Conservative Conversation + Podcasts

Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!

Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Technology and Super-National Affiliation

 

In a recent essay, Henry Kissinger noted the potential of economic globalization to upset traditional paradigms of nationality and statehood.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

Kissinger notes this in passing, and deliberately limits his perspective in this article. He refers only to the global economy, ignoring the many other ways by which the world has become ever smaller; not only financially and militarily interdependent, but also socially interactive at the level of individual citizens.

I would like to expand that view to ask a broader question: How has technological innovation changed what it means to be a nation? Are national identities and national governments as practically significant as they were a century or two ago?

Ricochet members have argued in the past the United States of America were more culturally and politically distinct from one another in the late 18th century, before the establishment of national media like radio and television. Railways, telegraph, highways, and air travel also normalized interaction between citizens. Telephones and cheaper mail delivery facilitated daily communication between distant friends and business associates. Largely as a consequence of these inventions, regional differences have been diluted in the wake of common experience.

It’s easy to forget how recent many of these changes are. Many Baby Boomers remember sharing a phone line with neighbors, so one might have to wait until a person down the street was done talking before being able to use one’s own phone. They remember when few people owned televisions, and only three channels were available. Most highways were constructed in their lifetime. How ubiquitous and advanced must such technologies become — and how many decades must pass — for them to homogenize various peoples into one culture and one political audience?

Today, we have internet and smart phones. A business can have employees in Switzerland, Israel, and Australia who only communicate online. It might identify its “home office” with a particular country only for tax purposes. People enjoy products and media from around the world. They socialize every day with foreigners and form organizations which defy national boundaries.

As conservatives with respect for the immutable nature of Man and the inevitability of social conflicts, we know that this technological innovation is not paving a path to Utopia. It will not lead to global harmony and the elimination of cultural differences. But there will be effects. What are those effects? Might technological innovation force a fundamental restructuring of political bodies?

Image Credit: “City Lights of the United States 2012” by NASA Earth Observatory – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=79800 for GeoTIFF original file.http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/8247975848/in/set-72157632172101342/ for quicker access to the jpeg. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Genius and Suffering

 

Why are human beings never content? No matter how much civilization advances, no matter how affluent and secure we become, no matter how much knowledge and opportunity we amass, it’s never enough. Why? Because we know there’s more to be had. We know it can be better. The very thing that enables us to conquer the natural world — imagination — also robs us of an animal’s simple focus. 

Why are persons with extraordinary minds so often miserable when alone, even if they are genuinely joyful and amiable among others? Because they are forever taunted by their own vivid dreams and nightmares, by bold hopes, and by a thousand “What if…?” scenarios for every lost opportunity. Simply put, their appreciation of what is flounders beneath a relentless shadow of what could be.

Beethoven wrote in a letter: 

The true artist has no pride. He sees unfortunately that art has no limits; he has a vague idea how far he is from reaching his goal; and while others perhaps may be admiring him, he laments the fact that he has not yet reached the point whither his better genius only lights the way for him like a distant sun. 

When we listen to a great composer’s music, we hear only what he has created; the manifest reality. We might not feel, as he does, that something still isn’t right; that something about it is never quite right. The composer might not even know himself exactly what it is that fails to match his barely conscious idea. And how much greater that frustration becomes when one must rely on other musicians to voice the nuances of one’s own passions! So it must be for cinematic storytellers.

Actors must experience something similar to the uncomfortable impression of hearing one’s own voice in a recording or seeing oneself in a homemade family movie. I suspect that many of the best actors are hyper-attentive to every utterance and movement, and hypercritical while watching themselves on screen. Perhaps that torture is why a few have claimed to never watch the films in which they perform.

Whenever I watch the 2001 version of Ocean’s Eleven, I am struck by an exchange between Brad Pitt’s character, Rusty, and Linus, played by Matt Damon: 

Rusty: “Are you scared?”

Linus: “Are you suicidal?”

Rusty: “Only in the morning.” 

Though perhaps this insight is Pitt’s own, I would guess that it came from one of the scriptwriters. For depressed persons, the first and last moments of each day can be the most difficult, particularly for those who sleep alone.

In the morning, one often awakes from dreams. Those dreams might contain wishes or terrors, but either can be exaggerated in the waking mind by an artist’s inclination toward the dramatic. Any good storyteller develops the habit by telling stories to himself. A story connects objects and events by imbuing them with meaning. The artist dreams and then connects the dream, interpreting it, sometimes in a self-abusive way. 

In the night, it is natural for any person to reflect on recent events and make predictions about the following day. A depressed artist might torture herself with reimagined memories, lusting after what might have been in fine detail. When she reflects on her life, she might draw sweeping story arcs that tell a fatalistic tale of tragedy, whereas another person might simply and doggedly hope for better days. 

