A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 1: Introduction
by Matt PattersonBig Hollywood is a unique and long needed institution – a place where conservatives can gather and talk about pop culture and entertainment, the ultimate goal being, as I understand it, to encourage conservatives to engage in the culture war through the arts.
While the best tactics to achieve this goal are open to debate, its ultimate worth and necessity are indisputable – for too long, conservatives have ceded the most influential segments of society, from academia to Hollywood, to the Left with nary a fight. The current sorry state of our movement is in no small measure the result of this refusal to engage the battle of ideas where it impacts people the most- the culture that they absorb every day through radio, Internet, television, and movies.
The piece which will appear in eight installments, one chapter each Saturday and Sunday, over the next four weeks, however, will deal more specifically with the literary world, and the conservative’s place therein. For contemporary literature (by which I mean drama, poetry, and written fiction) is also more or less the exclusive province of left-wing thinkers and practitioners.
Some may argue that literature these days is not nearly as influential as movies, say, or television, and therefore perhaps not as worthy of conservative efforts to engage. On the face this is true – far more people watch Sex and the City, for example, than read The Kenyon Review. But in a larger sense, this argument misses the point and dangerously underestimates the influence of literature as a vehicle for poisonous ideas to enter the cultural mainstream.
Let us say that a talented young person, whose passion is film-making, enrolls in an elite educational institution. At that institution, he is exposed daily, both directly and indirectly, to the works of left-wing literary authors; in his university writing class, for example, he is given an essay by Susan Sontag to analyze and exemplify.
Let us suppose as well that this person is not inherently opposed to conservative ideas; nevertheless, having studied film and literature for four years without having been exposed to any conservative authors, he enters the film-making profession steeped in liberal thought.
Let us next suppose that this film-maker goes on to make a powerful movie which becomes a hit and is enjoyed by a wide audience, every member of which now exposed to the left-wing thought present in the subtext of the film.
This scenario, the trajectory of countless artists, illustrates the complex intersection between literature, art, education, and entertainment – all too often, it is on campuses and in literature where artists of all stripes are first exposed to left-wing ideology, to which they then give form in their work, some of which inevitably becomes popular and therefore a part of “pop” culture.
And it is precisely because literature has a foot in all of these worlds that I feel it is both worthy and fertile ground in which conservatives may stake a claim – if they are willing.
It seems, however, that by and large they are not willing. There are terribly few conservative poets, fiction authors, and dramatists working in America today. The aim of the following essay is two fold; 1) to discover why this is so, and 2) to explore ways in which this atrocious state of affairs may perhaps be corrected.
Tomorrow we will start by interviewing blogger, critic, and publishing expert Michael Blowhard.
Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator whose work has appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Baltimore Sun, and Pajamas Media. He is the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story.” His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
136 Comments
I notice left-wing thought every time I crack open one of my college textbooks.
If conservatives think that literature is unnecessary, they are sadly mistaken. I know more people who read than watch tv these days…
And it's not just literary fiction. Popular fiction is filled with sneering at conservatives. You have lost me as a reader Stephen King and Stuart Woods.
Tomorrow we will start by interviewing blogger, critic, and publishing expert Michael Blowhard.
Now that's funny.
Anyway, I hope you can make this interesting. I can't wait.
This is a great idea and worthy project. I suppose the historical theory is that conservatives were capitalist businessmen instead of academics or writers or actors. While there is no question these cultural areas exert strong pressure, I can look at myself and say my parents exerted the core conservative values I still hold today. One other thought on this, and I want to make clear I say this with no intent at prejudice. The media industry is represented on a higher percentage than exists in the country by Jewish people. I have no statistics, but based on my own experiences, Jews in this country tend to be liberal. This may have something to do with the historical discrimination they were exposed to, but it's just a thought. I can't say I would notice that same scenario in academia, however.
Having abused my authority (which I do at every opportunity) and read ahead in Matt's series, I can't recommend it highly enough. Being a movie guy I get a little focussed on that, so to have something this expansive, well written and important covering the written word is a very welcome addition to BH.
I'm thrilled Matt chose us to host this series and look forward to when I can abuse my authority all the way through chapter 8.
Jews are liberal, media is jewish, media is liberal might be syllogistically valid, but what's your point?
I'm trying to understand what it is about the American Jewish experience that may make them liberal in a higher percentage than other groups.
It seems that liberals have recoginzed that controlling the media and the academy give them the soapbox and control of the paradigms of the discussion, but that's also a hundred years old. Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck, Pound, et al. were showered with accolades for putting forth left-wing content. Dali was marginalized for his complacency during the Spanish Civil War. None of this is new, except that the Federalization of the College funding system has completely institutionalized the left, allowing such outrages as Terrorist professors in Chicago, and the Political Correctness scandal across College campuses, and the spread of a number of hoaxy psuedo-disciplines, one of which was the First Lady's minor at Princeton.
But remember, Al Franken's radio show won a grammy award (of note: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, B.H.O. all have them too), and Rush Limbaugh's never has. Further proof that fighting for a free market in media/academia will do more to equalize the system than any other method.
