The number one single today in 1961 was made more popular by Elvis Presley, not its creator:
Also today in 1961, the Marvelettes released what would become their first number one song:
Today in 1964, the Beatles met Bob Dylan after a concert in Forest Hills, N.Y. Dylan reportedly introduced the Beatles to marijuana:
Kyle Peterson is watching the Republican National Convention so you don’t have to, and he noticed …
Some of the strongest rhetoric at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday didn’t come from famous politicians or even Melania Trump. It came from regular people like Ryan Holets, an Albuquerque, N.M., police officer. Three years ago, he was called to duty at a gas station and found a pregnant woman preparing to shoot heroin.
The homeless addict, Crystal, “confided that she loved her unborn baby” and wanted to find an adoptive family, as Mr. Holets recounted in a video broadcast in prime time. “God showed me exactly what I had to do: Without hesitation, I told her that my family would welcome her baby.” That girl, Hope, is now 2 years old. Mr. Holets is “enormously grateful to the president for his leadership” in fighting the opioid crisis, he said. “Drug overdose deaths decreased in 2018 for the first time in 30 years.”
Jason Joyce, a lobster fisherman from Maine’s Second Congressional District (whose one Electoral College vote went to President Trump in 2016, the first time ever that the state’s electors split), praised Mr. Trump for brokering “a deal to end European Union tariffs of 8% on Maine live lobsters and up to 20% on Maine lobster products.” If Joe Biden is elected, Mr. Joyce said, “he’ll be controlled by the environmental extremists.”
Three featured Americans hailed from Wisconsin (10 electors, which Mr. Trump won by 22,748 votes). John Peterson, from Wausau, said that his metal-fabrication company “scratched” and “clawed” to hang on through the Obama-Biden years, but it’s thriving under President Trump. “When I hear that Joe Biden is ready to raise taxes, crush us with regulations and weaken our international trade position, I shudder,” Mr. Peterson said. “We simply cannot endure a Biden-induced recession.”
Sarah Hughes said that her 8-year-old son Jack “would have slipped through the cracks in public schools.” The family applied for a voucher through Wisconsin’s school-choice program. “Having the option to go to a school that fits him,” Ms. Hughes said, “has been a real game-changer for us.”
Move next door to Minnesota (10 electors, which Mr. Trump lost in 2016 by a mere 44,765 votes). The state’s Iron Range, with its taconite ore mines, is historically Democratic. When Republicans took the Eighth District congressional seat in 2018, it was only the second GOP victory there in 70 years. “I am a lifelong Democrat,” said Robert Vlaisavljevich, the mayor of Eveleth, population 3,500. But under President Trump, the region “is roaring back to life.” The risk, Mr. Vlaisavljevich said, is the new Democratic agenda: “Their so-called Green New Deal is a job-killing disgrace, dreamt up by people who don’t live in the real world.”
Fact-checkers can perhaps punch some holes in the political details of these stories. China is a huge market for lobster, but thanks to Mr. Trump’s trade escalations, U.S. exports have been tagged with a 30% retaliatory tariff. This has given Maine’s competitors in Canada a serious advantage. Steel tariffs might aid Minnesota’s Iron Range, but they’re a tax on millions of other Americans who buy or use the metal.
That said, as a matter of persuasion, it was a Wisconsinite, a Minnesotan and a Mainer making the case to fellow potential swing voters that Mr. Trump is the better choice. At the Democratic convention last week, they had John Legend, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Billie Eilish. Republicans don’t have that, but they do have a cop, a metalworker and a small-town mayor. Which sounds more likely to convince the Rust Belt?
I’m skeptical of “common-good capitalism” in the same way I’m suspicious about “nationalist conservatism” and “reform conservatism” (and it should go without saying that I didn’t like the “kinder-and-gentler conservatism” and “compassionate conservatism” we got from the Bushes).
Here’s what I prefer.
Whether you call it libertarianism or small-government conservatism, this is the approach I wish Republicans would follow (or Democrats, if the spirit of Grover Cleveland still exists in that party).
But there are many self-styled conservatives who disagree. They think Reagan and his successful policies are passé.
Interestingly, the desire to move beyond Reaganism comes from pro-Trump and anti-Trump outlets.
David Brooks, a never-Trumper with a column in the New York Times, thinks Reagan’s anti-government approach is misguided.
