Mx. Steel, Male Penetration, & The New Normal
Now, Ahmari-French Debate observers, ask yourself: is it really possible to argue reasonably with people who are so fanatically committed to this revolution that they would be proud of proclaiming, on the lawn of a state capitol, that “All Men Should Be Penetrated”? That they would find it a cause for celebration that a middle-aged male teacher would spring this kind of thing on his students, and propagandize them?
This is the new normal that progressives want for us. If you don’t go along with it, you are deemed a hater and a bigot. Serious question: where is the space for rational dialogue with these revolutionaries?
TIME TO TAKE THE LEAD
There is a practical reason why we should lead: We have voters behind us. And not just the religious and social conservatives, who unlike libertarians and classical liberals number in the tens of millions, not tens of thousands. There are plenty of working-class people whose native political intelligence tells them that our country is in trouble. They experience the breakdown in marriage, the declines in life expectancy, and the erosion of community. They’re not looking for “neutral” leaders. They want a vision of national renewal—covenant and solidarity.National Review is Obsessed With Itself
The libertarian-inflected conservative establishment fixated on limited government cannot provide this kind of leadership. Religious and social conservatives can. This does not mean theocracy, as Bret Stephens insinuates. Nor does it foretell “illiberalism,” as countless pundits intone. Instead, it means restoring the social fabric of our country so that it can sustain our best liberal traditions.
In 2019, the male-female dance has been disrupted by radical feminism and LGBT jihadists. Racial relations are being poisoned, not just by the bigot-baiting grifters, but by the mainstream media. Immigrants are not assimilated. All of this erodes solidarity. The libertarian and classical liberal leaders have shown that they will not confront directly multiculturalism and identity politics. Religious and social conservatives have a substantive vision of the common good, one all Americans can share. This gives us a basis on which to turn back the most destructive forces in our society.
Ahmari and the First Things manifesto don’t represent an opening of hostilities. They represent a shift from establishment conservatism to a more muscular, conservative nationalism. Far more appealing at the ballot box than what George W. Bush or Mitt Romney ever brought to the table.
National Review only really has itself to blame for its loss. And we have it to blame for ours, historically.
While Trump may have fired the first shot in a political sense, National Review and their cohorts in Conservative Inc. (alongside the NeverTrump Conserva-bros on Twitter) had been waging a war against conservatism and the American right for some time. The thing is, they brought a knife to a gun fight.
Between the religious fervor the magazine exudes over capital, and the inevitable “holier than thou” mindset that stems from such self-pedestal-placement, National Review found itself distinctly out of touch with conservative America.
The site and its leadership have been wearing “Kick Me” signs on the subject of social media censorship of conservatives, going so far as to grovel at the feet of New York Times readers following the digital gulaging of Alex Jones.
When the Covington Catholic kids were under fire, National Review joined the side of the establishment media. Their humiliating climbdown worsened by the fact they then published articles slamming the media for the same kind of coverage they offered.