Ah, Upton Sinclair. He aimed to hit our society in the heart…and ended up hitting it in the stomach.
As I consider better trying to answer your valid question efficiently, here is another thought. I accept Matt's premise that conservatives need to increase their presence in the arts. It seems one (of many) very valid way to accomplish that is to convince liberals involved in the arts to give more credence (perhaps tolerance?) toward conservative ideas. I tried to get across the notion that for many, their political beliefs come as much from their childhood experiences. It seemed like a notion worth exploring. Anyway, hope that helps.
I look forward to reading the essay.
As to why there would be more liberal art then conservative art… I think art to most people in this society involves pushing limits more so than beauty or truth. Reflections are king. Principles fall to the side; partly due to cultural relativism in the public sphere and partly due to the lack of proper child rearing techniques by parents in the private sphere.
Imagine growing up in a household with dysfunctional parent(s) who do not have moral integrity and make no effort to encourage the pursuit of truth/god/knowledge. In such an environment, the proper basis of human life is not cultivated and the human being does not flourish. Rather, at a low function level he or she moves from day to day without much directing them other than the direction of the wind. Base desires and perhaps base passions guide decisions without as much consideration for ration.
Likewise, the taste for art is not so much motivated by the truth of the art. Instead, the art is judged by how closely it follows the a trend or fad.
In this sense, businesses can look at art like a product that moves through the product life cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_life_cycle_m... The decisions can be made in this way because the art is not as objective as it is fashionable.
Marketing. Marketing. Marketing.
The largest target market is hit with a broad stroke of low-brow common denominator material. Follow the money and watch how capitalism encourages this cannibalization of culture through parody.
As to how to turn this around? Let's figure it out!
Books are my primary exposure to mass entertainment (a little television, too). I'm looking forward to this series!
I remember reading (of seeing) Bruce Herschonsen comment on this years ago. An additional factor, according to him, was that people who are pre-disposed towards the arts tend to be more idealistic by nature. If that's the case, then I would imagine that a more lefty view of things would be more appealing then the righty view…especially when young and impressionable. It doesn't mean that the entire left-leaning infrastructure shouldn't be challenged, however.
If someone is pre-disposed towards sports, then they "know" that they have to "win the game" (competition). If you are pre-disposed towards the arts, then competition would go against your philosophy (yes, very simple analogy, but you get what I mean).
My artist father-in-law HATED the whole business aspect of the art world (putting on shows, being dependent on people to BUY his art, etc). He was all about the art…that was it.
I look forward to more of your analysis, Matt!
It's not a left-right thing and hasn't been since the mid-20th Century, or perhaps even earlier. It's whether to politicize the culture or to leave it alone to grow as it will no matter what one's particular politics.
The former approach is and always has been a failure, no matter how much it trumpets its own successes and seeks to gain total control by appearing already omnipotent, because its action spurs reaction and people are continuously being turned off by it. Those people don't seek another way of thought. They want something bigger than politics; they seek room for themselves, and this is why the latter approach is perhaps the best implementation of conservative principles.
We've always done best when we just tried to be the best we possibly could be, each in our own way. Politics has nothing to do with that.
Please leave the culture alone to grow in peace. It's so much more fertile and healthy that way.
The problem is that unless the professors have an open mind (as opposed to an interested in feeding their students propaganda), they simply won't bring conservative literature into their classroom or read it. Conservatives abandoned the education of children to the left, long before they even get to college. The only solution is for more conservatives to get involved in education but now that the left is in control, good luck with that. The left loves power more than anything else and aren't likely to give it up
—"Big Hollywood is a unique and long needed institution "—
Amen, brother!
Evan Sayet answers the question "Why are so many Jews liberal?" very well in his talk on PopModal. His answer is very insightful.
I've seen David Horowitz address this question. If you know him, he was raised by leftwing radical parents, was an exteme leftwing anti-nam guy (I believe he knew Ayers well), and now he is a rightwinger, and he is "the expert" on this whole topic of leftwing control of media/edcuational institutions. Horowitz made the point that white/western culture was anti-semetic climaxing in the holocaust, and that many Jews believe that if white christian culture could have its way, there would be no jews. Hence Jews identify with "opressed" people fighting the white christian culture. Of course, this is only his opinion as a jewish ex-liberal.
I tend not to worry too much about the religious/ethnic composition of liberalism. As Ayn Rand (ethnically jewish) pointed out, one great man, such as Milton Friedman (jewish), will do more to advance humanity than ten thousand mediocre men.
and that is just not going to happen for a loooong time. Conservatives made assumptions about higher education that no longer existed, except in small exceptions and they, WE, got blindsided. I see no way to change this other than outlasting them and making small incremental changes along the way. An uphill battle is the epitome of understatement. The best that, we the everyday Joe's can do, is talk and hopefully educate. Reality can be a great educator, if they would only acknowledge it.
Matt, thank you for this series. I look forward to reading it.
To achieve the goals BH has set for itself, it needs more pieces like this. The "celebrity X is a jerk" pieces are fine, but they don't really advance the goals like you seem to be aiming to do. Bravo.
