• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

George Wallace said:
Education is a determining factor in success and upward mobility on the personal wealth scale.  The poor will remain poor if they do not become educated.  Without an education, the opportunities for upward mobility in society is not going to be achievable.  Thus the poor will be relegated to the lower end paying occupations.  It is those who have strived to better themselves through knowledge, who have broken through the 'class barriers' to no longer be below the 'poverty level'.

BOOM! Headshot.

Three of us, myself and two childhood friends (brother and sister) were from welfare families. Drug addicted, welfare cheating, poor life decision making "parents".

The brother became a drug addict, dropped out of school, whereabouts unknown.

The other one and myself manage to make it through college and she later put herself through an electrical engineering degree (now working for GE). No doubt the affordable Quebec education system is a big part of our "escape". The access to education allowed us to go from being well below the poverty line to upper middle class. This is in ~15 years. It might not have been easy, but it was far from hard.

 
NinerSix said:
BOOM! Headshot.

Three of us, myself and two childhood friends (brother and sister) were from welfare families. Drug addicted, welfare cheating, poor life decision making "parents".

The brother became a drug addict, dropped out of school, whereabouts unknown.

The other one and myself manage to make it through college and she later put herself through an electrical engineering degree (now working for GE). No doubt the affordable Quebec education system is a big part of our "escape". The access to education allowed us to go from being well below the poverty line to upper middle class. This is in ~15 years. It might not have been easy, but it was far from hard.

The situation has changed. Post-secondary education exists now as a self-perpetuating conspiracy. A BA is wholly without value in getting a job, because most of the work force in their 20s has them. Only the trades are still useful and for years the value and respectability of those has been consistently played down.
 
We need to look at "education" much more broadly than just what sort of credentials you get from "school X" vs "college Y" vs degree from "University Z".

One thing I find rather alarming is so many young people have virtually zero life skills when coming into the job market or entering the Army. Do they know anything about credit, the time value of money, budgeting, setting up a household (even a rental one) etc? How many of them are glued to the screens of their smartphones, with barely the SA required to keep from walking into walls or the street? How many are fully prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse, but have no idea of what to do after graduation (as per a nasty demotivational poster I have seen)?

For that matter, how many are prepared to implement the Protestant work ethic, or even the Bourgeoisie values of delayed gratification and saving and investing for the future? Most criminals and drug users are not "evil" in the usual sense, but have poor impulse control; who is teaching them that, or rather, how to overcome poor impulse control?

This ties into the common observation that "x" is an "idiot with a degree"; people who are book smart in a narrow field, but have little common sense or the ability to function outside of a very restricted environment.

I will lay much of the blame on a society that has taken the last 40 years or so to tear down the various social and personal restraints to behaviour, giving license to impulsive behaviour while eliminating many of the "small platoons" of social organizations that used to mentor and prepare people for life. Much of the program of the "Progressive" movement is to try to supplement or even replace the "small platoons" and the family with the bureaucratic State, with the (perhaps) unintentional results we see here.
 
Shrek1985 said:
The situation has changed. Post-secondary education exists now as a self-perpetuating conspiracy. A BA is wholly without value in getting a job, because most of the work force in their 20s has them. Only the trades are still useful and for years the value and respectability of those has been consistently played down.

Granted. I don't think either of us would have done all that well had we chosen general studies followed by a BA. While she did what amounts to woodworking in college, I did Civil eng tech. We found gainful employment easily and went from there. I am pretty sure this could be duplicated.

Mind you, I moved across the country and she also was willing to move to Ontario.
 
Liberalism as (possibly) unintentional class warfare. While I have doubts as to how "unintentional" or "unintended" the results are (there have always been plenty of correct predictions of the negative results of "Progressive" programs dating back to the New Deal, which have been poo poo'd by Progressives at the time, but proven true with the fullness of time), the results speak for themselves: (Part 1)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2014/01/29/social-liberalism-as-class-warfare/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Social Liberalism as Class Warfare

By ROSS DOUTHAT

January 29, 2014

My Sunday column tried to take the ongoing debate over marriage and upward mobility in a slightly different direction, by prodding social liberals to acknowledge the ways in which their own ideological vision and its victories – legal and cultural both – have played a role in the married, two-parent family’s decline. I don’t think my argument has won many converts, but rather than respond to the responses right now I wanted to highlight one of the arguments that inspired the column in the first place: This essay from Steve Randy Waldman (the brother, I believe, of the novelist Adelle Waldman, familiar to my readers from an earlier round of kulturdebating), which makes the case that “marriage promotion” as social conservatives often describe it is “a destructive cargo cult,” with altars and rings standing in for the runways and tarmacs that World War II-era South Sea Islanders allegedly built in the hopes of attracting military airplanes.

In both cases, Waldman argues, any causal arrow runs entirely in the other direction. Just as the airstrips don’t actually attract planes that weren’t already headed there to begin with, rings and vows and weddings and cakes are the fruits of stable lives rather than their seed: “Marriage is an effect of other things that facilitate good social outcomes rather than a cause of its own.” And urging people who don’t have access to those “other things” – a steady job; a solid, dependable potential mate – to just get married anyway, as though some kind of magic will follow from the vows, isn’t just a bad idea; it’s a cruel one, which will likely consign them to worse outcomes when the marriage falls apart.

Along with the vividness of the cargo-cult analogy, what lifts Waldman’s argument above the usual run of liberal writing on this subject is the way it incorporates a point that cultural conservatives are often more likely to make: Namely, that it isn’t just a changing economy that’s reduced the supply of solid potential spouses among the lower classes; it’s also a changing social landscape, in which the well-educated are more segregated from the less-educated, and marriage tends to ratify existing social hierarchies (all those two-lawyer and two-doctor and yes, two-journalist couples) more than it did a few generations back. (Indeed, by coincidence, there is new research on inequality and “assortative mating” out this week.)

Here Waldman engages at length with Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart,” endorsing Murray’s portrait of a meritocratic elite walling itself off from the rest of society, while lamenting the conservative scholar’s failure to fully address how that elite’s self-segregation essentially created the social problems that Murray prefers to blame on “declines in industriousness, religiosity, and devotion to marriage” among the poor. The collapse in marriage, in particular, Waldman argues, is a case where the secession of the well-educated and well-off makes all the difference in the world:


Once upon a time, in the halcyon days that Murray contrasts to the present … there were many fewer markers of social class and future affluence. The best and brightest were not so institutionally, geographically, and culturally segregated from the rest. (That is, within the community of white Americans. For black Americans, all of this is old hat.) The risk of “mismarrying”, for a male, was not so great, as he would be the primary breadwinner anyway, and her family, while perhaps poorer than his own, was unlikely to be in desperate straits. Men could choose whom they liked, in a personal, sexual, and romantic sense without great cost. Women from poor-ish backgrounds had a decent chance at landing a solid breadwinner, if not the next President…. Very much like an insurance pool, a large and mixed pool of potential spouses renders marriage on average a pretty good deal for everyone … In a middle-class society, it was reasonable for a woman to guess that a nice guy she could fall in love with would be able to be a good husband and father too.

Flash-forward to the present. We now live in a socially and economically stratified society. By the time we marry, we can ascertain with reasonable confidence what kind of job, income, neighborhood, and friends a potential mate is likely to come with. The stakes are much higher than they used to be. Our lifestyle norms are based on two-earner households, so men as well as women need to think hard about the earning prospects of potential mates. Increasing economic dispersion — inequality — means that it is quite possible that a potential mate’s family faces circumstances vastly more difficult than ones own, if one is near the top of the distribution. It is unfashionable to say this in individualistic America, but it is as true now as it was for Romeo and Juliette that a marriage binds not only two people, but two families. If you have a good marriage, you will love your spouse. If you love your spouse and then her uninsured mother is diagnosed with cancer, those medical bills will to some perhaps large degree become your liability. More prosaically, if the in-laws can’t keep the heat on, do you wash your hands of it and let them shiver through the winter? In a very unequal society, the costs and risks of “marrying down” are large.