If you came of age with conservative values and around Republican politics in the 1980s and 1990s, you lived within a certain Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher paradigm. It was about limiting government, spreading democracy abroad, building dynamic free markets at home and cultivating people with vigorous virtues… For decades conservatives were happy to live in that paradigm. But as years went by many came to see its limits. It was so comprehensively anti-government that it had no way to use government to solve common problems. …Only a return to the robust American nationalism of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Theodore Roosevelt would do: ambitious national projects, infrastructure, federal programs to increase social mobility. The closest National Greatness Conservatism came to influencing the party was John McCain’s 2000 presidential bid. He was defeated by a man, George W. Bush, who made his own leap, to Compassionate Conservatism. …The Reformicons tried to use government to build strong families and neighborhoods. …Most actual Republican politicians rejected all of this. They stuck, mostly through dumb inertia, to an anti-government zombie Reaganism long after Reagan was dead and even though the nation’s problems were utterly different from what they were when he was alive. …there is a posse of policy wonks and commentators supporting a new Working-Class Republicanism… But if there is one thing I’ve learned over the decades, it is never to underestimate the staying power of the dead Reagan paradigm.
Maybe I’m just an “anti-government zombie,” but my response is to ask why Brooks thinks the federal government should be in charge of state and local infrastructure.
Even more important, it would be nice if he could identify a government program that successfully promotes social mobility. There are several hundred of them, so the fact that he doesn’t offer any examples is quite revealing.
By contrast, the Reagan approach of of free markets and limited government works anywhere and everywhere it is tried. And he was right that big government is bad government.
But at least Brooks’ column reminds me to add “national greatness conservatism” to my list of failed philosophical fads.
Now let’s shift to an article from the Trump-friendly American Conservative. Rod Dreher also argues that Reaganism is no longer relevant.
Reagan nostalgia has long been a bane of contemporary conservatism, because it prevented conservatives from recognizing how much the world has changed since the 1980s and how conservatism needed to change with it to remain relevant. …by the time Trump came down that escalator, Reagan conservatism was about as relevant to the real world as FDR’s New Deal liberalism was in 1980. It is no insult to Reagan to say so. Until Trump arrived on the scene, it was difficult for right-wing dissenters from orthodox Reaganism—critics of free trade, immigration skeptics, antiwar conservatives, and others—to break free of the margins to which establishment conservatives had exiled them. …It is impossible to see the clear outlines of a post-Trump future for the Republicans, but…Reaganism—the ideology of globalized free markets, social and religious conservatism, and American military and diplomatic domination—is never coming back.
Sadly, I don’t think Dreher is correct about “New Deal liberalism” being irrelevant.
How else, after all, would someone categorize Obama’s policies? Or Biden’s platform? It’s “We shall tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect,” just as FDR advisor Harry Hopkins stated.
And Reagan’s policies are definitely still relevant, at least if the goal is to improve the well-being of the American people.
Yes, Dreher is right that “the world has changed since the 1980s,” but that doesn’t mean that good policy in 1980 is no longer good policy in 2020.
I think the problem may be that people think Reaganomics is nothing more than lower tax rates, perhaps combined with a bit of inflation fighting. And it’s definitely true that Reagan’s tax rate reductions and his restoration of sound money were wonderful achievements.*
But the Reagan economic agenda was also about spending restraint, deregulation, trade liberalization (he got the ball rolling on NAFTA and the WTO), and other pro-market reforms.
To be sure, Reagan’s policy record wasn’t perfect. But the policies he preferred were the right ones to restore American prosperity in the 1980s.
And while there are different problems today (the need for entitlement reform, for instance), the Reaganite approach of smaller government is still the only good answer.
*Let’s also remember to applaud Reagan for the policies that resulted in the unraveling of the Soviet Empire.
P.S. As explained in the Fourth Theorem of Government, pro-growth, Reagan-style policy can be smart politics.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) demonized Republicans during an MSNBC interview on Monday afternoon, calling them “enemies of the state” and “domestic enemies.” Pelosi’s comments come as violent riots from left-wing activists have plagued cities across the U.S. in recent months.
“We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Pelosi said. “And sadly the domestic enemies to our voting system and our, honoring our Constitution are right [at] 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States.”
“But again, let’s just get out there, mobilize, organize, and not let the president deter anybody from voting and again, support the postal system which is election central,” she continued. “They’re doing everything they can, suppress the vote, with your actions, scare people, intimidate by saying law enforcement will be there, diminish the role of the postal system in all of this.
“It’s really actually shameful,” she added. “Enemies of the state.”
Pelosi’s comment come as far-left rioters have marched through suburban neighborhoods with guillotines, burning American flags, intimidating people at restaurants, shining lights into people’s homes, attacking police officers, attacking people, and making allegedly threatening remarks to people.