This has always blown my mind. There is only one military organization that I admire more than the pluck and sheer guts, of the Israeli Army. Guess which one. How a people can be so determined to fight and survive against such incredible odds yet, espouse political beliefs that are so counter productive to their cause, to their very existence, mystifies me. The DAILY fight of the Jewish nation should have liberals marching in the streets every day in support, if they truely believed in their professed dogma. The actual Conservative mindset melds perfectly with the Jewish plight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_political_mov...
I know it is from wiki and thus suspect but it is well written.
The main point seems to me to be that the Jews have always been "controlled" in Europe by the civil and mostly non-secular Christian authorities. Much of this came in the middle ages was tied very closely to the Catholic Church which had a need to proselytize the pagans under their religious based control and how to deal with Judaism which as the "mother" of their religion could not be so catalogued as Pagan. Jews were segregated and in the Age of Enlightenment of the 1700’s and 1800 were a closed people, segregated, for many centuries from time to time persecuted (Hitler was unfortunately not the first with Pogroms and although a “great” orator was not really a good critical thinker) who started to develop Jewish Emancipation Movements. These as the article states coincide with the Utopian movements of the 1800’s which developed Marxism. So many in Europe became involved in the Labor movements. Just a thought.
However there are a number of Jews that supported the “classical liberalism” of the founding fathers and I think Mark Levin is a very good example of an ideologue and spokesman for this.
It is relevant because a lot of the great thinkers of western history were “Jewish” not in small part because to be an iconoclast it helps I guess to be from an ideological background that was not the dominant hierarchy.
Matt, I look forward to your thoughts on this relevant issue to me. Speaking for myself, I too went to a libtard college, and found myself, time and again at the mercy of fools and trotskyites. It can't be avoided. Now some thirty years later, I try to avoid the filters. When I write my stories, I cull from personal experiences – as too what this person did or how this person feels. I think any author that writes from a total liberal bent is dishonest, or has lived in a vacuum all his/her life, never experiencing the pendulum of the real world of disappointment and failure to the thrill of winning and acheivement. They focus on the failure and blame Republicans or big business, blah, blah, blah for their sorry lot in life. I strive to represent both sides of the spectrum – as there is good and bad in everyone. I try to celebrate the good, as the losers provide my arc. But growth as a writer must be constantly challenged, and your imput is valuable.
Major literary awards primarily have gone to liberal works for years. Thank you so much for beginning this discussion, Mr. Patterson.
—"I notice left-wing thought every time I crack open one of my college textbooks. "—
Ugggh…….how true. It's ridiculous. I have perused some World War II discussion forums. The absolute lack of education on the acknowledged facts is stunning. Some of the things I see:
Why did the US wait so long to enter the war? Easy question, right? Wrong. There is strong belief that we waited until, get this, victory was assured so that we could dominate the world economically.
w-w-w-What?
Another good one is: We went to war to get out of the depression. There are a suprising number of very young doorknobs that agree with that and think it was a good idea. Also, they think we should do it again!
un-friggin'-believable.
I called these people out on their ignorance, told them to read books (Liddell-Hart, Morrison, Davis Hanson, among others) instead of their leftist univeristy texts. They all had cyber meltdowns. It was pretty funny.
One thing about the current cultural movement going on is the "misunderestimation" of the homeschool movement. You will find that homeschoolers will be more trained in the classical arts. As a homeschooler myself, I feel that if there is to be any cultural movement in the future, it will be among those who have removed themselves from the influence of public school and seek to forge their way through a college education in spite of the Leftist stranglehold.
I am also looking forward to seeing the series because it sounds like a continuance of the conversation we've had earlier about why Christian film doesnt seem to make the cut. There were a lot of observations and complaints that conservatives should really pay attention to if they want to get the goods on how the Left has taken control of the public eye.
And I posit the notion that this argument has been going on for a lot longer than we think – I am always reminded of the debate Tolkien had with Lewis about the nature and purpose of fairy-tales. Tolkien believed the Holy Spirit would rise up in an unconscious way, whereas Lewis wished to purposefully provide an obvious framework in allegory. It has always interested me how those who have "studied" the spiritual nature of fantasy tend to fall into one of these two camps.
It may hve to do with the concept of mitzvah (sp?), an emphasis on doing good works as a duty to God. Seems a perfect philosophy for a liberal. Christianity also encourages good wrks, but the emphasis is on the heart, or intent, of the individual. Islam prescribes good works — it is a matter of observation of the law. So we have thee interpretations of giving a street person a buck: Jewish (a good (righteous) act); Christian (an outward gesture of a changed heart); Muslim (a fulfillment of the law).
I know this is way over simplified….
When you examine the literary world, you have to look at the mostly liberal literary agents and editors who, remarkably, help to define it.
The American Left has to be frightening to Jews worldwide. The unabashed support for Islamic terrorism by leftist Europe and the left wing in the U.S. should expose who the Jews can trust as they face their latest fight for survival. Any American Jew that votes for ANY Democrat should examine themselves in the mirror very closely. American leftist and their party of choice, the Democrats, wish for Israel's destruction and ultimately the relegation of the U.S. to a second rate, middle of the pack, toothless sideline spectator of world events. They must be stopped NOW!