As with an insurance pool, too much knowledge can poison the marriage pool … Because the stakes are now very high and the information very solid, good marriage prospects (in a crass socioeconomic sense) hold out for other good marriage prospects. The pool that’s left over, once all the people capable of signaling their membership in the socioeconomic elite have been “creamed” away, may often be, objectively, a bad one. Marriage has a fat lower tail. When you marry, you risk physical abuse, you risk appropriation of your wealth and income, you risk mistreatment of the children you hope someday to have, you risk the Sartre-ish hell of being bound eternally to someone whose company is intolerable. More commonly, you risk forming a household that is unable to get along reasonably in an economic sense, causing conflicts and crises and miseries even among well-intentioned and decent people. It is quite rational to demand a lot of evidence that a potential mate sits well above the fat left tail, but the ex ante uncertainty is always high. When the right-hand side of the desirability distribution is truncated away, marriage may simply be a bad risk.

As a partial explanation for what’s been happening with marriage among the poor and working class, I agree with much of this. (I think Murray would agree with much of it as well, and given that one of the few real prescriptions offered at the end of “Coming Apart” is a call for elites to become less self-segregated — to involve themselves more fully with the lives of their less-educated neighbors, to cease pulling up, up and away — Waldman may be accusing Murray of a blindness that he doesn’t actually display.) And I would also partially endorse Waldman’s rejoinder to the suggestion that poor and working class women can solve all their problems by just using longer-lasting birth control and waiting as long as possible to have kids:


… single motherhood is not a frequent occurrence among women who expect to marry happily and soon. The relevant question is whether we should discourage from having children women who reasonably expect they may not find a good spouse at all, at least not while they are in their youth. That is to say, should we tell women who have been segregated into the bad marriage market, who on average have lowish incomes and unruly neighbors and live near bad schools, that motherhood is just not for them, probably ever?

… I think it would be monstrous. I believe that, as a society, we should commit ourselves to creating circumstances in which the fundamentally human experience of parenthood is available to all, not barred from those we’ve left behind on our way to good schools and walkable neighborhoods. Women unlikely to marry who wish to have children by all means should. The shame is ours, not theirs. It belongs to those of us who call ourselves “elite”, who are so proud of our “achievements” that we walk away without a care from the majority of our fellow citizens and fellow humans, from people who in other circumstances, even in the not so distant past, would have been our friends and coworkers, lovers and spouses. It’s on us to join together what we have put asunder.

If I fully shared Waldman’s analysis, I would share his conclusion: Better a society where people have children out of wedlock at ever-higher rates, I would say, than a society where non-elites are just discouraged from ever having kids at all.

But I don’t fully share it, and I don’t think the choice is actually that stark. In part, that’s because I think he overstates how dire the economic picture has become for the lower middle class and poor. The post-1970s American economy has been mediocre for non-elites and especially for working class men, yes, but income levels have still risen, and overall levels of deprivation have decreased. When you factor in taxes and transfers, poor Americans are much less poor today than they were in the more socially-egalitarian past that Murray and Waldman (and I) think had advantages over our more unequal present. So while it’s true that assortative mating may have “creamed” some of the best marriage prospects from the overall marriage pool, it’s also true that some of the material downside risks of marriage are lower today than they were in 1940 or 1960 or 1980 — and these two trends should, to some extent, work to mitigate one another, if not fully cancel out.

To take Waldman’s specific examples, for instance, even if you “marry down” today you’re probably less likely to have in-laws who can’t pay for heat than were married couples at mid-century, because compared to the Eisenhower era (when lots of people, including my maternal grandparents in their first home, lacked indoor plumbing) many fewer Americans today suffer from that kind of basic deprivation. Likewise, whatever inequality has done to marriage among the working class, it’s strange to have a liberal argue that potential mates today have more to fear from an uninsured in-law’s cancer diagnosis – and thus more reason to avoid wedlock entirely — than they did during an era when neither Medicaid or Medicare existed.

What people contemplating marrying down clearly should fear more than in the Eisenhower-era past are interpersonal problems — a spouse who comes from a broken home, who doesn’t have positive models of marriage and parenting in her past, who carries a cloud of suspicion into wedlock because his own parents’ marriage fell apart. Economic redistribution can help mitigate those problems (which is why I favor it, to a point), by creating a firmer material foundation for families. But the problems themseves just aren’t exclusively material: They have a cultural element, and reflect a cultural change, that can’t simply be ignored.

This is where I look at Waldman’s critique of how elite self-interest has contributed to marriage’s decline and see a case study in what liberals are inclined to leave out of this story, and what implications they are unwilling to draw from their own premises. Because if the heart of your social analysis, the core of your conclusion, is the idea that the homogamous new elite’s social behavior is essentially (if perhaps unknowingly) self-interested — that the pursuit of meritocratic success has led the mass upper class to “walk away without a care … from people who in other circumstances, even in the not so distant past, would have been our friends and coworkers, lovers and spouses” — then perhaps you need to apply the same cold-eyed perspective to that elite’s cultural assumptions and attitudes as well, and to the blend of laws and norms those attitudes incline its members to support.

By which I mean … is it just a coincidence that this self-interested elite holds the nearly-uniformly liberal views on social issues that it does? Is it just random that the one idea binding the post-1970s upper class together — uniting Wall Street’s Randians and Harvard’s academic socialists, a left-leaning media and a right-leaning corporate sector, the libertarians of Silicon Valley and the liberal rich of the Upper West Side — is a hostility to any kind of social conservatism, any kind of morals legislation, any kind of paternalism on issues of sex and marriage and family? Is the upper class’s social liberalism the lone case, the rare exception, where our self-segregated, self-interested elites really do have the greater good at heart?
 
(Part 2)

Maybe so — but for the sake of argument, let’s consider the possibility that they don’t. Not infrequently in culture-war arguments, conservative complaints about liberalism’s hostility to “traditional values” (or whatever phrase you prefer) are met by the counterpoint that liberal regions of the country seem to embrace bourgeois norms more fully than conservatives communities. (The contrast between family stability in Massachusetts and Alabama, for instance, is often invoked by cultural liberals as an argument-clincher.) I think this counterpoint oversimplifies a more complicated landscape and elides some crucial issues, but it does get at something real: In upper class circles, liberal social values do not necessarily lead to libertinism among the people who hold them, and indeed quite often coexist with an impressive amount of personal conservatism, personal restraint.

But if we’re inclined, with Waldman, to see our elite as fundamentally self-interested, then we should ask ourselves whether the combination of personal restraint and cultural-political permissiveness might not itself be part of how this elite maintains its privileges. Waldman, for instance, makes the (completely valid) point that just telling a single mother to go get married to whomever she happens to be dating isn’t likely to lead to happy outcomes for anyone involved. But is that really just because of wage stagnation and the truncation of the potential-mates bell curve? Or could it also be that the decision to marry only delivers benefits when it’s part of a larger life script, a way of pursuing love and happiness that shapes people’s life choices – men as well as women — from the moment they come of age sexually, and that exerts its influence not through the power of a singular event (ring, cake, toasts) but through that event’s place in a larger mix of cues, signals, expectations, and beliefs?

If it’s the latter — and if you’re not an economic or genetic determinist, I really think it has to be — then it’s worth recognizing that much of what the (elite-driven) social revolutions of the 1970s did, in law and culture, was to strip away the most explicit cues and rules linking sex, marriage, and childrearing, and nudging people toward the two-parent bourgeois path. No longer would the law make any significant effort to enforce marriage vows. No longer would an unplanned pregnancy impose clear obligations on the father. No longer would the culture industry uphold the “marriage-then-childbearing” script as normative, or endorse any moral script around sexuality save the rule of consenting adults.

And following our hermeneutic of anti-elite suspicion, let’s ask: If the path to human flourishing still mostly runs through monogamy and marriage, who benefits the most from the kind of changes that make that path less normative, less law-supported, less obvious? Well, mostly people who are embedded in communities that continue to send the kind of signals that the law and the wider culture no longer send.

That can mean a religious community: In those red states with high divorce rates that liberals like to cite, frequent churchgoers are an exception to the pattern, and of course Mormon Utah is the high marriage-rate (and, not surprisingly, high social mobility) exception to every post-1970s trend.

