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.
Why I Recommended Against Milo
As discussed on the main page, Milo Yiannopoulos has been invited to address CPAC this year in the major Saturday night address — the one that gets the television. About this I have mixed feelings, as I have mixed feelings about Milo in general. However, at my university, the College Republicans I sponsor discovered that they could get Milo to come speak for basically a song. Breitbart appears to pay a sizable chunk of the cost of his speeches. They asked my opinion.
I recommended against.
Now this decision was made in the space of a day, so my reasons were not as well formed then as they are now. What I told them is that Milo is a blunt object, as likely to hurt as to help, and that such a blunt object is not necessary at our school. Should the day come that we need a blunt object, having already used Milo, we won’t have anything in reserve. Furthermore, our campus is already fairly conservative -even Trump friendly -so bring a provocateur to campus to generate protesting seems counterproductive.
We can, ultimately, catch more converts with honey than with vinegar.
But if they wanted provocative, I offered to look into SABO, who is in a league of his own.
The lure of Milo is that he kills every sacred cow. He is a walking scandal. A talking desecration. He is, by his own admission, transgressive as a personality trait. The id made flesh. But he’s also indiscriminate. He is, in his way, the Right’s Madonna -who spent her youth talking about the greatness of the sexual revolution -and then discovered in middle age that her money made the revolution great, but that for everyone else it was a much more mixed bag. That for her, effective single parenting just meant hiring a nanny, while for the teenagers listening to her, it meant a much harder life.
My students want to see Milo say all the things you can’t say, without any recognition that there is a reason tact and manners exist. Or if they do recognize the importance of manners (they are generally decent people) they don’t see the threat Milo represents to their tact and manners. They can point to no general oppression of conservative views on campus except for a few professors here and there (as opposed to the more general oppression of a place like Berkeley where it is both professors and students). They just want to watch Milo play with matches.
The day the administration threatened to keep him off campus, I would convert to my students’ desire. But that is because the day the administration threatened to keep him off campus we would actually have a threat to free speech worthy of blasting apart, and I would consider the collateral damage that is Milo to be worth the risk. I cannot abide, for my own security, a system in which speech is formally controlled by one side. I will take my chances in the world without restraint.
SABO, for all he is just as transgressive is much more solidly aimed at the Left. His style is to parody the left’s attacks. “This is what you do all the time! Why is it only wrong when I respond in kind!?” His is a shaped charge to Milo’s bomb throwing. His is, in its way, a call for proper civilized constraints — constraints on both sides that exist in order to keep the peace, and not to ensure one party’s domination over the other. He wants a fair fight, whatever the rules. Milo wants a fight without rules. SABO is a rebel. Milo is a revolutionary.
So how does this play to CPAC? In many ways, CPAC is now filled with people who feel greatly constrained by the left. Josh Barro commented that the social conservatives must be alarmed by CPAC’s invitation of Milo. Speaking only for myself, were it a couple years ago, I might well have. But today, I can understand what a wit called “The Boromir Option.” If electing Trump and setting of Milo is the only way to break the left’s monopoly on the nationwide culture, then I understand. If the guillotine is falling, there’s not much reason to complain about the collateral damage of the bomb — so long as it throws the blade out of its track.
But on the other hand, CPAC is the base of the people — and why would you set the bomb off in your own headquarters?
It was for this reason I recommended against Milo at my campus, and why I would recommend against at CPAC. But it is also why I will not stand in their way, either.
Published in Culture
I’ve been saying that electing Donald Trump is much like giving the ring to Boromir for over a year. I’m glad someone else saw somewhat of a connection.
Good post.
I think this is a good way to express my feelings on him.
Somewhat similar to Trump in the primaries for me too.
The world keeps turning forward. The more the left, and now parts of the right (looking at you Bill Kristol), are willing to defend a status quo that puts topics out of reach of polite society, the more those topics will be talked about in impolite ways. And the long it goes on, the more the pressure builds.