Many of the most radical elements of the left’s ideas can be found in Plato's Republic. One is the idea of censorship used by the state to control the populace. He believes that the "Guardians" i.e. rulers of his Republic should only listen to the proscribed "music" (his euphemism for thought and culture) and should perform the proscribed "gymnastics" which is training for war but I take to mean in a greater sense the rituals of indoctrination of society. You go through this work you will see a plethora of “bad” ideas put forth with “good” intentions.
The overriding theme is CONTROL. Control the state with the Guardians. Control the minds of the Guardians though education, limit thought by Control of the Media, and control activities through Culture. I think this one book may be why there is such a great link between “Utopianism” and “Totalitarianism”. It is why I refer to many of the leftists as “Plato’s Chosen”. I think they see themselves as self appointed Guardians of the Republic. As a staunch anti-authoritarian individualist their ideas are anathema to me.
Indescretion and abuse of authority noted, you vill be hearing from the "Office of Authority Abuse" aka D.H.S . under Madame Napalotano. Ve vill not treat this lightly Herr Nolte. (Oh, and cool, we will take your recommendation to heart!)
If you've given up on King, allow me to heartily recommend Dean Koontz, especially his Odd Thomas series as a fantastic and fantastical series with a very traditionalistic outlook.
I'm a currently a college student and I wouldn't be shocked if some of these clownish liberal professors donned an SS uniform or dressed up like Goebbles to emphasize how correct Liberalism (big L) is. The leftist propaganda is like a thick fog permeating modern U.S. academia. The typical leftist is unable to comprehend that most business leaders could easily shed their suit and slip into a tweed jacket, take a pay cut and teach college. They can't comprehend that. They are following Alinsky's model and subverting this country from inside, using the system against itself. Obama is the logical progression.
Ideas matter. Ideas have always mattered, because they eventually work their way into practice. It is something I have been saying all my life, something Ronald Reagan addressed (alone among Presidents since Kennedy) and a fact that we only ignore at our peril. We must engage.
The Roman poet Juvenal responded to Plato's concept by asking Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Loosely–"Who will guard the guardians." The Roman Republic was a great idea that ultimately failed, but at least they asked the right question.
Breitbart.com is the best thing to happen for conservatives since……
This should be both fun and interesting. When I was growing up, we read a book, and if it was any good, we hoped it would be made into a movie. Today, they make a movie, and if people ever read the book after seeing the movie, they want to know why the book wasn't more like the movie. One of my favorite conservative authors of political novels was Alan Drury in the late fities and early sixties. His first novel in a series was "Advise and Consent" which translated very well into a movie without having to re-write the book to match. The remainder of the book series never made it to the screen because he was far too prescient about the future of America–slow dismantling of the Constitution, fake pacifists in high office, and in the two-volume alternative ending, the complete destruction of the weakened United States, or a conservative revival that saved the US at the crucial moment. I hope your articles will search out authors who did or do political novels as well.
I'm not old enough to remember the social impact of these liberal darlings on the popular culture, but as I have become more aware of the hegemony that the left has on cultural institutions, I always have to question now whether every Pulitizer Prize and every Nobel prize of the past was justified, or whether it merely reflected the leftist opinion of the day.
Al Gore's sweep of trophies based on his sophmoric, unbalanced and credulous "works" has really destroyed my faith in our cultural institutions.
Liberals control the media landscape because they never shut up and they never give ground. Conservatives have always thought that they owned the ground upon which American ideals dwelled. They thought it went without saying. When they decided to say something, speaking the obvious, they were drowned out by idiotic filibustering. Liberal thought seems to be that you think what they have come to think or SHUT UP. This is how they have dominated the landscape. For too many years our children have been taught in Academia that common sense and what they were taught at home was passe, not revelant, old hat, divisive and wrong.
Anybody with any common sense knows this is not true. It does not take a genius to see the holes all through liberal thought and what passes for their arguments.
As posted above, Liberals get the vote of the Jews , whom they undermine at every turn. They get to support of the black community, when history shows the libs have betrayed them throughout . It was Conservatives who freed the slaves and the liberals who have used them ever since. When has that ever made any sense?
It is the dishonesty that finally gets to people. People who think that is.
For this landsacpe to change it is Conservatives who will become more vocal, active and persistent and it won't be easy. The din of hatred and vitriol coming from the liberal left is so loud it will take a watershed of conservative thought to flush it clean and out of society altogether. Somewhere, somehow and in very short order, liberals will overplay their hand. They have already started. Those of us who know what is right and spend most of our time living it instead of hawking some manner of evil all over the airwaves have come to their saturation point and have begun to engage. And that is the beginning of the end of the marketing of evil that has so prevailed
As a College Student, I feel your pain. Our history book has a de Goya painting (and pretty good one) of a Spainiard executed for rebelling against Napoleon's forces. Next to the painting is the question: "Was this man a 'terrorist' or a 'freedom fighter?'"