Happiness, sadness, and anger are greatly affected expectations and interpretations. Place 10 people in the same situation and they are likely to respond in as many different ways… some more dramatically than others. For a person whose livelihood depends on the appreciation of drama, a person who self-identifies primarily as a dreamer or an instrument of the artistic passions, ordinary experiences are often instilled with extraordinary significance.

Each of us has a story in his or her head that selects what character traits, what potentials, and what experiences are most significant. We qualify our lives according to what we imagine they could and should be. For some, life is a practical business. For others, it is a beautiful but terrifying drama.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. The Agony and the Ecstasy: Of Cartoons and Advertising

 

My younger generation might not know symphonies and concertos by name, but we recognize many melodies. Relatively few of us have attended classical performances — and fewer still seek them out — but we have at least a passing knowledge of the great composers’ works, even if we never listen to the songs all the way through and know little about the composers themselves. 

How did we gain this basic familiarity with classical music? Through TV advertisements, film soundtracks, and (like Baby Boomers) through Looney Tunes. The latest generation is learning these songs through video games like Peggle.

I think most people would agree that this limited exposure to music of centuries past is better than none. But the downside is that the circumstances of one’s introduction to a song or another work of art can form unfortunate associations which are difficult to shake. When I hear Wagner’s brilliant “Flight of the Valkyries”, do I think of Norse warriors? Of course not. I think of Elmer Fudd and of vacuum cleaners. 

Associations can also affect the way we perceive paintings, sculptures, architecture, or literary fiction. And those associations are not always detrimental.

Had I first seen the film Cast a Giant Shadow at any other time, I doubt the story of impossible military challenges during the formation of Israel would have moved me as much. My memory of St Patrick’s Cathedral might have become jumbled with other cathedrals if not for the stark contrast of its Gothic architecture amid the giant square skyscrapers of New York City which were equally new to me at the time.

Are unpleasant associations more powerful or more enduring than pleasant ones? I know a woman who emphatically objected when her husband began to sing “You Are My Sunshine” to their young daughter because the woman’s own mom had woken her with that song every morning throughout those sleepy teenage years. 

What are some of your own mnemonic associations with songs and other art? Are they all bad? Or have any heightened your appreciation?

Have those associations affected how you expose your children favorite works? Do you only try to affect their positive associations or do you attempt to dissuade them from hated works as well?

Image credit: Flickr user KAALpurush.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. What Do Republican Politicians Want?

 

On Ricochet, we often debate which legislation and strategies are feasible under current political conditions and which are only pipe dreams. In this thread, I’d like to set aside what Republicans could do and instead focus on what Republicans would do if they had the power. 

Assume a Republican super-majority in Congress. Assume a Republican president. Even assume a friendly majority on the Supreme Court. I am not predicting any of this. I’m just asking that we pretend these conditions for the sake of argument. 

Imagine that Republican politicians have all the power, but concentrate on current office holders, rather than upcoming candidates. Because we currently lack a Republican president, let’s focus on Congress and simply pretend that any legislation they pass will be signed in the Oval Office. 

Knowing what we do of the various interests and personalities in the Republican congressional caucus today, what is the boldest legislation they might generally agree upon? I’m not asking what you wish would happen; I’m asking what you guess Republican politicians wish would happen. 

Do they want limited, local government? Do they object to regulatory capture? Or do they only wish to choose the winners in industry? How would spending change? How would taxes change? Would we end up with fewer laws or more?

The preferred goals and methods of our representatives vary widely. Where do their hopes and commitments intersect? What would the current crop of Republicans do with total control?

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Retirement and Responsibility

 

It is generally believed that every able man should work in his youth. The responsibility to work is most obvious when a person fails to support himself financially, but it is commonly asserted that financial debts are not the limit of this responsibility. Even the son of a billionaire would be looked down upon if he was not somehow productive. To “mooch” is shameful behavior even one’s patrons are unaffected.

It is similarly common to believe that an old, less able man needn’t work any longer. We say that he has “earned” his rest and leisure. The point is easy to grant if the man in question has sufficiently saved to ensure his own financial security for decades forth. Many retirees find ways to be active, socially or in isolation; but we do not demand such activity. For the retiree’s relatives and neighbors, retirement is a time of thanksgiving and recompense.

Here’s the rub. These days, most people can afford retirement by 65 years or so of age. But what if a person can afford to retire at 50, or even 40? Has that person also “earned” retirement? In an era when young adults are almost universally expected to attend college, many do not even begin careers until their mid-to-late 20s. Must someone who started working later also retire later? 

How many years of labor are necessary before one can retire without social reproach? Or should the measure be toil, rather than time? 

Of course, these are all rhetorical questions. The point is that retirement, like adolescence and so many other Western customs, is an arbitrary privilege of modern affluence. A privilege long afforded eventually is perceived as an entitlement. Conservatives and liberals alike grant this entitlement. But one doesn’t need to dig deep to discover its frailty. It can be abused. It can be lost. It can be changed.

