So I’ve gotten a good number of emails and FACEBOOK messages on my FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS post. There are some LIBERAL ones that find it offensive. I’m okay with that. There are some TV CRITICAL ONES that say I overrate the show. The teenagers on FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHT are too precious and self-reflective to be credible. One critic in particular contrasted FNL with the superior realism of the portrayal of kids on the legendary but short-lived FREAKS AND GEEKS. I’m okay with that too.
But of course I’m only going to quote from the smartest and (of course) most flattering comment:
A quick word to congratulate you on this truly beautiful piece. Your magnanimous Conservatism is surely and evidently the only path to be followed. One only has to compare it to Mansfield’s…WSJ op-ed on the choice b/w Europe and America to see that this American with a European wife doesn’t get it…
Out of ordinary piety and human gratitude I would never say in my own name that Mansfield is less that wise. But I will remind you that I’ve been saying for a while that the American vs. European and Founders vs. Progressives narratives have outlived their usefulness and descriptive power.
So the conference, at Berry, exceeded all reasonable expectations in the excellence of presentations by both faculty and students and the intensity and intelligence of the “engagement” of the students from Berry and a half dozen other colleges. I would like to thank, while I have your attention, Berry students STEPHANIE TOMYS, GARRETT COOK, and KRISTIAN CANLER for running the conference so flawlessly, if only seemingly effortlessly.
There were two very significant contributions by political scientists to POP POLITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES.
Our Carl Scott used ROCK to illuminate THE SIXTIES as a political problem.
And Micah Watson (of Union in Jackson, TN) used THE UNDERGROUND MAN together with the psychologically penetrating recent films YOUNG ADULT and UP IN THE AIR to illuminate the phenomenon of (obsessional) AMERICAN NIHILISM.
I’m moved, in fact, to think that we need to make immediate and important strides to develop this burgeoning subfield.
So the next step would be to have a panel at the APSA Meeting next year.
I, of course, hope to talk about GIRLS, BIG LOVE, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, AND THE 2012 ELECTION.
And I’m going to ask Natalie Taylor to develop her cutting-edge thoughts on FEMINISM AND FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS.
I’m now asking if there’s anyone else who wants to join up. I’m also asking if anyone has compassion enough to relieve me of the organizational burden of entering the panel stuff into the APSA website and, as a result, going down in history as the panel’s chair.
December 2nd, 2012 | 4:55 pm
[...] NIGHT LIGHTS post. There are some LIBERAL ones that find it offensive. I’m okay Source: Postmodern Conservative Category: Blogs and [...]
December 3rd, 2012 | 1:52 pm
” But I will remind you that I’ve been saying for a while that the American vs. European and Founders vs. Progressives narratives have outlived their usefulness and descriptive power.”
It appears Mr. Douthat didn’t get the memo:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/can-we-be-sweden/#more-18048
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:01 pm
Well, that’s not exactly true. We don’t need to be more like Sweden. We shouldn’t be and we, as RD adds, really can’t be. But Ross also suggests that we need more a pro-famly policy that draws on our distinctive virtues and circumstances. Thinking that one party is for being America and the other is for America being Sweden doesn’t right true.
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:25 pm
The data he cites indicates the deep cultural problems that come with social democratic style policies, reduced GDP, reduced fertility and increased age of population being the most measurable. Beneath that all you need do is consult Ms. Delsol’s works to discover the cultural decay that these symptom’s derive from.
I just posted a lengthy summary of Douthat’s argument from a talk he recently gave at North Carolina University:
http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/youtubeplayer.aspx?file=HaJqGoKt6w4
If you like you can read my post on this thread on Nov 30th 7:38pm:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/11/27/refusing-the-invitation-to-free-enterprise/#comments
By taking the Europe/US contrast off the table, you eliminate one of the most empirical examples of why we ought not look to social democratic state style policies as a solution.
In his talk, Douthat does outline what he recommends in place of a naive pure free market solution, which amounts to:
1. An acknowledgement of the role of government social services but with an emphasis that the cost burden of such services requires a degree of economic vitality which, historically, only free markets have been able to sustain.
2. The acknowledgement that a pure Free Market model is inadaquate by itself since the cultural effects of the Free Market only undermine societal cohesion, and so there must be a recognition for the importance of such cultural virtues as prudence, dilligence, compassion and an acknowledgement that we need institutions to support the flourishing of such virtues so that we have a Free Market that is practiced by a society better equipped to make a society and a government both prosperous and compassionate.
Douthat cites the two antogonists from Capra’s “It’s a wonderful life” as examples when he states that by a Free Market society grounded in virtue we’re talking about a society with more George Bailey’s and fewer mean old Mr. Potter’s.
As I see it Douthat’s recommendations contrast with the Social Democratic approach in its priorities.