And don't get me started on the Great Depression.
But their stuff on Ancient History is pretty good.
Hey, it is your authoritah! And we respect it.
Like the other bookworms on here, I'm looking forward to this series. I've almost quit reading contemporary fiction and pretty much stick to Classics and nonfiction because … so much of contemp-fic is so bad. It's too bad – we're in a golden age right now for nonfiction, but if there are some excellent fiction entries out there, the bookstores are doing their damndest to hide it.
"None of this is new, except that the Federalization of the College funding system has completely institutionalized the left, allowing such outrages as Terrorist professors in Chicago, and the Political Correctness scandal across College campuses, and the spread of a number of hoaxy psuedo-disciplines, one of which was the First Lady's minor at Princeton."
Leading to two incidents, one involving Water Buffalo and the other, Lacrosse Players and a crooked DA.
I heartily concur, and also really enjoyed Alan Drury as well as the movie version of Advise & Consent (particularly Charles Laughton.)
It's all about the Criticism. When the Liberals control the media (and they do), they control the opinion of the weak minded (and they do) and thus control the direction of popular culture, (which they do). I assert there ARE many conservative artists in all genres, but the Liberal Critique Machine makes sure we'll never hear much about them.
Oh yes, I love Koontz. I think Odd Thomas is a little gem of a book
Indeed. When I was a kid I did the same thing, read a book and hope they'd turn it into a movie. I still do a lot of reading but it's changed, now when I really like a book I usally pray they don't turn it into a movie. Why? Because for the most part it will get spindled, folded and mutilated to fit into a more generally PC context no matter what the subject or tone of the book is about. Granted it doesn't always work out that way, but it's happened enough that I'm leery of reading news that any book I like has had the film rights picked up.
Golani and Tennessee Jed: Both your comments disappeared into that bloody robo black hole. As soon as they reappear (if they reappear) I'll respond. For now, I'll just say thanks for the comments, I agree with both.
I'll be very interested in this series. I own more books than almost everyone I know with the possible exception of my mother, and it's always interesting to see how an author's views tend to express themselves through a story.
Imagine the mish-mosh they would make out of that today. One of the subplots was that one of the conservative Republicans opposed the latest power-grab by the Democrats. He was married, but there was a homosexual affair in his past. So the Democrats blackmailed him with it, and he ended up committing suicide because it ruined his life and his marriage. Today, the movie would make him a wonderful, caring liberal Democrat who supports gay marriage, since he has a wife as well as a male friend he wants to marry. The Republicans would try to blackmail him, and when he didn't cave, they would murder him.
Well said. Look what they did to "Sum of All Fears." Ben Affleck and neoNazis. Yoiks!
There's a big difference between Jews in Israel and Jews in the US when it comes to politics, in general at least. In the US the Democrats have long seen the Jews as a bloc they could count on, and unfortunately, they're usually right. In the last election somewhere around 70% of American Jews voted Democrat, I wasn't in that category; but in Israel it was reversed, there are a lot of dual US-Israeli citizens and roughly 70% of those voted Republican. Who are the 30% of dual citizens who voted Democrat from Israel? Usually media types and academics, those professions' ideology largely seem to trump the "where you are" factor even when it runs completely contradictory to the reality of what they see every day. Ha'aretz is damn near the New York Times Middle East edition these days, and I've lost track of how many of their editorialists are Colombia, NYU, Brown, etc. grads. The recent Israeli election's results really only surprised those media types, and angered them as well; since it became apparent that they couldn't tell people what to think anymore. A few thousand rockets can change anyone's opinion, no matter what the press is telling them the correct parties to vote for are.
Also in the US it's easier for even Jewish liberals to take policy opinions on what would be "fair" in the Middle East, whereas those same people would think a little differently (if they had self-preservation instincts at all) when people who literally do want to kill you all, can be living as close as 7 miles away even if you're inside the Green Line.
Same here, at this point I'm fairly sure I own more books than the library had in the town I grew up in. Granted it was a really small town, but still, I have more books than some people consider to be healthy.
The best part of the movie adaption of "Sum of All Fears" was Clancy's commentary track, it started out "Hi I'm Tom Clancy, I wrote the book that they ignored to make this film…" and it only got better from there. I may have to pull out the DVD to listen to while working around the house later on. The other good part was Liev Schreiber, whom I think is an amazing actor.
Yeah they all disappeared for me for about a half hour, now they seem to be working again. Knock on wood.
It's always fun to point to jerks too though, and try to get pie. But yeah, this is a needed sort of thing as well most definitely and I'm looking forward to reading these rest of these.
I hope some definition of 'what is conservative literature' comes out of it. I think the answer might be as simple as 'good storytelling'.
And, further to what someone else said, clearly all the big prizes, awards, grants etc. go to writers who sieze on the latest fashionable left-wing concern. The left literally purchases writers by the bushel.
