Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nothing Is Ever Going Back to Normal
National Review — after previously offering that Drag Queen Story Hour was a “blessing of liberty” and railing against Florida Governor Ron de Santis for modest efforts at pushing back against the left — finds itself shocked… shocked … at the metastasizing phenomenon of leftists foisting drag shows (featuring men strutting pretending to be women as if women were clown-prostitutes) on children. “Oh, my heck!” they proclaim. “Who could have foreseen that if we indulged the left in their depravity they would push it even further?“
It’s understandable why (Bush) Republicans and (Atlantic) Conservatives would prefer not to fight the culture wars. It’s just not gentlemanly/ladylike to make a big fuss about leftists sexualizing children. It’s icky and Trumpy to confront the left about their cultural ambitions and their use of every lever of Government to promote them. And because they don’t want to fight, it’s very easy to succumb to denialism. “Yes, sure, there are a few crazies on the fringe of the left, but most of them don’t want to get gay with kids. And if we just calmed down and found some common ground we could get back to normal. Hey, why are those people over there making those kids shove cash in that transvestite’s thong?”
“In Defense of Political Escalation,” Abigail Shrier makes the eminently logical point that the left has no intention of ending the culture wars, or even a ceasefire.
Those waiting on the mythical pendulum to “swing back,” should stop holding their breath. The gender activists are True Believers, akin to jihadists: no amount of reasoning diminishes their resolve, no appeal to data brings them pause, no urge to consider the sanctity of American liberties will convince them to cool it.
While conservatives have been waiting for things to calm down and get back to normal, and fretting that “we oughtn’t do things that are at odds with our precious principles,” the left have seized not just Government power, but also academic power, media power, and even corporate power which they eagerly wield against anyone who dissents from Woke ideology.
If the woke continue to gain ground, where will we skeptics go to educate our children, transact commerce, find fair adjudication of our custody disputes? Where will we publish when not only the New York Times has a “gender director”—when every publication does?
That is the worry that likely motivates DeSantis, the first politician to “weaponize” the Florida tax code. He brought its hammer down on Disney to punish that one company for using its immense corporate coffers to lobby against parents’ rights in Florida. In principle, it’s a move I’m leery of. (And in the case of sending CPS after moms and dads who take their kids to drag shows, it’s a move I would oppose.)
But the gist of this stratagem—escalation—may be necessary. Indeed, it already seems to be working. Playing offense, even raising the stakes, may be the only means of achieving a much-needed truce. I’m out of better ideas. How about you?
Yeah, if there is another way to bring the culture back to plumb, I would be interested to hear it. But pundits writing hand-wringing articles in magazines that are only read by other pundits doesn’t seem like an effective solution to me.
And it’s not just the gender bending. The left will never give up on CRT. They will never give up on Climate Totalitarianism. They will never, despite John Cornyn’s delusions, give up on zero-tolerance gun control.
They don’t want to make a deal; they want our complete submission.
Published in Culture
That’s all well and good on an intellectual and academic level, but the individual faced with the realities on the ground doesn’t have the luxury of musing over the possible causes of his current dilemma: he needs to survive and hopefully thrive, and that might mean that he will have to do what countless others have done before him – seek out opportunities where they exist.
I think families dispersing across the country, living far from each other is one reason for the breakdown of families. You need that family support. You need your people around you. The best thing a family can do — particularly in economically difficult times — is to live close to each other where they can support each other. Financially, . . . emotionally . . . raising children . . . instead of encouraging families to separate from each other, we should be encouraging them to remain close to each other.
Who around here or at NR (or even at The Dispatch, for that matter) has argued that? I definitely have read lots of people write “the process is the punishment”, but I don’t recall anyone arguing for oppressive laws, just as long as we get due process.
But, you know, under the Biden economy, we’ll all be staying put. Which is how dictators like it. No freedom of movement within the regime. Makes it easier to keep the masses in line.
The left has been trying to destroy community for a long time, and to a large extent they have succeeded. Part of the “long march” etc.
The problem is that “welfare” is funded with Federal Dollars but administered by States. So to keep the benefits a person could not move out of the state. Welfare is not really a way to get rich or save up for a new place.
If you move out of state you have no money and no benefits. If you move in state you may keep benefits but not really have money. How are you renting a $1000-$2000 1 bed room apartment in a bigger city to have a place to live while looking for work. Where is the money coming from for first and last month rent and damage deposit.
The idea that welfare benefits must be “restructured” is not a defense of Williamson’s position really but proof that his idea can’t work. at least not now.
Just move out of the small town to be homeless in the city until the Federal and State Governments come up with a new plan vs. stay where you are with the benefits you have and understand and maybe move if the government fixes thing. Not a hard choice.
David French, among others, doesn’t seem to have a problem with those kinds of things. But he can afford to hire a lawyer any time he wants to, assuming he doesn’t just do things himself because he was able to go to law school, likely also on someone else’s dime.
Not to mention, conservative policies, especially in the area of trade, had a lot to do with failing cities. Outsourcing our manufacturing jobs to China was literally not figuratively exporting working class prosperity. Open borders policies have only undercut the working class wages while allowing the mass import of synthetic opioids. Working class jobs were offshored, and cheap immigrant labor was brought in at massive levels. This killed off a lot of small cities.
And the failure of conservatism to meaningfully confront the destruction of the traditional family was also a major factor. They paid lip service to it, but never did anything about it.
