values

There was a discussion going on at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen concerning Daniel McCarthy's article on Red Toryism.  This was written as a critique of an earlier article by Phillip Blond.

I like McCarthy's article-- a lot.  But the last few paragraphs seem kind of weak to me.  There's a disconnect of sorts.

A commenter there summed it up well:

Red Toryism... needs to have some kind of shared, conceptual, morally authoritative sphere to operate within. In a pluralistic society, “Society” by definition probably can’t do it. And the marketplace certainly can’t. What’s left? Government, of course, and yet with a government committed to liberal neutrality and proceduralism, it would seem that’s out of the question as well.

This summed up my reservations rather well.

But I take issue with the notion that we are without such a shared conceptual moral authority.  In fact, that's what makes us who we are.  It's one of the most prominent parts of our culture.

These institutions are our own, uniquely American, and were instituted as such for a specific reason.  I invite you to examine this for yourselves to see what answers you come up with:

On what basis do we observe a uniquely American pluralistic society?

On what basis is our uniquely American marketplace governed?

On what basis do we observe this uniquely American liberal neutrality and proceduralism?

There lies the principles and the moral authority. 

To expand on my comments from elsewhere:

I was wondering about the application to law myself.

If the law is a thing which is an end in itself, then the only manner in which the law might ever be improved in any way is in its greater observance and wider application.

If the law has an aim which is its true goal, then it might be improved in any manner in which that true goal may be more fully attained.

That is, is the law perfectly aimless, yes or no?

In my experience, while everyone would say, 'No,' when questioned in regard to the law as an abstract, the proper answer in specific cases, for all the world, appears to be 'Yes.'

To return to our present discussion:

Is our pluralistic society a thing which has an aim which is its true goal, or is it an end in itself?  If it is to be improved in any way, then in what manner?

Is our marketplace a thing which has an aim which is its true goal, or is it an end in itself?  If it is to be improved in any way, then in what manner?

Are our liberal neutrality and proceduralism things which have an aim which are their true goals, or are they ends in themselves?  If they are to be improved in any way, then in what manner?

Go ahead.  Answer the questions.  I'll wait right here.

(tapping of foot)

Back already?  There now.

We now have two sets of answers: the 'on what basis this uniquely American' set of answers, and the 'end in itself, improvement, yes or no' set.

Now, compare the two, and see if they move in a straight line.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

(&btw, I can condense my answers into two words.)

 UPDATE:

I just want to say that this is no trick question, and I'm not looking to be combative or persuade anyone to my own line of thought.  This is just an opportunity to reflect on your own principles and ideals-- what is it that makes America tick, ideally?

So, go ahead and have your say.

As a mid-twenties single white male, I represent the target demographic for Sacha Baron Cohen’s new movie “Bruno.” The mockumentary about an Austrian fashion designer was promoted as a follow up to the irreverent character chicanery in Cohen’s hit film “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” However, after viewing the film and conferring with other theatre goers I want my money back.

The film follows “Bruno,” an Austrian Fashion designer on a quest for fame and acceptance in the United States. Interspersed with a grab bag of licentious smut, Cohen uses footage of mainstream celebrities who have been tricked into granting “Bruno” what they think are authentic interviews. Other Americana, such as a Fred Phelps anti-gay protest and a lewd craigslist swinger’s party are portrayed with mirthful indifference.

Mocking stereotypes may have its place in the arts, but “Bruno” is unredeemed proof that anything goes for entertainment if it can put a viewer on the edge of their seat. Yet it may not be anticipation of the next scene that has viewers on the edge of their seats in this case; many are getting ready to walk out of the theatre.

Bruno opened on a Friday night with strong box office returns, yet ticket sales quickly fell 39% on Saturday—a sign that viewers immediately warned their friends against the hype. Scrambling in the UK, “Bruno” producers have re-released a censored version of the film this week in hopes that underage viewers will not be turned away.

Though it appears Universal Picture’s profits are secure, the movie is not the blockbuster that opening night indicated. After one full week in theatres, ticket sales are down 73%. I have to hope and wonder: has my generation turned the corner and started to reject entertainment that flaunts our sense of tolerance by shredding public decency? The box office results of Sacha Baron Cohen’s flick “Bruno” would indicate yes.

The critics aren’t helping either. Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly writes that, “the movie is a toxic dart aimed at the spangly new heart of American hypocrisy: our fake-tolerant, fake-charitable, fake-liberated-yet-still madly-closeted fame culture.” Yet if Bruno is a toxic dart, then it is poisoned with the same base hypocrisy that Cohen pitches as humorous.

If Sacha Baron Cohen’s film contains a lesson about our culture, it is that humor has been exchanged for disgust, beauty for titillation, and decency for blind tolerance. There is almost nothing left for an irreverent comedian like Cohen to criticize.

Can a tolerant generation survive if it does not censor itself? It will be up to us twenty-something’s in the target demographic to answer this question. Many of our politicians practice democratic morality when they argue about same-sex marriage, abortion, dope, war, peace and taxes, while our pop-culture applauds anything with shock value. But I am afraid that this paradigm cannot last; we are trying to stitch the fabric of a tolerant society together with the cord of a lit fuse.

After all 88 excruciating minutes of Mr. Cohen’s film have passed, the viewer should learn at least one thing from the character “Bruno:” don’t just aspire to be rich and famous, ask for your money back once in a while.

They say “know your audience.” But that can be tough without a guide. Understanding the lenses through which your audience is likely to see the world can help. (Call this meta-messaging. In other words, it's critical to ask yourself relevant questions about your audience in relation your goals and tactics prior to messaging.)

Allow me to steal shamelessly from Aaron Wildavsky, who identified primary value types or ‘biases’. These political predispositions can help you tailor your messages to some degree. They are: hierarchicalist, egalitarian, individualist and fatalist.

 Beyond some friends who know Louisiana politics intimately, a year ago not many people I came across knew much about the man from Baton Rouge.  Today his name seems to be on the tongue of every young conservative I meet.  It's been a fascinating phenomenon to watch unfold.

He represents a new breed of conservative.  A new commitment to the values we envision when we hope for America's future, and the personal qualities to reassure a weary public about the ability to deliver.

Jindall represents the beating heart of a movement quieted by 2 decades of being buried in its own success.  The need for reform, a hunger for free markets across the spectrum of american society, the desire to shine a light on the inner workings of government, to rebuild in the image of transparent self-government a system that so many feel has abandoned them.

Many will jump to the conclusion that I am shilling for Jindall as a VP pick for Sen. McCain.  I am not.  While I certainly consider Gov. Jindall capable and qualified, I do not pretend to know what Sen. McCain needs in a running mate, but I have every confidence that he does.  I know that the person he picks will represent our party well, and will fight diligently beside the Senator to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

I write about Gov. Jindall because many within the party and pundits from all corners talk about us being lost, about "the fall of conservatism".  If conservatism has faltered it is only because at our core we are a movement of change, and we have become entrenched.  We are guarding the castle, not storming it.  Over the past decade we have not been as introspective as we should have, we have not been as active in creating new solutions as we were in the early '90s.  Today, we have a unique opportunity to renew that search within ourselves, and recommit to the perpetual challenge of making America better, stronger, freer and more prosperous.  It is an opportunity we should not neglect.

When I look for conservatives moving down that path, seizing this opportunity I see Bobby Jindall.  And every day I find more people my age who seem to be looking that direction.