The Social Democratic State sees the Government as the primary resource for such services at times even pushing out mediating institutions, while completely ignoring the importance of cultivating a culture of virtue as the first line of defense against the challenges of society.
Whereas Douthat, Manzi, Levin, Ponnuru et al, are building the argument that a society of mediating institutions, reinforced by a flourishing culture of virtue (an army of George Bailey’s so to speak) will provide the muscle for the kind of support best provided in more subsidiary ways, allowing the government to intervene only in those situations that absolutely require the resources of government to be brought to bear.
Your preclusion of Europe as a valuable counter example seems to be ignoring what are perhaps some of the most trenchant discussions occuring now in thoughtful conservative circles.
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:55 pm
Peter, I sortof agree with you, but your case or point would be better — more true, more convincing — if the partial truth of the two contrasts was acknowledged and worked into your case. There are family resemblances between California and Greece, and Progressivism does inform one party a lot more than the other. And we can learn a lot about where our marriage trajectory is taking us by looking at Sweden. Or is it just “the demographics, stupid”, along with “creeping and creepy libertarianism”?
December 3rd, 2012 | 6:00 pm
Paul, “sort of agree” is better than I usually get. Progressivism has been displaced by a kind of nonrelational personalism, which is based on the thought that nothing trumps the freedom and security of persons alive right now. So what liberals call the “fascist” or “history fodder” or just citizen-orientation of progressivism are gone. As the article by Last in THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE shows, there’s nothing socialist or progressive about, say, Sweden. Their sort-of big government is about securing the maximum possible liberty of nondependent individuals. In a way the Swedes are more Lockean than we are. The Swedish and American marriage trajectories are not caused by big govt.
December 3rd, 2012 | 6:13 pm
So with Paul’s qualification, which I think is sensible, I think Europe represents an important set of contrasts (be it ‘progressive’, or just naive libertine/arianism) to where America ought to go.
It should be noted Douthat’s use of Sweden was motivated by Krugman’s invoking of Sweden as an example for the US policy. Similar exchanges like that between Manzi and Chait are along the same lines.
Whether we like it or not, this is where the debate is happening and I think it makes perfect sense, as does it seems, to a lot of smarter conservatives than I.
December 3rd, 2012 | 8:16 pm
Since it is pop culture….can you really control what people think when they hear that one party wants us to be more like Sweden? (only if it is the USSR!)
When RD speaks of it…it is a veiled critique of Krugman…who has actually argued many different ways that the U.S. cannot be Sweden…(agreeing on some level with RD?) What does RD think of the new geographic economics? (he doesn’t?)
But take the video game: Skyrim…one faction says “Nord is for the Nords”…It is a pretty popular video game (fairly fun to play).
I don’t know if this is the sort of “Liberal Facism” Jonah Goldberg was talking about… but a lot of “white supremacists” are also big on selling the Swedes as an example of a politics based on familly/race/tribe. I assume they all cheer for the Vikings or Greenbay live in Minnesota and Wisconsin, they probably brew mead, read Beowulf in high school english and involve themselves in constitutional controversies over the teaching of German…
Since Sweden means “one’s own”, referring to one’s own Germanic tribe… the party that wants us to be most like sweden is also in some sense the most racist party, albeit it is also mixed in with a false bravado-appreciation of colder weather and general contempt of mediteranian peoples weakened by the climes, pace Montesquieu. Florida is where you go when you are old and feeble…
It isn’t Wisconsin’s fault that it came into the union as a Free State and geography+climate largely discouraged black folks from moving there…but it might be instrumentally useful to hacks! (we aren’t racists! We only use racial pew data to rig house districts!…it is really the liberal fascists! yeah don’t look at Ohio…over in Wisconsin…where they play Skyrim and drink mead!)
While I think progressivism can refer to a theory of intellectual property given its name by the progress clause in the american constituition and synching up with potentially misguided “conservative” attacks upon the 9th Circuit…. Progressivism of the more “Sweedish” variety is basically a defunct political party in Wisconsin history, whose children were partially awaken by recent attempts to dramatically alter labor law in a state with a certain sort of progressive identity. Ironically this side will still fight for Hollywood and thus come under the tent of constitutional progressivism because it was defeated by witch hunt Joe McCarthy!
I think it quasi-plausible that certain states in the union are more progressive and “swedish” than others, and that chief among these is the state of Wisconsin.
Why do “conservatives” hate Wisconsin and California?
Why did Jonah Goldberg create a fictional work describing a hypothetical Liberal Facism, that due in part to racial/national heritage and climate was only viable in Wisconsin? Why the constant war against a pro-labor but quasi dead political party in Wisconsin history?
