The Core Values of a Gentleman

The Gentleman’s Journal, a men’s style magazine, declares on its website that “we are on a mission to preserve the dying breed,” by which they mean the Gentleman. Good for the magazine’s editors for promoting gentlemanly values. Unfortunately, they seem unclear on how to convey those values.

Last week The Gentleman’s Journal posted an article online titled, “The Core Values of Being a 21st Century Gentleman,” which listed 20 “definitive rules” for the 21st-century Gentleman (the word is capitalized throughout their article, almost like a royal title, and for consistency’s sake it will be here too). Now, as a fashion magazine, GJ is understandably more concerned with style and appearance than ethics and shouldn’t be expected to delve much deeper than the surface of the topic. But it’s misleading to use the phrases “core values” and “definitive rules” because, like much of what you find on men’s style sites that emphasize gentlemanly behavior, these rules don’t go much beyond simple etiquette and barely touch on values at all.

“A Gentleman leaves a mark on the world,” the article begins. This is true, albeit vague. What sort of mark? It is possible to leave a grand, even historic mark on the world without necessarily being a Gentleman. But every Gentleman, even one of no notable worldly achievements, will still have a lasting impact on those around him through his character, even if that impact is limited only to his immediate circle of friends, family, coworkers, and strangers with whom he interacts and impresses.

The article continues: “He is remembered for all the right reasons.” This too is true but again, vague. It sounds good but its meaning is difficult to pin down. What exactly are “the right reasons”? Those could be different things to different people. That’s where the “core values” come into play, and this is where the article gets things muddled.

Among the “definitive rules” GJ lists are what used to be considered common courtesies. For example, a Gentleman always RSVPs. He offers a woman his seat and opens a door. He offers a woman his coat if she is cold and always walks her home. He never lies to a woman (except to surprise her) or makes her cry (except tears of joy), and he never gossips or boasts about his intimacy with her. Third wave feminists would find all of this behavior demeaning and sexist, but as vocal and influential as they are, they are in the minority.

Some other rules touch on self-presentation and self-reliance: a Gentleman presents himself well and gives a firm handshake, for example. He knows how to dance a little and how to cook a meal. A few rules go off the rails entirely and either have nothing to do with being a Gentleman per se (“a Gentleman knows that anything worth having is worth working hard for”) or are simply incorrect (“a Gentleman never judges”).

The point is not that Gentleman’s Journal gets all these rules wrong, but that they aren’t actually values. They are actions that may be manifestations of values but they are not the values themselves, which aren’t mentioned, and that’s where the article disappoints. Chivalry – and some today consider that an archaic concept but that’s really what we’re talking about when we talk about gentlemanly behavior – is more than manners and etiquette. It is a value system from which such rules of behavior must emanate.

What then are the core values of chivalry, of a Gentleman? There is a long and complex history behind this question, and the answers could be elaborated upon at great length, but in essence, they are these, in no particular order:

Service – A commitment to serve others. It includes coming to the defense of the defenseless, male or female, who for whatever reason cannot defend themselves.

Honesty – Although this value is unnamed in the article, Gentleman’s Journal correctly touches on this: “A Gentleman means what he says, and says what he means.”

Courage – The Gentleman is “everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil,” as a scholar of chivalry once wrote, and this requires courage.

Honor – Acting according to a standard of integrity and moral responsibility.

Courtesy – Respectful and generous behavior, especially toward women.

Self-reliance – A Gentleman should know how to take care of himself as well as others.

Humility – Again, GJ does not use the word but comes close here: “A Gentleman knows the difference between confidence and arrogance.”

Self-discipline – A Gentleman masters his animal impulses, or he is quite simply not a man, much less a Gentleman.

These classic, core values apply to a Gentlemen from any century, not only the 21^st as the GJ article states, although they may seem in especially short supply today. Such gentlemen may be, as the Gentleman’s Journal editors say, “a dying breed,” but they are “proof that chivalry is not dead.”

From Acculturated, 4/1/16

Introducing Michael Ramirez

I've had the honor of introducing many fascinating figures at David Horowitz Freedom Center​ events, and at noon on March 29th I'll be introducing another one: political cartoonist Michael Ramirez at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills.

Check it out if you'll be in Southern California that day.

Leftist Heads Explode Over ‘Anti-Muslim’ Terrorism Thriller

The great majority of movie reviewers lean far left politically, so when they sneeringly dismiss a new Hollywood action thriller as “terror exploitation,” “racist, “jingoistic,” “terror porn,” “outrageously propagandistic,” “anti-Muslim xenophobia” and “the perfect movie for Donald Trump’s America,” then you can take that as a strong recommendation for getting to the cinema.

The Gerard Butler action vehicle London Has Fallen opened recently and reviewers are panning it as brutal, cheesy, implausible, and clichéd. Apparently those reviewers are unfamiliar with the genre or feel it is beneath them, because it is generally the nature of action thrillers to be brutal, cheesy, implausible, and clichéd. Moviegoers aren’t drawn to action thrillers for their slice-of-life realism or cinematic aesthetics; they want a two-hour dose of escapist adrenalin, an action-packed, over-the-top fun ride, and on that score London Has Fallen satisfies. The audience I saw it with on opening day applauded at the end.

