Man, Epstein is a machine.

Peter, good points all. Regarding Hugo's genius though, you should take a look at Paul Johnson's take down in Creators, which is the sort of sequel to Intellectuals.

Powerful post. Pope Benedict has written on this in one of his encyclicals (which one escapes me at the moment). In any case, he essentially poses this challenge to the unbeliever who bases his lack of faith on the problem of evil: take a situation such as the one in this post, or the extreme suffering of a child, or whatever horrible circumstance one may experience. Once faith in God is cast aside because of the cruel reality of suffering, what is one left with? Despair. The existence of God, of a transcendent being, allows for the possibility (indeed promises it in Christian understanding) of hope fulfilled. As an earlier poster pointed out, this may do absolutely nothing to ease the pain that is experienced within the span of suffering, but I it is a powerful consideration for those whose faith is strained due to pain, suffering, and loss. 

Katievs,

   I'm only about 20 minutes in to Barron's talk, but I think you're a little rough on him. I don't see glaring errors in the general points he's making. Just sayin'.

What a great post. I think the problem with managerial thinking is that it is inherently utilitarian: how can we get the most efficiency and utility out of a given set of resources, parameters, limitations etc. The "vision thing" means that a candidate looks to find new resources, change parameters, and lessen or overcome limitations. The individual mandate is a perfect example. I think Romney is partially correct when he makes his states' rights argument, saying that Obamacare is wrong precisely because it is a federal mandate. But this is managerial thinking. Moral thinking also attacks the very notion of the mandate, and would argue against its being utilized on a state level, despite the fact that that it may allowable under the Constitution.

Abdiel,

      Your mentioning of the Eastern European kids thinking atonal music sounded normal is interesting. I have read that the complete opposite is true, and that there is something innate in the human response to what I guess I'll call Western tonality (diatonic?). I'll have to track down the article.

Abdiel,

    Thanks for your comments. Regarding modern classical music, or at least the atonal style that I was referring to, let's put aside the question of its artistic merits, (and I would agree that merely coming up with a good melody represents the totality of musical genius). The more pertinent question is: what were the effects of this school on the culture's love of music? Maybe my initial claim was too strong; I'm open to amending it. But I have read repeatedly that many modern composers felt that they were essentially forced into composing in this style. The atonal school was not merely an interesting, cutting-edge musical exploration, but a movement that demanded adherence if one was to be considered relevant. I realize that this is a generalized claim, and based on your knowledge you probably can parse this argument into more exacting specificity. But ultimately, I think there is a rather thin line between challenging your audience to achieve deeper/newer understandings of the good, the true, and the beautiful in art, and the sophistry that you yourself acknowledge in much musical minimalism, and I see in much, but not necessarily all, atonal music.

Abdiel,

      I'm glad that you like the pieces that you mention, and I have no doubt that you have listened to more Classical music than I have. If you think that the time, effort, and ink spilled on composing and celebrating atonality was worth it, great. Of the 4 reasons I gave, one was laid at the feet of the composers themselves. I think the bulk of the problem lies with us. But if my first reason is entirely of the mark, maybe you can explain why nobody ever walks around humming Schoenberg's (or anyone else's) atonal pieces, let alone listening to it. If you don't think this movement had any causal role, then at the very least it came at the worst possible time for a culture whose interest in Classical music was already on the wane.

Re: Crow's Nest,

Great comment. Moreover, it used to be the case that the tastes and values of the elite were to be aspired to because they had a certain excellence. That dynamic has completely changed; it is the low virtues (and increasingly, vices) that exert the dominant gravitational pull in our culture.

Re: Copperfield

I agree with much of this post. However, there has always been a high art/low art spread, with low art being more accessible/basic. This is not to denigrate it. Classical composers have themselves been lovers of much of the folk music of their various times and places. That being said, Copperfield is right on when he (or she) references the democratization effect. Classical music requires elite musicians who devote much of their life to its study and creation. Plenty of jazz and popular musicians are also extremely skilled, but the forms they work in generally do not require the same degree of training. Combined with some of my earlier points, classical music has been fighting a difficult battle for some time.

And I'm a huge fan of popular music, by the way.

There ought to be no mystery as to why chamber/classical music has faded in popularity. In no particular order:

1. Classical music did much to destroy its own popularity by giving in to the anti-music of atonality to such a large degree. By taking music and stripping it of the tonal characteristics that connect with us as listeners, (too many) modern composers engaged in the most arrogant artistic masturbatory ego fondling; they no longer cared if anyone listened, and that is not a good way to gain listeners, as it turns out.

2. Enjoying classical music requires patience and some musical understanding beyond, "man, this beat is sick!" Our culture isn't much for entertainment that requires some virtue development.

3. Popular music is ubiquitous. You cannot escape it. It blares at you from gas station pumps. It has a monopoly on our collective ears.

4. Popular music, to a large extent, celebrates the Dionysian side of human nature, whereas Classical music is largely concerned with the Apollonian. In case you haven't noticed, our culture is very much in tune with the gut, less so with the head. The heart is up for grabs.

In short, contemporary artistic culture worships youth, and youth, for all of its energy, wonder, and enthusiasm, is also naive (utopian), willful (transgressive), and often stupid (illogical)... not easily compatible with cultural conservatism. All this being said, there are some interesting, positive trends. First, conservative sentiments have begun to emanate from people who've spent much of their lives either largely opposed or indifferent to conservatism. Mamet has already been mentioned. Dennis Miller comes to mind. There are the Friends of Abe, a somewhat underground group of conservative Hollywood folks started by Gary Sinise, which includes (allegedly) some pretty notable figures. Bob Dylan has shown no interest in accepting the mantle of liberal godfather/prophet. Even Bono, for all of the silly things he has said, has nice things to say about Rick Santorum of all people. My point is not that all of these folks are conservatives, but the Churchillian tendency to become more conservative as one experiences more of life can be detected in these examples and many more.

Secondly, subtle, and even humble examples of conservatism, or at least of common sense, can be found in pop culture and I believe are becoming more common.

Going back to Peter's initial point about having country music and talk radio, I think a few things can be said. First, that list should be lengthened to include a leading presence among cable news networks. Secondly, regarding the artistic aspects of the question, we conservatives have a few things going against us, and only some of those things are the result biased liberal gatekeepers. Since at least Rousseau, artistic creation has become increasingly wrapped up with the subjective emotions and desires of the artist. This can result in wonderful art, but the conservative outlook on reality is not (I believe) often defined by an obsessive introspection upon one's own feelings for the purpose of finding new ways to share said feelings with others via an artistic medium. The romantic idea of the artist has been further corroded by an obsession with youthfulness, and all of the associated virtues and vices. Conservatism, as a view of reality that values time-tested moral wisdom, intellectual respect for the past, and the tragic understanding of earthly human existence, is found more readily in experienced (older) people, and in notably mature young folks, who are somewhat rare.