With recent discussions of meritocracy on Ricochet, perhaps it is time again to consider how our society’s expectations regarding retirement might be changed, both legally and informally.

Will major adjustments to Social Security and other programs targeting elders ever become politically viable? How distinct are these programs from welfare to the poor and unemployed? Should retirement benefits be shifted to the private sector and local communities so that individuals may be judged, face to face, by ability rather than age? Should we expect more of both the young and old? Or is it acceptable that working life is an ever-shrinking interlude between adolescence and retirement?

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Totalitarian Democracies and Cloistered Kings

 

shutterstock_141024430When President George W. Bush and many others were trumpeting the need for democracy throughout the world, some conservatives were keen to remind us that “democratic” is only an adjective in the USA’s formal identity as a democratic republic. The noun — the republic — is primary. Still, it has become normal to cite democracy as the fundamental principle on which any free society is built.

Yet, as has become increasingly evident in Western governments, democracy and the totalitarian impulse are not mutually exclusive. Expansion and centralization of power seem to be the natural inclination of any government, regardless of how that power is derived. The emergence of the nanny state in America did not slow with the Amendment affording citizens the direct election of Senators or with improved communication between voters and representatives.

As conservatives, we don’t seek Utopian perfection in government. We acknowledge that no system can completely overcome the complexity, the errors, and the temptations of human interaction. So my question is not: “What alternative to democracy can keep government limited and local?” Rather, it is this humbler but equally difficult question: “Do democratic systems offer the best possible restraints on centralization and expansion of power?”

More specifically, is a democratic republic by nature more resistant to corruption and overreach than a monarchy? The United States of America was founded in response to distant royal rule. But it doesn’t seem fair to compare the historical progression of a new nation’s first government to the ancient succession of monarchs from which it sprung. That is to say, we should try to consider a new democracy in comparison with a new monarchy, rather than in comparison with a long-established and much-adapted monarchy. Theoretically, based on the long histories of royals and emperors throughout the world (in Europe, particularly, since we share many cultural assumptions), is a single ruler or a small council a much greater threat to freedom than a congress or parliament? 

I often recall Mark Steyn’s observation that the kings and tyrants of old Europe never micromanaged their citizens as modern legislatures normally do. The king’s authority was absolute, but he generally did not interact with individual citizens except through taxation. By comparison, I glance around my home and doubt there is a single object in it that was not shaped by one or more regulation. 

But did that change occur because legislators are greedier than lords? Is micromanagement more attractive when a thousand topics of law can be considered by a thousand legislators and bureaucrats, so that no one tyrant is overwhelmed by his or her own ambitions? Or is the nanny state purely a consequence of technological advances, which unite us to unimaginable degrees and enable so much that was never dreamed only a century ago? 

Once upon a time, kings required the support of lords, who required the support of knights, who required the support of vassals and merchants, who required the support of farmers and peasants. Power always derived from the people. But the people did not always have books, phones, vehicles, and rifles.

What is it we really fear? What is it we really hope for? If limited and local government is the common goal (as it seems to be among conservatives and libertarians of many kinds), is democratic government truly so pivotal to securing those limits? Or might we be seeking a solution that doesn’t exist? Can anything so simple as a system of government preserve freedom?

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Police “Protection”

 

In a nation of 300+ million people, the occasional tale of legendary idiocy or corruption is to be expected. Hey, it happens. A few incidents across one of the largest nations on Earth is not a trend.

What grabs my attention in Mark Steyn’s latest column, however, is the long series of high-ranking officials who are apparently willing to excuse the inexcusable — a young man, wrongly suspected of stealing a car, taking a bullet (which collapsed his lung) from a policeman after objecting to the cops’ rough treatment of his mother: 

The District Court found for the coppers, and so did the Fifth Circuit, ruling that “Get your [expletive] hands off my mom” constituted a “verbal threat” and, from a guy on his knees 15-20 feet away, “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers” – rather than (as we approach Mother’s Day) what ought to be the sentiment of any self-respecting young man seeing somebody physically assault his mom.

The Supreme Court has now vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision, and “remanded the case for further proceedings” [….]

Mark doesn’t bother to mention the police department’s willingness to defend this action. But let’s group those officials with the senior judges who believe this is legal. 

According to the District Court ruling mentioned here, “the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right.” This is later clarified as a federal right. Alas, there is no federal right to continue breathing.

Steyn goes on to summarize other recent cases of quick-on-the-draw police officers. 

When the adrenalin’s pumping and seconds count, I’m willing to cut police plenty of slack. But I do wonder sometimes. 

What do you think of Mark’s conclusion? Are these cases symptoms of widespread problems? What should be the consequences of such severe mistakes by police when the accused are indeed innocent?

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Free Speech At Home — Aaron Miller

 

Political correctness has stifled more speech than laws ever could. 

The worst part might be that it can strike anywhere at any time. Friends and family can become its enforcers. Even children get in on the act sometimes. Nowhere is safe.

How free is your speech at home and in casual conversations? How often does political correctness intrude where you would most like to speak without reservation?

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Who Doesn’t Want a Drawbridge Sometimes?—Aaron Miller

 

In Ed Driscoll’s latest podcast, James briefly describes what he calls “the drawbridge effect”: successful business owners using their acquired power and resources to prevent others from following their success. Is this scenario truly common? If it is common, is it as selfish as it first appears?

Imagine that you could afford to build a house on a beautiful secluded beach. Soon others discover that shore and more houses are built. Then the condos and hotels come, along with little tourist shops and restaurants. Eventually, home owners are driven out by rising property taxes. Those that remain are faced with a very different beach experience than the one they bought into.

Those early home owners were not buying just any beach. The seclusion was what attracted them. They wanted to sit on their balconies and admire nature, not tourists strolling by. They wanted to casually stroll the sand in search of shells, not race out at sunrise to compete with other shell hunters. They wanted to drive a quiet, uninterrupted road surrounded by dunes and sea oats, not a road packed with traffic and stoplights amid skyscrapers and shopping malls. Most of all, they wanted somewhere they could afford to remain (remember those property taxes). 

A simpler example might be a swimming pool. After a point, the more people who use the pool simultaneously, the less attractive it becomes.

When others mimic our accomplishments or activities, those enjoyments do not always remain unchanged. The nature of what we have acquired or built can become very different than the goal we pursued.

I suspect that is as true of business ventures as of property ownership. I welcome examples from your own experience.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Inevitably Expensive Care

 

Many, if not most, medical procedures are more expensive than they could be due to regulatory burdens, middlemen, frivolous lawsuits, and whatnot. But there will always be forms of extraordinary care which would drain a family’s resources even under ideal circumstances.

Last year, only a month after our grandmother died, my cousin Kristen’s baby boy was admitted to the children’s hospital for trouble breathing and moving. Little Colin was eventually diagnosed with transverse myelitis, an inflammation around the spine with potentially paralytic consequences. The doctors never figured out the cause of Colin’s ailment. There was at least one time when he nearly died because of a mysterious heart irregularity which the physicians said was apparently unrelated to the myelitis. Complications continued to arise. Colin’s lungs needed help. His breathing tube was only removed a couple weeks ago.

For over two months, Colin was kept in the Intensive Care Unit. Because it was ICU, only a handful of relatives were allowed to see him. Every night for those months, some member of my family stayed with him; talking to him, showing him videos, trying to stimulate his arms and legs, bringing balloons for him to grip… praying that he would regain at least some mobility and coordination, though he had only begun to crawl before the myelitis struck.

I’m happy to report that Colin is back home and in excellent shape. It might be several months before we know how much potential for moving and speaking he will regain, but for now he seems a pretty normal and happy toddler. The featured picture is the most recent one I have to Colin.

He received excellent medical care. We conservatives recognize that care comes with a cost. Now that Colin has come home, the extent of the financial burden is coming more sharply into focus. Though cheaper by orders of magnitude than it would have been without insurance, the bill is daunting. My cousin’s family needs help to repay, at least financially, the great service those doctors and nurses afforded her precious child.

The Ricochet community has exhibited awe-inspiring charity time and again over the years. Please consider extending that kindness now to my cousin. Colin continues to require extraordinary attention, which requires one parent to remain home in what was formerly a dual-income household (already stretched). Friends of the family have started a fundraiser. Please give it a look and/or offer a prayer. Thank you.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Fighting Oppression vs. Fighting for Home

 

In his book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg touches on the widespread sympathy for fascism and communism in the United States in the years leading to World War II. Many others have written on the subject.

It only now occurred to me that many of “the Greatest Generation” who were sent to fight the Nazis, Mussolini’s fascists and the Soviets might have been supporters of those regimes before the war. Is there any history of this?

Do you think David Brooks would continue to voice his admiration of China if we went to war with them?

At risk of distracting from the general topic, it reminds me of a point I often make about the American Civil War: Very few Southerners owned slaves, and it is unlikely that many put their lives on the line to protect the “property” of a handful of rich aristocrats. While slavery might have been the primary issue which motivated politicians to secede or to go to war, it was almost certainly not the reason for which most Southern soldiers fought. They fought for home… as soldiers often do.

Likewise, it is probable that many American soldiers who enlisted or were conscripted to fight in WWII fought for home, rather than for political reasons. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them knew as little about Nazi or Soviet politics as modern Americans know about the current politics of China or Russia.

Aaron Miller

Profile picture of Aaron Miller

@aaronmiller