Culture

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Church?

Continuing the trend of “fighting back against characterizations they’re actually proud of,” the National Review explains why modern, politicized Christian fundamentalism is not an exclusionary worldview to be feared, but a simple attempt to prevent mean-spirited liberals from ejecting Christianity from the marketplace of ideas.”It’s easy to forget,” moans David French,

…that just a generation or two ago, there was a real question about whether Christian student groups even had a right to meet in public schools or on public university campuses. It’s also easy to forget that America was and is a beacon of religious liberty in the world, and we should never allow the ignorance and prejudices of, among others, the secular Left (especially when manifested through government action) drive religion from the public square.

Well, yes but no. Christians have always had the right to meet but not necessarily the right to claim public funding for their meetings at public schools. It took a series of poorly-reasoned Supreme Court decisions to give them that.

What’s missing here is an understanding that Christianity wasn’t “drive[n] from the public sphere” by obnoxious, hateful liberals bent on suppressing private Christian expression. It was “driven” from the government’s rostra, and denied the government’s imprimatur of approval out of a decent respect for the First Amendment, as any religion would be.

That’s as it should be. The First Amendment doesn’t somehow exempt popular religions, nor does it make exceptions based on America’s long history with Christianity. “Liberals” have never singled Christianity out: they’ve merely asked it to follow the same rules that apply to ever other religion.

But that’s where mainstream Americans and Christian fundamentalists part company, and what makes politicians like Bachmann, Perry, and their modern fundamentalist peers stand out in a crowd. We all grant — and right-wing bogeymen like the ACLU even regularly fight to defend — the right to private worship. But for fundamentalists, that’s not enough. They don’t want private prayer at public schools (which remains legal — how could it be otherwise?). They want school-led prayer at public schools. The “return to the public square” that fundamentalists so modestly seek is nothing so much as a return to state-financed religious dominance of the culture.

Ah. I’m more concerned with acknowledging this threat than with naming it. “Dominionism,” a term popularized by a spate powerful articles detailing the philosophical excesses of one Michele Bachmann, is helpful. So is Andrew Sullivan’s term,  ”Christianism” — though unfortunate for its introduction of another fabricated -ism to a world already crowded with them. I’d prefer to stick with fundamentalism.

Cultural Leadership

Rick Warren, the halfway-liberal evangelist briefly involved in the President’s inauguration, offers two tweets on cultural leadership, for those who believe the task can (and should) be undertaken:

Politics is always downstream from the source of culture. By the time a law is proposed, the water’s already contaminated.

If you’re serious about changing culture, start with music. Its power is unequalled. That’s why I mentor musicians.

I read these together, as a syllogism, which I think is probably correct:

(1) If your goal is to influence national politics, (2) remember that culture is prior to, and more powerful than, politics. (3) Therefore, to change politics, one must change culture.

The law rarely leads. In most cases — like in desegregation — it lags far behind, waiting for the ascendancy of a newer and more progressive generation to write their lifestyle and beliefs into law. And when the law leads, even if it effects cultural change, it rarely prompts the kind of consensus that results from organic development. To that extent, the preacher is on to something, but for one serious problem: I don’t think it’s possible to affirmatively lead the culture in the top-down manner he assumes. Put another way, I don’t think one can countermand organic cultural change through the counseling of individual players, or even through aggressive activism.

This is the flawed background assumption of the “culture wars”: that leaders, or groups largely disconnected from the dominant popular culture, can arrest the pace of its change. To my knowledge, it’s simply never happened in human history — and certainly not in a free society — but for whatever reason, it’s still an act played out in every generation, the culture going in one direction, and some remnant of the old guard attempting to “stand[] athwart history” yelling “Stop!” Maybe the background culture comes from a more genuine place; maybe, as an amalgamation of multiple influences, it’s less susceptible to voices narrowly focused on a single theme.

Whatever the reason, I don’t believe that cultural conservatism, as an ideology, has ever won a battle, despite hewing to Warren’s playbook. Rome hellenized despite the Catos, and was later Christianized despite Julian & his elites; the Catholic church lost its temporal influence despite the Papacy; the Beatles drowned out Cole Porter; the South desegregated despite Thurmond & Helms; and America will come to accept gay marriage despite her Santorums. Who’s to say whether it’s good or bad, but it is the course of history. “Politics is always downstream from the source of culture,” and the current’s too swift to paddle backwards.

The View from Wall St. & Water

I asked them how long they were going to stick around: apparently, until the current moves them away.

Hurricane Irene: a Cultural Threat to the United States

Thanks, FoxNation!

Internet Culture: Popularity, Conspiracies, and Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Last week, Conor Friedsdorf of The Atlantic wrote what I thought was a fairly charming vignette, of obviously limited factual value, about how he, along with two girls denied Harry Potter tickets, were the only attendees at the Orange County premiere of Sarah Palin’s comically titled new biopic, The Undefeated.

Seriously, she lost in 2008. We all remember that, right?

Anyways, this puff-piece, dashed off at 3 AM PST, has since become the most popular (and controversial) piece of Conor’s short career at The Atlantic. In a post yesterday, he chronicles his shock, responds to his detractors, and in the process, pens an abnormally all-encompassing story of life, culture, and writing in the internet age. Let’s investigate.

Popularity: as American magazines go, The Atlantic is fairly highbrow — exceedingly, even– and Conor’s writing is no exception. As he notes, he’s written a number of pieces sharply critical of the left, of the right, and several excruciatingly well-researched pieces, some of which took months, and one of which — on the best long-form journalism of 2010 — I will certainly now read. Yet he’s become “famous” for a hastily penned gag post that, while very clever, bears little relationship to the reason we value publications like The Atlantic, and writers like him. Why?

Because we read for sensationalism, not for substance, and the internet rewards writers who understand this.

My experience is similar (though on a lesser scale). As of this writing, this site’s most widely read post, at 28,1256 page views, questions whether Birther queen Orly Taitz is, or was likely to remain, a lawyer. And the premise of that post was ultimately disproved! She was properly admitted to the Supreme Court’s bar, though I still maintain that she fairly clearly committed several grave violations of the rules of professional conduct. My favorite post, on Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, actually took a long time to write, holds up well, but clocks in at the #3 slot, with a comparably dismal 12,158 views. (My second favorite, on science fiction’s moral authority, comes in at #12). If we construe exposure as a “payoff” in blogging, the effort-to-payoff model this sampling suggests discourages talent, insight, and substance, to instead reward well-timed hackery and snark.

Some blogs defy the odds. Andrew Sullivan supplies consistent quality content and, by all estimates, is widely read for it. But he’s the exception, and his stats probably admit of similarly disturbing trends. This is a serious Problem For The Internet, probably compelled by the breadth of available content, and the frequency/necessity of on-the-go reading. Both pressures combine to create the internet as a medium exclusively designed for rapid consumption.   I’m as guilty as the next man, but it’s something we need to confront, because the alternative, of an internet where information is sought only for entertainment, feels disastrous.

Conspiracies: call it a corollary of the last point. Any world where sensationalism rules becomes, naturally, a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Just so, Conor’s critics latched onto a provably false fact pattern where Conor didn’t just invent the whole story of the empty theater — no. He made it a reality by conspiring with theaters, newspapers… everyone… to bring about the downfall of Sarah Palin, by underreporting attendance at a fictitious theater. Naturally, the theory was picked up, and run into the ground, by Andrew Breitbart, who us did the favor of even reporting the lie incorrectly.

From “death panels” to birthers, here, too, is a poignant representation of political discourse in the internet age. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on” and, because it sounds better, is more widely read, sits more prominently in the public consciousness, and controls the conversation moving forwards.

Numbers, numbers, numbers: Finally, Conor flags one of the stranger points about this entire exchange. How many people attended Palin’s little panegyric is, literally, irrelevant. He says:

But what is ultimately at stake? Say it earns billions. Is that going to shrink the federal government? Or reform entitlements? Or affect the foreign policy America adopts? Why would an ideological movement that insists the country is going down the tubes waste so much time and energy complaining about their perception that a movie is doing better than the MSM says?

A good question, which becomes better when you realize that this isn’t an isolated incident. Time and again the conservative media have instigated, or suborned, attempts to artificially inflate attendance numbers at rallies, and general caucus strength. The movement seems more obsessed with proving its relevance, rather than earning it with policy victories. The tea party has always been more heat than light, and based on the battles they pick — like this one — that’s how they like it.

*     *     *     *     *

Sensationalism, conspiracy, and an obsession with status. Such is the state of political discourse on the internet, and therefore, the go-to style of the conservative grassroots. It’s strange to see these three ills so close together, and in a situation where they’re so clearly problematic, but we have Conor, and the Palin camp’s reflexive need to overreact to damn everything, to thank for this rare opportunity. Now, what can be done about it?

The Reinforcing Stereotype

A few years back, an (ex-)girlfriend and I were in line at, I think, the New England Aquarium, when we wound up talking to a couple from Atlanta — my home, and where we’d just come from. My companion was from nearby Philadelphia, so naturally, we two couples were trading stories of things to do, and see, in our respective geographies, when one of our new friends asked me — “so where are you from in Atlanta?”

I’ve since come to dread this question, and learned to either hedge, or lie. Because with my answer – Buckhead – the conversation ended. You see, Buckhead is a wealthy neighborhood, and infamous for producing smarmy, entitled types. Neither I nor my family fit that mold, but it didn’t matter. I’d suddenly become a new person in the eyes of our line companions. The stereotype trumped an interaction that had been, until then, quite pleasant.

Similarly, leaving Texas yesterday afternoon, I was absolutely unable to convince a flight attendant that, yes, I was sad to be returning to New York. I miss my college friends! And Texas beauty is something that New York can’t replicate, for all of its charms. But she was having none of it. What could a New Yorker see in Texas?! Best hurry back to the big city… with an implied, “where you belong.”

It’s axiomatic that stereotypes are sad, limiting, and never do justice to the individuals they describe. But they’re also persistent, and very real. This, I think, is what’s always bothered me about the “culture wars” — “real” vs. “fake” America, and red meat appeals to small-town vs. big-city values. The more we’re told we’re different, the more we become different.

Life Advice

From an unlikely source:

“Unless, when that perfect hand comes along, you bet big, and you take the House.”

The Century in Literary Trends

Google’s Book Ngram viewer tracks the relative popularity of English words over the last century. Some that might interest you:

• Jesus: peak 1930s, trough 1940-60, ascendant.
• Islam: peak 1975-78, steady increase 1990-2008.
• Deficit: peak 1989-91, steady decrease since.
• Reagan: steady modest plateau for his presidency, decrease 1990-98, almost logarthmic exponential gain since 2000.
• Racism:  climb to peak in 1972, near-plateau through 1985, climb to peak in 1998, and fall off.
• Sexy: steady increase since 1960.

Conclusions (all subject to debate):

• We turn to Christianity in crisis, and as a continuing reaction to the 1960′s.
• Islam was a growing force in English thought through 9/11.
• We cared about the deficit very briefly, after Reagan piled it on, but not so much thereafter.
• Reagan’s cult of personality kicked off in earnest after 1998.
• We think we’re post-racial, even if we’re not.
• Sexual liberalization is reflected in writing.

Was Jeremiah Wright Relevant?

I think, no; but because Sarah Palin’s dredging up this bit of ancient history, in light of recently discovered emails from top journalists hoping to bury the story before it broke, let’s examine.

Off the bat, note that it’s not like “liberals” and “media elites” were the only ones who wanted to move past Wright, and fight the election on ground that actually had some bearing on matters of policy. Palin’s boss did, too. On his say-so, the following ad never ran:

Consider, too, the only theory under which Wright becomes relevant. Despite Obama’s extensive public record on matters racial and political, Wright represented Obama’s only linkage to the more controversial elements of America’s black community, elements which, in all other respects, Mr. Obama had conspicuously avoided, for his entire life.

Wright was a weak way to make a weaker argument, one likely to inflame passions out of proportion with its merit, and otherwise distract the American populace from matters of grave importance — like the collapsing economy. If we conceive of journalism as a way to mediate the flow of information and the cultivation of an educated populace, and not as a campaign adjunct with a discrete agenda, then the journalist’s job is precisely to avoid these kinds of stories. Politicians may fire as they bear (and reap the consequences), but journalists should function as gatekeepers. Someone has to.

I’m SO That Guy!

In honor of the closing week of the Public Theater’s Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, I’m renaming the “Populism” tag to “Populism yeah yeah!” Adjust your bookmarks accordingly!

New Yorkers, go see this show while you still can! I’m definitely going a second time. I will make them all BLEED.

A sample, from the less polished world premiere. The current lead is great, and already has a movie deal!