NEW CATHOLIC POLITICS

Both men were musical prodigies. Both were great artists. So why couldn’t Jackson sustain his half-decade of brilliance in the late 1970s and early 1980s? It’s a great question. Unfortunately, I did not answer it over at True/Slant. However, I poised a related question, one inspired by Walker Percy: Why are the personal lives of so many artists messed up while those of scientists are not?

Many social conservatives blame the ills of modernism on a loss of tradition and custom and the rise of rational self-determination; I’m talking about you Pat Buchanan. Over at True Slant, I make the case that this criticism is misguided:

[F]ingering rational self-determination as the culprit in fatherhood’s decline is not just wrong; it’s also emblematic of much socially conservative commentary. As a rule, social conservatives are good at analyzing social breakdown, but terrible at proposing alternatives to the same; they are like nothing so much as football coaches who assess the opponents’ weaknesses brilliantly but can never come up with a successful game plan. They are Pat Buchanan’s. I like Pat, but his gloom-and-doom brand of social conservatism prevents us from finding workable solutions to the real problems he identifies.

In the July/August Atlantic Monthly, contributor Sandra Tsing Loh criticizes the post-feminist model of marriage in which both spouses work and shared household duties as a joyless and sex-less affair. Over at True/Slant, I noted that while many of her criticisms were valid, her attack against marriage as a whole was without foundation. An excerpt:

Her portrayal of marriage is one-sided and misleading even, ignoring a generation’s worth of scholarship about the benefits of marriage; the same article could have been written in 1979 or 1989. Married people don’t have less sex than single people, let alone the single parents who have lovers on the side that she idealizes; they have more and more fulfilling sex.

I have been busy finishing a longish book query letter. Posting should resume tomorrow, in the afternoon.

At first glance, “The Hangover” looks like a copycat of “Old School” or Will Ferrell’s less successful comedies. But the movie seems to traffic in a larger theme: the return to responsible patriarchy. Over at True/Slant, I made my case.

Update: To amplify my point, it is useful to contrast the recent string of pro-patriarchal films (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, The Hangover) with the anti-patriarchal films of four decades ago. I’m thinking of The Thomas Crown Affair, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The French Connection, The Godfather series, and The Sting, although the films of the great Sam Peckinpah during this period represent a counter-trend. Which gives me a good excuse to show the trailer for the most depressingly anti-patriarchal film of the lot, and maybe all time.

Over at True/Slant, I made my case. An excerpt:

Sotomayor’s comments were not racist, the pronouncements of conservatives notwithstanding ; she has made no statement that simply by virtue of their makeup and composition, Latinos, women, or working class people are superior to their opposites. Rather, her comments were an expression of ethnic, gender, and class pride. She said that given their background and experiences, Latinos, women, and working-class folk are more likely to come to the correct conclusion. It’s the difference between the worldview of David Duke and James Michael Curley.

Read the whole darn thing.

Statue of James Michael Curley from user wallyg via a Creative Commons license).

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s post. Over at True/Slant, I posed the question and gave what I think is a good answer. Excerpt:

The fact that unborn infants can’t fight back is the most pathetic and despicable aspect of abortion; against the might of the abortion doctor, with his forceps or vacuum aspirator, they are completely and utterly helpless. The fight is not a fair one. Even unswervingly pro-choice physicians struggle with the procedure, as this young medic told the Washington Post Magazine … .

(Photo rally in support of the slain Dr. George Tiller by Steve Rhodes used courtesy of a Creative Commons license).

Will Saletan accuses pro-life leaders of hypocrisy, noting that if they really were pro-life, they would advocate killing the likes of abortion doctor George Tiller. Over at True/Slant, I argued that pro-life groups’ condemnation of Tiller’s murder is borne of prudence:

Surely they’re right to do so. For one thing, the pro-life position, far from being a philosophical slam dunk, requires explanation. You have to explain the facts of human biology, which admittedly is easier to do in the era of widespread and high-powered sonogram machines. And you have to explain a major philosophical distinction, that between the basic natural capacity that all humans, born and unborn, posses and that between the immediately exercisable capacity that all born humans except those who are asleep or in a coma possess. That’s not easy to do, especially in the visual age in which we live.

I think pro-lifers’ response to the killing of abortion provider George Tiller has been a bit too pat. Over at True/Slant, I argue that pro-lifers should examine one favored tactic of Operation Rescue:

Defending themselves against unwarranted attacks is entirely understandable and proper. But surely less defensiveness and more soul-searching on the part of pro-lifers is in order; this should be a time partly of repentance and forgiveness, not just of apologetics. While pro-lifers have defended the movement’s principles, actions, and principles, they have been silent about its tactics. Or rather one indefensible tactic of Operation Rescue, the movement’s action wing: demonizing (notorious) abortion providers.

Call it the emerging concensus among pro-lifers: Judge Sotomayor might not be so bad. Over at True/Slant, I made my case as to why.