The Trouble With Intellectual Women

Now don’t get me wrong, but intellectual women can be just a little annoying. and this comes from someone who likes smart women, and this goes beyond issues of feminism.

Now I have great admiration for my (staunchly non-feminist) mother, and consider her in a class of only three I’d deign to call “friend,” but at the same time, there’s a bit of a snob to her intellectually, I’d say.

It came out, once, at an extended family reunion, where there was a wife of one of our blood-relations around, her and her oversized lab-rottie mix.  SHe was  a lot of fun, I thought, in terms of sheer energy and enthusiasm, I thought, but I’ll never forget how she mentioned how she had almost certainly never gone to college like it was a class distinction.

Such never even crossed my mind, but to her it’s a very real denominator, dating from childhood, being raised by my hard-charging grandmother, a woman of great energy, but less thoughtfulness, let’s just say.

I always liked her, obnoxiousness and all, but out of all my immediate family relation, I was probably the only one that could see why Grandpa wed her.  Had I been raised by her may well not be so sanguine of her, as my mother was, but still.

I’ve always viewed people as interesting or uninteresting, without any real judgment involved in the process.  That way, I’ve never really gotten involved in looking down on people, but I’m afraid others do.

My mother’s judgmentalism comes out in my squealing nieces, too; as a tomboy, she just doesn’t have much in common with them, which is a shame; me I find ’em kind of cute.  Yes, one is really antsy, and can get way too worked up, but that hasn’t turned me away from happy little girls playing around.

Were I a schoolteacher like my mother, I might have less patience, too, but I actually like girls that act feminine, and she doesn’t.  And that, folks, speaks to a common trouble of intellectual dames–lack of feminine instinct.

Intellectuals lack instincts in general, but with women in general, it’s especially pronounced.  It tends to make them more judgmental towards their own kind, and I just don’t see the need.

Feminism came from college campuses, and I dare say it’s an ideology forged in large part from a deep-seated alienation with their less-scholarly females.  As I see it, if you have low instincts and don’t like folks who do have them, then it’s easy to judge, and I think that’s what has happened.

Humanity as a whole, though, is a lot more instinctive than intellectuals and feminists think it is, and and anytime there’s an ideology at odds with reality, there’s a-bruisin’ in the wings.

In the end, though, true smarts is not to read books and talk about them, but instead to be self-aware.  If constant research furthers that goal, then your efforts are not in vain, but if otherwise, beware lest you’ve become a nuisance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Top 20th Century Authors (According to Google)

You know, last year, I started noodling on Google, to see what Google’s search engine had to say about 20th century poets.  It’s not a very big crowd, and their collective import isn’t that impressive, but even so, I thought I’d take their measure, anyways.

Robert Frost: About 50,000,000 results.

Ah, Frost…widely purported to be the most popular of the century.  My uncle liked Frost, keeping a record of his works read by Frost, himself.  He’s not very post modern, though, which means he was none-too-influential with those who came after him.  Which brings us, though, to:

T. S. Eliot: About 24,600,000 results

T. S. is generally deemed the most influential poet of the century, yet for all that,  I’ve never really studied him, which I probably should.  He’s the one that first depicted our socio-cultural world as a wasteland, and it’s pretty much an accurate observation, if you ask me.  I don’t buy into despairing aznd world-weariness, though, hear he’s into some of that.

Eliot seem to stand at some sort of (dismal) highwater mark of poetic influence during the century’s interregnum period. Compared to recognition of Eliot, the bards that come up after him just seem to reflect the obscurity that poetry as an art form was becoming. The Google searches reflect this:

W. H. Auden: About 845,000 results

Ezra Pound: About 3,610,000 results.

Pound was an experimenter, which is fine, but was also hard to read, which predictably limited his reach to intellectual and academics (and certainly not folks like my uncle).  Serious poetry, dare I say, was becoming too serious, and the result was ossification.  In the fifties, though, the art form found one last opportunity make a large, cultural splash in the Beats:

Allen Ginsberg:  About 5,140,000 results

Jack Kerouac About 2,940,000 results

WIth with impassioned societal frustrations, the Beat not only managed to be heard, they imparted even a stylistic imapcty to the mainstream, but that was just it–poetry wasn’t mainstream, anymore–at least not like Eliot, a few decades previous. ANd, being no longer mainstream, they capitalized on it with applying the shock value of being foul-mouths, and the like.  Ginsberg’s  Howl typifies this.

So where are the “great” poets of today?  Banished to academia, where they belong..relatively speaking, of course.  Most of the poetic talent that would have competed the Blakes and Coleridges in another era have gone the way of :

Bob Dylan: About 84,000,000 results

He’s the successor to the Beats, as I see it, and given he preferred their kind of company to musicians, I think that confirms it.  The line of poets, which had run for generations, was dying out, to be replaced by floks like Like Dylan and Leonard Cohen who could straddle the divide between hardcore peotry and the lyricism necessary to at least survive, if not thrive within the current rock era.

Literary acclaim was increasingly coming through forms other than just poems, and Kerouac, though a Beat typifies this; in all fairness, he’s probably better known for being a novelist than for anything he wrote in verse.

WHich brought up an intriguing question, I thought:  If Google hits in any way reflect influence (and I think they do), how do popular and influential novelists of the 20th century stack up?  Hm….

E. M. Forster: About 1,900,000 results.

H. P. Lovecraft: About 3,450,000

L. Ron Hubbard: About 3,460,000 results.

Forster came up with the well-read Horatio Hornblower series which maintains a fan following, but ranks well-below all of the poets cited, save for Auden.  What does that say in terms of imapct…?

Hubbard and Lovecraft are both scifi-fantasy types who seem to have fared better.  Lovecraft’s stock  which was pretty obscure in his own time, has risen in cultish popularity, whereas Hubbard, who literally has his cult, and had pretty high recognition in his own day, barely eclipses him.

Power to you, Mr. Lovecraft, but moving on…

William Burroughs: About 7,760,000 results.

Guy who played around with narrative sequencing, opium, and psychedelics, all of which had an impact in his masterpiece, Naked Lunch. (Why he’d want to call it that is beyond me, but such is nary here nor there, is it?)  Rather remarkable, though, that he beat out:

Ayn Rand: About 6,600,000 results.

She seems extremely well-talked of, today, and her books keep dominating polls taken of the most influential books on readers. After having read, her, I can certainly see why, but as she eclipsed by Burroughs, who doesn’t seem to be, well, I truly wonder. It’s a puzzle, but this blog post is getting long–again, moving forward….

J. R. R. Tolkien: About 8,580,000 results.

Ah, Tolkien…in an era where “outstanding” writers were mostly praised for playing tricks with the story sequencing, or else flooring the jaw with gritty realism, or at least stories sharing contemporary “moral” lessons, Tolkien’s power stems from the premodern, demonstrating the appeal of sheer fantasy without having to be “current.”  No, his writing may not be as sophisticated as others on this list, but he took ownerhip of his work like none other.  I might wish he were higher on this list, but so be it–the works of the other writers upstream from him can’t light a candle to his box office–nya, nya.

George Orwell: About 12,500,000 results.

When we’re talking “moral” lessons, we’re talking Orwell, and, after having read 1984 and Animal Farm, well his besting Tolkien seems fair.  The 20th-century was either dis-illusioning, or illusion-shattering, bepending on your take, and none captured this better than Orwell.

Ernerst Hemingway: About 13,000,000 results.

Dunno much about him, but his writing’s supposed be very bleak.  And masculine.  CLearly he’s left his mark, but what’s so great about him, I cannot say.

Call me lazy.

F. Scott Fitzgerald: About 16,800,000 results.

Never read The Great Gatsby, but my siter did, and last year I saw the movie by DiCaprio, which impressed me.  From what she said it’s true to the tale, and what a tale.  Still, I would’ve thought Fitzgerald would go lower on this list, just  by how critics today talk about him, damning with faint praise.  The Orwells and Hemikngways are still lionized, and yet, measured by the searches….

C. S. Lewis: About 26,600,000 results.

My main man.  When I first read Mere Christianity, as a naive teen  coming of age, his words hit like a revelation.  Contemporary critics may find him retrograde, but as the only Christian thinker from times with any import, I like to think of him rising above Eliot’s wasteland (Lewis hated Eliot, by the way) liike a mighty stroghold.

Lewis is well known for more than his Chronicles of Narnia (whose allegorical weight irked me to no end), yet they are seen as his masterwork, and as it’s fiction, decided it fair to put him on the list.  As to the criticism that it’s only a children’s work, well, consider who we’re dealing with.

After having read some of his densest non-fiction like the Problem with Pain, it’s remarkable that he could write children’s fiction at all!  FOr its preaching, Chronicles is one one of the most influential children’s works in and out of Christian circles, and more I think of it, more of a walking dog it becomes. (Either that, or I just didn’t have the right appreciation for Aslan’s death.)

As I grew older, I’ve come to realize that in terms of sheer prose, Lewis can’t hold to Rand, or even far less, to:

Friedrich Nietzsche: About 3,330,000 results.

Thing is, while they may have burned both brighter and hotter, Lewis burned warmer, and whereas they burned out ,and are now remembered as much for the excesses of their fanatical followers as for their ideas.

Rand used her fiction to advocate “new” ideas, and Lewis, “old” ones, but who aged more gracefully?  Rand’s vision was riddled with hate, scorn, and ridicule whereas Lewis’s work’s were not.  Such shows in the long run, and I think the Google numbers bear this out.

Much as I wish, though, Lewis ain’t no. 1.  That, my friends, goes to:

James Joyce: About 81,200,000 results

James Joyce? I thought?  Why him?  His fame rests on just two main novels, and while he’s cited as an influential author, Google sure was giving far, far greater credence than anyone I knew.  He was just another author among great authors, but not much more.

After having read Ulysses, though, I can only compare him to:

William Shakespeare: About 35,900,000 results.

And Bob Dylan.  They all tossed around metaphors like hand grenades,  and while it’s not not exactly my style, it’s clearly an absorbing taste.

Dylan is the only one the trio I like, but they all have the power to stagger the mind with imagery, and such is not to be under-estimated.

So says Google.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Israel Matters: Location, Location, Location

Ever wonder why Israel matters so much?  For that matter, why does Egyptian Civilization?  It’s not the oldest, eclipsed by both the Sumerian and Indian ones, and yet Western Civilization, the heritage that transcends the globe, traces its origins to it.

The answer, I posit, is location, location, location.  It held good water routes to both the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean, as well as the land route twixt Africa and Eurasia.  Egypt’s power faded, but its memory didn’t.  It left a a big impression on the Greeks, who really got the ball rolling in in terms of The Western Way, and ironically, they did it head- quartered in Africa.

Yes, Africa; a truly dark continent, indeed, given that for all those thousands of years of dynamism of Eurasia, all those wandering ethnic groups fighting and influencing each other, leaving a rich historical legacy, Africa, by comparison, has little to report.  Yes, it had advanced cizilizations and cities, but they just came and went, not leaving much historical impact beyond their own existence.

You’d think that Eurasia would have influenced the subcontinent more than it has, or at least I do.  What happens in the Mediterranean does echo East, and the East echoes back (and vice versa), but it’s like the Savannah just swallows the noise.  For the longest time, if you were a Western power, and wanted to trade laterally, you’d simply do it through the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean, and Africa was irrelevant.

You’d still think Africa, along the Mediterranean’s rim, would eventually be drawn into the spiral of trade, but no.  You’d think Africa might become more relevant after trade to the Far East was blocked by a nearer Eastern one, but no.  That momentary blockage in the Eurasian feedback loop led to the discovery of the New World, expanding Wertern power and prestige beyond all recognition.  The Horn route was always a secondary affair to Egyptian trade lanes, and Africa proper didn’t even seem like much of a prize to Western empires until there wasn’t anything left of more value to fight over, really.

I don’t think anyone’s gonna stone me when I say that Africa’s the most backward place on the planet, and I would venture to say it could have used more colonization, and for a longer time, with South America as an example.  (Hey–Britain and America both started out as colonies, so please don’t lambaste when I evoke the long view of history.)  Instead of participating in the long, epic melee that Eurasia started, Africa sat it out, and look what happened, which as history in silence reports, was in comparison very little.

No, only Egypt, crossroads to all, is where Africa’s value to world history lies, and it wasn’t even of value to the native Africans, but rather to the Semitic traders of the Eurasian north who did, forming a kingdom.  I must say, though, that even so, Egypt’s impact feels much more mystical than as a trade linchpin.

Egyptologists (or pyramidiots, depending on how high you value them) keep talking about how Giza is the geographic center of the world, but while that may not be true, it’s  ground zero for something else, and that’s monotheism.  While Egypt was the regional power, the tiny state formed by some of their escaped slaves on the opposite side of the Sinai land bridge  managed to export something of their culture to the world from the same basic pressure point, as well.

It remains a sore spot to the present day, doesn’t it?  The world has changed a great deal, and flight among other things have much undermined the import of old sea lanes, but here we are, with the capitals of the world’s mightiest nations hundreds and thousands of miles away on other continents, and yet, despite all that, despite not being a resource haven, it still matters.

Ah, sweet mysteries of the ages.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Epic Tale of Dave Ross: A Politically Partisan Parable

Growing up in the 80’s my mother, conservative evangelical that she is, listened to a lot of J. Vernon McGee, and Focus on the Family.  In 1988, though, after her husband died, she moved, and then her preferences started changing.  Religiously faithful as ever, her tastes shifted.  She started listening to Take more interest in current events, sports, and politics.  That impulse turned the dial over to KIRO 710 AM (, which did news, commentary, and Mariner games.

It also had three main talk shows, hosted by Jim French, Dave Ross (, and Wayne Cody for sports.  Dave Ross, though, turned out to have huge resonance on my mom, and through her, on the whole household.  When I think of Dave Ross, I think of her, my teen years, and the political order.

In the run up to our hyper-politicized divide, here was a thoughtful, hyper-dedicated, middle-of-the-road moderate constantly harping on the national debt-threat.  Steering away from polarizing social issues, his focus was fiscal,  and to cap it, downright insightful.  He was also wonderfully eccentric, to, manifest in pop and musical song parodies.  Hey–to a family of anglophone tastes, when you come across a fan of Gilbert & Sullivan, what’s not to like?

Well, we always suspected he leaned Democrat, but that was, for some reason, okay.  Even as those on the right were discovering Rush Limbaugh & Company, we were finding something different.  Dave Ross was appealing to those seeking commonality, and not screeds, and to my devout, pro-life mum, that sounded pretty good.  She did a great job passing on her highest values to us kids, but at the same time, she taught us not to close our ears altogether to the dissenting opinion.  Remember Gandalf in the Mines of Moria, where he said to “bar the doors and wedge them,” save for one, lest they be shut in?  Well, that was my mother, taking that counsel to heart.

Political moderation in a age of political intemperance is hard to maintain, though, and in the mid-90’s he started saying he was broadcasting from “the Eastlake Avenue Crusaders for Common Sense.”  HIs doing so at the time puzzled me, but looking back, I now realize how much pressure he must have felt, standing his ground versus the shock jocks that were drowning out all other voices but their own. 

By decade’s end, I didn’t have time for Dave, but my mother continued to listen, as well as other family members.  In an era of jihad, Dave continued his crusade, and for that I could only wish more power to that. 

And then Dave ran for congress.  Literally.

He’d mentioned his political aspirations on air over the years, and when he did, the family impulse was to wish him well. True, our suspicions proved correct when he ran as a donkey, and we’d never vote for him out of sheer principle, but that was not to we weren’t emotionally sympathetic, just as we would to anty other friend of the family, which is what Dave in effect was.  Dave lost, though, and was back for work at KIRO the next day, which is where we wanted him, in any case.

Except that it wasn’t the same.

Instead of largely avoiding social issues, he started engaging them, and guess which way he leaned.  He he’d long been a budget hawk, but that ceased to be such a burning concern.  Instead of giving the elephants “a fair shake,” as my mother put it, “he just mocks them.”   It was hard for me to believe, but after years of avoidance, when I tuned back in, it was all too true.

Dave Ross runs a morning show on KIRO, now, and as such, he’s a bit more palatable.  On it, his leftish tilt’s a bit less apparent, and when elections aren’t upon us, such obnoxious things don’t as often surface.  Mom’s been listening a bit to him of late, if only more guardedly.  

Dear Dave’s still insightful, but his open hostility to our side lost him much of his ability to influence us.  Mom thinks that election taught him who his friends really were, and if we’re talking votes, he’s got a point, I must admit. 

While Dave may have helped contribute to our Great Divide, he just as much succumbed, and did so only after great effort not to.  As I said earlier, it’s not an era for moderation, and I daresay Dave fought against the undertow as hard as any mainline commentator could, and did so for over a decade; as such I feel more than a little sympathy.

Dave Ross believed in Common Sense, but very little in the last twenty years politically has vindicated that view, has there?  Folks like my CNN-preferring mother may want to believe in the existence of Dave Rosses, but the Dave Rosses seem to have a hard time believing in folks like my mother, ones who are willing to thoughtfully listen to to other than to same-caucus dittoheads.

Really, it’s a a two-way cycle of disillusionment.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Leftists Hate Social Sacrifice

The idea of self-control doesn’t appeal much to left-wingers, even to the point that its appeal to others seems a mystery.  In the novel Wicked, there exists in Oz a religious sect called Unionism, that’s a stand-in for Christian fundamentalism, and it is portrayed as a spent cultural force, all but washed-up, unable to hold a candle to the Pleasure Cult (read: hedonism), paganism, and Tick Tockism (faith in modern technology).

When Bill Cosby makes  makes speeches calling for greater self-criticism in the black community, leftists, for his troubles, mock him.  After Cosby’s famous Detroit speech some years back, Aaron Magruder, who has his own severe criticisms of black culture, proceeded to lampoon, instead of make common cause, which is a shame.

I think that’s because liberals prefer themes of personal empowerment, as opposed to group empowerment, and when they call for diversity, they see in it the fruits of individualism.  Self-control smacks of guilt, and is therefore ridiculous.

The right doesn’t see it that way, though.  Personal freedom has limits, and to attain order, sacrifices must be made, which tends to limit, well, the diversity on the group’s periphery.

When the right genuinely does take affirmative action in line with its concerns, though, the left doesn’t laugh, but trembles.  Think Elijah on Mount Carmel, preachers smashing whiskey during Prohibition, and Kristallnacht.

Fascism may be gone, but it casts a long shadow, and does so because, despite, or because of, the Nazis, the idea of society in motion remains potent.  Fascism to a greater or lesser extent, stays cool because of society’s nigh-overwhelming complexity.  Brown-shirt activists promise to fix that, and in the short term, at least, they succeed.

Liberals like forces of simplicity, too, but they’re more pastoral; Buddhism, unlike Christianity and Islam, never gained a militant political dimension, and thus it’s seen as a paragon of economy, but be you Hitler or Steve Jobs, the drive for coherence is anything but placid.

Ever gone on a cleaning binge, and come to regret having purged some of the items that crossed your path?  It may not be giant Buddhas like the Taliban, but it could just be a favorite shirt, or gift.  In broader, colloquial terms, righties want to go on intermittent cleaning binges, and lefties are hoarders.

Liberals don’t like to talk about social obligations, because that justifies sacrifice.  Thing is, I think sacrifice, for better or worse, is a lot cooler a concept than they give it credit for.  As studies have shown, those who can master the concept of delayed gratifiication in the long do better than those who can’t, but they still seek to hang out with such, and call them victims.

Me, I think there’s a price for such behavior.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

It’s Almost All Attitude

Well, I just finished reading the novel Wicked by Gregory Maguire, and while it was brilliant, it pretty much demonstrates the worst cultural and intellectual trends blowing, namely filth, feminism, and just the whole all-around-post-modern-attitude.

Wish I could find brilliant novels going in my desired direction, but so be it.  I started reading Wicked because I’ve heard there was a  general consensus amongst feminists endorsing Wicked, as opposed to other feminist icons, like, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I remember reading an article about Taylor Swift, mentioning that when once asked if she was a feminist, and she said,  “I don’t really think about things as guys versus girls.”  The author then asked basically, why shouldn’t she be given that feminism was about gender equality, and fairness in the workplace.

Newsflash, folks:  If feminism really is all about gender equality, and workplace fairness, then I guess that I, too, am a feminist (har har).  Thing is, feminism generally comes across with an attitude, a mindset that a a lot of women, no less, find distasteful.  Miss Swift may lambaste her exes to high Heaven, some feminists may even claim her as one of their own, but she doesn’t buy what they’re selling, and neither do I.

If there really is a general positive feminist consensus on Wicked, it just shows once again why feminism is widely seen as anti-man, and this is someone who can appreciate Buffy in part, and the Powerpuff Girls in particular.  Some men are jerks, and just as long as they aren’t set up as patriarchal punching bags, that’s fine; the underlying anger isn’t.

You know Buffy always struck me as a mite arrogant?  Then I read an article by Joss Whedon explaining that Buffy had a lot of anger, and suddenly things fell into place, because that’s where I drew the line in the stories.

I just don’t see the need for rage over issues concerning gender equality, but feminists feel it’s justified, and therein lies the social tension.  You hear that, feminists?  I distrust you because I distrust your attitude, infecting all society and culture with your grievances, obsessing over them, and demanding that I do too.  That feminist was bothered by Swift’s reply, but that feminist probably couldn’t see feminism from outside the movement, and therein lies the disconnect.  I can see the reason for wrath in other groups (always did like Malcom X), but not here.

I wouldn’t say that attitude is everything (I ain’t that shallow), but boy, does it matter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quarreling in Mud Puddles: The US Political Divide

Well, a lot of of people fear and lament about what’s happened to the culture, the political rifts, and where it’s going.  Well, I ain’t happy with all the changes to the culture, but I think I’ve a pretty good idea where we’re heading, and it’s a better place than where we are.  

What gives me optimism is looking at history, and observing what dynamics should be in play to affect change. I dare say, if you look at the past successes and the like, like this book here does, for instance, well, movement seems inevitable, socially, at least.

The left accuses the right as being reactionary, which it is.  And yet, for all the left’s emphasis on diversity, it’s left a good many feeling excluded, if the election results of the last twenty, thirty years are any indication.  The left does not appreciate this fact.

And why should they?  any political movement reacts first to its base than anything else, and it’s culturally energized, if nothing else. Ah, but its economic underpinnings have slipped, and this tells an interesting story, primarily explaining recent Republican successes.

The current Democratic coalition more or less dates back to the New Deal Era, when unions were a rising economic force, composed of poor white immigrants, yet waiting to be enfranchised politically.  Unions crested in the early sixties, and so did the coalition’s heyday, suffering twin beatings from both the Reagan Revolution, and the Gingrichian one in 1994.  

So what did it mean for the coalition?  It meant that key parts of their coalition felt more enfranchised, and thus were no longer voting like they used to.  As a result, to deal with the less radicalized electorate, leaders like Bill Clinton shifted tack accordingly.

But still, the key theme of the coalition is enfranchisement, and that leaves blacks, women, and Hispanics.  Still, I see that as capable of unraveling for them, too.  George Bush’s Latino success in 2004 shows that if the GOP can ever get past their Tea Party period sans destructing, they possess appeal towards them.

Add that’s where full enfranchisement occurs, I believe, with both parties competing for the same group, and not just writing it off.  Not all parts of the Republican Party are anti-immigrant, and where they aren’t, they’ve had a pretty fair amount of success.  

The monolithic black bloc’s 90% solidity has to crumble at some point for the same reasons I’ve cited; it’s just not natural, and under the surface, things have changed a lot since 1964.  Back then, their middle class was around 20%, but now, it’s more than double.  Even liberal pollsters expect hear from them at some point, and think Bill Cosby’s Detroit speech is a harbinger, as was their lack of anger over Trayvon Martin, if you look at the polls.

That group of black ministers who were angered over Barack Obama’s shifting stance on homosexuality, is yet another.  The Hispanics Bush attracted in 2004, you know, weren’t Catholic, but rather evangelicals.  Were an Exodus of black middle class voters from the Democrats to occur, I would hazard a guess that it would begin with them as well.

That leaves the female bloc, or, should I place more accurate, the feminist one.  Out of the the whole population of women, only a hard core of ten, fifteen percent votes determinedly Democratic, yet possesses undue cultural influence.  Unlike blacks and Hispanics, whose blocs are far bigger, proportionally, I can’t see how this one will dissipate.  

Feminism came from the middle class, so in that way, they’re already enfranchised, but between abortion and the trouble these career women have raising a family while working, I just can’t see this bloc going away, even if pay equality were achieved.  Shrinking, yes, but not beyond that.

Still, I think the evidence is clear that political shifts occur when the bases shift, and that usually occurs after economic shifts, though the exact triggers can be cultural, or whatever.  Overall, I think the social center of gravity is shifting in the conservatives’ favor, and here’s why.  

Liberals may groan about conservatives wanting to turn back the clock, but that’s not practical, and through the force of liberal culture, conservatives themselves are far more liberal than even a generation before.  Still, conservatives feel disenfranchised, and as a result, they elect folks that represent them, namely angry and suspicious.  

Liberals themselves have gotten more conservative fiscally, following Reagan and Gingrich, but they’ll never come to terms with their obsessive focus on race and the like until their bases starts to desert them, though.  Instead, they’ll just keep on saying nothing’s changed, until the day everyone wakes up, and realizes it has.  

Politics is dirty, and so is our culture, but you know why conservatism will prevail?  Lower center of gravity!

Well, that, and a moreenergized political base.  It’ll show in the long.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment