “international cinema”, many of your eyes glaze over. They shouldn’t. Filmmakers, liberal or conservative, like to see sympathetic new artists, and being the gatekeepers of foreign films and TV can have an influence on tomorrow’s directors and writers greatly in excess of their effect on today’s audiences. Conservatives, and social conservatives especially, should be watching the principled defense of traditional culture in central, southern and eastern Europe. Here’s one unorthodox suggestion of a possible center of cultural resistance to today’s culture: Orthodoxy. Many of the film and TV artists of eastern and southern Europe still act in confidence that they’re part of a valid, powerful way of seeing the world.

Naturally, I’m more familiar with my own guys in places like Ireland, Poland, and Lithuania, and they too bring topics into serious films that you’d never see in American ones. But at this moment Catholic culture is crippled; I wish I could say otherwise. The posts of @skipsul make a superb case that Orthodoxy, however it compares to your denomination or religion, is one of today’s most coherent cultural forces and critics.

We’re working to promote real diversity of ideas, not merely a stale future of subsidized, institutionalized conservatism on screen. Yes, if done right our project would certainly lead to more conservative and centrist projects being considered acceptable. It might very well lead to fewer films being green-lighted purely because of their ability to insult your beliefs. But it’ll also lead to more projects that are interested in American history, pure entertainment, and yet informed by a non-PC point of view. “Back to the Future” was written by a conservative, “Apollo 13” and “Saving Private Ryan” by liberals. In 1985, 1995, and 1997, no one to my knowledge supported or rejected their insights based on those political facts. It was still possible to hold a conversation. It wasn’t yet an abyss. We don’t just need some room carved out for conservative politics in culture; we need some room carved out for no politics in culture.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 193 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    I will admit I’m not a huge fan of it myself if only because I’m a straight male. But then again what people do behind closed doors is none of my business and should be none of yours or the government’s.

    Do you imagine that just because an activity takes place behind closed doors it has no effect on your business or mine? 

    • #91
  2. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Worries that @garymcvey‘s idea of conservative culture might abandon the partisans of traditional morality raise the question of where do you (or not necessarily you, personally, but perhaps SoCons who feel Ahmari has the better approach) expect the threshold of non-abandonment to be?

    I can’t imagine Gary requiring depictions of “deviants” to always be unsympathetic or tragic in order for work to count as conservative. Real life is not so tidy, and there’s no reason for art to be, either. That wouldn’t prevent Gary’s version of conservative culture from holding up people living traditionally-moral lives as sympathetic, interesting, indeed often heroic characters. Works which paints characters’ decisions to avoid, say, sexual entanglement, abortion, or humiliating their parents as noble, sympathetic decisions don’t have to be works which also roundly condemn every “deviancy”. Indeed, if they were, they’d be stilted and unbelievable. A guy like Gary seems perfectly open to having decisions upholding tradition like the one I described portrayed nobly. Not every tradition-minded character might be a good guy, because that’s not how life works, but many would be.

    What say you? Would the approach I described count as supporting traditional morality or betraying it?

    Midge, thanks for the prompt to get the discussion back on track.

    I do not think that depictions of “deviants” must always be unsympathetic or tragic. I take “deviant” to mean a departure from traditional family and sexual virtue in one of many ways — homosexuality, or adultery, or premarital sex, or having an illegitimate child, for example. I think that it should be perfectly acceptable and permissible to present a sympathetic, and even heroic, character who is “deviant” in one of these ways (or more than one).

    Indeed, to fail to do so would be to inaccurately reflect reality. Even the Bible presents such flaws, almost everywhere, from Abraham to David and Solomon to Peter. This is the way that we are. Art must reflect reality.

    One troubling thing would be presentation of the “deviancy” as a virtue. It seems to me that this would be a betrayal of traditional morality. Another troubling thing would be minimization of the consequences of the “deviancy.” The consequences don’t need to be overwhelming, but there should probably be some.

    I also agree that it is perfectly permissible and appropriate to have villains who are traditionalists. The troubling thing is when it seems that all of the traditionalist characters are portrayed negatively. The joke about this — admittedly an exaggeration — is that openly Christian characters appear in most shows only as the child molester or the mass murderer.

    I have a few examples, to follow.

    Hard to argue with any of this. Midge is right; I am troubled by the relative lack of heroic characters of a traditionalist stripe. They tend to congregate around films and shows about cops and soldiers, programs that appeal to men, and that’s great, but it’s not enough. It’s tough to dramatize being faithful despite temptation, being loyal despite disappointment, powering through a tough afternoon when you wonder if you were really parent material after all. It can mean meeting a payroll or agonizing over a firing. 

    Bearing Christian witness in one of the world’s harder places at some sacrifice of time and freedom impresses the hell out of me, and a family of quiet, good-humored geniuses would make a nice TV show. I think the Rhody boys should be better known than the Kardashian girls. 

    • #92
  3. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Here are some examples of good and bad treatment of “traditionalists” and “deviants” in (relatively) recent movies, shows, and books – mostly the Marvel movies.

    (1) A good example:  Peter Quill’s illegitimacy in the Guardians movies:  “Star-Lord” Quill is a significant hero in the Marvel movies.  He has a tragic background because he is an illegitimate child, with the consequence made worse because his mother died of cancer in his youth.  I think that this is handled well — from his sad history of pretending that David Hasselhoff was his father, to his ultimate reconciliation with his surrogate father Yondu.  His mother’s misconduct (extramarital sex leading to an illegitimate child) has serious ramifications for Quill, but he overcomes these and is a genuinely heroic figure, and he loves his mother despite this error (and because of her genuine love and care for him, before her death).

    (2) Another good example:  Ironman’s progression from irresponsible playboy to father, both literally (his character’s actual daughter with Pepper) and figuratively (his surrogate father-son relationship with Spider-Man).  His character ends up being the symbolic father of all of the Avengers (as Black Widow is the surrogate mother).  He prevails by sacrificing himself.  (His victory is enabled by Black Widow’s sacrifice, too, without which the entire plan would have failed).

    (3) A bad example: The affair between Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, presented as a triumph.  It does seem fitting that Ayn Rand’s own marriage eventually ended in infidelity and divorce.

    (4) A good example: The incestuous affair between Jamie and Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones.  This was a terrible thing, and the consequences were severe.  However, two of the three children (Myrcella and Tommen) are genuinely fine people, while the third (Joffrey) is a monster.  Jamie has a complex story arc, mostly being redeemed by suffering and his love for the unattractive but noble Brienne, but ultimately returning to die with Cersei.  Cersei is also quite a horrid woman, but does genuinely love her children.

    (5) A bad example: The homosexuality of Ed McCarthy in The Man in the High Castle.  It is completely unnecessary to the plot and implausible in 1960s America (even in an alternate reality).  It really looked contrived, particularly as Ed, though a relatively minor character, is one of the most admirable characters in the show. 

    (6) A bad example: Captain Marvel.  She apparently has no love interest at all, male or female.  Her best friend, another heroic pilot, is a single mother who somehow managed to be an Air Force test pilot.  Her friend’s daughter is completely terrific.  Who needs a man?

    • #93
  4. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Here are some examples of good and bad treatment of “traditionalists” and “deviants” in (relatively) recent movies, shows, and books – mostly the Marvel movies.

    (1) A good example: Peter Quill’s illegitimacy in the Guardians movies: “Star-Lord” Quill is a significant hero in the Marvel movies. He has a tragic background because he is an illegitimate child, with the consequence made worse because his mother died of cancer in his youth. I think that this is handled well — from his sad history of pretending that David Hasselhoff was his father, to his ultimate reconciliation with his surrogate father Yondu. His mother’s misconduct (extramarital sex leading to an illegitimate child) has serious ramifications for Quill, but he overcomes these and is a genuinely heroic figure, and he loves his mother despite this error (and because of her genuine love and care for him, before her death).

    (2) Another good example: Ironman’s progression from irresponsible playboy to father, both literally (his character’s actual daughter with Pepper) and figuratively (his surrogate father-son relationship with Spider-Man). His character ends up being the symbolic father of all of the Avengers (as Black Widow is the surrogate mother). He prevails by sacrificing himself. (His victory is enabled by Black Widow’s sacrifice, too, without which the entire plan would have failed).

    (3) A bad example: The affair between Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, presented as a triumph. It does seem fitting that Ayn Rand’s own marriage eventually ended in infidelity and divorce.

    (4) A good example: The incestuous affair between Jamie and Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones. This was a terrible thing, and the consequences were severe. However, two of the three children (Myrcella and Tommen) are genuinely fine people, while the third (Joffrey) is a monster. Jamie has a complex story arc, mostly being redeemed by suffering and his love for the unattractive but noble Brienne, but ultimately returning to die with Cersei. Cersei is also quite a horrid woman, but does genuinely love her children.

    (5) A bad example: The homosexuality of Ed McCarthy in The Man in the High Castle. It is completely unnecessary to the plot and implausible in 1960s America (even in an alternate reality). It really looked contrived, particularly as Ed, though a relatively minor character, is one of the most admirable characters in the show.

    (6) A bad example: Captain Marvel. She apparently has no love interest at all, male or female. Her best friend, another heroic pilot, is a single mother who somehow managed to be an Air Force test pilot. Her friend’s daughter is completely terrific. Who needs a man?

    I don’t believe it–we’ve recruited Jerry Giordano to the Alliance! These are fine examples. 