Rep. Steve Scalise responded: “Disgusting: Nancy Pelosi just called Republicans ‘domestic enemies.’ I was shot because of this kind of unhinged rhetoric. Where’s the media outrage?”
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) responded to Scalise’s tweet, writing: “Now THIS puts lives in danger. Believe me, I know firsthand. And, @SteveScalise knows better than anyone.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted out the incident, writing: “In 2016, they called you ‘Deplorables.’ Now, Nancy Pelosi calls all Republicans ‘domestic enemies.’ Never forget —> They despise you. And the worst part is they don’t even try to hide it.”
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) responded by saying, “Her words are beneath the office of Speaker and she should resign immediately.” …
One political commentator weighed in on Pelosi’s remarks by saying, “If you met this person in a Walmart you’d grab your kid’s hand and quickly walk down another aisle.”
Had Donald Trump said what Pelosi said (I think he hasn’t, but with Trump you never know), Pelosi would have started another round of impeachment.
Pelosi’s comment brings to mind a quote from Patrick Henry: “Caesar had his Brutus — Charles the First, his Cromwell — and George the Third … may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”
If Pelosi is the state, the state is the enemy of the people.
We begin with an interesting anniversary: Today in 1965, the Beatles used the final day of their five-day break from their U.S. tour to attend a recording session for the Byrds and to meet Elvis Presley at Presley’s Beverly Hills home.
The group reportedly found Presley “unmagnetic,” about which John Lennon reportedly said, “Where’s Elvis? It was like meeting Engelbert Humperdinck.”
A Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty news release:
LAWSUIT FILED IN POLK COUNTY CHALLENGES GOVERNOR EVERS’S POWER GRAB
The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), on behalf of three Wisconsin residents and taxpayers, filed a lawsuit in Polk County Circuit Court against Governor Tony Evers for violating state law by declaring a second public health emergency on July 30. State law forbids a governor from unilaterally extending a public health emergency beyond 60 days or skirting the law by declaring multiple 60-day emergencies for the same crisis.
The Quote: WILL President and General Counsel Rick Esenberg said, “This lawsuit is not about whether masks are good or bad, or whether Wisconsin ought to do more, or less, to address COVID-19. It isn’t even about whether the state should have a mask mandate. This lawsuit is about our system of government and the rule of law. Governor Evers cannot seize these time-limited emergency powers more than once without legislative approval.”
The Lawsuit: On May 12, 2020, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’s 60-day public health emergency, declared in relation to the sudden arrival of COVID-19, ended. The legislature had the option to extend the emergency and the expanded executive powers that accompany a state of emergency but declined to take any action.
The end of the emergency heralded the return of our regular constitutional order. The legislature has the responsibility of crafting and passing legislation and the executive branch has the option to sign or veto legislation. Any further statewide responses to COVID-19 ought to have proceeded through this regular process.
But Governor Evers declared a second public health emergency, Executive Order #82, on July 30, seizing emergency powers for a second 60-day period to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Accompanying the new emergency declaration is a mask mandate applying to all 72 counties.
WILL’s lawsuit is very simple. Governor Evers cannot seize emergency powers more than once to address the same crisis. To interpret the law otherwise, would allow one-person rule by the Governor for what could be a virtually unlimited amount of time whenever the vague statutory definition of a “public health emergency” or “disaster” can be said to be present. The result would be the total breakdown of our constitutional order.
There’s an awful lot these days that can rightly be called “unprecedented.” Whether it’s the pandemic itself, the government lockdowns, or the massive bailout programs, it seems like everything we’re contending with is unexplored territory.
The hardest part about having no precedent is that it complicates the decision-making process. Normally, precedent acts as a guide that helps us determine our approach, and it plays a vital role in simplifying the decisions we face. In these times, however, the absence of precedent has made us desperate for simplicity, and in our desperation, I believe we have subconsciously succumbed to our natural predilection for mental shortcuts, also known as cognitive biases.
The study of cognitive biases is fascinating, but also unsettling. Increasingly, researchers are realizing that our biases cause significant errors in judgment, often more than we realize. In light of this, I think it’s worth taking some time to reflect on how our biases have influenced our response to this pandemic. To this end, let’s start by thinking back to when this whole fiasco began.
Before the Lockdowns
Back in mid-March, a number of biases played a role in shaping our initial response. One of the most significant biases in this regard was the availability heuristic. First described by Kahneman and Tversky in 1973, the availability heuristic is the tendency to misjudge the importance, frequency, or likelihood of events by giving excessive weight to events that are easier to recall (such as events that are more recent). This concept is closely related to salience bias, which is the tendency to focus on things that are more prominent or vivid and ignore things that are inconspicuous.