In this followup to last year’s terrorism thriller Olympus Has Fallen, Butler plays Secret Service agent Mike Banning, who almost single-handedly disrupts a plot, conceived by a Pakistani terror mastermind, to execute the American President on live television. In the process Banning lays waste in various ways to practically an entire battalion of terrorists. The movie is an uncomplicated guilty pleasure with the added bonus of providing the audience with a jihadist-killing catharsis – in other words, just the sort of flick to inspire patriots and raise the hackles of Progressive reviewers everywhere.

The clickbait site Uproxx, for example, declared the movie “unbelievably racist,” although the reviewer’s sole evidence for that is a scene in which agent Banning tells a terrorist to go “back to F**k-headistan or wherever it is you’re from.” That’s not racism; it’s not even so-called Islamophobia. It’s just Banning’s contempt for America-hating terrorists and the shariah cesspools that produce them. But leave it to the multicultural left to cry racism and leap to the defense of evil jihadists.

“London Has Fallen draws a line,” the reviewer complains, “and that line is between ‘us’ and ‘them.’” So it should, because there is a line between us – the good guys – and Islamic terrorists – the bad guys – but the left can’t bring itself to make that distinction. Instead, leftists are repulsed by any movie that depicts a clear moral line, unless it’s America, Christianity, and/or capitalism on the other side of it.

The Uproxx reviewer went on to sneer about this being “the perfect movie for Trump’s America” because it unashamedly revels in American power and in the deaths of terrorists, the leader of whom happens to be Muslim (never mind that the left would revel in the deaths of Donald Trump and his supporters). That comment says everything about the left’s allegiance to multiculturalism, their ingrained anti-Americanism, and their smug moral superiority over the red state Americans they perceive to be provincial bigots.

The reviewer at the Hollywood industry rag Variety pulled out all the left’s predictable arsenal of dismissive insults, calling the movie “effortlessly racist” and complaining of its “familiar Islamophobia” and “reactionary fear-mongering.” Islam, as all reasonable Americans know full well, is not a race, so there’s no racism, particularly since the majority of Special Agent Banning’s victims appear to be white. And how is it Islamophobia or fear-mongering if Muslim terrorists are actually trying to kill you in the real world? Just like the left calls 1950s anti-Communist investigations “witch hunts,” it now insists on denying that Islamic terrorism is a real-world threat.

A reviewer at Flick Filosopher completely lost his mind over London Has Fallen. He summarized it as “a Nuremberg rally for 21st-century America. Pure terror porn: racist, jingoistic, thoroughly obnoxious. Donald Trump voters will love it” (again with the jab at Trump supporters). The reviewer actually refers to “swarthy brown terrorists” in the movie, even though, again, most of the terrorists Banning dispatches to Hades seem to be white. The reviewer also sniffs at the “fear-mongered audience” who will be “hungry for blood” after this flick – suggesting that “Donald Trump voters” will leave the theater eager to carry out that violent anti-Muslim backlash which the left has been predicting since 9/11/2001.

The New York Post’s Lou Lumenick called the movie “racist” and “anti-Muslim xenophobia” – without adducing a single instance of racism or xenophobia in the film. I don’t know Lumenick’s politics, but for the left, any Hollywood movie in which a Muslim is depicted as the bad guy must automatically be deemed racist and anti-Muslim, even if the movie also features a good Muslim character, because any criticism of Islam is not allowed. Remember, the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.

“It’s about us winning,” Gerard Butler said of the film. “It’s about what happens when the shit hits the fan, and who stands up to face the challenge. It’s based on heroism and the good guys kicking ass.” Yes, and American heroes kicking ass is anathema to the left. American Sniper, 13 Hours, Lone Survivor, Zero Dark Thirty, Act of Valor, Red Dawn, London Has Fallen – all recent movies about American heroes versus foreign enemies, and all derided by reviewers as racist, jingoistic, and xenophobic.

Leftist reviewers don’t respect the action thriller genre itself for a number of reasons. First, they don’t like guns, which they believe only the government should possess. Second, as I mentioned, their world view rejects moral distinctions between good guys and bad guys unless the latter are social justice targets like greedy white businessmen. Hollywood doles out Oscars to movies with social justice themes; action thrillers in which American heroes deliver bloody justice to evil foreigners don’t make that cut. And third, action thrillers always end on an upbeat note, and reviewers who have been trained to worship the cinematic nihilism of pretentious European auteurs consider happy endings to be a simpleminded, contemptibly American characteristic.

When I saw London Has Fallen, among the twenty minutes of trailers prior to the feature was one promoting an upcoming George Clooney drama called Money Monster. In it, the liberal-activist-moonlighting-as-an-actor stars as the host of an investment advice show. He’s taken hostage on-the-air by an angry, working class young investor whose life savings have been wiped out by white Wall Street fraudsters – the only bad guys Hollywood enthusiastically demonizes. Clooney and the movie will be praised by reviewers for bravely addressing social justice issues like inequality.