Another matter is the state-approved literature foisted on kids at both high school and college level; in lit. classes. They have to go out and buy the assigned book and read it. This makes the left-wing authors sales go up. A good example is The Color Purple. That book has sold million because it is *assigned* in so many college and HS classes. There are many other fiction works just as bad. Barbar Kingsolver comes to mind.
I do think there's a lot of truth to the idea that Jews are so used to being oppressed and discriminated against, that we naturally favor the societal underdog.
It's also worth noting that when the Jews of Europe and Russia emigrated to America, many of them settled in New York and became laborers, working in what we would now call sweat shops. They were leaders in the Labor movement because they were laborers themselves, experienced the toughest of labor conditions, and sought to change them. A good book on the Jewish experience of America is "World of Our Fathers," by Irving Howe.
As a third-generation Jewish-American whose family were zionists and who campaigned long and hard to get the U.S. and major religious groups within the U.S. to recognize and aid the fledgling state of Israel, I can tell you that Liberal Jews do not hate Israel. We do often disagree with the Israeli government's policies, especially their treatment of Arab-Israelis and Palestineans, but that's not the same thing as saying we hate Israel or don't believe there should be a Jewish state.
I can also tell you that the citizens of Israel are hardly a monolithic block. They're actually divided about 48/48 liberals to conservatives, which is why the government shifts back and forth from one party ot the other each election. The minor voting blocks have a lot of clout in their parliamentarian system.
Among other things, Jews are a self interest group, not that any other religion isn't, existing partly to promote themselves.
The reasons for Jewish liberalism to some extent would have to cover thousands of years and is more the subject of probably at least a dozen tomes, and some would be very interestin).
Modern Judaism has been extremely leftist. The facts that Marx was a Jew (whether or not he thought his birth religion was an opiate) and that Israel began as a socialist state make this point undeniable.
In the 30s leftists plotted to take over Hollywood. They were mostly Jews. They hired and promoted each other not just because they were Marxists but because they were Jews. In other words the fact of their cultural, ethnic or religious identification with Judaism abetted their Marxist propagandizing. They weren’t promoting just commies but also Jews.
Many of these folks were Jews before they were Americans. I have no problem with that. If you are a Jew who is an American first, fine. If you are a Jew who is a Jew first, fine. I just don’t want Jews lying to me about where you really stand, especially when it comes to free enterprise and the Bill of Rights.
I will read your work. I was thinking that we need to do what we can to blend logic and imagination a la C.S. Lewis. Tolkein can also be an inspiration.
Since the Democratic party is home to a numberr of Jewish Senators and Congresspersons, it would seem that Jewish thought doesn't give much weight to your perception.
I believe that Cormac McCarthy's latest book, The Road, to be among the most conservative books I have ever read, and he is considered one of the greatest living writers in America today.
I do believe that Marx was fairly hostile to all religons, Judaism particularly.
It had been safe for Jewish politicians to be Democrats and liberal. My point is that suddenly, particularly since the recent Gaza uprising it has become fashionable to again be anti-Israel. The left is embrassing this position, and liberal Jewish politicians are going to get caught in the wash. Read what Alan Dershowitz says about the cowardly Hamas insurgents puposely hiding amongst the woman and children in their own community to ensure Palestinian casulties. It's a media driven strategy that worked for the Viet Mihn and against the IRA.
Loved the first Heritage Foundation YouTube clip.
I don't know that this latest talk (http://www.popmodal.com/video/2127/Evan-Sayet–Ha... explains why Jews are so liberal, but it details many of the parameters of what the left' "brain dead" condition really mean.
While answering a question about the fairness doctrine, ES pointed out that the only liberal talk radio show is propped up by Soros: "Air America is so successful, it is on welfare."
Yay! As a conservative SF/F novelist who is trying to get it going, I must cheer. Yay! As a reader of a huge number and assortment of books, I must cheer. Yay! As someone who is concerned for our culture, and realizes the great power books have, I must cheer. That's three cheers for the new series.
"Conservatives abandoned the education of children to the left, long before they even get to college. The only solution is for more conservatives to get involved in education but now that the left is in control, good luck with that."
We need to shift our thinking somewhat. All of us should realize that the left is consciously attempting to control every public entity: high finance, government, media, education, Miss USA pageants, et cetera. We have to popularize confronting them with perpetual calls to action.
There isn’t going to be one solution. We have to rely on American ingenuity. The fight has to take place in each school system. In one county, the answer might be to simply take back the local school board. In another, it might be the promotion of vouchers. The answers will be there if every conservative is looking for them.
In a conversation with an administrator from a Southern district, I asked how they were handling biased books being forced on them. She said that things weren’t as bad there as they are in San Francisco, but to get around liberal programming, they directed children to web sites that, for instance, told true American History. The answer was obvious, staring me in the face. I had just never thought of it.
Further, we need to encourage conservatives to begin enjoying the fight, to see it as not just a distraction from the important luxuries in their lives, but as exceptionally satisfying because it is among the most important in the era in which we live.
Many Jews don't consider themselves to be religious, but culturally Jews, nonetheless. More and more Jews who make up the left feel the same way. They prefer and promote cultural Jews ahead of others.
Many of these are Jews – in that sense – long before they are Americans.
I lived in Manhattan from 84 to 90. In the first six months, I met three Jews who in the first ten minutes of the conversation wanted to know what I thought about the Rosenbergs, whom they believed innocent. Obviously their Jewish culture was more important to them than America.
I'm a big fan of Celebrity X. You gotta problem with that?
I never have any problems at all with anything that a lawyer wants (until said lawyer is out of hearing range).
I stick to Erasmus's dictum. "When I have money, I buy books. If there's any money left, I buy food."
Jews represent the best and worst of mankind. Just go into any great art meuseum in this world from London, Paris, New York and look at the names of who donated the works there. Look at the scientists and physicists who built the bomb from Einstein to Oppenheimer.
On the other hand we have the likes of Intenational criminal George Soros and Bernie Maddoff (he made off with the money) and pornographers like the Weinstien brothers.
There is one truth here though, to deny that the media particularly the News media is dominated by Liberal Jewish interests, is intellectually dishonest.
We all know that it is.
You met 3 Jews who in the first 10 minutes of the conversation brought up the Rosenbergs? I find that really hard to believe, unless you were visiting NYU or Colombia's political science departments. Most Jews, myself included, really don't think too much about the Rosenbergs, and outside of college I never heard their name come up at all in general conversation.
To me it sounds a little like hyperbole, or you met some very odd people. It'd be like every person of German descent that you bumped into bringing up Bruno Hauptmann in the first 10 minutes of conversation.
A very smart man.
I think the reality is that if Conservatives wish to be heard, they are simply going to have to be 100 times better than the best Liberal. Yeah, it's an unfair playing field. But it gives us reason to *SHINE*. There's a reason that church art is still shown in museums, even if modern artists mock it. In the same way, even if critics mock Conservatives for their art, if it's better than anything else out there it *WILL* stand out.
So I would say the first thing Conservatives should do is cut the defeatism. The whining about how it's unfair that liberals control everything. We prove them wrong by producing works that are so good they can't reject them.
And that's the thing. The left owns everything, so they're lazy. It's like a union job–they don't have to do the best work because they're "safe." Then someone comes along who's better than they are, and their only recourse is to "knock knees." They can't out-compete on talent. And because they can't win on talent, they will lose the war.
Good point and Dershowitz's change over the years is a very interesting one. Some of his articles in the Jerusalem Post about the legalities of warfare are well worth looking up and reading.
Although to be a little nitpicky Gaza didn't have an uprising. Hamas started lobbing rockets and mortars into Israel, which isn't an uprising since there haven't been any Israelis in Gaza to rise up against since 2005. Not a big point at all, but a mistake the media makes a lot too, although unlike you I think they do it intentionally to shape public opinion through misplaced words leading to wrong perceptions.
Except for mixing up the minor voting blocs with minor parties, that's pretty much how it works. There are basically just 2 blocs, the liberal one, and the conservative one, but there are a host of little parties with special interests that will side with either to get whatever they want. They're a tiny minority of the electorate, but some of those parties can make or break a coalition. That's one reason that election law reform comes up as an issue every election, but since that's just how things are in the Knesset it usually gets forgotten about right after the election is over so the whole thing can be repeated every couple-few years.
'Whining abut how it's unfair that liberals control everything'. You're right.
Also comment above about McCarthy being conservative. Also correct.
McCarthy knows how to set a scene and start moving and never stop driving his narrative forward. That's something young writers need to learn.
Young writers just need to learn the technical aspects, the toolkit, as it were, of storytelling and they are going to have to do it on their own. It is not taught. Creative writing classes are all about expressing yourself and the delicate and rather fussy exploration of character — comedies of manners. They need to be given permission to avoid the shopworn old leftist cliches and quit junking up their writing with stereotypes.
The question I have is who are the conservative writers? I can only think of a few. Jorge Luis Borges, Robert Heinlein, Jack Kerouac, Paul Johnson, George Orwell, C.M. Kornbluth, Patrick O'Brian, David Berlinski, … who else? Who else created great literature, whether fictional or non-fictional, and at the same time embodied conservative values? You might argue with the people I mentioned, but, I'm afraid that the cubbard is rather bare.
I meant cupboard.
Can we start with our own blacklisting so I don't spend any more money on books and then find out they are preachy liberal epistles?
Tom Wolfe.
Thank you for posting this. At our high school my son HAD to read The Bean Tree. I had never read it so we read it together. Did not like it the story or her writing. Then my son had to read The Joy Luck, which I had read, and enjoyed. His comment to me was why am I reading all these chick. And then we wonder the young men today and not MEN.
And don't get me started on I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings. AAAHHHH. We had a discussion that not all women all predators. I REALLY hate that book in particular.
I'm reading the "Little Britches" seris by Ralph Moody, which I just love and one of the most recent books I've read is "Alas Babylon", can't remember the author. These are fiction.
Really, I would say there are more conservative essay, dramatist, fiction writers than you think. However, it is most likely hard for them to be published because of liberal oriented publishers who don't like the conservative leaning message and/or feel of the story. And they cover themselves by saying "well THIS kind of story or genre or whatever isn't really sellingh right now, so we won't publish this." Even if you know it would do very well, that's what happens.
I pushed a wrong key while typing my message up there, as you may have noticed the word selling is spelled – sellingh – . Sorry about that.
As an avid book reader I am looking forward to these essays. One of my biggest frustrations is finding good material for my children, I have found over the years that they do not have the attention span necessary to read the classics. One of my favorite books, Silas Marner, is to boring. I did not understand what they meant until I tried to read the first Harry Potter. Lots of dialog, lots of telling what is going on. I think a couple of them finished the first couple. My child who reads anything, read all of them.
I am homeschooling the last two children and am taking a more classical approach to their education. More reading the types of books I read in the 60's and 70's. I believe that we need to start with our children.
I hope this encourages writers to write. They have an almost built in audience.
It's not just what they choose to mention, but what they choose to leave out as well. For example, the teacher's edition text book, "American History" (published by McDougal Littell, now Holt McDougal) does NOT mention in the index the words "church, Christian, Christianity or Jesus Christ" but has 75 mentions of the terms diversity, tolerance and bias.
"The American Journey", written by David R. Goldfield and published by Pearson Prentice Hall, spends two pages talking about Gorbachev and the Cold War but doesn't even mention Reagan's involvement in ending it.
I'm looking forward to this series. My curiosity is pricked.
I've always thought that the serious artist/writer should be something of an outsider and that literature should search for aspects of truth rather than be used as a political tool.
You can tell your tale from the inside out, but at the same time you have to strive for the creative vision of the all-seeing eye above the fray. You must be able to take any side of any argument but you also have to be able to transcend the argument in order to see where that takes you.
A work of literary art cannot be merely a dramatic exercise in polemics. There are things deeper than politics and the literary seeker's job is to uncover them with language.
Pop fiction is, of course, a different story. Give it any political "pop" you want. But if your goal is winning readers to your political side, you aren't likely to be writing a lasting work of literature–more likely, you''ll only be adding to the glut of disposable fiction.
My comment was to the point as to whether or not Marx considered 'his brith religon' as an opiate. undoubtably he did. He actually was not too fond of the "cutural" jew either. http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Marxist_Antisem...
Well, isn't Alan Dershowitz the exact guy that disproves your point? He is Jewish, Pro-Israel, and a liberal democrat.
The story is true. All three were Brooklyn Jews. Two were encounters on the subway. Being a Midwestern hick, I have never had any problem conversing with strangers. The third whom I met through a friend was JDL. Kahane, their leader, who was eventually assassinated, heavily leaned toward socialism.
I am not certain how old you are, but for the red diaper, hard core left Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (before the Soviet info was declassified) were a propaganda issue – a way of rallying anti-American sentiment among "victimized" Jews. For these folks, the fact the USA fried the "innocent" pissed them off.
The thing that jumped out at me was that we executed Julius and Ethel way back in the early 50s, but as late as the mid 80s, the issue was still potent. I couldn't avoid recognizing the implications. If I just happened across three overtly left leaning Jews in six months, I had to wonder how many more were imbedded through New York City?
Because the Rosenberg's guilt has since been proven via declassified Soviet documents, today, it is probably not still a hot button issue. If you were fairly young in the 80s, it is likely that you never got a feel for the commie disdain of the USA because of the Rosenbergs. If you are old enough to remember, then your comments are blatantly disingenuous.
I don’t think that your comparison works. If Hauptmann was guilty, he committed one of the crimes of the century. Lindberg was a national hero and killing his son was an atrocity. That doesn’t compare to the Rosenbergs selling atomic secrets to the Soviets (Stalin is quoted as saying how much he loved them) which could have meant the massacre of tens of millions of Americans.
I don't think you can use that argument (as true as it probably is) to distance Jews from their leftist roots. Just because Marx claimed not to accept them, they oviously wanted what he was selling. It is difficult to believe that he was a Jew and that it is a mere coincidence that so many other jews over generations promoted his thinking.
Quite a few in Sci-Fi: John Ringo, David Weber, Eric Flint, David Sherman, and Dan Craig all write stories with consistently conservative messages, whether or not they'd actually call themselves "conservative authors" or not; although I'm certain 4 of the 5 would, and 80% sure the remaining one would as well. Considering that all of them have multi-book ongoing series, that's not an insignificant presence.
Military thrillers have even more, among them Tom Clancy which you'd be hard pressed to find someone over the age of 30 in the US who hasn't read at least one of his books, and even more who have seen the movies based (usually clumsily) off them. But there's also Larry Bond, Dale Brown, Ralph Peters (although he can go squishy on TV at times) and James Rollins. And you can't forget Michael Crichton, everyone has read something by him, and look at how he was vilified when he died, precisely for his conservatism.
Those are just off the top of my head, it's not so much the cupboard is bare, just that some people may not have a well stocked enough one.
Kerouac? Pro-Vietnam War, but a conservative?
You must be logged in to post a comment.