My musician friend Martin has similar thoughts.  He feels a vast gulf separates the liberal and conservative mind.  He describes conservatives (again, generally) as serious in thought, and more apt to value personal responsibility and spiritual-based morality, while artists, he says, tend to have, and maybe even need to have, more lax work and personal ethics.  Creative people, he tells me, want to push the envelope, move beyond the status quo, an attitude which they tend to apply to all aspects of life.  Again, it comes down to messiness.  Conservatives don’t like a mess; liberals love ‘em.

The lifestyle of Bohemia is a prefect example – late nights, sundry substances, many partners; these and other staples are less likely to tempt the conservative temperament by definition.

But even granting that conservatives are temperamentally less inclined to participate in the Bohemian lifestyle, it is a vile (and destructive) myth that Bohemia and artistry necessarily go hand in hand.  Many writers and artists, many great writers and artists, have lived stable, relatively tranquil lives consistent with the conservative temperament.

There are no tales of debauchery or overindulgence surrounding Virgil’s life, for example.  Instead, the man who authored the Aeneid seems to have been a shy man given to study and composure.  Then there is Shakespeare.  The scant evidence of his life, mostly legal and church documents detailing births, baptisms, financial transactions, etc., show zero taste for Bohemian recklessness (leaving aside the question of the autobiographical nature of the sonnets, on which topic there is much disagreement).  By all appearances, the Bard seems to have been an eminently stable and sensible family and business man, who by his death had managed to amass a healthy sized estate to bequeath to his children and grandchildren.

And it is important to remember that, while conservative temperament and conservative politics often go hand in hand, they do not always.  Nor do liberal politics necessarily flow from liberal temperament; there are those rare souls who contain within them both the philosophical love for the free market as well as a liberal temperament given to personal messes and artistic extravagance.

So temperament, while a factor, need not be a determinative one.  Perhaps the rest of the puzzle comes down to values.

Conservatives do not value art less than liberals.  But it does seem that they value art in a different way.  Conservatives tend to put art in perspective,  putting it quite sensibly after things like family, God, and country.  In other words, conservatives are less likely to value art in that all consuming fashion necessary if one is to devote one’s life to the pursuit.  The result, of course, is fewer conservatives than liberals gravitating towards a profession in literature and the arts generally.

Tomorrow we will examine possible solutions to this conundrum, and conclude the series.

[Ed. note: You can read a new chapter of this eight-part series every Saturday and Sunday morning. Previous chapters –Part one, two, three, four, five and six.]

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.

Do you think that there are fewer conservatives (artistic, political, or both) in the arts generally, and literature in particular?

A two-part answer.

Part one is that I have a super-inclusive view of “culture.” We’re all immersed in culture whether we know it or not, and whether we want to be or not. We clothe ourselves, we watch TV and movies and flip through magazines, we eat, we listen to stories and jokes, we drive cars and have opinions about airports and restaurants … That’s all culture. So from that point of view we’re *all* “in the arts.”  

Part two … Deeply-held Zen bullshit to one side … Yeah, in my experience there are far fewer righties in the arts than lefties, and that holds for writing and publishing as much as the other arts I’ve come in contact with. Lefties dominate, and in most ways they dictate the terms that the arts discussion takes place on. At its worst you could say that a common, unspoken assumption in the arts is that being a lefty is a prerequisite for even getting into the field.

All that said, I should add that I’ve always wondered about something, which is how many of the people in the arts who go along with the general-leftie-ism of the the field do so only for public consumption. In other words, how many of them dissent privately? I’d guess that a fair number do. But how will we ever know?

I should add as well that one of the reasons my fellow Blowhards and I blog is to demonstrate that it’s possible to be arts-guys without being party-line lefty. We developed a pretty good-sized readership pretty quickly, so I have to believe that there are numerous people out there who like the arts but who find the official art-world’s leftie-ism off-putting.

Give some examples of conservative novelists/essayists.

Probably the most famous contempo conservative American literary writers are Tom Wolfe and Mark Helprin. Dana Gioia, a terrific poet…is also a conservative. The conservative magazine world is swarming with rightie journalists and essayists. Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan are two of many examples.

Is it some temperamental quality in the conservative mind that pushes away from a literary career? Or is it institutional liberalism in the lit community?  Some combination of the two?