    • #94
  5. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Evening Jerry,

    I know you will understand my reference to Paul, 1 Cor 9:19-23, where Paul says, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”  That is to communicate the gospel, he will speak the language of the group to whom he is speaking to so that they will receive and understand, and some will have their eyes opened.  So where as I entirely agree with you that using the language of the left against someone with which you disagree only amplifies the power of the left’s appropriation of the language and their echo chamber, I think your response limits your ability to persuade others.  I also agree with you that we have been consistently been successfully manipulated by the calculated torquing of the language by the left, and that the right has acted like Charlie Brown is the face of this deceit.  Perhaps, Gary’s and Titus’s approach may help us drive the newspeak into the ground.  I also think that when one accuses another of homophobia, they are not only lazy, they are using the deceitful tools of the left, and should stop using the left’s tools.

    • #95
  6. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I am troubled by the relative lack of heroic characters of a traditionalist stripe.

    Me too; that’s one of the most disturbing indicators.

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    They tend to congregate around films and shows about cops and soldiers, programs that appeal to men, and that’s great, but it’s not enough.

    I trace that trend back to advertisers’ decision that they should market to women, having figured out who controlled household spending. Do you recall an inflection there?

    Hmm, thinking along the lines of What Is To Be Done, one does come up against the unspeakable rather quickly, doesn’t one?

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    It’s tough to dramatize being faithful despite temptation, being loyal despite disappointment, powering through a tough afternoon when you wonder if you were really parent material after all.

    Usually I find the way forward is to step outside the frame and look at one’s situation objectively. But your remark shows that it’s easy to fall off the edge while trying, and end up merely creating a narrative. It’s clearly more valuable to power thru on loyalty and duty despite temptation and disappointment, and doing so makes a better narrative only in the long form. It doesn’t work in the TV episode culture.

    Huh. I had no idea I’d end up there. Somebody please step up and riff on TV sitcoms vs. Russian literature with an eye towards what that means for today’s culture. And for where we want tomorrow’s to be.

    • #96
  7. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I am troubled by the relative lack of heroic characters of a traditionalist stripe.

    Me too; that’s one of the most disturbing indicators.

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    They tend to congregate around films and shows about cops and soldiers, programs that appeal to men, and that’s great, but it’s not enough.

    I trace that trend back to advertisers’ decision that they should market to women, having figured out who controlled household spending. Do you recall an inflection there?

    Hmm, thinking along the lines of What Is To Be Done, one does come up against the unspeakable rather quickly, doesn’t one?

    Men still make up half the world. Interestingly (well, to me, anyway), Europeans have generally found us to be shockingly good to the ladies. 1930s and 40s audiences were fascinated and baffled by these American women in the movies who were aviators, publishers, and crusading intellectuals. They figured it was a lack of something in American men. The jury is still out.   

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    It’s tough to dramatize being faithful despite temptation, being loyal despite disappointment, powering through a tough afternoon when you wonder if you were really parent material after all.

    Usually I find the way forward is to step outside the frame and look at one’s situation objectively. But your remark shows that it’s easy to fall off the edge while trying, and end up merely creating a narrative. It’s clearly more valuable to power thru on loyalty and duty despite temptation and disappointment, and doing so makes a better narrative only in the long form. It doesn’t work in the TV episode culture.

    Well, merely creating a narrative is what this all is about, but I’m not totally sure about TV culture. Aaron Sorkin did little morality plays in a one hour format; I wish we had our own Aaron Sorkin, influence-wise. 

    Huh. I had no idea I’d end up there. Somebody please step up and riff on TV sitcoms vs. Russian literature with an eye towards what that means for today’s culture. And for where we want tomorrow’s to be.

    It’s funny; I’m hanging out at a digital cyber-bar and the guy on the bar stool next to me gradually reveals himself to be a college professor, an FBI man, or an astronaut. Yeah, I’ll do that riff, but @SkipSul or @thereticulator can do it better; we can work with the attention spans and the level of education we’ve got, but getting the culture back to the level of earnestness associated with Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy is gonna take a little work and a little time. 

    • #97
  8. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Here are some examples of good and bad treatment of “traditionalists” and “deviants” in (relatively) recent movies, shows, and books – mostly the Marvel movies.

    Up to the limits of my knowledge (I know a bit about Marvel though not much), and with a very few caveats (I don’t think not having a love interest is problematic, though showing single moms as not needing some sort of exceptional support to be superwomen both inside and outside the home definitely is), agreed!

    Huzzah!

    My suspicion is that among the wider right, here would be the dragons:

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    One troubling thing would be presentation of the “deviancy” as a virtue. It seems to me that this would be a betrayal of traditional morality. Another troubling thing would be minimization of the consequences of the “deviancy.” The consequences don’t need to be overwhelming, but there should probably be some.

    For example, when are some consequences enough? When otherwise good men engage in something nontraditional, like SSM, does their personal virtue rub off on the virtue of the institution? When is simply portraying nontraditional behavior in a fairly neutral fashion (not as good, but not as very bad, either) normalizing it?  When might even a negative portrayal be normalizing it? A potential consequence of two men marrying is one expecting sexual fidelity while the other assumes infidelity is just the “gay way” and keeps on tomcatting around — talk about a consequence for the guy who expected fidelity! But even portraying the faithful one’s travails portrays a real issue gays must deal with and therefore might be seen as normalizing SSM even if the consequences of this particular pairing are severe.

    That said, once we get into subtleties and marginal cases like this, we’re already fairly far in the weeds, and probably have broad agreement on plenty to go forward with.

    • #98
  9. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    merely creating a narrative is what this all is about

    Better be careful, then, about that map v. territory thing.

    • #99
  10. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    When otherwise good men engage in something nontraditional, like SSM, does their personal virtue rub off on the virtue of the institution? When is simply portraying nontraditional behavior in a fairly neutral fashion (not as good, but not as very bad, either) normalizing it?

    You’re assuming independence among dependent variables. There are not as many degrees of freedom as you’d like. Hi, Midge.

    • #100
  11. Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw Member
    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw
    @MattBalzer

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I think the Rhody boys should be better known than the Kardashian girls. 

    Given a similar amount spent on improvement of appearance maybe there’s a chance.

    • #101
  12. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    When otherwise good men engage in something nontraditional, like SSM, does their personal virtue rub off on the virtue of the institution? When is simply portraying nontraditional behavior in a fairly neutral fashion (not as good, but not as very bad, either) normalizing it?

    You’re assuming independence among dependent variables. There are not as many degrees of freedom as you’d like. Hi, Midge.

    I don’t assume no correlation between behaviors, so either you’re telling me you think some correlations are tighter than I think they are or, because you know that variables can change between the statistical categories independent and dependent based on study design, and that not all the “independent” variables need be uncorrelated, you’re making a really nerdy joke.

    I suspect we mostly agree on the polarity of the correlations and disagree somewhat on their magnitude. That interesting stories are often about exceptional people and circumstances, rather than being statistically representative, also complicates matters when we’re talking storytelling — which I was, at least.

    • #102
  13. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Those of us in the Ahmari camp share a desire to win some space to live better in this life. It seems to me that those in the French camp are content to remain losers in this life – no, wait. I mean that the Frenchians seem to be content for us, the MAGA crowd, to remain losers.

    [snip for irrelevance, conditional …]

    I sure didn’t see that in what French wrote. If Ahmari thinks he can win where French will lose, he sure isn’t spelling out how. Bluntly, Ahmari’s big vision requires his ideas to be a helluva lot more popular than they are now, or his big takeover can’t work. Unlike Ahmari, I’m willing to spell out in tactical detail what I think could work, so everyone here is free to criticize.

    Ok, progress – I gather you find a tactical problem with Ahmari. I mean a matter of execution, independent of goal. But no dissonance with his goal? (I suppose his goal to be cultural sanitization of the public sphere with extreme outliers pushed to the extreme outskirts, while the Frenchfries would be happy with a few cushy well-insulated pockets and let the rest rot, but we could debate that. Goals, I mean.)

    • #103
  14. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    I suspect we mostly agree on the polarity of the correlations and disagree somewhat on their magnitude. That interesting stories are often about exceptional people and circumstances, rather than being statistically representative, also complicates matters when we’re talking storytelling — which I was, at least.

    Good to see you. Where have you been keeping yourself?

    • #104
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    Evening Jerry,

    I know you will understand my reference to Paul, 1 Cor 9:19-23, where Paul says, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” That is to communicate the gospel, he will speak the language of the group to whom he is speaking to so that they will receive and understand, and some will have their eyes opened. So where as I entirely agree with you that using the language of the left against someone with which you disagree only amplifies the power of the left’s appropriation of the language and their echo chamber, I think your response limits your ability to persuade others. I also agree with you that we have been consistently been successfully manipulated by the calculated torquing of the language by the left, and that the right has acted like Charlie Brown is the face of this deceit. Perhaps, Gary’s and Titus’s approach may help us drive the newspeak into the ground. I also think that when one accuses another of homophobia, they are not only lazy, they are using the deceitful tools of the left, and should stop using the left’s tools.

    Jim, thanks.

    My thoughts on this post relate to political discussion, and I think (like Ahmari) that we must recognize that we are dealing with a radical Leftist who have a frankly evil agenda.  This doesn’t mean that we need to call them “evil” all of the time, and it is perfectly consistent with the idea that most of them are misled and deceived.  We just need to keep in mind that virtue is important, and it is legitimate to advocate for the enforcement of our ideas of virtue in public policy (while being sensitive and willing to compromise in the service of liberty interests and legitimate disagreements, which will vary depending on the issue).

    Evangelism is an entirely different thing, requiring a different approach.  Fire-and-brimstone doesn’t seem to be an effective tactic in the present culture.  Also, even St. Paul could be pretty harsh (and funny) sometimes.  I’m thinking of his statement in Galatians, complaining about the Judaizers (who wanted to require circumcision of Gentile converts to Christianity) — something like “I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”

     

    • #105
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I don’t believe it–we’ve recruited Jerry Giordano to the Alliance! These are fine examples.

    Or perhaps I’ve infiltrated, and am taking over!

    Seriously, Gary, I don’t think that we even disagree very much about the homosexuality issue, as a practical matter.  Perhaps I’m wrong about this.  I don’t want to throw anyone in jail, or keep people out of most jobs (very narrow exceptions), or even lecture anyone about it in public.  I’m generally quite happy with the 1980s/1990s era compromise that you referenced, which has broken down.

    Perhaps we view that compromise differently.  I think that it was something like:  “Yeah, the whole homosexuality thing is a bit disturbing.  Most of us find it morally objectionable, almost all of us find it kinda gross, and none of us wants one of our kids to end up homosexual.  On the other hand, they’re grown ups and we live in a free country, so let’s leave them the heck alone to do what they want.  And if my kid ends up homosexual, I’m not gonna disown him, though I hope he’ll grow out of it.”

    I think that this compromise broke down with the SSM movement, which sought public endorsement of homosexuality as a positive good and would inherently marginalize those who disagreed as holding an unacceptable and barbarous opinion.  I think that many conservatives capitulated on this point, either overtly (like David French) or effectively (like President Bush, who supported “civil unions” though he opposed SSM itself).

    I have another example from recent pop culture, in The Sopranos — but I’m out of space.

     

    • #106
  17. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Back to The Sopranos.   I’ve only been watching the show recently, for the first time, and have reached the start of the final season.

    There is a story line in seasons 5-6 (which aired in 2004-2006).  One of Tony’s captains, Vito Spatafore, is revealed to be a closeted homosexual.  Vito is a very capable and quite likeable guy (for a gangster).  His homosexuality is a serious offense in the view of most of the Soprano guys, and to make matters worse, Vito is married to a cousin of Philly Leotardo, who is the second-in-command of a semi-rival/semi-allied New York mafia family and has had serious (murderous) disputes with Tony and is in an uneasy truce.  Philly wants Vito killed, and many of Tony’s guys agree.

    Tony is conflicted.  On the one hand, he doesn’t like Vito’s homosexuality and it is a source of dissatisfaction for the rest of his guys.  On the other hand, he says that Vito is something like “a really good earner” — meaning that the guy is really competent (at their criminal stuff, of course), which makes him very useful.

    Tony finally makes the decision that Vito has to be whacked, but Philly and his guys beat him to it (and horribly brutalize and murder poor Vito).

    The show also presents the difficulties that this presents to Vito’s family — he has a wife and two children.  His wife is generally understanding, or as understanding as she can be.  She seems to want Vito back, she doesn’t seem offended, and she finds him to be a pretty good husband and father (for a Mafia gangster).  Vito genuinely and deeply loves his kids, and wants the best for them.

    The whole difficult issue is presented with complexity, and I found myself able to sympathize with all sides.  Vito’s homosexuality was a problem, but he was an admirable and competent guy in many respects, and I liked his character (again, for a gangster).  I sympathized with the objections of the other guys, but thought that they were horribly wrong to be so brutal as to want to kill the poor guy for it.

    It is a show about gangsters, so I had more sympathy for the “whack him” approach than would apply in ordinary circumstances.  Not much sympathy, but more than would apply in other contexts, because simply kicking Vito out of the gang wasn’t much of an option.  In a free society among non-criminals, it would have been enough to just fire Vito if it was going to cause a problem with the other “employees.”  (I wouldn’t generally do this myself, but I think that it should be permissible for people to be either accepting of homosexuals, or not.)  But when your a Mafia Captain like poor Vito, early retirement isn’t really an option.

    • #107
  18. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Here are some examples of good and bad treatment of “traditionalists” and “deviants” in (relatively) recent movies, shows, and books – mostly the Marvel movies.

    Up to the limits of my knowledge (I know a bit about Marvel though not much), and with a very few caveats (I don’t think not having a love interest is problematic, though showing single moms as not needing some sort of exceptional support to be superwomen both inside and outside the home definitely is), agreed!

    Huzzah!

    Midge, I think that for a hero not to have a love interest is a serious problem in a significant character.  This is a normal part of life.  The celibate are very few and far between.

    It’s OK to portray the celibate, but there should be an explanation for it.  The Brother Cadfael mysteries present a good example of this.

    My criticism about the lack of a love interest is not limited to Captain Marvel — this is just the only one that I mentioned in my short, initial list.  This has been one of my major criticisms of the Star Trek shows, though most characters had shallow love interests for which they would not dream of sacrificing their career paths in any way.

    This is a major reason why Benjamin Sisko is my favorite captain and in many ways, DS-9 was my favorite series.  In addition to Sisko (a widower with a son), Chief O’Brien was married, and Worf and Dax married (Jadzia Dax, that is).

    • #108
  19. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I think the Rhody boys should be better known than the Kardashian girls.

    Given a similar amount spent on improvement of appearance maybe there’s a chance.