In general I agree with you, though I would point out that immigrants to this country (mine included) had strong families despite moving and breaking ties.
I think it’s a question of weighing the pros and cons. Having generations growing up with the norm of being on welfare is not beneficial to thriving, either on an individual or community basis. At some point the corrosive part of that lifestyle might be enough of a detriment to thriving that a change or move is called for.
A lot of people in the area of Appalachia where I came from own their houses, built many years ago by their ancestors. They pay no rent, just utilities and repairs. Moving would up their monthly housing nut massively.
That’s why, on the Conservative Migration group, I suggested people move while they can, especially out of places like the People’s Republic of California.
This is true in many respects. I’d put it this way–all other things being equal, is it better to grow up in a community of grandparents, extended family, and lots of other families who have lived in the same area for generations? I think the answer is probably, but I definitely don’t think it’s a certainty.
First, a big part of Williamson’s thesis is that the communities in question are fraught with dysfunction. If someone is growing up in the third generation of addiction and governmental dependency, moving to another town a few hours away seems like a much preferable option. Weekend and holiday visits to/from relatives may not be perfect, but if steady work is the the alternative?
Second, one positive trade-off of moving to a new community is having the opportunity of seeing more clearly the prejudices of your hometown. For a time, our family moved to an area that was very ethnically diverse due to large scale military operations. We were greatly surprised at the reaction of some folks in our hometown concerning our new friends with ethnicities different from our own. We had not realized how suspicious they had grown of perceived outsiders. Closed, multi-generational communities can become very parochial in unhealthy ways.
Just move where the jobs are made sense a few decades ago. You move to a bigger place and get a job at a plant. Those jobs don’t exist any more here ( unless we are telling people to move to China or Mexico).
A lot of the other jobs are out of reach. In the past you might have worked a entry level office job. Now most of those require some college or a full degree.
Move to make minimum wage is not really financially possible or beneficial
I don’t think anyone is arguing that moving from a hometown is desirable or easy. But if “home” has no jobs and is filled with dysfunction, what’s the alternative? Governmental dependency and addictions are soul-sapping alternatives. I read KDW as saying–if you find yourself in this situation, if you can get out, then get out.
Fair enough. I never read KDW as saying everyone should get out of Appalachia. He researched the level of dysfunction and governmental dependency and concluded that it would be better for many to leave where there are jobs. I honestly don’t understand why this is so controversial. If a person has a house and can afford to stay, then of course, why not stay? Appalachia has much natural beauty. But if you can’t find work, then go where there’s work if you can.
It’s unsurprising that people reacted negatively to KW’s infamous piece. But maybe surprising how many didn’t understand that negative reaction. Certainly KW never gave it another thought after he filed it. He’s not paid to reflect, consider, or offer mea culpas on previous columns. He’s got another Current Thing to snark about.
This is an unfair characterization. Here’s just one article where Williamson “reflects”. Here’s a more generalized search that also addresses your comment.
Kind of on brand?
Thank you for that. I can only get to one of those pieces as I am not an NR subscriber, and I will have to read it more in depth but it appears that he thinks the people who have trouble with his viewpoint are attracted to “Donald Trump’s anti-capitalist populism.” Someone unpack that bit of nonsense, please.
It’s the punching down I can’t stand.
I don’t disagree.
But your “solutions” often seem to amount to going along, rather than fighting, resisting, and even refusing to do what they want.
In other words, he repeats the same point over and over.
I don’t believe so. He regularly addresses his critics and explains his positions. He clarifies points, etc.
But, no, he hasn’t changed his mind. People can be pretty stubborn in this their convictions (I know I am). For example, something tells me I haven’t changed your mind about Williamson, have I.
I think he’s one of those guys who thinks he is smarter than he is, and is sure he is smarter than everybody else. I’ve known a few of those people, and none of them are worth your time.
Perhaps. But it doesn’t necessarily make him wrong. I get it—his style isn’t for everyone. I have relatives who absolutely hated Rush Limbaugh—based almost entirely on his tone. Didn’t matter what he said, they didn’t want to hear it. KDW seems to have the “gift” with some people.
Thanks. I am not really sure this improves KWs position. His changes to welfare/ or unemployment don’t exist and may never exist. A factory may not be coming to or back to these places but largely they are not coming back to any part of America
There are no jobs here so move elsewhere to be a waitress is unrealistic and not serious.
A few years back we were all laughing at the guy whose campaign was “ the rent is too damn high”. Rent has not gone down since then.
Just move worked in the past, it may have been good advice. The labor market is no longer what it was in the 80s or even 90s
It’s the punching down, like I said. You know who else seems to relish punching down these days? Jonah Goldberg.
I don’t care who they are; I’m always going to side with the poor and powerless against these beltway-dwellers.
It is a bit too glib. Have a substandard high school education, No skills and live in a place where there are no jobs.
Simple!
Move to a more expensive place where your substandard education and lack of skill can get you a minimum wage type job.
I guess I see it differently (and believe me, I’m not writing from a position of financial comfort). KDW is literally not a beltway dweller, and he never struck me as much of an elitist. He “punches” fellow “journalists” the most.
Goldberg? Maybe a little more-so, but I don’t know. I don’t seem to recall Goldberg writing things critical of the poor.
Perhaps this is one place you and I won’t see eye to eye.
Under Trump, manufacturing was actually coming back.
Can’t have that! Vote China Joe!