Or, more importantly for our purposes, it can mean a community low in explicit moralism but high in social capital and social pressure, where the incentives not to date or sleep with the wrong person at the wrong time are sharpened by the immense rewards for not making personal mistakes, where divorce and single parenthood are regarded as major threats to the all-important intergenerational transfer of success, where young people are inculcated with the kind of self-control required to dabble in libertinism but not take major risks, and where the influence of a libertine culture is counteracted by the dense network of adult authority figures whose examples matter more than what you watch and read and consume. A place where the norms and rules and script don’t have to be made explicit to carry immense weight. A place where everyone understands the basic secret of success.

A place like, well, the modern meritocracy.

Now I’m not saying that everything is wine and roses in the post-sexual revolution upper class. But the challenges of navigating that landscape, the mating stresses and reproductive difficulties that come with the meritocratic life script, are not threats to the social position of its members in anything like the same way that the essential scriptlessness of sexual life is to the life chances of people further down the socioeconomic ladder.

And it’s hard for the meritocracy’s inhabitants, I think, to recognize that their own script really can be a kind of a gnostic secret – that people outside their circle are getting a very different message about sex and children and marriage than the one that’s implicitly imparted to the new upper class’s organization kids. Consider this passage from Waldman, making the case that American culture writ large is still pro-marriage and effectively socially conservative:


The stylized fact that the great preponderance of grown-ups with kids who seem economically and socially successful are married is known to everybody, rich and poor, black and white. Yes, the traditional family is not uncontested. There are, in our culture, valorizations of single-parenthood as statements of feminist independence, valorizations of male liberty and male libertinism, aspirational models of non-traditional families by until-recently-excluded gay people, etc. But despite the outsized role played by Kurt on Glee, these alternative visions are numerically marginal, and probably especially marginal among the poor.

What is widely “known” in our culture, I would submit, is that fancy weddings are swell and being married with kids is a nice, worthwhile goal. But what often passes unacknowledged — or gets actively undermined — is the idea that this goal is best achieved by treating sex and dating and mating with real caution, real care, real moral responsibility.

It’s certainly unacknowledged in the main pop-cultural iconography of our age – the obsessive coverage of celebrities and pop idols and reality stars, whose marrying and babymaking and splitting-up is treated with a mix of prurience and sentimentality that admits of only the haziest sort of moral judgment. It’s a little more visible in the pop-cultural genres that deal directly with dating and mating, from pop music to sitcoms to soap operas, where you do sometimes see more conservative treatments of sex and marriage — whether embodied in Apatovian comic raunch or rom-com sentimentalism. But these genres tend to portray personal responsibility as something that can be taken up almost randomly in your late 20s or early 30s, when circumstances finally call for it, and treat any debauchery that precedes it as relatively cost-free. And even this limited, occasional conservatism coexists with enough straightforward valorizations of libertinism, both male and female, to make me very strongly doubt Waldman’s dismissal of these attitudes as strictly “marginal” – especially given the dark-matter influence of pornography on how young people are taught to think about their sexuality.

In a follow-up post, Waldman notes that American pop culture still puts weddings on a pedestal — and so it does! But celebrating wildly expensive, consumption-oriented festivals of late-twentysomething success has very little to do with cultivating and celebrating the kind of behavior that makes the path to marriage easier to follow, and that helps make a marriage last. (The Queen Latifah-blessed mass wedding at the Grammys Sunday night was, in a way, the ne plus ultra of this tendency: An “I do” apotheosis that stripped out all the crucial particularities of personality, family and community from the institution it was allegedly celebrating.) And no matter how much our movies love their wedded endings, the premarital sexual and romantic scripts that our culture holds up as aspirational — as mass-market depictions of the way cool people live now — tend to associate coolness with a level of casual promiscuity, an entirely relaxed attitude to sex and dating and babymaking, that ends in wedded bliss for the characters in question but for lots of Americans would be a royal road to disaster.

Fortunately enough (for them), most inhabitants of the overclass seem to know intuitively that these freewheeling scripts don’t bear that much relationship to the way that successful, upwardly-mobile people actually live and mate and marry. (The movies make college life seem like nonstop beer-soaked dissipation, for instance, but actually “individuals attending four year colleges and universities report some of the lowest levels of casual sex regardless of how casual sex is measured …”) So again, if you were inclined to view all of this suspiciously, you might look at the culture industry — networks and production companies, magazines and music labels — and note that the messages it sends about sex are a kind of win-win for the class of people running it. They get to profit off various forms of exploitation directly, because sex sells and shock value attracts eyeballs. And then they also reap benefits indirectly – because the teaching they’re offering to the masses, the vision of the good life, is one that tends to ratify existing class hierarchies, by encouraging precisely the behaviors and choices that in the real world make it hard to rise and thrive. In this sense, one might suspect our cultural elites of being a little bit like the Silicon Valley parents who send their kids to computer-free schools: They don’t mind pushing the moral envelope in the shows they greenlight and the songs they produce, because they’re confident that their own kids have the sophistication required to regard Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus as amusements rather than role models, the social capital required to keep the culture’s messages at arm’s length.

Now do I actually think there’s some kind of elite-liberal cultural conspiracy to keep the masses in their social place? No, of course not – there’s nothing so conscious and cynical at work. But then again, neither do I think there’s a meritocratic conspiracy to withdraw into walkable-urban enclaves and leave the rest of society to fragment and decay. Yet that withdrawal and its consequences are still important facts for understanding the decline of marriage, just as Waldman says. An approach to life doesn’t have to be calculated to be effectively self-interested, and in the context of a stratified country that self-interest is well worth pointing out.

And the same is true of an approach to politics and culture. Again, I’m not alleging cynicism: Social liberals are entirely sincere in their belief that even self-censorship is unnecessary censorship (or, perhaps, that the internet has rendered cultural standards obsolete); in their conviction that laws banning abortion or restricting divorce are too punitive, illiberal and inherently sexist to be just; in their abiding sense that economic paternalism is morally acceptable but social-moral-sexual paternalism is not. But it is still the case that when we legalized abortion and instituted unilateral divorce, we helped usher in a sexual-marital-parental culture that seems to work roughly as well for people with lots of social capital as it did sixty years ago, while working pretty badly for the poor and lower middle class. It is still a reality of contemporary life that when anyone can get a divorce for any reason, the lower classes seem to get far more of the divorces, and that when anyone can get an abortion for any reason, the poor end up having more abortions and more children out of wedlock both. And it is still a fact that if you tallied up winners and losers from the sexual revolution, the obvious winners would tend to cluster at one end of 1975’s income distribution, the obvious losers at the other.

This post’s title is a provocation, of course: What I’m describing isn’t literally a class war. But it really does have winners. And they’re the ones most likely to insist, with great passion and conviction, that we can’t possibly learn anything from the social rules and laws and norms that held sway in America’s more equal and more mobile past.
 
Interesting to see how deep rooted the "Progressive" fear of the "small platoons" really is. This article points to books written in the 1920's, so many of these attitudes go back farther to indoctrinate the author ("Progressivism" dates back to the turn of the 20th century, and its philosophical roots go back to at least the 1860's). Of course the real reason to hate and fear the "small platoons" of society is they provide stability, help and mentorship to their members, all which make them less likely to want or need any intervention from the State (and indeed, to resist the intrusions of the Bureaucratic State since it is far too distant and disconnected from the wants and needs of the population, and unable to respond in a timely and effective manner like one of the "small platoons" can). People who are satisfied and self sufficient cannot be easily controlled by the State:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/24/rotarians-plot/

Rotary Club Plots to Seize American Power

January 24th, 2014 - 1:23 pm

When the Tea Party first rose to prominence in 2009 as an antidote to the Obama administration’s corporatism, cronyism, and massive spending and regulatory overreach, the MSM suffered a slow-motion collective aneurism, convinced that the fascist revolt was finally at hand.

Yes of course, as Jonah Goldberg tried to warn them in Liberal Fascism, they were looking in the wrong direction, but there’s nearly a century of precedent for the elitist left to believe that main street America is the source of all evil in America.

This often reaches to absurd extremes; even before Obama took office, Garrison Keillor, the midwestern humorist and staple of NPR, saw his tone grow brittle and harsh when he surveyed the right:

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk.

Geez, why does Garrison Keillor hate Whoopi Goldberg so?

More seriously, if Keillor’s rhetoric sounds sclerotic and reactionary, it’s because he’s tapping into a nearly century-old tradition of “Progressives” who see no evil on the left; but plenty bubbling up from the right. In his new book, The Revolt Against the Masses, Fred Siegel looks back at Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 book, It Can’t Happen Here, which posited that the Rotary Club(!) was poised to seize American power:

The heart of It Can’t Happen Here is laid out in the opening chapter, which presents the local Rotary Club, with its Veterans of Foreign Wars tub-thumping patriotism and prohibitionist moralism, as comparable, on a small scale, to the mass movements that brought Fascism to Europe. Later in the novel, he has a character explain, half-satirically and half-seriously, “This is Revolution in terms of Rotary.” In other words, Lewis’s imagined fascism is little more than Main Street writ political. When he wants to mock Windrip, he describes him as a “professional common man” who is “chummy with all waitresses at . . . lunch rooms.” For Lewis, fascism is the product of backslapping Rotarians, Elks, and Masons, as well as various and sundry other versions of joiners that Tocqueville had once celebrated as the basis of American self-government. There is more than a hint of snobbery in all this. The book’s local incarnation of evil is Jessup’s shiftless, resentful handyman Shad Ledue, who was a member of the “Odd Fellows and the Ancient and Independent Order of Rams.” Ledue uses Windrip’s ascension to rise above himself and displace Jessup from his rightful place in the local hierarchy of power.

If the book were merely an indictment of red-state nativist intolerance, there would be little to distinguish it from numerous other novels and plays of the 1920s that were part of “the revolt against the village.” Lewis was hardly the only writer of the period to, Mencken-like, describe the average American as a “boob” or “peasant.” What made It Can’t Happen Here compelling was that it showed the boobs working through a familiar institution, the local Rotary, to become a menace to the Republic.

In a 2012 issue of Commentary, building on research for The Revolt Against the Masses, Siegel goes on to note that after World War II, the Frankfurt School picked up the left’s attack against middle America:

“In the over-developed countries,” wrote Herbert Marcuse, who became the most famous Frankfurt School theoretician of the 1960s, “an ever-larger part of the population becomes one huge captive audience—captured not by a total regime, but by the liberties of the citizens whose media of amusement and elevation compels the Other to partake of their sounds, sights, and smells.” He was arguing, in effect, for greater social segregation between the elite and the hoi polloi.

Dwight Macdonald, the most influential American critic of mass culture in the late 1950s, concurred with the Frankfurt School. Writing in crackling prose redolent of Mencken’s, he too argued that bourgeois prosperity was creating a cultural wasteland: “The work week has shrunk, real wages have risen, and never in history have so many people attained such a high standard of living as in this country since 1945,” Macdonald complained.

“Money, leisure, and knowledge,” he went on, “the prerequisites for culture, are more plentiful and more evenly distributed than ever before.”

Macdonald, who was educated at Phillips Exeter Academy and Yale and associated with the anti-Stalinist leftists at Partisan Review, still couldn’t bring himself to support the United States against the Nazis in World War II on the grounds that “Europe has its Hitlers, but we have our Rotarians.”

My dad, who passed away in 2006, was a life-long member of the Rotarian Club, and president of his local South Jersey chapter for a year in the mid-1970s. At the time, I just remember him putting on a gray suit, navy blue rep tie and his omnipresent double-soled black Florsheim wingtips to trundle off to the weekly meetings.

In retrospect, I had no idea how Absolutely. Hard. Core. he was.
 
Some ideas are so bad they deserve to be kicked when down. The logical end point of Socialist thought, Communism, still has supporters it seems (although oddly I doubt the person who wrote in support of Communism is making plans to move to the DPRK or Cuba any time soon...):

http://spectator.org/articles/57691/worst-idea-world

THE WORST IDEA IN THE WORLD
Young communist Jesse Myerson recycles old red clichés.

By Robert Stacy McCain – 2.5.14SmallerLargerPrint Article

Five years after the Bolshevik Revolution, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises predicted that the Soviet project was doomed to fail. In his classic work Socialism, Mises explained that the attempt to replace the market system with central economic planning could not succeed, because the planners could not possibly have the information necessary to make all the decisions which, in a market economy, are made by individuals whose needs and desires are reflected in prices: "The problem of economic calculation is the fundamental problem of Socialism."

"Everything brought forward in favour of Socialism during the last hundred years," Mises wrote in 1922, "in thousands of writings and speeches, all the blood which has been spilt by the supporters of Socialism, cannot make Socialism workable. .... Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless -- but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea."

Undeterred by Mises' criticism, the Soviet Union spent the next seven decades proving his prediction correct. By the time the Communist utopia collapsed in bankruptcy and disgrace, it seemed that everyone with two eyes and a brain understood the lesson: The Marxist-Leninist project was a complete failure and, as historians documented in The Black Book of Communism, tens of millions of people had died for this mistake, deliberately starved or slaughtered by totalitarian Communist governments.

The persistence of Marxist-Leninist regimes in Pyongyang and Havana notwithstanding, socialism has been utterly discredited in exactly the way Mises prophesied in 1922. Yet the ability of socialist writers "to impress the thoughtless" is remarkably undiminished, and few publications are more devoted to impressing the thoughtless than Salon.com. A fossil vestige of the paleodigital age, Salon has reportedly been losing upwards of $1.5 million a year since the its inception in the mid-1990s. As I remarked in 2012, its "cumulative losses by now are probably somewhere between $20 million and a metric buttload":

At about the time Arianna [Huffington] was palming off HuffPo to AOL for $315 million ... there was some talk of selling Salon to Michael Wolff’s Newser, but negotiations reportedly broke down because nobody could figure out what Salon was worth, if anything.

Salon's resolute commitment to failure extends to the realm of failed ideas, and on Sunday it published a defense of Communism by Jesse Myerson entitled, "Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism)."

Illustrated with photos of Karl Marx and Gordon Gekko (the latter being the villain of Oliver Stone's 1987 anti-capitalist film Wall Street), Myerson's article is a particularly tedious example of a genre familiar to anyone old enough to recall the Cold War-era style of liberal discourse known as "anti-anti-Communism."

From the 1940s onward, the Left blamed the Cold War not on Stalin's armed conquest of eastern Europe nor on the subversion and espionage fomented by the KGB and the Comintern, but rather on the opponents of Stalinism in the West. Harry Truman and Winston Churchill were bloodthirsty warmongers, according to anti-anti-Communist belief. Everything from the Marshall Plan to the execution of Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was attributed by Moscow's stooges to the manipulations of capitalist plutocrats and crypto-fascist hysteria. According to anti-anti-Communists, ignorance and irrational prejudices led Americans to "misunderstand" the peaceful glories of the Soviet paradise. By a process of intellectual osmosis, pro-Soviet arguments made their way from the Daily Worker (official organ of the Communist Party USA) into the rhetoric of the leftist fringe, thence into the pages of liberal books and journals and, eventually, into the minds of leading Democrat politicians. Less than three decades after Truman fought off the CPUSA-backed challenge of "Progressive" Henry Wallace, President Jimmy Carter in 1977 expressed his pride that America had finally gotten over its "inordinate fear of communism."

At that very moment, of course, Vietnamese refugees were still fleeing that Communist regime in Hanoi, the Khmer Rouge "killing fields" nightmare in Cambodia had just passed, Soviet-backed Marxists were taking charge in Nicauragua and Angola and, two years later, those communists in Moscow sent their tanks rolling into Afghanistan. Whether American fear of communism was ever "inordinate" is subject to debate, but what is certain is that the Soviet Union was entirely deserving of the "Evil Empire" sobriquet Ronald Reagan famously bestowed upon it, and Reagan's determined opposition hastened that empire's final implosion. None of this historical truth, however, has penetrated the unusually thick skull of Jesse Myerson, a 2008 graduate of Bard College (where he double majored in Theater and Human Rights Studies) who seems to believe his elders are in need of education about our "misconceptions" of communism.

Typical of young fools who were infants or toddlers or not yet born when the Berlin Wall came down, and who have no memory at all of the hapless folly of Jimmy Carter, Myerson ignorantly repeats "arguments" which were recognized as anti-anti-Communist clichés during the Cold War. Back in the day, whenever the oppressive brutality of actual communist regimes was pointed out, American socialists would aver that what they proposed was real Marxism, an ideal which had no existing example, but which the socialist was certain could somehow be obtained. Myerson recycles this cliché by insisting that the future communism he advocates could avoid the errors of previous communist tyrannies:

For me, communism is an aspiration, not an immediately achievable state. It, like democracy and libertarianism, is utopian in that it constantly strives toward an ideal, in its case the non-ownership of everything and the treatment of everything -- including culture, people’s time, the very act of caring, and so forth -- as dignified and inherently valuable rather than as commodities that can be priced for exchange.

Given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century, we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed. I’d even argue it would be easier now than it was then to construct a set of social relations based on fellowship and mutual aid ...


You can read the whole thing, but be forewarned that Myerson's ideas are as murky and convoluted as his writing is dreary and repetitive. No more than any previous advocate of these ideas has Myerson transcended Mises' description of the socialist rhetorical method:

Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slander, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person.

More than nine decades after Mises wrote those words, it is astonishing to witness the obstinate persistence of bad arguments for communism. Of course, there were never any good arguments for communism, but there is no use trying to explain this to young fools like Jesse Myerson who insist on rooting around in the ash heap of history, attempting to revive the worst idea in the world.
 
Time for another swift kick. Going to the link there are a lot of screen captures of tweets denouncing NBC's whitewash of Communism:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/02/07/nbc-praises-communism/

Video: NBC Praises Communism as One of History’s ‘Pivotal Experiments’

February 7th, 2014 - 7:07 pm

“The towering presence, the empire that ascended to affirm a colossal footprint. The revolution that birthed one of modern history’s pivotal experiments. But if politics has long shaped our sense of who they are, it’s passion that endures. As a more reliable right to their collective heart. What they build in aspirations lifted by imagination. What they craft, through the wonder of every last detail. How magical the fusion of sound and movement can be. How much a glass of distilled perfection and an overflowing table can matter. Discover the Russian people through these indelible signatures. Discover what we share with them through the games that open here tonight.”

George Orwell, call your office. As he wrote in “Politics and the English Language,” in 1946, such euphemisms are “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,” and certainly describing Communism as “one of modern history’s pivotal experiments” fits the bill in spades. Or as Stacy McCain accurately described it this week at the American Spectator, “The Worst Idea in the World:”

Five years after the Bolshevik Revolution, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises predicted that the Soviet project was doomed to fail. In his classic work Socialism, Mises explained that the attempt to replace the market system with central economic planning could not succeed, because the planners could not possibly have the information necessary to make all the decisions which, in a market economy, are made by individuals whose needs and desires are reflected in prices: “The problem of economic calculation is the fundamental problem of Socialism.”

“Everything brought forward in favour of Socialism during the last hundred years,” Mises wrote in 1922, “in thousands of writings and speeches, all the blood which has been spilt by the supporters of Socialism, cannot make Socialism workable. …. Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless — but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea.”

Undeterred by Mises’ criticism, the Soviet Union spent the next seven decades proving his prediction correct. By the time the Communist utopia collapsed in bankruptcy and disgrace, it seemed that everyone with two eyes and a brain understood the lesson: The Marxist-Leninist project was a complete failure and, as historians documented in The Black Book of Communism, tens of millions of people had died for this mistake, deliberately starved or slaughtered by totalitarian Communist governments.

Not surprisingly, as Twitchy notes, numerous Twitter users are denouncing the morality-free brain-dead husk of the NBC television network:

nbc_soviet_union_pivotal_experiment_twitchy_twitter_roundup_2-7-14-1

As Greg Pollowitz notes today at National Review’s “Right Field” sports blog, Bob Costas and the rest of NBC appear to be going out of their way “to paint Putin in the best possible light.”

Pollowitz adds that former Soviet spokesman Vladimir Pozner is part of NBC’s on-air team, alongside Costas. As I warned in December, when news first broke that Pozner, who was a staple of American TV in the 1980s as a much beloved (among American chat show bookers, that is) apologist for the Soviet Union before that “pivotal experiment” was mercifully concluded, “NBC Goes Full Commie. Never Go Full Commie, Man.”

Update: “PUTIN PROPAGANDA: NBC’s Bob Costas portrays Russian leader as great peacemaker.”

Keep that in mind the next time NBC or MSNBC has an “anti-bullying” rant.

Hey, if any network could — other than CNN, of course.

Flashback: Back in 2011, when Keith Olbermann was given his permanent vacation from NBC’s spin-off network, I asked, “Chat Rock or 3CP1? Where Does MSNBC Go From Here?” I should have known the answer — but once again, Muggeridge’s Law strikes again — I had no idea their parent network would openly worship the former Soviet Union before its subsidiary.
 
The truth is the most powerful weapon against great or petty tyrants, and should be persued with the utmost vigour. No less a figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn showed how this was true, and we should all do our best to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes:

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/02/09/live-not-by-lies/

Live Not by Lies

by Angelo M. Codevilla/10 Comments

Filed Under: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, IRS, Obama

Being human, politicians lie. Even in the best regimes. The distinguishing feature of totalitarian regimes however, is that they are built on words that the rulers know to be false, and on somehow constraining the people to speak and act as if the lies were true. Thus the people hold up the regime by partnering in its lies. Thus, when we use language that is “politically correct” – when we speak words acceptable to the regime even if unfaithful to reality – or when we don’t call out politicians who lie to our faces, we take part in degrading America.

The case in point is Television personality Bill O’Reilly who, in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Barack Obama, suffered the President to tell him – and his audience of millions – that the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups had been a minor “bonehead” mistake in the Cincinnati office, because there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” in that agency. O’ Reilly knew but did not say that both he and the President know this to be a lie, that the key official in the affair, Lois Lerner, had made sure that the IRS’s decision on how to treat the Tea Party matter would be made in Washington by writing: that the matter was “very dangerous” and that “Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”

O’ Reilly did not call out the lie. Nor did he just remain silent. Rather, he said of Obama that: “his heart is in the right place.”

I have written in this space: “Obama’s premeditated, repeated, nationally televised lies… are integral, indeed essential, to his presidency and to the workings of the US government.” They are neither innocent opinions nor mistakes. Rather, they grab for power by daring the listener to call them what they are. Failure to do so, never mind gratuitously granting them bona fides, is redefining our regime.

Nasty, brutish – and false – as was the Progressive assault on George W. Bush: e.g. “Bush lied, people died,” Michael Moore’s “Farenheit 9/11,” etc., was very much part of a free society, in which people freely contest each other’ view of reality. Alas, the Progressive ruling class is instituting a regime in which no one may contest what it knows full well to be false without suffering consequences.

How, for example, is one to react to the White House’s explanation for the Congressional Budget Office’s projection that Obamacare will reduce the number of full-time workers in America by some 2.5 million over the next decade? CBO says the law will do this by “creating an implicit tax on additional earnings” – in other words in-kind bonus for unemployment. But the White House, echoed by the New York Times, says that this is a good thing because it will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage.

This is the sort of thing that one expects from the North Korean regime, explaining that the latest cut in food rations will free people from the tyranny of having to eat more than once a day, or as I heard on Cuban TV in 1969, that the government had cut the meat ration because its scientists had discovered that eating meat causes cancer. One can no more take such things as sincere expressions of mistaken opinions than anyone, Bill O’Reilly foremost, could legitimately take Obama’s statement that the IRS’ targeting of conservatives was a “bonehead mistake” by low level officials in Cincinnati.

Why then do we not call lies lies, and liars liars? Because there are consequences. Had O’Reilly told Obama something like “You know that this is false. You are insulting me by lying to my face. What makes you think that I, or any other American would stand for that?” he would have been ostracized by the Establishment – and lost his prized access to the White House.

For ordinary Americans, calling the regime’s lies by their name, deviating from political correctness, carries far stiffer penalties, because the regime has labeled each such deviation as an antisocial pathology: racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, “denialism,”etc., any of which mark you as an opponent of those who count. They may fire you, pass you over, or just exclude you from that to which you wish to be included.