When considering the events leading up to the lockdowns, it’s not hard to see how these biases were at play. The imminent danger of a global pandemic dominated the media discourse in a matter of days, so it makes sense that we gave it a lot of attention.
But while COVID-19 infections and deaths were widely publicized and therefore widely salient, the negative impacts of the impending lockdowns went largely unnoticed. In fact, the disregard for these impacts eventually got so perilous that a group of over 600 physicians sent a letter to President Trump warning about “the exponentially growing negative health consequences of the national shutdown,” and pointing out that “the downstream health effects…are being massively underestimated and under-reported”.
The unintended consequences of the lockdowns have proven to be a sobering reminder of what can happen when we fail to look beyond the immediate intentions of narrow-minded policies. Indeed, this shortsightedness is the very thing Hazlitt warned us about in his book, Economics In One Lesson. But even though our blindness to these secondary effects is natural and understandable, it is by no means inevitable. We are perfectly capable of seeing the unseen so long as we remember to look.
Another consequence of the media’s preoccupation with COVID-19 is that we quickly became familiar with a host of ominous projections. This familiarity likely produced an illusory truth effect, which is the tendency to believe information to be true as a result of repeated exposure, even if it turns out to be false. On top of that, many people developed exaggerated expectations (arguably another bias) and displayed a great deal of overconfidence and hubris.
Finally, as more and more people bought into the alarmist narrative, there was an ever-increasing amount of availability, salience, repetition, and overconfidence. The ensuing positive feedback loop was inexorable, as was the corresponding bandwagon effect.
During the Lockdowns
A few weeks after the lockdowns were imposed it became apparent that the curve had been flattened and the extreme risk had subsided. But as weeks turned into months, the bureaucrats were incredibly reluctant to lift the lockdowns, and when they finally did it was a slow and gradual process. But why was that? Well, the official answer is that they were concerned for our health (unintended consequences be damned), but I think there’s another factor involved called status quo bias.
Status quo bias is our inclination to prefer the current state of affairs and avoid change. To be sure, it didn’t stop the politicians from imposing the lockdowns in the first place, largely because other factors took precedence. But once the lockdowns were imposed, they became the new status quo, the “new normal,” and this meant that there was now a psychological resistance to removing them.
Many explanations for status quo bias have been proposed, and it’s likely that they each contribute to varying degrees. Some of the more common explanations are loss aversion, omission bias, and the sunk-cost fallacy. Let’s briefly explore these in turn.
Loss aversion is the idea that we generally prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains. What this means practically is that we often reject a change on account of its potential drawbacks, even if they are outweighed by its potential benefits.
Another explanation is omission bias, which is our proclivity to favor acts of omission over acts of commission. In the trolley problem, for instance, people feel more justified in allowing harm to happen than in actively causing harm. This preference for inaction seems to reflect an underlying moral sentiment, but it may also involve a fear of regret, since we might expect to regret our actions more than our inactions.
Lastly, the sunk-cost fallacy is the tendency to justify the status quo on account of past investments, even when it has become apparent that the investments were misguided and the approach should be revised. Under this framework, our resistance to change stems from our unwillingness to admit we were wrong. The temptation is that as long as we don’t change course, we don’t have to acknowledge that we made a mistake.
Even after we manage to deviate from the status quo, we are still reluctant to change too quickly. This hesitancy is likely a manifestation of conservatism bias, which is the tendency to insufficiently revise our beliefs when presented with new evidence. Although it’s impossible to ascertain the full extent of its influence, conservatism bias offers a compelling explanation for why the restrictions were eased so slowly even after the curve had been flattened. “The lockdowns are already in place,” we told ourselves. “Why not just a little longer, just to be safe?”
The common element in all of these concepts is fear. Fear of loss, fear of regret, and hence, fear of change. And it makes sense, because our natural reaction to fear is paralysis. It feels safer to stay the course than to begin moving in a different direction.
But the politicians aren’t just worried about loss and regret. They’re also worried about optics. And though they wouldn’t like to admit it, their concern for their reputation has probably played a considerable role in their decisions.
Just imagine how it would look if the lockdowns were lifted any faster. First, it would be an implicit admission that the initial lockdowns had been misguided and probably weren’t necessary in the first place. Second, they would run the risk of getting blamed for a rise in infections. But as long as they kept the strict lockdowns in place then they could blame any outbreaks on us because they were “doing everything they could”.
