I found this essay to be a bit too esoteric and removed from practical politics. Though it may well be the start of a great PhD thesis, it's not the kind of thing that will sway many voters or cause any change, either at Harvard or beyond, outside of the narrow hallways of academia.
With that said, my strongest reaction came from the mention of Christianity. I do agree that American conservatism is highly focused on Christianity, and I offer only a defense of that stance in reply.
Christianity has, indeed, been hijacked and abused by many over the centuries. But, in its purest form, Christianity is unique. Jesus Christ was unique, as a leader and teacher, in that he eschewed violence. He taught passivism. And, in the landscape of history, leaders who taught non-violence are quite rare, indeed. Most of human history is a long list of wars, conquests, and very bloody battles. Yet, in the middle of this bloody tapestry emerges a selfless leader who teaches non-violence, loving thy neighbor, and even loving thy enemy - a beacon of hope for those who prefer a life without warfare.
For all the well remembered warrior leaders in history, none is as popular now, 2 millennia after His life and ministry, as Jesus Christ. The only comparable leader who comes to my mind is Mahatma Ghandi, but even Ghandi's legacy is not as long and well-remembered as Jesus Christ.
So, it is for good reason that conservatives carry forth the memory and teachings of Jesus. Without Him, the world would be a much more war-like place. Probably a bit more like the Middle East, where Mohamed's warrior legacy reigns supreme, where life is cheap, and where human rights are deemphasized, to say the least.
Mark Twain once wrote that his visit to Syria in the 19th century solidified his Christian beliefs like no Biblical passage, hymn, or sermon ever could. He described a heartless and brutal Islamic society, with all kinds of homelessness, illness, and death in the streets - visual images that he did not see in America, but only in Syria. In other words, his commitment to Christianity was strengthened simply by seeing how bad things were in a country that did not have it.
Adopting Christianity is a package deal of many moral principles and practices. But it is also possible for an individual to see a problem in the world and choose to adopt a single additional moral principle to fix a particular problem.
"Hollywood’s biggest prize this year went to “One Battle After Another,” a film that asks audiences to sympathize with terrorists. In New York, an upcoming production, “Luigi: The Musical,” places a criminal at the center of the story just blocks from the crime that inspired it…. Across culture and public life, we are becoming more willing to reinterpret wrongdoing through the language of grievance, alienation and institutional distrust. The transgression itself hasn’t changed. What has is our growing tendency to emotionally identify with the anger behind it…. Universities, entertainment and parts of the intellectual class increasingly frame wrongdoing through the language of explanation rather than responsibility. Trauma, inequality and alienation become the dominant lens. Those factors can matter. But when explanation consistently replaces judgment, the line between understanding behavior and excusing it begins to blur."
Many at elite universities teach to "sympathize with the villain", and such teaching encapsulates much of what the country dislikes about elite universities and intersectionality.
One could instead adopt a moral principle of sympathizing with people who do good things to achieve good results. And one could do so "a la carte" without adopting a particular religion as a package of many moral principles.
The heritage of the West is the combining of Classical and Christian thought and culture. Some times one or the other becomes dominant, and Western culture is the worse for it. I would estimate that Christian values were dominant in the Middle Ages and Classical values are dominant now. A balance of Classical and Christian thought has led to the greatest cultural flourishing, such as the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation.
All true. All or nothing is infrequently acceptable. Too much distance between the bid and ask.
But where, today, has the ideology of the left been dispassionate?
The vaunted era of civil rights was great-as conceived. Taken to its fullest extreme of equity v equality, we are at a razor’s edge in our ever degraded discourse.
The tails of the bell curve getting normalized is very discomforting.
But certain of humanity’s western canon are uncompromisingly part of a civilized norm.
Homer, Milton and Shakespeare were white old men.
As were Isaac Newton and Einstein.
Are they surviving the scrutiny of the progressives? Are they not scoffed as a denigrated bunch of fogies?
Is merit to be discarded at the altar of drag queens reading drivel in grammar schools?
The crucible is fired and hot. Temperance evades us.
Not all of anything is good or bad.
I used to endorse that.
If a civilization believes it’s right to impose jihad to institute sharia, that is a non-starter.
Ideology : enlightenment :: dogma : inquiry
And never more salient the distinction as we confront it now. Not for the first time. For all time.