This is new and incomplete. But only in America. It is the very routine, the very constitution, of totalitarian society. Returning our attention to the indissoluble link between truth and freedom, lies and servitude, was the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s enduring contribution to our civilization.

Solzhenitsyn showed that totalitarianism works by leading people to take part in the regime’s lies, and that it does so mostly by a host of petty incentives. Then he wrote: “the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.” The lies that hold up corrupt regimes, he noted, like infections, “can exist only in a living organism.” Hence whoever will live in freedom “will immediately walk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.”

We should all do that. Even Bill O’Reilly.
 
Thucydides said:
The truth is the most powerful weapon against great or petty tyrants, and should be persued with the utmost vigour. No less a figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn showed how this was true, and we should all do our best to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes:

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/02/09/live-not-by-lies/

Agreed. But when is it OK to call attention to the truth? Is it OK when a government (of any stripe) is caught lying or dissembling in the midst of a war or other crisis? Or is that "unpatriotic whining?"

Is it only "the truth" when it embarasses a government we don't like, but "sedition" or "treason" or "disloyalty" when spoken against a government whose ideology we agree with?

Kind of like the "free speech" question, isn't it? Is it "free speech" only if it's what we agree with, and "propaganda" if we don't?

Personally, I think all governments should be poked, prodded, regarded with skepticism and embarassed as often as possible, in order to keep them humble. They don't have to like it, and they shouldn't. Rabble-rousing media has always been an important part of the Anglosphere parliamentary political tradition, as have media outlets that took a blatantly partisan stance.

The more secretive and monolithic a government tries to be, the more they should get a good bollocking for it.

Who else can we look to to expose government misbehaviour? The government?
 
That is really the slippery slope. Some things indeed are and should be secret for operational reasons. The problem with that is governments have deemed more and more things "secret", or go to great lengths to destroy or obscure evidence.

Friday afternoon "dumps" of emails and documents requested under Freedom of Information requests (with maybe one nugget buried inside the 10,000 documents), massively redacted documents or simply stonewalling requests are fairly common these days, and of course briefings and other information presentations done over the telephone so no permanent record will ever exist is another. The McGuinty government also mastered the "accidental" deletion of emails to ensure the record is obscured.

What I believe Solzhenitsyn was getting at is we don't remain silent or throw our hands up in frustration at these provocations (and that is exactly what they are) but go in after the officious bureaucrats and arrogant politicians with bayonets and root out the truth, while loudly denouncing then as liers and cheats; unfit for the offices they hold.

If it were possible to ensure these actions could be followed up with long jail terms, I'm sure the "incentives" to lie and cheat will be reduced. OF course the ultimate sanction would involve the liberal use of lamp posts, but things will be pretty terrible for the civil population when things get down to that point, and history suggests that things will come to a bad end soon thereafter (if we are "lucky", we may end up with Oliver Cromwell. If not, we get the arrival of "the Man on the White Horse")
 
Thucydides said:
That is really the slippery slope. Some things indeed are and should be secret for operational reasons. The problem with that is governments have deemed more and more things "secret", or go to great lengths to destroy or obscure evidence. ...

Or slander the questioners as being somehow "un-patriotic" or "un-Canadian", or suggest that by asking pointed questions of the Govt of the day, one must therefore automatically support whatever "evil" the Government is adressing (or trying to hide...). I'm reminded of the old saying "Patriotism-the last refuge of the scoundrel".

Thucydides said:
If it were possible to ensure these actions could be followed up with long jail terms, I'm sure the "incentives" to lie and cheat will be reduced. OF course the ultimate sanction would involve the liberal use of lamp posts, but things will be pretty terrible for the civil population when things get down to that point, and history suggests that things will come to a bad end soon thereafter (if we are "lucky", we may end up with Oliver Cromwell. If not, we get the arrival of "the Man on the White Horse")

OK: I'm with you on all of this. This is one of the reasons that I suggested on another thread that, like BC and a number of US states, we should have a process for voter recall of elected officials. We also need to discourage the culture that describes questioning the government as being disloyal or unpatriotic.
 
Mark Styen on the MO of Progressives. Crushing free speech and dissent sounds awfully familier in the historical playbook:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/366896/print

The Age of Intolerance
The forces of “tolerance” are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.
By Mark Steyn

Last week, following the public apology of an English comedian and the arrest of a fellow British subject both for making somewhat feeble Mandela gags, I noted that supposedly free societies were increasingly perilous places for those who make an infelicitous remark. So let’s pick up where we left off:

Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

Second joke from the archives: Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra kept this one in the act for a quarter-century. On stage, Dino used to have a bit of business where he’d refill his tumbler and ask Frank, “How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Sinatra would respond, “I dunno. How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Dean would say, “Be nice to him.”

But no matter how nice you are, it’s never enough. Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, in his career-detonating interview with GQ, gave a rather thoughtful vernacular exegesis of the Bible’s line on sin, while carefully insisting that he and other Christians are obligated to love all sinners and leave it to the Almighty to adjudicate the competing charms of drunkards, fornicators, and homosexuals. Nevertheless, GLAAD — “the gatekeepers of politically correct gayness” as the (gay) novelist Bret Easton Ellis sneered — saw their opportunity and seized it. By taking out TV’s leading cable star, they would teach an important lesson pour encourager les autres — that espousing conventional Christian morality, even off-air, is incompatible with American celebrity.

Some of my comrades, who really should know better, wonder why, instead of insisting Robertson be defenestrated, GLAAD wouldn’t rather “start a conversation.” But, if you don’t need to, why bother? Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

As Christian bakers ordered to provide wedding cakes for gay nuptials and many others well understand, America’s much-vaunted “freedom of religion” is dwindling down to something you can exercise behind closed doors in the privacy of your own abode or at a specialist venue for those of such tastes for an hour or so on Sunday morning, but when you enter the public square you have to leave your faith back home hanging in the closet. Yet even this reductive consolation is not permitted to Robertson: GLAAD spokesgay Wilson Cruz declared that “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.” Robertson was quoting the New Testament, but hey, what do those guys know? In today’s America, land of the Obamacare Pajama Boy, Jesus is basically Nightshirt Boy, a fey non-judgmental dweeb who’s cool with whatever. What GLAAD is attempting would be called, were it applied to any other identity group, “cultural appropriation.”

In the broader sense, it’s totalitarian. While American gays were stuffing and mounting the duck hunter in their trophy room, the Prince of Wales was celebrating Advent with Christian refugees from the Middle East, and noting that the land in which Christ and Christianity were born is now the region boasting “the lowest concentration of Christians in the world — just four percent of the population.” It will be three, and two, and one percent soon enough, for there is a totalitarian impulse in resurgent Islam — and not just in Araby. A few miles from Buckingham Palace, Muslims in London’s East End are now sufficiently confident to go around warning local shopkeepers to cease selling alcohol. In theory, you might still enjoy the right to sell beer in Tower Hamlets or be a practicing Christian in Iraq, but in reality not so much. The asphyxiating embrace of ideological conformity was famously captured by Nikolai Krylenko, the People’s Commissar for Justice, in a speech to the Soviet Congress of Chess Players in 1932, at which he attacked the very concept of “the neutrality of chess.” It was necessary for chess to be Sovietized like everything else. “We must organize shock brigades of chess players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess,” he declared

Six years later, the political winds having shifted, Krylenko was executed as an enemy of the people. But his spirit lives on among the Commissars of Gay Compliance at GLAAD. It is not enough to have gay marriage for gays. Everything must be gayed. There must be Five-Year Gay Plans for American bakeries, and the Christian church, and reality TV. There must be shock brigades of gay duck-hunters honking out the party line deep in the backwoods of the proletariat. Obamacare pajama models, if not yet mandatorily gay, can only be dressed in tartan onesies and accessorized with hot chocolate so as to communicate to the Republic’s maidenhood what a thankless endeavor heterosexuality is in contemporary America.

Look, I’m an effete foreigner who likes show tunes. My Broadway book was on a list of “Twelve Books Every Gay Man Should Read.” Andrew Sullivan said my beard was hot. Leonard Bernstein stuck his tongue in my mouth (long story). But I’m not interested in living in a world where we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells. If it’s a choice between having celebrity chefs who admit to having used the N-word in 1977 (or 1965, or 1948, or whenever the hell it was) and reality-show duck-hunters who quote Corinthians and Alec Baldwin bawling out some worthless paparazzo who’s doorstepping his family with a “homophobic” slur, or having all of them banished from public life and thousands upon millions more too cowed and craven to speak lest the same fate befall them, I’ll take the former any day.

Because the latter culture would be too boring for any self-respecting individual to want to live in, even more bloody boring than the current TV landscape where, aside from occasional eruptions of unerotic twerking by sexless skanks, every other show seems to involve snippy little Pajama Boys sitting around snarking at each other in the antiseptic eunuch pose that now passes for “ironic.” It’s “irony” as the last circle of Dante’s cultural drain; it’s why every show advertised as “edgy” and “transgressive” offers the same pitiful combination of attitude and impotence as a spayed cat humping. 

Such a pansified culture is going nowhere. I hasten to add I don’t mean “pansified” in the sense of penetrative sex with other men, but in the Sarah Silverman sense of “I mean ‘gay’ like ‘retarded.’” Miss Silverman can get away with that kind of talk because she’s a Pajama Boy–friendly ironist posing as a homophobic disablist. Unless, of course, she’s a homophobic disablist posing as a Pajama Boy–friendly ironist. Maybe we should ban her just to be on the safe side.

How do you make a fruit cordial?

Be nice to him. Or else.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2013 Mark Steyn
 
"How do you make a fruit cordial? Be nice to him. Or else"


Remove "fruit".  Insert racial epithet of choice here.

How does that feel, now?

IMHO this is thinly disguised rationalization for stupid behaviour by people who don't realize times have changed. We don't tell "polite" or "cute" ni***r jokes any more (like we did in the '50s and '60s), so why do the same thing about gays?
 
pbi said:
Remove "fruit".  Insert racial epithet of choice here.

How does that feel, now?

IMHO this is thinly disguised rationalization for stupid behaviour by people who don't realize times have changed. We don't tell "polite" or "cute" ni***r jokes any more (like we did in the '50s and '60s), so why do the same thing about gays?

I think you missed the intent of this article. Yes times have changed and what was considered humourous then is now somewhat crass.

It is just plain difficult not to offend some minority using the common vernacular.  Someone always seems to take offense at what was said or what they thought was meant.  We seem to live in an age where everyone feels entitled to be a victim of unkind verbiage.

I miss the day when it was common to hear someone say " I don't care what you call me, just smile when you say it."
 
Jed said:
I think you missed the intent of this article. Yes times have changed and what was considered humorous then is now somewhat crass.

Perhaps. To declare my bias, I have a gay adult son. Although he is doing very well now, I am only too familiar with how difficult it can be for gay people, especially males, even in today's supposedly more liberal atmosphere. I don't want to see the clock turned back, so maybe I react more than others might.

Jed said:
It is just plain difficult not to offend some minority using the common vernacular.  Someone always seems to take offense at what was said or what they thought was meant.  We seem to live in an age where everyone feels entitled to be a victim of unkind verbiage.

I miss the day when it was common to hear someone say " I don't care what you call me, just smile when you say it."

I am in general agreement with this, as long as it isn't used as a cover for reversion to stupid behaviour. I see a big difference between people struggling to be treated fairly based on their abilities not their traits, and people making a culture (and sometimes a living...) out of victimhood.

 
Looking at Progressiveism as a secular religion, and its roots. By this point in time, the Progressive religion has hardened into something similar to Puritanism or Catholicism at the time of the Counter-Reformation.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/

The Rise of Secular ReligionDavid P. Goldman
Today’s secular liberals are the direct descendants of the past century’s Puritans and Protestants, deeply concerned with matters of sin and salvation in the church of politics.

Published on March 17, 2014


An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America
by Joseph Bottum
Image Books,  2014, 320 pp., $25

Today’s American liberalism, it is often remarked, amounts to a secular religion: it has its own sacred texts and taboos, Crusades and Inquisitions. The political correctness that undergirds it, meanwhile, can be traced back to the past century’s liberal Protestantism. Conservatives, of course, routinely scoff that liberals’ ersatz religion is inferior to the genuine article.

Joseph Bottum, by contrast, examines post-Protestant secular religion with empathy, and contends that it gained force and staying power by recasting the old Mainline Protestantism in the form of catechistic worldly categories: anti-racism, anti-gender discrimination, anti-inequality, and so forth. What sustains the heirs of the now-defunct Protestant consensus, he concludes, is a sense of the sacred, but one that seeks the security of personal salvation through assuming the right stance on social and political issues. Precisely because the new secular religion permeates into the pores of everyday life, it sustains the certitude of salvation and a self-perpetuating spiritual aura. Secularism has succeeded on religious terms. That is an uncommon way of understanding the issue, and a powerful one.

A devout Catholic, Bottum may be America’s best writer on religion. He surely is the least predictable. A former chief editor of the conservative religious monthly First Things, he shocked many of his former colleagues by arguing in a widely-read essay for Commonweal that the Catholic Church had lost the fight against same-sex marriage and should move on to other things. By this he expressed not a heterodox view of sexuality, but a dour assessment of the Church’s waning influence on social issues. The same somber mood lurks behind the elegant prose of his present volume, which should be read with foreboding if not alarm.

America’s consensus culture, Bottum argues, is the unmistakable descendant of the old Protestant Mainline, in particular the “Social Gospel” promulgated by Walter Rauschenbusch before the First World War and adopted by the liberal majority in the Mainline denominations during the 1920s. Although this assertion seems unremarkable at first glance, the method that Bottum brings to bear is entirely original. A deeply religious thinker, he understands spiritual life from the inside. He is less concerned with the outward forms and specific dogmas of religion than with its inner experience, and this approach leads him down paths often inaccessible to secular inquiry. The book should be disturbing not only to its nominal subjects, the “Poster Children” of post-Protestant America, but also to their conservative opposition. The battle is joined on a plane far removed from the quotidian concept of political debate.

Bottum writes:

We live in a spiritual age, in other words, when we believe ourselves surrounded by social beings of occult and mystic power. When we live with titanic cultural forces contending across the sky, and our moral sense of ourselves— of whether or not we are good people, of whether or not we are saved— takes its cues primarily from our relation to those forces. We live in a spiritual age when the political has been transformed into the soteriological. When how we vote is how our souls are saved.

This might easily be misread as a rhetorical swipe at dogmatic liberalism. But Bottum wants us to understand that the inner life of secular Americans remains dense with spiritual experience, and that the post-Protestant experience resembles the supernatural world of the Middle Ages, but with new spiritual entities in place of the old devils and elves: “social and political ideas elevated to the status of strange divinities . . . born of the ancient religious hunger to perceive more in the world than just the give and take of ordinary human beings, but adapted to an age that piously congratulates itself on its escape from many of the strictures of ancient religion.” What Bottum calls the “re-enchantment and spiritual thickening of reality” is the subject of the book. It is an elusive quarry, for it is not a simple task to show that self-styled rationalists entertain a firm belief in the modern equivalent of ghosts and witches. For the post-Protestants, “the social forces of bigotry, power, corruption, mass opinion, militarism, and oppression are the constant themes of history” against which they must array themselves:

These horrors have a palpable, almost metaphysical presence in the world. And the post-Protestants believe the best way to know themselves as moral is to define themselves in opposition to such bigotry and oppression— understanding good and evil not primarily in terms of personal behavior but as states of mind about the social condition. Sin, in other words, appears as a social fact, and the redeemed personality becomes confident of its own salvation by being aware of that fact. By knowing about, and rejecting, the evil that darkens society.