In short, it was much better optics for them to extend the lockdowns “for your safety” than to admit that they were wrong and that they overreacted. And if a few million people had to lose their jobs so the politicians could save face, so be it.
After the Lockdowns
Now that the lockdowns are being lifted and life is slowly returning to normal, another slew of biases is taking hold. The most obvious example here is hindsight bias, which is the tendency to perceive historical events as being more predictable than they actually were. In the same way that many people displayed overconfidence before the lockdowns, many people are now patting themselves on the back, confident that they “knew it all along”.
This ties in closely with confirmation bias, which is our proclivity to search for, interpret, favor, and recall evidence in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. As Sherlock Holmes puts it, we “twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.” A great example of this has been our propensity to interpret declining infection rates as a confirmation that the lockdowns “worked”, when in fact this is a textbook example of the post hoc fallacy.
The apparent success of the lockdowns has also led many people to conclude that the initial decisions were necessary and justified. But this conclusion is merely an example of outcome bias, whereby we judge the quality of the decision based on the quality of the outcome. In reality, the presence of a positive outcome doesn’t necessarily prove that the initial decisions were justified. And besides, if we consider the unintended consequences, there’s a decent chance that the lockdowns did more harm than good anyway.
The Most Dangerous Bias
Though all of the biases mentioned so far are important, there’s one that concerns me the most, and it’s called authority bias. Authority bias is the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure and be more influenced by that opinion. It was most notably established by the infamous Milgram experiment in 1961, which demonstrated people’s surprising propensity to trust and obey authority figures even to the point of violating their own conscience.
The pervasive influence of authority bias throughout the pandemic has been particularly disconcerting. From the very beginning, people have blindly trusted “the experts” even as they shut down our businesses, undermined our response efforts, and trampled our civil liberties.
And quite frankly, that scares me.
Whatever happened to having a healthy distrust of authority? When did we lose our skepticism and suspicion? Have we forgotten that they too are mere mortals? Have we forgotten how to think for ourselves and how to take responsibility for our own lives?
Perhaps. Or perhaps we have simply forgotten to be mindful of our biases. Perhaps we were unwittingly drawn to the easy answers, the herd mentality, the status quo, and the confirming evidence. If that’s the case, then I think there is still hope. But if we’re going to overcome our biases, we need to begin by learning to identify them.
And then we need to lead by example. We need to be honest about our own susceptibility to error. We need to model a healthy suspicion of our own predispositions. We need to take responsibility for our own blindness and be open to correction. And perhaps, in this way, we can show the world what true rationality looks like.
The American Mind writes about …
Events in Kenosha, Wisconsin this week highlight the importance of our note Friday to the GOP convention: “Call out the Left and the Democratic Party for what they’ve inspired by falsely sanctifying the riots: a revolutionary insurrection against the American Way of Life. Show the American people specific examples.”
Another tragic but incomplete video—this time of police shooting an uncooperative criminal with a warrant out for his arrest after he lunged into his car—is being shamelessly used by the Left to inflame the populace.
Another cowardly Democratic Governor has immediately thrown law enforcement under the bus even as he admits in the same breath that “we do not have all the details yet.”
While we do not have all of the details yet, what we know for certain is that he is not the first Black man or person to have been shot or injured or mercilessly killed at the hands of individuals in law enforcement in our state or our country.
— Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) August 24, 2020
And, predictably, the outrageous irresponsibility of the Democratic party in partnership with domestic terrorist activists is leading directly to more violence, looting, and arson in yet another American city.
BLM arson attacks overnight in Kenosha, Wisc. spread to the Bradford Community Church, a far-left universalist religious organization. The church’s sign in support of #BlackLivesMatter was consumed in flames. pic.twitter.com/u02CIwsnIm
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 24, 2020
Sunday night, activists tried to burn down a courthouse. Bricks and more were thrown at officers and their vehicles. A car dealership was looted, vandalized, and set ablaze. And that was just the beginning, although most Americans did not hear about it from the mainstream press on Monday.
This shameful dynamic is now more than “normalized”—it is a central part of the Democratic Party’s campaign strategy. It must be rigorously exposed and denounced by Republicans and all Americans of good will.
Thank you to the people of Kenosha. This is how we get them to bend the knee. This is an essential part of the path to our Freedom Dreams. Leftists who claim this limits our ability to win lack a meaningful understanding of movement history and the politics of insurrections. https://t.co/wc9pop2zSx
— Iola Ella (@IolaElla) August 24, 2020
Republicans are not without responsibility for this regime crisis. Those who now hold onto power in America are plunging our country into economic depression, rabidly encouraging racial tension and violence, radically revising and lying about our nation’s history and heroes, and seeking to banish all public opposition in order to remain in power. They will succeed unless they are called to account and stopped.
