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
Yep and if you stay at that minimum wage job for awhile maybe you can get some of those skills you lack. That actually happens a whole lot more often than you seem to be willing to believe.
Jonah may not punch down to the poor, but he like many in his circles etc, seem to assume most people have more financial freedom than they really do; maybe just because HE does and he can’t believe anyone else doesn’t. Or he may think it but can’t really understand it.
Also sometimes take note of how casually he and others like John Podhoretz talk about trips to Europe, going to Broadway shows, sending kids to expensive summer camps…
I absolutely believe it.
That said what is a good future move for 18-20 year old, doesn’t necessarily work for a 35 year old with a wife and kids.
There are other options too. After a well-paying time in business computer programming, I now have to live off disability. But it’s the same amount no matter where I live, so I’m actually able to own a home with it because I don’t think I have to live in San Francisco. Or Seattle. etc. And in fact, the small town where I live now, welcomes my financial input.
And if you move from a place where the cost of living is very low to a prosperous area with high rents, how do you survive to the point where you acquire those skills?
And how do your spouse and children cope with moving from a place that they know as home to a faceless city where you have no family or friends?
It sounds like you are saying that people don’t have a responsibility to work and pay their own expenses rather than live off of society. I think Bernie Sanders would agree with much of what you are saying here.
Cheap shot.
Hardly. I’m all for fighting and resisting when fighting and resisting is the best way to advance one’s desired outcome.
So then the problem may be your standards for deciding when fighting and resisting are worthwhile.
I’ll say again, at least you are admitting your populism is not conservatism.
Welfare recipient and “poor person” are not the same thing Drew.
“We the people” is a statement of populism. Government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a populist government.
So, if you hate that, what’s your preference? Oligarchy?
Exactly….in the south for decades men left their families to go to cities like Detroit to work. Heck people went West for the opportunity to make their own way.
I know. The government hands out “welfare” to all their wealthy cronies.
And an illogical straw man argument.
Research? Really? I doubt that. He’s a writer, not a researcher.
I think it all stems from the fact that he hates where he came from.
Yeah, but it’s unquestionable that NR is no longer the stalwart conservative magazine it once was. There is a pattern of acquiescing on the cultural issues. Sure it’s the writer’s who write in their freedom. But it’s NR that hires the writers in the first place. With all the conservative outlets around, I think they are trying to find a particular niche, one where they have a softer stance on cultural issues, especially concerning homosexuality. In my opinion they have completely sold out on homosexuality.
Well said. The Libertarian influence on conservatism has been a disaster for the conservative cause, and a disaster for the American culture.
They don’t have the latitude to tell the writers what to write, but they do have the latitude to publish or not particular pieces. If one of their writers became a flaming liberal, you don’t think NR would stop publishing their pieces?
Exactly! Spot on. NR has the latitude to publish what they feel appropriate for their pages. They specifically chose to publish drag queens.
I prefer The American Spectator, but they now have a pay wall I think.
NR is playing a game here. It’s “No, I don’t support drag queens” but here’s a great article about it.” It’s the sort of wink-wink that Fr. James Martin does with his pro gay agenda within the Catholic Church. If you ask him he supports the Catholic position on homosexuality, and yet he does whatever he can to undermine it. Same thing with NR. They have lost credibility. Somewhere way back in time on Ricochet you can probably find comments from me on how I lamented the decline of NR, especially since I LOVED them as a young man. Perhaps I still lament it, but I’ve grown to despise what they have become.
Absolutely!!!
Haha, that was great. I must have missed that one.
I really appreciate your thought here, they show how “conservatism” and the right fail over and over. You are arguing the ideal. How things aught to be, without any thought to how things actually are. A problem KW is suffering from as well, but seemed to realize it a little when prosing changes to the benefits program.
People will generally do what is in their own best interest. Not always but that is the rule of thumb that created whole areas of study like behavioral economics. Right now these people have benefits worth a certain amount of money, this is unlikely to change the Democrats will not let benefits go way. People will not change their behavior to be worse off then they are now, this is not rational.
KW’s just move and maybe we should adjust benefits to help with this has some potential. But it is putting the horse before the cart. We want people to be self sufficient. Just move doesn’t get there. Rather then pointing the finger at the poor uneducated person and saying “move”. Start in the other direction, maybe with some compassion. Your life is not great, here is how we help. Point the finger at policy makers, create the change in benefits help the people to move and survive the move. This does not cost more money really then leaving them on benefits.
The idea of a hand up rather than a hand out is the goal right? So KW maybe on the right path with the idea of finding ways to get people to where the jobs are. That idea has to come first. Just move is not a “hand up” it is the same or worse life in a new place.
Bernie Sanders exists to an extent because he offers free stuff to poor people. The Right can make arguments that are true about the benefits of work, the chance to get ahead, and the Right can offer help. Or they can say “so move”.
You have to have a balance, Jean. Sure people have to go where jobs are but massive dislocations are culturally degenerative. I’m not saying there has to be welfare checks to keep people in place – that would be just as horrid as the dislocations – but there has to be a policy of encouraging business to come or stay and/or relocate to needed areas. That is not laissez faire free trade as NR and the Libertarians desire. In fact that is what Israel and many European countries do. That is what Trump wanted to do under the term Nationalism. NR reacted vociferously to the term Nationalism. Call it what you will, but absolute free trade is massively dislocating and unless you’re in the desired location leads to massive cultural rot.
Absolutely, and the Libertarians encourage this, knowingly or unknowingly.
Well, I started on page 1 of this post and got to the end in an hour and a half…lol. I guess I wasted almost two hours, but it was a lot of fun reading. Thanks to all for a great Ricochet experience, whether we agreed or not.
You say that people will generally do what is in their best interest. Sometimes moving to where the jobs are is in ones best interest rather than staying put.
It might not be in ones short term best interest in the sense that the benefits of moving to where the jobs are might not develop until a few years afterward.
But to join the Bernie Sanders bandwagon and label this “conservatism” or “populism” is only going to turn our country into a socialist hell-hole.
Oh, look: it’s the typical “You’re a leftist if you disagree with me” nonsense.
The fact that Bernie Sanders is offered up as the bogeyman tells you what sort of frame of reference is being employed: one fitting the 20th century rather than the 21st. We have too many boomercons who don’t know what time it is.