Trump is not just a temper-tantrum, but what happens when a whole bunch of people felt that neither party was really listening to them. Now, on the left and right, there are regular players, in effect, telling those voters to shut up and go away and let the adults run things. A vote for Trump is clearly seen as a vote for the destruction of the Republic so bad, that even empowering the State is a view of a “conservative”.
Milo is the next stage from Trump. Banning him from speaking is how he gets his power. If the forces against him just let him speak, his power would drain away. Thus, I agree, keep him away, until he is denied, then support his arrival. The blade, as you put it, is already falling.
Social Conservatives supported Trump because they knew that the other side did not speak for them at all. They knew that on the things they supported, the GOP already failed them time and time again. So they went for someone new. My guess is, the public SoCons won’t say much about Milo at CPAC. The only people to speak out will be the public figures who are already so strongly Never Trump, that they question his legitimacy anyway.
I am not sure I see the White House as corrupting as the One Ring. If that anology holds up, then the Presidency should be cast into the fires of Mordor.
It’s not a question of whether it should be cast in the fires of Mordor (according to the allegory it definitely should) but how to survive as a non-corrupted individual long enough to get it there.
I know next to nothing about Milo; all I know about him is that he was on Bill Maher the other night, and he was great. I am strongly inclined to support anyone who is hated by the left as much as he is, but again, I know very little about him.
Problem is that most people in the Republican party leadership would sell the ring to Sauron in exchange for some orcs to mow their lawns and babysit their kids. Others would not dare sully their hands with fighting.
Well said Sabr, as usual. As a lover of free speech, I recognize the validity of all sides of the argument. Also I would like to add my sole objection to Milo: dude is British and getting rich off making a ruckus in my country. Say what you will about the White Nationalists, they’re American and I’m bound to them by nationality even if they may hate my guts solely based on my skin color. I don’t owe Milo a damn thing.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/video-surfaces-of-milo-yiannopoulos-defending-pedophilia-acu-board-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite/
Addressed on the main page here.
The thing is, Milo isn’t conservative and doesn’t claim to be. But we are in uncharted territory here, where someone irreverent and attuned to popular culture as he is can be a useful tool in attacking and exposing the Left. But Milo is no fool. He is a brilliant showman and self-promoter. He’s using CPAC as least as much as CPAC is using him. Putting Milo front and center has the potential to benefit both him and CPAC. But no one should be fooled into thinking he’s about advancing conservatism. I view this as a stunt. It may work out brilliantly, but it does come at a risk. One must be careful when playing with fire.
I’m a conservative bomb thrower and I approve of this message.
Do I feel stupid.
No -the two came up basically at the same time. I wrote this, then that showed up over there, and rather than edit, I just linked. It’s a good point.
Pertinent:
The interesting thing about the SoCons and Trump is that Trump doesn’t threaten them… in fact, he deflects attention off of SoCons.
He doesn’t need to agree with them. He just needs to defend them and let them be, which is 100% more than the other side was willing to do.
I feel like I have room to breathe now. Our congressmen were like putting SoCons under a microscope and looking far too closely at one single point without any context.
I think the same of Milo. Milo turns to a SoCon and tells them they are right and he is weak. He agrees his lifestyle is destructive and manages to support the SoCon’s right to believe what they believe and refuses to attack them. He deflects.
What is a white nationalist, exactly?
In racial identity politics, a reaction to minority identity politics.
They believe that white people have a right to their own countries.
They want to preserve white majority countries as white people are the minority in the world.
They want to preserve the culture, language, religion, and history that they credit with bringing about an advanced Western Civilization.
They are not supremacists, though supremacists are white nationalists. White nationalists can and do hold the belief that other races have the same right to protect their culture, countries, and civilizations.
I think you’ll find the same kind of blue-haired ladies supporting Milo because they have a son who is gay or a daughter who is transgender, and Milo is a bridge between them and the child they love. Also, they care more about freedom than suppressing naughty words or behavior.
That being said, if this is true, in addition to Ned Ryun’s tweet that the board was not consulted on Milo’s elevation to Keynote, well, things may change quite a bit in the next few days. I will tell you that I can probably convince SABO to come back :)
The first letter of CPAC stands for “Conservative”. This person is not. I want to know the name of the person who greenlighted this extremely poor decision. If they gave him a Thursday morning slot, I would not be happy, but I would probably shrug it off.
The Saturday speakers are supposed to be Real Conservatives who lift us up, provide guidance and courage, and perhaps even a vision of our future.
It should never be some clown who thinks anyone gives a damn who or what he sleeps with.
I’m skipping the Conference this year.
I get your point, but beyond that, “naughty” behavior with children is not “freedom.” The conservative reaction to someone thanking a Catholic priest for teaching him hot to perform oral sex should be a bit more nuanced than “but he fights!”, no?
I’ve interviewed Milo, applauded his GG defenses, enjoyed his panels with Christina Hoff Summers (I attended one with my daughter, which was duly interrupted by free-speech opponents) but how many lines are we expected to erase because he triggers the perpetually triggered?
(These things are phrased in the form of questions to drown out the internal screaming)
Milo is a First Amendment fundamentalist for today. I wish we could have Nat Hentoff back, but he would be too staid and rational to oppose the contemporary Left.
Milo says of himself that he breaks the rules – and also that if there are no rules it’s no fun, so he opposes those who want to demolish the rules. This is a pretty narcissistic view, but that’s Milo. In his own perverse way, he’s defending traditional norms.
To be fair, lots of Social Conservative commentators have espoused a pro-wrestling element for quite awhile. I grew up on Wally George on LA’s UHF dial:
The pedophilia crap is just loathsome, however, and I see no other way around utter contempt for it.
I meant only that in the eyes of many older folks, SABO and Milo are like kids who use “naughty” language and fall way outside the norms of standard behavior. Because they create a bridge between generations they are often accepted and celebrated by parents and grandparents trying to make a connection with their progeny, even though they are not aware of all the facts. Some of these “Blue Haired Ladies” I spoke about who basically mobbed SABO, had not seen anything but his “Ted Cruz with Tattoos” poster. His online work is considerably more raunchy.
I am also very troubled by Ned Ryun’s twitter feed which seems to point to internal struggles at CPAC.
That Wally George video is hilarious.
As a bonus, here’s Ron Paul on Morton Downey, Jr.:
Wally George rules!
I like the reasoning in the OP. Milo is giant hammer and if you use it once when you don’t need it might not be available when you do need it. It is also not a wise idea to start a controversy and a major conflict out of a desire, a very understandable desire, to see Milo “play with matches”. It seems to me that you gave good advice.
As far as CPAC goes I think it is important for CPAC to make sure keynote addresses are by Conservatives which Milo is not.
I’m DYIN’! My man is getting into it! You say no! What’s funny is his message hasn’t changed for the past 30 years — just went from crackpot on UHF to GOP stage, and now, Informercials. Having had met him, I know he’s not insane, at least he advocates brilliantly for his insanity, and he was fully in on the wrestling game (lmao when Downey calls him a Jabroni). I watched this too a lot Mike. Thank God for Wally George and Robert Downey Jr. Texas would have frightened me without em.
I think Downey Jr. was an actual Social Conservative — I remember he advocated pro-life causes as a sane person outside his show. Whereas Wally George was completely just cashing in. Fun fact — George is Rebecca DeMornay’s estranged father.
Why did you mention “White Nationalists” in this thread? I don’t see the connection. I have read a lot of Milo’s speeches, watched a few of his videos, and read Brietbart (Milo is an editor of this organization) for years. I have never seen him or Brietbart ever promote White Nationalism, or any other racists ideas.
As far as him being British and getting rich in our country, this has been going on since the first fur trappers hit the beach 400 years ago.
I think it’s a fine analogy. The One Ring is the iconification of power. Government is the personification of power. Same scat. Different pile.