I found this essay to be a bit too esoteric and removed from practical politics. Though it may well be the start of a great PhD thesis, it's not the kind of thing that will sway many voters or cause any change, either at Harvard or beyond, outside of the narrow hallways of academia.
With that said, my strongest reaction came from the mention of Christianity. I do agree that American conservatism is highly focused on Christianity, and I offer only a defense of that stance in reply.
Christianity has, indeed, been hijacked and abused by many over the centuries. But, in its purest form, Christianity is unique. Jesus Christ was unique, as a leader and teacher, in that he eschewed violence. He taught passivism. And, in the landscape of history, leaders who taught non-violence are quite rare, indeed. Most of human history is a long list of wars, conquests, and very bloody battles. Yet, in the middle of this bloody tapestry emerges a selfless leader who teaches non-violence, loving thy neighbor, and even loving thy enemy - a beacon of hope for those who prefer a life without warfare.
For all the well remembered warrior leaders in history, none is as popular now, 2 millennia after His life and ministry, as Jesus Christ. The only comparable leader who comes to my mind is Mahatma Ghandi, but even Ghandi's legacy is not as long and well-remembered as Jesus Christ.
So, it is for good reason that conservatives carry forth the memory and teachings of Jesus. Without Him, the world would be a much more war-like place. Probably a bit more like the Middle East, where Mohamed's warrior legacy reigns supreme, where life is cheap, and where human rights are deemphasized, to say the least.
Mark Twain once wrote that his visit to Syria in the 19th century solidified his Christian beliefs like no Biblical passage, hymn, or sermon ever could. He described a heartless and brutal Islamic society, with all kinds of homelessness, illness, and death in the streets - visual images that he did not see in America, but only in Syria. In other words, his commitment to Christianity was strengthened simply by seeing how bad things were in a country that did not have it.
Adopting Christianity is a package deal of many moral principles and practices. But it is also possible for an individual to see a problem in the world and choose to adopt a single additional moral principle to fix a particular problem.
Here is a concrete example: psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert wrote an article titled “Why so many Americans now sympathize with the villain” https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5817991-why-so-many-americans-now-sympathize-with-the-villain/ from which I quote:
"Hollywood’s biggest prize this year went to “One Battle After Another,” a film that asks audiences to sympathize with terrorists. In New York, an upcoming production, “Luigi: The Musical,” places a criminal at the center of the story just blocks from the crime that inspired it…. Across culture and public life, we are becoming more willing to reinterpret wrongdoing through the language of grievance, alienation and institutional distrust. The transgression itself hasn’t changed. What has is our growing tendency to emotionally identify with the anger behind it…. Universities, entertainment and parts of the intellectual class increasingly frame wrongdoing through the language of explanation rather than responsibility. Trauma, inequality and alienation become the dominant lens. Those factors can matter. But when explanation consistently replaces judgment, the line between understanding behavior and excusing it begins to blur."
Many at elite universities teach to "sympathize with the villain", and such teaching encapsulates much of what the country dislikes about elite universities and intersectionality.
One could instead adopt a moral principle of sympathizing with people who do good things to achieve good results. And one could do so "a la carte" without adopting a particular religion as a package of many moral principles.
The heritage of the West is the combining of Classical and Christian thought and culture. Some times one or the other becomes dominant, and Western culture is the worse for it. I would estimate that Christian values were dominant in the Middle Ages and Classical values are dominant now. A balance of Classical and Christian thought has led to the greatest cultural flourishing, such as the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation.
All true. All or nothing is infrequently acceptable. Too much distance between the bid and ask.
But where, today, has the ideology of the left been dispassionate?
The vaunted era of civil rights was great-as conceived. Taken to its fullest extreme of equity v equality, we are at a razor’s edge in our ever degraded discourse.
The tails of the bell curve getting normalized is very discomforting.
But certain of humanity’s western canon are uncompromisingly part of a civilized norm.
Homer, Milton and Shakespeare were white old men.
As were Isaac Newton and Einstein.
Are they surviving the scrutiny of the progressives? Are they not scoffed as a denigrated bunch of fogies?
Is merit to be discarded at the altar of drag queens reading drivel in grammar schools?
The crucible is fired and hot. Temperance evades us.
Not all of anything is good or bad.
I used to endorse that.
If a civilization believes it’s right to impose jihad to institute sharia, that is a non-starter.
Ideology : enlightenment :: dogma : inquiry
And never more salient the distinction as we confront it now. Not for the first time. For all time.