The desire to be redeemed from sin (redefined as a social fact) identifies the post-Protestants as children of the Puritans. That insight is what makes his new book a new and invaluable contribution to our understanding of America’s frame of mind. Just what is a secular religion, and how does it shape the spiritual lives of its adherents? Bottum deftly peels the layers off the onion of liberal thinking to reveal its Protestant provenance and inherited religious sensibility. The Mainline Protestantism that once bestrode American public life never died, but metamorphosed into a secular doctrine of redemption. And that was made possible by the conversion of sin from a personal to a social fact in Walter Rauschenberg’s version of the social gospel. Bottum writes,  “The new elite class of America is the old one: America’s Mainline Protestant Christians, in both the glory and the annoyingness of their moral confidence and spiritual certainty. They just stripped out the Christianity along the way.” By redefining sin as social sin, Rauschenberg raised up a new Satan and a new vocabulary of redemption from his snares. According to Bottum, his “central demand is to see social evil as really existing evil— a supernatural force of dark magic.” Jesus, Rauschenbusch wrote, “did in a very real sense bear the weight of the public sins of organized society, and they in turn are causally connected with all private sins.”

Much of the book is occupied with sketches of Bottum’s “poster children” of post-Protestantism—a psychologist in Oregon, a guitar maker in upstate New York, a gay rights activist from Austin—in whose quirks and eccentricities he detects the “spiritual density” that has made post-Protestantism a religion nearly as stable as its predecessor. The choice of subjects seems a bit arbitrary at first glance, but the common characteristic of the subjects for Bottum’s character sketches is their perpetuation of Protestant attitudes in secular form.

“When we recognize their origins in Mainline Protestantism,” Bottum observes, “we can discern some of the ways in which they see the world and themselves. They are, for the most part, politically liberal, preferring that government rather than private associations (such as intact families or the churches they left behind) address social concerns. They remain puritanical and highly judgmental, at least about health, and like all Puritans they are willing to use law to compel behavior they think right.”

He contrasts these “poster children” with the young generation of serious Catholics, the “swallows of capistrano” who are returning to the nest. From Bottum’s elegy for the lost Catholic culture of the 1940s and 1950s we grasp most clearly what he means by “metaphysical density,” that is, the fullness of everyday religious life, just what the dry Pietism of Mainline Protestantism replaced with the new Angelology and Demonology of the Social Gospel. In a bravura passage he offers a vivid, visceral description of the Catholic Church before Vatican II:

The embroidered arcanery of copes and stoles and albs and chasubles, the rituals of Holy Water blessings, the grottos with their precarious rows of fire-hazard candles flickering away in little red cups, the colored seams and peculiar buttons that identified monsignors, the wimpled school sisters, the tiny Spanish grandmothers muttering prayers in their black mantillas, the First Communion girls wrapped up in white like prepubescent brides, the mumbled Irish prejudices, the loud Italian festivals, the Holy Door indulgences, the pocket guides to scholastic philosophy, the Knights of Columbus with their cocked hats and comic-opera swords, the tinny mission bells, the melismatic chapel choirs— none of this was the Church, some of it actually obscured the Church, and the decision to clear out the mess was not unintelligent or uninformed or unintended. It was merely insane. An entire culture nested in the crossbeams and crannies, the nooks and corners, of the Catholic Church. And it wasn’t until the swallows had been chased away that anyone seemed to realize how much the Church itself needed them, darting around the chapels and flitting through the cathedrals.

The Church lost this rich texture in daily life, and the returning “swallows” are hard put to feather their nests. This is a powerful insight, and not only for Catholics. Orthodox Jewish life is spiritually dense with performance of mitzvoth and flourishes in the United States, while the Jewish cognates of liberal Protestantism, the Reform and Conservative movements, lose members at an alarming rate.

It is not in doctrine but rather in daily life that we discover how religion shapes society, Bottum argues. Amid the ongoing attenuation of Catholic culture, the broad adoption of Catholic Natural Law doctrine by some conservatives offers cold consolation. Bottum is particularly tough on George W. Bush and his circle. Reviewing the 43rd President’s Second Inaugural Address, Bottum observes: “The president’s Evangelical supporters may have been reassured by the public religiosity of the occasion— the prayers, the Navy choir singing ‘God of Our Fathers,’ the bowed heads. But the god of the philosophers isn’t much of a god to be going home with. A deistical clockmaker, an impersonal prime mover, a demiurge instead of a redeemer: This is hardly the faith Christian Americans imagine the president shares with them.”

Only in passing does Bottum mention the influence of war on American religion. More attention to the external factors that shaped America’s spiritual life would have reinforced his case. America paid for the blood drawn by the lash with 700,000 Civil War deaths. As Louis Menand observes in his 2002 book The Metaphysical Club, the horrific experience of the Boston elite in the Civil War convinced the generation of William James and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that no truth was so certain as to justify the slaughter they witnessed in their youth. Did the success of the social gospel stem from the depletion of the Puritans in the Civil War? “The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” Lincoln had said; but by the end of the century, the Protestant Mainline preferred to fix the world according to its own preferences.

By the same token, the sudden slide of the Mainline from liberal Christianity into post-Protestant secularism occurred when the Mainline’s smug self-assurance crashed against the moral untidiness of the Cold War. Decades later, America’s disenchantment with Iraq and Afghanistan cut conservative Christians off at the knees. A dozen books decried the onset of theocracy during the first Bush Administration. The Left exaggerated the influence of Catholic neoconservatives like natural-law theorist Michael Novak and papal biographer George Weigel. As Bottum wryly counters, “If the neoconservative Catholics among America’s public intellectuals were actually running everything, you’d think they could have managed to steal the 2006 congressional elections that, instead, they lost with a thump.” Nothing fails like failure: The neoconservative Catholics got hammered because the policy they backed came to grief.

Neither the Evangelicals nor the Catholics, either separately or in their uneasy, occasional alliances, had the wherewithal to replace the post-Protestant center at the peak of its cultural authority, Bottum argues, and both now are on the defensive as a wayward millennial generation progresses into adulthood. Is that because whatever holds together the Mainline’s remnants is too strong, or because they bet the church on Bush’s Freedom Agenda? Bottum leaves the question unanswered.

But how durable is post-Protestant culture? Missing from Bottum’s portraits of the “poster children” is any mention of the children they are—or aren’t—raising. Fertility rates among members of the secularized Mainline churches are so low (just as they are among “progressive” Jews) that one is tempted to regard post-Protestantism as a one-generation wonder. While the children of the Mainline occupy themselves with yoga, organic gardening and expanded gender identities (Facebook now offers more than fifty categories to choose from), popular culture becomes moribund. The 20th century’s variations of the social gospel seem genteel next to what populates America’s metaphysical realm today. Americans spend more time with supernatural monsters than ever did the Christians of the Middle Ages, from vampires to zombies to demons of every hue. In 2012, the horror genre supplied one out of eight American feature films; a decade ago it was roughly one out of twenty-five. Strip away divine immortality from American spirituality, and it embraces the undead variety.

That is what makes Joseph Bottum’s treatise so disturbing. He does not see a way back. His only upbeat chapter, on the influence of Pope John Paul II, retreats into mysticism, ascribing the pontiff’s escape from an assassin’s bullet to the Virgin Mary’s reported 1917 appearance to Portuguese children at Fátima. He has every right to invoke mystical powers, but the Wojtyla chapter stands in such contrast to the tone and content of the rest of the book as to alert us to the author’s deeper forebodings. This is a work of deep pessimism, albeit mitigated by faith in divine intervention, and its author reveals his innermost thoughts only in parable. It is a work of great importance that should be read, re-read and debated by the literate public, believers and non-believers alike. It is to be hoped that its dark tone will not discourage those who are more likely to seek encouragement than instruction.

David P. Goldman writes the “Spengler” column for Asia Times Online and PJ Media. A former senior editor at First Things, he is the author of the 2011 book How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is Dying, Too).
 
pbi said:
Perhaps. To declare my bias, I have a gay adult son. Although he is doing very well now, I am only too familiar with how difficult it can be for gay people, especially males, even in today's supposedly more liberal atmosphere. I don't want to see the clock turned back, so maybe I react more than others might.

I am in general agreement with this, as long as it isn't used as a cover for reversion to stupid behaviour. I see a big difference between people struggling to be treated fairly based on their abilities not their traits, and people making a culture (and sometimes a living...) out of victimhood.

I agree with you on this, as well. To declare my own bias, I have a gay brother in law who I care for a much as my own blood brothers.

I also have been subjected to several predatory advances in my youth that were not welcome. If I would have been a timid soul I may have had my head screwed up more than normal, lol.
 
Back
Top