Paul Johnson makes that same point in "Intellectuals," every time a creative or intellectual man prescribed changing marriage and gender roles he was always envisioning his own harem
-
-
-
Lord Bertrand Russell just wanted to trade in his old wife for a new model every 10-15 years of his very long life, like Trump does today. He never had a problem finding a new girlfriend, but he had to put up with a lot of resistance from the Church Ladies of America.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Any good reading material on how it became fashionable after 1929? Or is that just your conjecture
-
See historian Carl Degler’s "In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought:" tipping point into dogmatic blank slate extremism was the Stock Market Crash of October 1929.https://www.unz.com/isteve/u-of-chicagos-galton-and-boas-carvings/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The Sailerman and Mr X are right to point to the "contingent" factors involved here. But yes, I think there is something of a trade-off, if not zero sum: "the right's" electoral success over the last few decades has had much to do with "the left's" cultural and social triumphs.
-
Indeed, one way to think of the right in the politics of most modern countries is as the Generals. They're not meant to win, but you need them to have a game at at all, and when the only alternative is the Globetrotters (now that I think about it, this analogy works really well)
-
who are cool, but, well, more than a little bit crazy, many people will see no alternative but to vote for the Generals...
-
The right has a yet unexploited "cultural" advantage I think (not through "cultural institutions" ofc) in that the audience which can be unified around opposition to the new hegemony is probably much bigger than "social conservatives" during the clinton/bush years
-
But it doesnt seem "the right" has reallyfigured out a strategy, though trump may be a good example...
-
Right, Trump hit on a "strategy" (if not the Sailer Strategy!) by instinct, and he could because he's an instinctive person not bound by the restraints of right-wing establishment figures (who are more concerned about their social position than "winning").
-
And while it would be easier to run as a "left populist" who was to the left of the parties on economics but a little more reasonable on culture etc. (Sanders flirted with this at times but it would take someone made of sterner stuff), if only because it would take the media and
-
co. longer to work out what was happening, to "turn their guns" (which like the guns of Aqaba, all face one way!) to face the new enemy, I think you're right that today's establishment with its increasingly extreme doxa is a big, slow-moving target. It might be almost unopposed
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Because there's far less chance of having your bowtie knocked askance in electoral politics. Culture wars are messy and often involve personal risk.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Of course why else would you become a poet - they've known this as far back as John Donne: "Mark but this flea, and mark in this, How little that which thou deniest me is; It sucked me first, and now sucks thee, And in this flea our two bloods mingled be..."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This has an Eric Hoffer vibe to it minus the sex.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I cant believe complex behaviors are driven by hormones No sir, only an above average IQ adequately explains human actions
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.