But if you want to see an American hero kicking ass, skip Clooney, ignore the reviewers, and see London Has Fallen.

From FrontPage Mag, 3/21/16

‘The Producers,’ the Swastika, and the Tyranny of Feelings

I found it encouraging to hear that students at Tappan Zee High School in Orangetown, New York recently chose to put on Mel Brooks’ hilarious satire The Producers as a school play. An excellent, bold choice. If you are tragically unfamiliar with it, the comedy centers on two theater producers who stage an intentional flop of a musical – the outrageously tasteless “Springtime for Hitler” – allowing them to bilk investors and flee the country. But their best-laid plans go awry when the play becomes a hit.

School authorities have hamstrung the students, however, by decreeing that the play must be devoid of Nazi swastikas, a move that would undermine the satire. Why? For the same reason practically any action is taken in schools these days: some people were offended, including South Orangetown Superintendent Bob Pritchard. “There is no context in a public high school where a swastika is appropriate,” he declared.

Really? Not even in history class? Is he suggesting that, rather than educate students about the symbol and its historical significance, it should simply be banished from their awareness altogether? What if, as the New York Post wondered, the Tappan Zee kids had wanted to stage The Sound of Music or Schindler’s List? Would either of those dramas be as impactful without the oppressive emblem of Nazism looming over the characters?

“I considered it to be an obscenity like any obscenity,” Pritchard sniffed. But the swastika is not like any obscenity. It isn’t even an obscenity in itself, though it represents an obscene ideology. It is a cultural symbol with specific historic meaning, and rather than shield students from it out of a misplaced sense of moral indignation, students should be confronted by it and educated about it. The alternative is possibly to be condemned to repeat the sins committed beneath its image.

B.J. Greco, who handles media for the school district, explained that four parents also had complained about the swastika’s use in the play. “If you come in out of context, you can misinterpret,” he attempted to justify. “The swastika is an icon. It causes different feelings in different people.”

So what? Different feelings can be triggered in different people by just about anything. That is no justification for sending the potentially offending object or image down the Orwellian memory hole, which the “trigger warnings” proliferating on college campuses now are designed ultimately to accomplish. A culture which prioritizes feelings, which are by definition subjective, above reality and reason will soon find itself detached from both and doomed to implode.

As an aside: the comic genius Mel Brooks, who won a Best Screenplay Oscar for The Producers, wouldn’t be able to get a job in entertainment today. Can you imagine the horror with which today’s studios would greet the outrageous racial satire of Brooks’ Blazing Saddles? Our culture has reached a point at which it is impossible to have a sane discussion about race, much less enjoy a politically incorrect comedy about it. Far from helping to close America’s racial divide, the enforced sensitivity imposed upon us by political correctness has exacerbated that divide to an almost unbridgeable degree.

The swastika controversy is reminiscent of the hysteria that swept the country last year over the Confederate flag in the wake of the massacre of nine black Charleston churchgoers by white supremacist Dylann Roof. National anger focused like a laser on what many perceive to be the symbol of American white supremacism, the Confederate flag, which Roof displayed in photos prior to the shooting. Anger became hysteria as the lighthearted 1980s show The Dukes of Hazzard was pulled from the TV Land cable network schedule because its prominently featured Dodge Charger, nicknamed “The General,” sported the flag on its hood. Merchandising featuring the car was even pulled from store shelves. Again, the rather smug impulse was to erase the symbol’s existence altogether as a sign of our moral condemnation.

In related news, Harvard Law School recently caved to student demands that the institution’s longstanding logo be changed to remove an image tied to slavery – because students find slavery offensive and “triggering.”

Yes, of course – Nazism, racism, and slavery are offensive, but this virtue-signaling frenzy to purge our culture of historical symbols deemed offensive, no matter what the context, is not the way to come to terms with those symbols, with the realities they represent, or with the past. If anything, banning them under any circumstances only empowers those symbols and weakens our understanding of them and of ourselves.

Erasing from our cultural consciousness symbols that represent such ugly historical realities is little different from the Islamic State destroying artistic and architectural vestiges of non-Islamic culture because they are offensive to religious sensibilities. It will lead to a cultural and historical amnesia – not to mention further capitulation to this tyranny of feelings whenever someone decides to be offended.

UPDATE: According to Adweek, the news media have distorted the story of superintendent Pritchard banning swastikas from the play. Apparently the swastikas in question were displayed at the school two weeks prior to premiere with no explanation, and Pritchard had them removed for that reason.  The play itself went on uncensored.
As for Mr. Pritchard’s comment that there is no context in which a swastika in high school is appropriate: Atlanta PR exec Scott Merritt forwarded to me an email from Pritchard in which he explains that it was poor wording and did not reflect his full position: “Displaying historical artifacts for the purposes of education in public schools (and universities) should be the norm rather than the exception and I am therefore opposed to censorship,” wrote Pritchard.
I wish to apologize to Mr. Pritchard – a West Point student of military history and self-described Mel Brooks fan – for running with the media’s mischaracterization without confirming the whole story.

From Acculturated, 3/18/16

Later, Kirk Cameron: Christian Films Come Into Their Own

Faith-based movies may be all the rage now, but in recent years they unfortunately have been divided into two distinct, unsatisfying camps. On the one hand are big-budget Hollywood epics like Noah and Exodus: Gods and Kings, made by non-believing filmmakers whose subversive treatment of the Biblical source material has turned off Christian audiences. On the other are low-budget independent efforts by believing filmmakers whose genuine reverence for the Biblical material has been undermined by heavy-handed preachiness and cringe-worthy acting. But two affecting new historical Christian films are bridging that gap and elevating the genre to higher ground.

MILD SPOILERS AHEAD

Risen, written and directed by Kevin Reynolds of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and The Count of Monte Cristo fame (as well as Waterworld infamy), premiered last month. It is the story of a first-century, war-weary, Roman military tribune named Clavius, masterfully underplayed by Joseph Fiennes, who seeks a respite from slaughter – a “day without death.” He is charged with investigating the disappearance of Jesus’ body from the tomb after his crucifixion. Pontius Pilate and the local religious leadership pressure Clavius to help them suppress the troublesome new Christian cultists for political reasons, by accusing them of staging a fake resurrection of their Messiah.

But Clavius gradually comes to the realization that Jesus’ followers are innocent and telling the truth – their master has indeed risen from the grave. Clavius himself has seen evidence that shatters his pagan worldview: “I cannot reconcile all of this with the world I knew,” he complains, until he realizes that the “day without death” he craves can be found in Jesus’ promise of eternal life.

Today is the premiere of the somewhat more family-friendly The Young Messiah, a film directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh and co-written with his wife Betsy [full disclosure: the Nowrastehs are friends of mine and I have assisted Cyrus on other projects]. Based on an Anne Rice novel and focused on the emotional dynamics of Jesus’ family, the movie depicts a very human seven-year-old Son of God struggling with the budding awareness of his own divine nature, which causes him to question who he really is and why he is here.

Like Joseph Fiennes in Risen, The Young Messiah’s Sean Bean (a familiar face from Game of Thrones and countless others) plays a war-weary, unbelieving Roman soldier whose personal confrontation with Jesus shakes him to the core. Tasked with finding and killing the young boy, whom the decadent King Herod perceives to be a threat, Bean tracks Jesus down in the Jerusalem temple, but is awed – and redeemed – by the child’s undeniable spiritual power.

As Rice herself put it, the film “invites the viewer to reflect on what it might have been like for Jesus to put aside His Omniscience as God and grow up amongst us. The film is an engulfing and entertaining and edifying depiction of the Son of God as a child.” Indeed it is. Rice added that she is “grateful for countless emails from readers telling me [that her] novel deepened their sense of the reality of Jesus, or made Him real for them in a way that was entirely new,” and now the film version will make that same impact on a much wider movie audience.

Even low-budget indie Christian films today tend to do well financially because Christian audiences are hungry for movies, regardless of their quality, that affirm their values. But in Risen and The Young Messiah, faith-based films have finally come into their own as high-quality cinematic storytelling that Christians don’t either have to reject for theological reasons (such as director Darren Aronofsky’s environmentalist revision of Noah and the Ark) or be embarrassed by (Kirk Cameron’s earnest but amateurish Fireproof).

Both Risen and The Young Messiah feature top-notch storytelling, production values, and acting. Both engage audiences with understated, character-driven emotional punches rather than rely on bombastic special effects. Despite their somewhat fictionalized premises, both exhibit a clear reverence for the Biblical message and a respect for the Christian audiences at whom these movies are largely aimed. Both skillfully and powerfully portray unique perspectives on Jesus that we haven’t seen onscreen before – his early years and post-resurrection – and both successfully capture Jesus’ humanity as well as his divinity.

One of the production companies behind The Young Messiah is 1492 Pictures, run by Chris Columbus, the producer and director of blockbusters like the Harry Potter films. He calls the movie “the greatest story never told” and believes that “there’s a huge audience out there for faith based movies.” Having a powerhouse like Columbus behind such a superlative, respectful film as The Young Messiah will help it find that huge audience and encourage Hollywood support for other faith-based projects – and that bodes well for the future of Christian films.

From Acculturated, 3/11/16

A Gentleman’s Club That Turns Boys Into Men

In a trash-talking, reality-show culture that rewards bad behavior and self-promoting arrogance, quiet gentlemen have largely become quaint rarities, charming but outmoded relics of generations past. The news today is dominated by bullying presidential candidates, and the entertainment arena is ruled by foul-mouthed superheroes; unless young boys are taught gentlemanly standards by the males in their lives at home and in their neighborhood, they will be hard-pressed to find role models for them elsewhere in our culture.

Raymond Nelson, the student support specialist at Memminger Elementary in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, isn’t waiting around for our broken culture to right itself. He works with at-risk children, many of whom come from broken homes with no father figure. Grim statistics bear out just what a devastating effect fatherlessness has on boys, who are then more inclined to turn to crime, to take drugs, to drop out of school, and to perpetuate this cycle of failure one day with broken families involving their own children.

Recognizing this, over the recent winter break Raymond Nelson came up with an idea to help the young boys among his students break that tragic chain and become young men better prepared for success at home and in the workplace. He started The Gentleman’s Club.

For once, a “gentleman’s club” is turning boys into men and not the other way around. Every Wednesday nearly 60 students from the first through the fifth grades at Memminger meet to discuss a new topic on etiquette and self-presentation such as how to shake hands, make eye contact, open doors for ladies, and address their elders. Their motto is “Look good, feel good, do good.” They are required to wear ties and jackets, and Nelson has a stash of donated jackets, vests and ties for those boys who don’t have their own. “I was thinking maybe if I have the boys dress for success,” said Nelson, “when was the last time you saw someone fighting in a tuxedo?”

Nelson understands that what you wear affects your attitude and sense of self. With youth fashion tending toward drooping, baggy pants and athletic wear, wearing a suit sets the boys apart as young men. It instills in them a certain sense of seriousness, maturity, dignity, and responsibility, and their behavior changes accordingly. And dressing up affects not only the way they see themselves, but the way others see them as well. “They like the reaction of walking up to classrooms and [hearing], ‘Oh, you look so nice and handsome.’ They just love it,” said Nelson.

But the Gentleman’s Club training goes beyond appearance to include manners, which are also in short supply these days, and to cultivate a sense of chivalry toward girls and women – and God knows that’s largely absent in our culture as well. Because the younger boys are still at the age at which they consider girls to be infected with cooties, Nelson bases his lessons and examples on how they would treat their own sisters, mothers and teachers.

Nelson himself had joined a similar group as a child at his mother's request. “It helped me to be a better man and I could spread the knowledge to the young boys,” Nelson said. “I know a lot of them struggle because a lot of them don’t have men at home, so I just want them to grow up and think of the things that I teach them.”

The seriousness and self-confidence the boys are acquiring in the Gentleman’s Club are also helping them with their schoolwork. “A lot of my students perform well when they know someone cares about them,” said Nelson. In fact, the Club has been so successful at Memminger that Charleston County School District officials say they want other local schools to begin similar programs in their schools.

Our culture is suffering a manhood crisis. The rejection of chivalry as sexism and the decline of gentlemanly standards have left our sons confused about masculinity and led to a corresponding moral degradation of the entire culture. Such standards don’t come naturally; boys must be educated in them and challenged to uphold them, and for that they need role models and teachers like Raymond Nelson. He may be the only such figure in the lives of most of his 60 students. Bravo for him – but how many more boys there must be around the country who, like his students, need a Raymond Nelson to start them on the path to becoming young men.

From Acculturated, 3/3/16

Cam Newton and the Agony of Defeat

After an uncharacteristically lackluster showing in a loss to the Denver Broncos in last weekend’s Super Bowl, a morose Cam Newton, superstar quarterback of the Carolina Panthers, went all monosyllabic in a post-game press conference before abruptly walking out, leaving reporters hanging.

For this he was roundly criticized as a sore loser in the media, who do not like being snubbed. Even Andy Griffith, the moral voice of Mayberry, chimed in posthumously to give Cam some gentle advice about his behavior.

Newton’s attitude seemed especially inappropriate and childish considering that he is not an especially gracious winner, either. He has acquired a reputation for what one disgusted football fan called “arrogant struts and ‘in your face’ taunting.” His unrepentant ego is reminiscent, for those of us who have lived long enough to remember, of arrogant superstar Joe Namath of the New York Jets. Super Bowl winner Namath irked many with what at the time seemed unsportsmanlike behavior; now his cool self-confidence seems tame by comparison to today’s commonplace trash-talking and end-zone dance celebrations.

In any case, it’s certainly understandable that one wouldn’t be enthusiastic about fielding annoying questions about one’s poor performance mere minutes after an embarrassing loss in one of the most-watched events in television history. But rather than draw on that as an excuse and apologize, Newton disappointingly chose to double down on his attitude, declaring Tuesday that “I've been on record to say I'm a sore loser. Who likes to lose? You show me a good loser and I'm going to show you a loser.” He added that if he offended anyone, “that's cool.”

But it’s not cool. Newton is wrong. A good loser is not the same thing as someone who takes losing lightly. Newton’s passion for winning isn’t uniquely intense, though he may like to think it is; no athlete anywhere at the professional level is not a fierce competitor driven to win. Fellow quarterback Tom Brady also is guilty of being, as he once put it, a terrible loser. But that’s not an excuse. As Newton said, “Who likes to lose?” No one. Being a good loser is about handling the agony of defeat like an adult rather than like a petulant child.

Newton also defiantly stated that his job is “not a popularity contest. I'm here to win football games.” It’s worth reminding him that while he may be paid the big bucks to win those games, in one respect it is most definitely a popularity contest as well: Newton is a very public figure and a role model, and popularity is a significant part of that larger responsibility. No matter how talented you are, arrogance and petulance are not the mark of a good man. They are not admirable traits or the qualities of a leader. And as the quarterback, Newton is the team leader.

Some argue that sports stars shouldn’t be role models for our children. Yes, ideally our children should be looking up to, and emulating, the good men and women in their lives: parents, teachers, religious leaders, etc. But there’s no denying that actors and athletes are the prominent faces of our celebrity-driven culture. Their seductive influence is vast and largely unavoidable. Whether Cam Newton likes it or not, as a pro NFL quarterback he is the ambassador for the team, and as the league’s 2015 Most Valuable Player, he is an ambassador for the sport itself, and will be for years to come since he is likely destined to rack up endorsements and Super Bowl rings. He is a role model whether he chooses to be or not; the only choice remaining to him is whether he will be a good one or a bad one.

Interestingly, on Super Bowl Sunday Cam did demonstrate the sort of good role model he could be and should aspire to. Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning said that immediately after the game, “Cam could not have been nicer to me. He was extremely humble. He congratulated me, wished me the best.” Good for him. That’s the Cam Newton our culture and our youth desperately need.

As for the subsequent press conference walkout, Newton’s coach Ron Rivera defended his player’s childish post-game behavior, saying that “he is still growing and maturing as a man in this world.” Fair enough. Cam Newton is young and immature and an extraordinarily blessed athlete who doesn’t yet know how to bear that gift with humility. But if I may paraphrase lines from Rudyard Kipling’s “If,” Newton needs to learn to meet with victory and defeat, and treat those two impostors just the same. Then he’ll be a man.

From Acculturated, 2/11/14

The Devil’s Pleasure Palace

For years now, many conservative writers, myself included, have increasingly urged engagement in the culture war against the radical left. The truth is that we have already lost that war. Having decisively lost the major ministries of culture – the media, academia, and the entertainment world – the right is now in a position of having to regroup, restrategize, and wage guerrilla warfare in order to dismantle the left’s hegemony and retake the culture. How did we get here? To understand the philosophical underpinnings of the left’s victory, you cannot do better than Michael Walsh’s most recent book, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West.

Walsh is an American Book Award-winning novelist, journalist, music critic, and screenwriter. He also writes political commentary for, among others, National Review and the New York Post under both his own name and occasionally his alter ego David Kahane (Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at its Own Game to Take Back America). Full disclosure: Walsh is a friend of mine.

In The Devil’s Pleasure Palace, Walsh brings his substantial erudition to bear on his best nonfiction work so far, a tour de force about how the “new nihilists” of the so-called Frankfurt School and their philosophy of “Critical Theory – like Pandora’s Box – released a horde of demons into the American psyche.” Disguised as a utopian dream, it– like Satan, a key figure in the book – instead sowed “destruction, division, hatred, and calumny.”

This is not a casual beach read. It’s not even your typical political polemic from the likes of Coulter, Malkin, or Levin, valuable as those are. Though this slim volume runs only just over 200 pages, Walsh’s wide-ranging intellect ropes together grand themes of good and evil, creation and destruction, capitalism and socialism. The book is about, in his words,

God, Satan, and the satanic in men; about myths and legends and the truths within them; about culture versus p0litics, about the difference between story and plot. It is about Milton versus Marx, the United States versus Germany, about redemptive truth versus Mephistophelian bands of illusion and the Devil’s jokes. It concerns itself with the interrelation of culture, religion, sex, and politics – in other words, something herein to offend nearly everybody.

As a former music critic, Walsh has chosen to explore these themes through the lens of art and culture. He delves deep into the world of opera, for example, with side excursions into, inter alia, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Goethe’s Faust, Wagner’s Ring cycle, Beowulf, Biblical myth, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and Rousseau – “one of those liberals who love humanity but couldn’t stand people” – not to mention day trips to pop culture touchstones like The Godfather, Chinatown, Independence Day, and Last of the Mohicans.

“The Devil’s Pleasure Palace” of the title comes from the name of the teenage Franz Schubert’s first opera. Like that palace, the left’s utopian vision is a satanic illusion that has dragged us into Hell. “What the West has experienced since the end of the Second World War,” Walsh writes, “has been the erection of a modern Devil’s Pleasure Palace, a Potemkin village built on promises of ‘social justice’ and equality for all.” But then, “lying is at the centerpiece of both the satanic and the leftist projects.”

And like Satan, “destruction fascinates [the left]; they find satisfaction and even consummation in the tearing-down, not the building-up. Creation is a bore; annihilation is a joy.” They are obsessed with death, a “constant feature both of their philosophy and their political prescriptions, which include not only abortion but, increasingly, euthanasia. Wearing their customary mask of solicitous compassion, they can’t wait for you to die to steal your stuff.”

The work of the Marxist Frankfurt scholars – Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse (whose notion of “repressive tolerance” drives political correctness), and Wilhelm Reich – “was grounded in an ideology that demanded… an unremitting assault on Western values and institutions, including Christianity, the family, conventional sexual morality, nationalistic patriotism, and adherence in general to any institution or set of beliefs that blocked the path of revolution. Literally nothing was sacred.” As they saw it, “[t]he system had to go because it was blocking the Marxist arc of history, that rainbow that would end somewhere, somehow, in a pot of gold in a humble proletarian field.”

The Critical Theory they produced is “the very essence of Satanism: rebellion for the sake of rebellion against an established order that has obtained for eons, and with no greater promise for the future than destruction.” The “serpents” of the Frankfurt school, having learned their lesson from Milton’s Satan, subverted Heaven rather than foolishly attempt a frontal assault. They launched their attack with perfect timing – not when American was weak, but when it was strong, in the post-WWII era, because “when times are flush, people are more inclined to a little social experimentation, especially if it contains a basket of forbidden fruit.” Like an airborne virus, Walsh, says, the “poison of Critical Theory undermine[d] at every step the kind of muscular self-confidence that distinguished Western warriors and leaders through the end of World War II.”

If I have relied too heavily in this review on Michael Walsh’s own words, it is because they cannot be improved upon. The Devil’s Pleasure Palace is a challenging but unique and rewarding work powered by sustained flashes of brilliance. More importantly, it is a rallying cry for conservatives to re-engage in the critical cultural battle which Walsh correctly calls the defining issue of our time. Its outcome will determine whether we who see ourselves as the conservators of the Western legacy – “the primary engine of human moral, spiritual, social, scientific, and medical progress” – will “succumb to a relentless assault on its values” or whether we will rally and crush the left’s “double agents, operating behind the lines of Western civilization.”

The good news is that “the only weapon they have is our own weakness… it is their cowardice that will be their undoing.” Fear is what they sell, and so what conservatives must sell is heroism: “Were we once more to unleash our shared, innate notions of heroism upon the Unholy and Unheroic Left, we would crush them.” After all, “only one side fights to preserve instead of destroy, to honor instead of mock, to improve instead of tear down – to maintain the fence between civilization and barbarism.”

From Frontpage Mag, 2/7/15

What Kind of Male Role Model Would a President Trump Be?

No one in the public eye is currently driving more media attention and polarized debate than presidential aspirant, reality TV star, and billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump. His arrogance inspires rabid admiration and visceral disgust in equal measure. Many are horrified by the prospect that, as President, the bullying Trump might prove to be a Putin-style authoritarian; many find that same cocky aggressiveness to be electrifyingly, refreshingly virile. This raises an interesting, overlooked question: as a man, what kind of a role model would a President Trump be for our sons?

In her recent City Journal article “Coarsener in Chief,” Heather MacDonald addresses that very question. She is not a fan; after condemning Trump as “the most gratuitously nasty public figure that this country has seen in living memory” and “the very definition of a bully,” she urges his conservative supporters to consider Trump’s “effect on civilized mores”:

Boys in particular need to be civilized. That task will be more difficult with Trump in the White House... Any parent trying to raise a boy to be respectful, courteous, and at least occasionally self-effacing will have a hard time doing so when our national leader is so reflexively impolite, just as it is harder to raise girls to be sexually prudent when they are surrounded by media role models promoting promiscuity. The culture has been coarsened enough already. It doesn’t need further degradation from a president.

Amid quite a few uncivil ad feminam responses from Trump supporters that followed MacDonald’s article were comments along these lines: “For seven years, my family and friends have been waiting for a big, strong man to take center stage and say, "This way, men!" — a man who can provide inspiring leadership for America.” And this one, which seemed to sum things up nicely:

I wish Ms. Mac Donald had avoided making this into an issue where nasty, loutish boys must be “civilized.” Frankly, one of the problems we have been facing for the last half-century is the feminization of society... Because the pendulum has swung so far in that direction, a loudmouth buffoon like Trump seems authentic to a surprising number of people.

Those commenters won’t get any argument from me about the feminization of America, a half-century process (since the beginning of second wave feminism) which has left too many young American men in a state of confusion and helplessness about the definition and proper ideals of manhood. Nor would I deny that America is sorely in need of an inspirational leader in the White House who exudes strength and confidence and can restore American superpower. But are they correct that our current state of affairs makes a “loudmouth buffoon like Trump” seem authentically masculine? Is boorishness the mark of a leader of men? While I don’t think Trump’s quiet competition for the presidency, Dr. Ben Carson, is presidential material, is he any less manly because he doesn’t resort to bullying or trumpeting (pun intended) his impressive achievements?

Manliness is many things, and a fair subject for debate, but at its core, the basic ideals of manliness are simple: it is confidence, not loudmouthed cockiness. It is humility – not weakness, but humility – and service, not egotism and self-aggrandizement. It is chivalry, not bullying. It is leadership, not demagoguery. It is maturity and wisdom, not pettiness. Navy SEALs, whom no one would argue are feminized or unmanly or pushovers, are the epitome of such masculine characteristics.

These qualities today, along with manners and gentlemanliness, are too often considered old-fashioned and passé, and they are confused with weakness. Pop culture today, from the concert arena to the sports arena, sadly celebrates the brash, the egotistical, and the self-promoting, while the strong but quietly humble get overlooked. That doesn’t make the former manlier. Arrogance does not equate to masculine strength. If anything, arrogance proves to be nothing more substantial than bluster when the chips are down.

Heather MacDonald is correct that boys need to be civilized as they are raised (although these days girls, who are surrounded by all the wrong kinds of feminist role models, seem to need a strong civilizing influence themselves). But while our culture currently strives to sand down the rough edges of boys too far, there is a difference between civilizing boys and feminizing them. Too many of the commenters beneath MacDonald’s article, who seem eager to have a crass American Putin in the Oval Office, don’t seem to understand that, and that is an alarming commentary on our cultural confusion about manhood.

From Acculturated, 2/5/16

Creeping Totalitarianism at Harvard

In 1987, Allan Bloom’s bestselling book The Closing of the American Mind described how higher education was failing our students and “impoverishing their souls.” Bloom doubted that our colleges and universities could ever reestablish the ideal of a classically liberal education. Sadly, even as academically esteemed an institution as Harvard seems to be proving his skepticism right.

In a recent interview with political pundit William Kristol, former Harvard President Lawrence Summers complained that a “creeping totalitarianism” is casting a pall over our institutions of higher learning, Harvard included. As administrators and students obsess over safe spaces and microaggressions, educational excellence is being degraded by a “growing preference for emotional comfort over academic inquiry.” Schools are coddling a generation of militantly sensitive students while promoting a politically correct orthodoxy that stifles intellectual freedom.

In one example Summers mentions, “Holiday Placemats for Social Justice” appeared in a Harvard undergraduate dining hall last December. Created by the College’s Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, the placemats promoted social justice talking points for students to share with loved ones over the holidays, no doubt making for many an awkward Christmas dinner. The talking points included such messages as “Racial justice includes welcoming Syrian refugees.”

The placemats outraged alumni. Eighteen representatives complained in a letter that “We do not think the offices of the university should be in the business of disseminating ‘approved’ positions on complex and divisive political issues.” University President Drew Faust weighed in as well, calling the placemats “a really bad idea”:

“I don’t think the University should be directing people—students, staff, faculty—what to say or what to think. The University is a place that ought to foster robust discussion and disagreement, and welcome all perspectives, and that did not seem to be consistent with the message of the placemats.”

Exactly. The administrators responsible for the placemats issued an apology, but the PC push continues at Harvard on other fronts because, as Summers complained, some administrators have been “emboldened” to see this as “their moment to establish a kind of orthodoxy.”  

One of those who is seizing that moment is Rakesh Khurana. Harvard’s undergraduate dean since 2014, Khurana seems determined to implement a social justice agenda. He brought an end, for example, to the decades-old title of “house master” – for a male faculty member who oversees a dormitory – over the perception that the term resonates of slavery (will “master of arts” be targeted next?). Khurana wrote that the change was made “to ensure that the college’s rhetoric, expectations, and practices around our historically unique roles reflects [sic] and serves [sic] the 21st century needs of residential student life.”

But Khurana seems to be determining for himself what those needs are allowed to be. Now he is angering alumni by pressuring – some say coercing – the school’s all-male “final clubs” to accept women. Final clubs are off-campus undergraduate social clubs that sprang up after Harvard banned traditional fraternities in the 1850s. They have no formal relationship with the school, but Khurana contends that they are exclusive, elitist, and not “appropriate” for the university. He has asked such groups to consider whether their values “align” with the school’s mission.

And what is that mission? According to its website, it is “to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society.” It seems more likely that Khurana’s issue with the clubs is not that they fail to align with this mission, but that – as an all-male tradition – they are an impediment to social justice.

“The role of single-sex groups on campus should be decided by students, not administrators,” said one alumnus. “Harvard should stand for intellectual freedom and open debate and should set a clear precedent of protecting minority viewpoints — especially those viewpoints with which the current administration disagrees.”

But at least two of the eight all-male clubs at Harvard have already bowed to Khurana’s reported “veiled threat” of expulsion and decided to accept women. No word on whether he will go after the five all-female final clubs.

Bartle Bull, a 1964 Harvard graduate and self-described liberal, said that the administration is “working against diversity, tolerance, and the freedom of association.” “Harvard as an institution has been more and more controlling in the name of liberalism,” said Bull. Another alumnus wondered, “What kind of values are they trying to impose on students?”

The answer is that schools now are passionately committed to tolerance and diversity in every way except intellectually. Political correctness enforces identity politics but is intolerant of debate, dissent, alternative viewpoints, and criticism. The Harvard College “About” web page boasts that the school encourages “intellectual risk-taking.” But the creeping social justice totalitarianism Lawrence Summers laments suppresses any intellectual growth at all, much less risk-taking.

Nearly 30 years after Allan Bloom’s book, our colleges and universities are no closer to reopening the American mind.

From Acculturated, 2/3/16