Let me take the opportunity to introduce another one of my Zen-ish points, if I can. I think it can be a mistake to over-focus on the self-described “literary” wing of the reading-and-writing worlds. So far as fiction goes, for instance, there’s a huge and dynamic non-literary world of narrative genre writing out there: sci-fi, crime, romance, erotica, and more. In my experience these writers are often far more free-thinking and far less doctrinaire and party-line than the literary crowd is. They’re also just as smart and often far more talented. They create works in modes that everyday people can understand and enjoy, and they do so in what’s often a friendly, accessible, and even businesslike spirit. And it’s a far larger world than the literary world is.

The literary world? Feh — who needs ‘em?

What about politically conservative literary authors throughout history?  Did there use to be more?  If so, why?  What are the historical factors you think would have caused the shift?

You’ll probably want to speak to a real scholar about this. But I can’t resist taking a swing at it anyway. I see three main stages:

- In the late 1800s some writers (Henry James was one) started treating the novel not as a big sprawling entertainment form but as a work of art that needed its own artistic unity.

- Modernist writers responded to the challenge presented by the movies by focusing ever more on “writerly” concerns.

- The post-WWII American boom produced, along with everything else, a boom in colleges and universities. As more people watched TV, book-fiction lodged itself ever more in academia. Eventually what’s often joked about as “the creative writing industry” seized command of the serious-writing wing of fiction-writing.

In other words, where “serious writing” goes, elitism, snobbery, radicalism, and academicism came to prevail.

What advice would you give a political conservative thinking about a career in literature, or the arts generally?

Honestly I’d advise anyone, rightie or lefty, to avoid a life in the arts, at least the arts as conventionally understood: literary-fiction, gallery art, etc. It’s likely to be a very hard one. I’m very serious about that. Money is scarce, success may never arrive, frustration and disappointment are inevitable, breakdowns and suicides aren’t uncommon. And in a country as full of money, space, and opportunity as the U.S., why opt for the hard way?

That said … If your righty is going to persist in his ambitions despite my warnings … I’d first urge him or her to consider how leftie-dominated the traditional arts are. Do you really want to fight that in addition to all the other battles you’ll inevitably be fighting? Perhaps you might want to think about the new media instead. Website design, for instance, is wide open — you can set up shop, do work, publish, get paid — and there’ll be no institutional crapola you’ll have to wade your way through. I’d also suggest looking into the entertainment business instead of the more highbrow wings of the culture world. If you can do work that connects with a sizable audience, you can work in TV or movies whatever your politics. You’ll also be able to make a decent living.

If your righty persists in his/her interest in the higher-brow arts … I’d suggest finding your way to the righty rebel groups that do in fact exist in at least some of them. In painting, for example: the New York Academy of Art runs a 19th-century academic-style program, and there are people like Jacob Collins (a real giant, as far as I’m concerned) who are the suns around whom many “conservative” painters circle. In poetry, the New Traditionalists and New Formalists (who gather once a year at West Chester College outside Philly) are reviving traditional poetic forms. Frederick Turner is a giant here — a great critic and poet both. In architecture, there are New Classicists at work, and the New Urbanists are tradition-oriented too, though some of them get kind of NPR/PBS soft lefty. Only a few architecture programs (Notre Dame, University of Miami) base their training on tradition, but “a few” is better than none, god knows.

So far  as literary fiction goes, I wish I could come up with decent advice. There aren’t any conservative or traditionalist schools or circles around, to my knowledge. Like I say, most fiction writers who care about traditional values go into narrative-fiction fields: movies, TV, or genre fiction. Which leaves lit-fiction almost entirely to the lefties, the schoolmarms, and the radicals. So I’d venture three thoughts: 1) Keep your rightieness to yourself if you can. Or 2) Make a deliberate choice to flaunt it. Make a statement of it. Identify yourself as Mr. or Ms. Defiant Literary Righty right at the outset. There’s a reason why Tom Wolfe wears the White Suit! Or 3) Start up a school or circle of writers and editors and readers who prize traditional literary values and craft, and then endure decades of neglect and abuse.

Thank you for time, Mr. Blowhard.

In the next week’s installment, we will analyze Mr. Blowhard’s response, as well as check in with Pulitzer finalist and Weekly Standard literary editor Philip Terzian.

Read Mr. Patterson’s “A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 1: Introduction”

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.

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.

Read Mr. Patterson’s “A Conservative Journey Through Literary America — Part 2: A Conversation With 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.