The Democratic Party is now the BLM-Antifa Party, and both of these organizations need to be exposed and investigated. Why have more Republican leaders not pointed out that convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg is on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of BLM, for instance? Google her and the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College, and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association. And she’s the tip of the iceberg. She’s a feature, not a bug, of what needs exposing now.
Fancy foundations that support domestic terrorism at the hands of insane Marxists and dangerous anarchists need to be targeted, the individuals and organizations involved exposed and justly defamed. Forget defending yourselves against pathetic corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center attacks. The Right needs to create its own SPLC to highlight the real and significant sources of civic unrest and violence in America.
Our failure to educate our nation’s youth—and the Left’s success in propagandizing Americans into radicalism bent on the destruction of their own nation—has had clear and direct consequences. We are merely getting what we paid for. And we need to stop paying for it, ASAP.
Our need for digitally savvy new media companies that employ citizen journalists to reveal what is actually occurring in America grows more obvious by the day. The reality on the ground will continue to be downplayed or evaded by mainstream media outlets, but as each day goes by it is our hope that more Americans will see and reject these trends. Yet the Right still waffles on taking the stern steps needed to ensure its enemies do not politically manipulate that digital technology.
A few tens of thousands of the three hundred and thirty million Americans in this nation were able to witness the events as they unfolded in Kenosha Sunday night on live online feeds. They were treated to a disturbing but riveting view of what is now routinely occurring on our nation’s streets. But we still see many Americans in denial about this violence, as well as the great exodus now occurring out of our cities, abetted by a media that refuses to give us all a direct look into our present, sordid reality. When will the Right build the media outfits our nation’s citizenry needs?
What will happen in Wisconsin in coming days? How many more American towns and cities will have to suffer the same fate in the near future? How long and to what extent can the media hide the truth between now and November? And if Republicans refuse to show the American people what is currently happening across the nation and denounce it—who will?
Today in 1967, Jimi Hendrix released “Purple Haze”:
Three years later, Hendrix made his last concert appearance in Great Britain at the Isle of Wight Festival, which also featured, for your £3 ticket …
Rod Dreher:
Maybe you read my short jeremiad about “Cuties,” the upcoming Netflix series that sexualizes 11 year old girls. Well, this morning I had to go to the grocery store, and was listening in the car to a discussion on the NPR talk show1A, in which the guests were talking about the standout pop culture moments this summer.The host asked them about the mega-hit “WAP” by Cardi B. and Megan Thee Stallion. I wrote about it here last week. Here are some of the lyrics that I posted:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, you fu*kin’ with some wet-a*s pu*sy
Bring a bucket and a mop for this wet-a*s pu*sy
Give me everything you got for this wet-a*s pu*syThose are among the cleanest lyrics in the entire song. Here is a link to lyrics for the whole thing.
If you don’t want to read them — and I don’t blame you — you should at least know that the two women who sing it talk about how they want to be forced to perform oral sex until they are gagging and choking. They portray themselves as whores (their word) who have sex for money. And
I’m a freak bitch, handcuffs, leashes … You can’t hurt my feelings, but I like pain.
There’s even dirtier stuff, but you get the picture.
This song debuted at No. 1. It was streamed a record 93 million times in the US in its first week of release, and the video was seen over 60 million times within 48 hours of its release. Cardi B., who once worked as a stripper, and has spoken of how back then, she would invite men to hotel rooms to drug and rob them, instagrammed about being so grateful that “I want to hug the LORD.”
OK, so that’s “WAP”. It is the cultural mainstream. If you haven’t heard of it, then that just shows how far out of the mainstream you are in 2020. How mainstream is Cardi B.? Elle magazine, which put her on the cover, had Cardi B. do a live Zoom interview with the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
Joe Biden told her that
One of the things that I admire about you is that you keep talking about what I call equity—decency, fairness, and treating people with respect.
Right. Nothing says “respect” like rapping about how you want a man to put his genitals in your mouth until you choke.
What a sick joke this culture is. I’ve said before that I believe Donald Trump is a morally repulsive man. But I don’t want to hear anyone talk about how Joe Biden is such a moral exemplar when he is willing to embrace someone who stands for the things that Cardi B. does. This is something I do not understand about the progressive elites. On NPR this morning, the guests on 1A (here, just past the 13:00 mark) were talking about “WAP” and the reaction to it. A writer for Billboard lauds “the sexual freedom of this song,” and laments the double standard that lets male rappers get away with sexually explicit songs without criticism. He adds that — “Cardi and Megan have huge young fan bases,” the writer said. He believes that the fact that women rappers have triumphed with such a sexually explicit song is therefore “really remarkable as a cultural shift.”
What he means in context — listen to it yourself to understand — is that Cardi B. and Megan Thee Stallion are teaching young girls that they can be just as raunchy as boys, with no apology.
On the show, the black writer Brooke Obiepraised the song as an example of “women singing about their own bodies and what they want.” It is “empowering,” said Obie. She added:
“People are upset because whenever a woman is actually owning her own sexuality, and not being objectified, there is a kind of conservatism that goes with this.”
Yeah, read the lyrics. There’s nothing that says “empowering” and “not being objectified” like that.
I know perfectly well that this is not the first time a rap song has had filthy lyrics. What is so remarkable to me is how completely mainstream this stuff is now, to the point where a presidential nominee wants to associate himself with a singer of this filth.
Just before our first child was born, back in 1999, my wife and I watched a PBS Frontline episode called “The Lost Children of Rockdale County.” It was about a syphilis outbreak in a high school in a prosperous Atlanta suburb. As the state (and Frontline) investigated, what emerged was a destructive culture of reckless, promiscuous sexuality — orgies with high schoolers, but including some middle schoolers — and parental neglect. Read the transcript here. Excerpt:
INTERVIEWER: Did any of the girls describe the sex as pleasurable?
Prof. CLAIRE STERK: Initially, they described the sex as pleasurable, and pleasurable in terms of it being physically pleasurable, but also psychologically, like, this was a initiation into the next step of their life. It was part of their development that was taking place. Over time, however, very few of the girls talked about the sex in terms of it being pleasurable at all. It became something that was painful, that in some cases they couldn’t even remember what they did anymore. So it became very negative.
INTERVIEWER: Do you ever think they might have done it because they wanted to be accepted by the boys?
D.J.: I don’t think it was a real pressure issue. I mean, it might have been for them. Subliminally, it might have been. Subconsciously, it might have been. But it really- I mean, there really wasn’t any pressure to. It was more of- they just gave in, really.
INTERVIEWER: How did the guys in general treat the girls?
AMY: They were mean to them a lot. They treated them like they were just- I don’t know, not trash, but not very, like, respectable. And the girls seemed not to care. I don’t know why. I guess they just- I think most of it was the alcohol that they were buying because the guys always bought alcohol. They just- they knew that we would like it, and so- but they didn’t treat us like we were anything real important.
INTERVIEWER: You never got angry at them?
AMY: I did a few times. But I couldn’t really do anything about it because they just- they wouldn’t care. They’d just tell me to go home or something.
INTERVIEWER: Why didn’t you?
AMY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I just- I would be alone then.
There’s a part where some of these attractive normie high school girls — remember, this is a school where 85 percent of the graduates would go on to college — are telling the interviewer about their favorite music:
NARRATOR: Katy and her friends are freshmen at one of Rockdale’s three public high schools.
INTERVIEWER: What’s the typical age for girls to lose their virginity?
KATY, BRIDGET, CHRISTINE: Thirteen. Fourteen. Thirteen or fourteen.
BRIDGET: Fourteen.
INTERVIEWER: That’s typical?
GIRLS: Uh-huh.
INTERVIEWER: What kind of music do you guys like?
GIRLS: Rap.
INTERVIEWER: Like what?
GIRLS: Like, Master P. Tupac, definitely. Oh, I love Tupac.
INTERVIEWER: What do you like about rap?GIRLS: The beat. The beat. And the words. And it’s just, like, loud. You can really get up and dance.
CHRISTINE: And the way that it’s, like- they can talk about something that’s, like, completely stupid, like drugs and stuff. [crosstalk] But it’s the way they put it, it sounds interesting.
INTERVIEWER: Give me an example.
CHRISTINE: I can’t think of a song.
GIRLS: [singing rap] Oh, take three witches and put ’em in a [unintelligible] I take clothes off you, and I’m blowing [unintelligible] mind. Take one more before I go [unintelligible] Seven bitches get f–ked at the same time. The [unintelligible] she can suck a ding-dong all day, all night, all evening long. Bitch has never done it. She says she never tried. [unintelligible] mother-fu–ing [unintelligible] if the bitch is a good trick. Anybody can talk to a bitch and get the bitch to f–k, but how many [unintelligible] talk to a bitch and get their d–k s–ked like me? A pimp that you never saw [unintelligible]
INTERVIEWER: That’s about group sex.
GIRLS: Yeah.
INTERVIEWER: Is that something anybody does around here?
GIRLS: Uh-huh!
Please, I’m asking you, watch or read the transcript of “The Lost Children of Rockdale County”. This was 21 years ago, but it is also completely contemporary. After we watched it back in 1999, my very pregnant wife and I talked about how we would have to be a lot more vigilant about pop culture and our children than we thought. And we have tried to be. One of the great lies that parents tell themselves about pop culture is, “Oh, they thought Elvis was outrageous back in the day.” This is an argument from relativism that serves the interest of parents who honestly don’t want to be bothered patrolling the line to protect their kids. The filth of rap music was part of a wider toxic brew that those children of affluent people in suburban Atlanta stewed in. You watch that show, and it becomes crystal clear that these kids were abandoned by their parents and the adults in their lives.
Look, with reference to the lyrics in that passage above, people aren’t wrong to say that male rappers have been getting away with filth for a long time. But come on, is that really the argument worth having, the one about the double standard? I don’t want my sons to think that this is the way to treat women, or to think about sex and sexuality, or to regard their own manhood. Nor do I want my daughter to think this way, or to consider men who do to be suitable partners. Period. The observations that the NPR commenters were making today is typically trite, self-degradation-as-empowerment garbage that we hear from the left. Unsurprisingly, one of the female commenters went on to say how much she has been enjoying a cable show about strippers in Mississippi, and the empowering messages it has been sending about the dignity of sex work.
Who are these people — the ones who make these shows and who advocate for them in the media — and why do we let them into our lives?
Behold, here is Yale-educated Washington Post columnist Alyssa Rosenberg, explaining why “WAP” is “completely filthy, and we could use a lot more pop culture like it.” Excerpts:
To get the obvious out of the way, the lyrics for “WAP” and the music video for the track are among the filthiest things I’ve ever seen in mainstream American popular culture. But at a moment when movies, music and even some TV are increasingly younged-down, and when changes in the law and an unprecedented economic environment could accelerate the homogenization of entertainment, there’s something bracing about Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion’s vulgarity. “WAP” is decidedly not for kids, nor for all adults.
And honestly, we could use more culture that isn’t appropriate for everyone.
She writes that
The mistake conservatives who attack raunchy or violent pop culture always make is to argue that culture should be smaller rather than more expansive.
And:
I sympathize with parents who feel exasperated or frightened by the way the Internet has torn down the walls that once separated “Dora the Explorer” from the enterprising strippers of Starz’s “P-Valley,” not to mention QAnon conspiracy theories, Islamic State execution videos and actual pornography. But the fact that modern parenthood is a constant race to keep parental control settings current and to stay ahead of the almighty algorithms isn’t an argument for making pop culture itself more tame and generic.
What odd criticism — as if the only reason, or the main reason, conservatives object to “WAP” is because kids are listening to it, or might listen to it.
Not that that’s a bad reason! As the late, left-wing media critic Neil Postman argued way back in 1994, in his great little book The Disappearance of Childhood, childhood as we know it ends when, thanks to technology (in his era’s case, cable television), children can have direct access to material that was once considered something that only adults had the maturity to handle.
The broader objection is that what was once considered smutty, or at least something not fit for the public square, is now completely mainstream. The fact that Joe Biden believes (probably correctly) that his campaign will benefit from being associated with the singer who has created one of “the filthiest things [a cheerleading Washington Post columnist has] ever seen in mainstream popular culture” is a remarkable sign of our decadence and decline.
You don’t have to listen to Cardi B. and Megan Thee Stallion, of course, but you do have to share a public square with tens of millions of people who do, and who have made their raunch mainstream entertainment. Look at that high school in Rockdale County for an idea of what becomes of a community that marinates itself in these ideas and concepts.
Back when The Benedict Option was new, I would hear arguments from some Evangelicals saying that they believed that their kids needed to stay in public school to be “salt and light” to unchurched kids. Leaving aside the fact that a lot of kids who go to Christian school are probably listening to Cardi B. too, I would still say: how are your kids going to be salt and light to a community that embraces the moral code of Cardi B.? Be honest with yourself. We are in late Rome. We are in Babylon. We are in Weimar. The people in positions of culture-making (the entertainment industry) and culture-moderating (the news media) are destroying us. Don’t be complicit. Don’t be their target. Refuse, resist, and rebel!
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 