    Huh! I didn’t think this conversation would turn around to doing drag. Well, I guess Cary Grant was a male war bride, so…

    • #109
  20. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    It seems to me, though, that the “your best isn’t good enough, milquetoast!” attitude Ahmari seems to favor is more likely to discourage, not encourage, creative types who might have genuine interest in creating conservative-friendly works and institutions.

    I dunno. I don’t see anyone making these institutions. Mr. French was involved in lawsuits with admirable successes; but his knowledge of the culture or commentary on it can hardly be discussed in polite company… I don’t know why institution-making would involve anyone like Mr. Ahmari, either. More, it seems at least possible that Christians angry at weak sauce pieties would be artistic, too. Both those guys are Flannery O’Connor characters in the making, to speak briefly.

    If, as a hypothetical, some conservative women decided to collaborate on artistic works about Kassia, how likely are the Ahmaris of the world to say, “You go, girl!” Or, are the Ahmaris of the world more likely to drum up complaints, a la James Damore, that when we leave sophisticated work like art up to women, we’re not leaving it up to our best talent? Or that the subject of the work shouldn’t be Kassia, but a man, since focusing on Kassia contributes to the distortion of history by artificially promoting historical women at the expense of more history-worthy men?

    Wow–we got to suspecting these guys of some kind of misogyny? Where did that come from? 

    What if the most effective means of getting good Christian art done involved the buy-in of moderates or even some on the left?

    I would like to see some reasoning for this rather counter-intuitive matter. “Even some on the Left” are neither the artists nor audiences involved!

    How many nits would Ahmarites wish to pick with those they deemed insufficiently belligerent? It seems like a lot, and considering artists producing conservative-friendly art might already find many doors closed to them, the risk of having doors on the right slam shut on them, too, if their “fight” is deemed insufficient, doesn’t seem like an appealing proposition.

    & now we got to artists & the “fight”? Since this has gone way beyond anything Mr. Ahmari was talking about, I assume you have some issues you want to work out. Well, this is a pretty safe space, so feel free to elaborate! Also, good luck with the Kassia stuff–it’s news to me, which likely shows how male-obsessed my knowledge of history is. It’s true…

    If you don’t want to sign up for Mr. Ahmari’s new Christian society or, more broadly, for what the First Things crowd wants, that’s fine. America’s a vast country, it can contain multitudes. I hope you’ll drop the habit of bringing aspersions of misogyny &c., for all the obvious reasons, but I do think there’s a big difference between what you & Skip might want & what these Catholic intellectuals want. So far, theirs is the only proposal for change that’s getting press on the right & it’s to a large extent bad press. Maybe others will come; or maybe the Christian right is just incapable of organization. We’ll see fairly soon.

    • #110
  21. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I think the Rhody boys should be better known than the Kardashian girls.

    Given a similar amount spent on improvement of appearance maybe there’s a chance.

    Huh! I didn’t think this conversation would turn around to doing drag. Well, I guess Cary Grant was a male war bride, so…

    I think Matt had in mind something more like them being in an episode of “Queer Eye for the Wisconsin Guys”, where experts fly in from Chicago and Minneapolis to show them how to serve beer and cheese, buy them some babe magnet clothes, and redecorate their homes with indirect lighting and bars with marble countertops.

    Listen, if anybody really wants to resent the gays, just look at their furniture.  

    • #111
  22. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    I think the Rhody boys should be better known than the Kardashian girls.

    Given a similar amount spent on improvement of appearance maybe there’s a chance.

    Huh! I didn’t think this conversation would turn around to doing drag. Well, I guess Cary Grant was a male war bride, so…

    I think Matt had in mind something more like them being in an episode of “Queer Eye for the Wisconsin Guys”, where experts fly in from Chicago and Minneapolis to show them how to serve beer and cheese, buy them some babe magnet clothes, and redecorate their homes with indirect lighting and bars with marble countertops.

    Listen, if anybody really wants to resent the gays, just look at their furniture.

    Gary, these boys already know how to serve beer and cheese in Wisconsin.  Set it down, and then step back sharply to avoid the rush.  Try not to get your hands too close to their mouths.

    • #112
  23. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    I don’t think Midge is in the habit of spreading aspersions about anybody. She and SkipSul are, as most regular Ricochet readers know, among the most serious thinkers about Christian belief on the site. 

    They aren’t Catholics, and it’s no surprise the specifically Catholic aspects of Ahmari’s vision don’t appeal to them. Here’s an intuition: Most American Catholics won’t back Ahmari, either.  Some conservative New York Catholics, an understandably grieving bunch, are yelling for the return of Dagger John. Archbishop John Hughes (early 19th century) would have suited Ahmari’s culture war just fine. But here’s what they don’t get: the dagger in Hughes’ hand wasn’t the burning strength of his convictions, but the solid backing of the people of his archdiocese. That’s what’s missing. Ahmari won’t have it either. So how’s he proposing to unleash this power? 

    • #113
  24. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I don’t think Midge is in the habit of spreading aspersions about anybody. She and SkipSul are, as most regular Ricochet readers know, among the most serious thinkers about Christian belief on the site.

    They aren’t Catholics, and it’s no surprise the specifically Catholic aspects of Ahmari’s vision don’t appeal to them. Here’s an intuition: Most American Catholics won’t back Ahmari, either. Some conservative New York Catholics, an understandably grieving bunch, are yelling for the return of Dagger John. Archbishop John Hughes (early 19th century) would have suited Ahmari’s culture war just fine. But here’s what they don’t get: the dagger in Hughes’ hand wasn’t the burning strength of his convictions, but the solid backing of the people of his archdiocese. That’s what’s missing. Ahmari won’t have it either. So how’s he proposing to unleash this power?

    This is a bet on the future of Christianity in America. Faced with the radicalization of egalitarianism, won’t most Christians fold? That’s Tocqueville’s argument–everybody ends up Catholic or atheist. Equality means collapsing distinctions & no distinction is quite as unequal as that between God & man.

    Practically, we’ll see whether traditionalism really is the future. One could think about the matter in terms of public anger, indignation–lawsuits. Up until recently, the angry Christians had a point, since the government was taking nuns to court! But Trump has whistled Dixie while behind him & behind the press the conservatives packed the courts. So it seems far less likely that taking Christianity to court will happen any time soon. If that’s so, what would the appeal of holy Christians be? Live & let live Christians would seem to be safe for another generation.

    Of course, the courts are one thing–then there’s the administrative state, which is bound to return to Progress as soon as the GOP loses the presidency, which it must do soon enough, to judge by historical patterns. Then there’s the fact that America is splitting up, so Progressives will find it easier & easier to humiliate Christians in some states. So the theological conflict at the core of American politics won’t go away. Those willing to talk of cultural civil war could win.

    • #114
  25. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I don’t think Midge is in the habit of spreading aspersions about anybody. She and SkipSul are, as most regular Ricochet readers know, among the most serious thinkers about Christian belief on the site.

    They aren’t Catholics, and it’s no surprise the specifically Catholic aspects of Ahmari’s vision don’t appeal to them. Here’s an intuition: Most American Catholics won’t back Ahmari, either. Some conservative New York Catholics, an understandably grieving bunch, are yelling for the return of Dagger John. Archbishop John Hughes (early 19th century) would have suited Ahmari’s culture war just fine. But here’s what they don’t get: the dagger in Hughes’ hand wasn’t the burning strength of his convictions, but the solid backing of the people of his archdiocese. That’s what’s missing. Ahmari won’t have it either. So how’s he proposing to unleash this power?

    This is a bet on the future of Christianity in America. Faced with the radicalization of egalitarianism, won’t most Christians fold? That’s Tocqueville’s argument–everybody ends up Catholic or atheist.

    This isn’t Catholicism’s finest moment at the moment. In the Eighties, the Protestant megachurches that had been building throughout the postwar era suddenly surfaced in the secular media. A good moment for them. I don’t know which religion is truly having a good moment in America now. Orthodoxy is healthy here. Maybe others. Not my specialty. 

    Equality means collapsing distinctions & no distinction is quite as unequal as that between God & man.

    OK, that’s pretty brilliant journalism in the classic sense. 

    Practically, we’ll see whether traditionalism really is the future. One could think about the matter in terms of public anger, indignation–lawsuits. Up until recently, the angry Christians had a point, since the government was taking nuns to court! But Trump has whistled Dixie while behind him & behind the press the conservatives packed the courts. So it seems far less likely that taking Christianity to court will happen any time soon. If that’s so, what would the appeal of holy Christians be? Live & let live Christians would seem to be safe for another generation.

    People ask, what’s the goal? That’s a goal to support. On the other hand, if the goal is some kind of religiously based supremacy in laws over the non-religious, dissenting Christians, and all of the Jews, then Ahmari should be more careful about the fire in his words. 

    Of course, the courts are one thing–then there’s the administrative state, which is bound to return to Progress as soon as the GOP loses the presidency, which it must do soon enough, to judge by historical patterns. Then there’s the fact that America is splitting up, so Progressives will find it easier & easier to humiliate Christians in some states. So the theological conflict at the core of American politics won’t go away. Those willing to talk of cultural civil war could win.

    To be sure. 

    • #115
  26. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    BTW, someone out there is wondering, aren’t @titustechera and Gary McVey on the same side? Damn right we are, so it’s no surprise that we’re hashing it out here, as thoughtfully as we can. He’s more of a SoCon than I am. He’s much more in tune with tomorrow than I am. But I can still exercise my Ornery Cuss license.

    22 years ago, when I was the brand new director of ACF, the co-founder of the group, fiery conservative David Horowitz invited me to speak at one of his splashy public events. Spring 1997; I had it right. I was on the panel with a bunch of vastly more impressive people and I fell into an argument with one of them, a dogmatic Wall Street Journal open borders guy. It was a polite argument but I ruefully admit I was pleased to get laughs and applause when I suddenly realized that this guy I was clobbering was, after all, a major financial contributor to my friend David’s organization, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. As gracefully as I could I broke off the resistance for the rest of the panel discussion.

    When I came off stage I saw David and started to apologize. “Hey, man, I didn’t know it was your guy”. Horowitz was actually amused. “Why did you let up? You almost had him!” My jaw must have dropped. David said, not unkindly, “Relax, you’re not working with leftists anymore. You’re a free man”.

    I never forgot that.

    • #116
  27. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I don’t believe it–we’ve recruited Jerry Giordano to the Alliance! These are fine examples.

    Or perhaps I’ve infiltrated, and am taking over!

    Seriously, Gary, I don’t think that we even disagree very much about the homosexuality issue, as a practical matter. Perhaps I’m wrong about this. I don’t want to throw anyone in jail, or keep people out of most jobs (very narrow exceptions), or even lecture anyone about it in public. I’m generally quite happy with the 1980s/1990s era compromise that you referenced, which has broken down.

    Perhaps we view that compromise differently. I think that it was something like: “Yeah, the whole homosexuality thing is a bit disturbing. Most of us find it morally objectionable, almost all of us find it kinda gross, and none of us wants one of our kids to end up homosexual. On the other hand, they’re grown ups and we live in a free country, so let’s leave them the heck alone to do what they want. And if my kid ends up homosexual, I’m not gonna disown him, though I hope he’ll grow out of it.”

    I think that this compromise broke down with the SSM movement, which sought public endorsement of homosexuality as a positive good and would inherently marginalize those who disagreed as holding an unacceptable and barbarous opinion. I think that many conservatives capitulated on this point, either overtly (like David French) or effectively (like President Bush, who supported “civil unions” though he opposed SSM itself).

    I have another example from recent pop culture, in The Sopranos — but I’m out of space.

     

    I don’t think today’s social conservatives have any interest in sending Federal agents to San Francisco to shut down lesbian night clubs. I think the vast majority would be happy just to not have what they consider gay intrusion into their lives. To be sure, they’ve got gays right there in their own town, wherever they are, unless it’s a town of 50-100 people. 

    To be fair, when they had the power sixty years ago, damn right cops went to shut down lesbian bars, even in Manhattan and San Francisco. I know there’s a conservative belief that they were really polite, delicate, dainty, and nice about it. They weren’t. 

    • #117
  28. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    BTW, you don’t have to infiltrate. If you can bring enough conservatives to your side, of course you could take over, ideologically speaking. That’s fair dues. 

    To paraphrase, you’re not queer; you’re here; we’re all used to it. 

    • #118
  29. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    I will admit I’m not a huge fan of it myself if only because I’m a straight male. But then again what people do behind closed doors is none of my business and should be none of yours or the government’s.

    Do you imagine that just because an activity takes place behind closed doors it has no effect on your business or mine?

    If it does then there’s a higher threshold, yes, not an infinite one. Obviously a violent crime that happens behind closed doors is still punishable. But sexual behavior, pure and simple? Like it or not, that’s been pretty well settled for a half century across maybe 80-plus% of the political spectrum. So whether or not it has any effect on our business, it’s none of our business.

    The guys in day-glo underwear dancing on parade floats seem to be the center of the dispute here, not what’s happening in the bedroom. 

     

    • #119
  30. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Those of us in the Ahmari camp share a desire to win some space to live better in this life. It seems to me that those in the French camp are content to remain losers in this life – no, wait. I mean that the Frenchians seem to be content for us, the MAGA crowd, to remain losers.

    [snip for irrelevance, conditional …]

    I sure didn’t see that in what French wrote. If Ahmari thinks he can win where French will lose, he sure isn’t spelling out how. Bluntly, Ahmari’s big vision requires his ideas to be a helluva lot more popular than they are now, or his big takeover can’t work. Unlike Ahmari, I’m willing to spell out in tactical detail what I think could work, so everyone here is free to criticize.

    Ok, progress – I gather you find a tactical problem with Ahmari. I mean a matter of execution, independent of goal. But no dissonance with his goal? (I suppose his goal to be cultural sanitization of the public sphere with extreme outliers pushed to the extreme outskirts, while the Frenchfries would be happy with a few cushy well-insulated pockets and let the rest rot, but we could debate that. Goals, I mean.)

    Sorry, B, this was a good one and I lost track of it. So let me catch up. it’s more than a tactical disagreement, you’re right. I have a rough idea of what constitutes a healthy, viable American culture that I wish could be photocopied off a 1957-87 time travel brochure, and I strongly suspect that few of you would have to be sold too hard on most of it. But his iron assertion of sheer cultural power is a losing fantasy. There used to be a gag about conservative victory that went,

    Step one, assert total free market principles;

    Step two, ????

    Step three, everlasting supremacy!

    Ahmari is a wee bit weak on Step two, and if you care about progress, it’s the one that counts. 

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.