Republicans in Wisconsin unsatisfied with Republican aid and support for the middle class invented progressivism. Unhappy with the loss of power/cronyism another set of republicans hatched a plot. Loomis(the last progressive governor in Wisconsin) was potentially even poisoned before he could take office.(but the source is not credible), in any case the La Follete familly disbanded the progressive party and rejoined the fight for the soul of the republican party. Enter a world historical hack, by the name of Joe McCarthy, who had spent all his time poisoning and deconstructing the progressives, which would allow him to analogize them to the communists and go on an all out hunt against “leftism” in Hollywood and all of America…
So your founders vs. progressives is more easily progressives v. Joe McCarthy… or a branch that thinks folks in Wisconsin are liberal facist by virtue of looking like Swedes.
No one even tries to explain that there is nothing wrong with California or Wisconsin, let alone Sweden. So the thinking goes that one party is for being american in a Joe McCarty vein which would work to exclude swedish states like Wisconsin, and lefty commy hollywood and California! (question: where will you get your cheese(they just happen to be leading producers)? ed: Cheese is for the “French”!)
December 4th, 2012 | 5:42 am
So I knew the post would touch a nerve and surely I should rephrase: The American politics of virtue can be contrasted with our sophisticated libertarianism AND with Europe, if you want, or with a kind of sophisticated indifference or ingratitude generally. But what I’m against is contrasting American capitalism with European socialism or our Lockeanism with their Hegelianism or whatever as the key point.
December 4th, 2012 | 10:43 am
Well, I think making such a contrast verboten sacrifices a lot of opportunity for clarity. For instance a society of American style virtue presupposes mediating institutions and communities. Which environment do you think is going to be more conducive to such institutions, American style capitalism or European style socialism? The former is just an economic version of a society of mediating institutions where businesses play the role of mediation, the latter poses one large Hegelian Leviathan which leaves little room for mediation, and to the extent that there are mediating instutions they look more like activist groups who exist to influence the Leviathan rather than to nurture local self sustaining communities.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to recommend something like a spectrum from smallness to bigness, where on one side you have a Jeffersonian society with thriving small organic institutions, businesses and a limited role for Government, and then on the other extreme a Hobbesian Leviathan like governmental system, and somewhere in the middle would be a society like our own that has small instutions and organizations that are struggling, as the Biggies, ie Big Government, Big Business, etc. are in the ascendant.
Just one more observation. It seems to me that there is a kind of irreversibility to when a society moves up the bigness spectrum. The Leviathan extends itself into areas where once mediating communities played a role, those communities fade away, and with them the conditions for their sustainability, such that even if at some point in the future we suddenly realize their value, it will be too late.
By the way, read your first installment on Rooty Conservatism, and am looking forward to your continuing thoughts.
December 4th, 2012 | 1:54 pm
I haven’t written anything on it, but I’ve watched the whole Friday Night Lights TV series (and movie) and would definitely enjoy chairing a panel at APSA on it and letting others share their thoughts. Has anyone already stepped up to the plate to write the proposal yet Peter? I’d be willing to pitch it to RJ and the Claremont Institute, or as just a regular panel (I’m not sure which division would be best, “Politics, Literature and Film” maybe?).
December 4th, 2012 | 3:09 pm
cjw, someone (Natalie) has already volunteered to organize it. But maybe (only mabye at this point) we can work you in–and that’s because I have two maybes. More soon. Thanks for volunteering.
December 5th, 2012 | 11:08 am
No problem, I’m glad it’s going to happen
December 5th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
One must always take care to distinguish Progressivism from Populism, which several comments here do not.
Progressivism is so toxically stupid a philosophy of government it’s contagious. The progressive mind is 100% embodied in something called Taylorism, which all the true progressives, the Crolys, the Steffenses, the Woodrow Wilsons of this world thought to marvelous for words, ditto Eugenics. You should know what Eugenics is; but do you recall what Taylorism is? Look it up. It ain’t pretty. It subsumes every progressive pipe dream in its motivations and delectations from wage-and-proce controls to government-run medical care.
And that brings me to another irksome thing: the titanic hubris in deliberately styling oneself a “progressive” or labeling one’s party the “Progressive Party,” as if what “progress” is blandly uncontroversial and you know exactly what it is. I mean there may still be a hint of the old-time Andy Jackson–style political rowdyism in the Democratic Party; and the Republican Party, for good and sufficient reasons, does favor mob-free politics to the extent possible. Yet no member of either party with his head on straight thinks of himself or his party, I’d bet, when he reads, for example, that the founding ideal of the United States are “Democratic” or when the last paragraph of the Constitution declares that each State is guaranteed “a Republican form of government.”
Not so with your typical progressive dingbat. He believes that what his party espouses is progress and nothing but. Just one example, I have met dozens of liberals who seriously believe that a “progressive income tax” is called so because it is “progress” to tax the wealthy at a higher RATE than the less fortunate rather than describing a system of graduated rates. Why is altering the rate in that way progress? I dunno. And I seriously doubt that were a gun held to the heads of the average progressive’s children he could tell you either.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact