By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
The essential elements of our poetry will be courage,
audacity, and revolt.
— Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, “Manifesto of Futurism,”
1909
For years, I wrote that the American Right has a
philosophy, while the American Left has only an enemies list.
The Left’s enemies list has mutated as the socioeconomic
center of American progressivism has shifted from labor unions and poor cities
to the commanding heights of businesses and culture, from the Kensington
Welfare Rights Union and “Which
Side Are You On?” to the American Bar Association and Fleabag. A
generation ago, radical feminists and gay-rights activists were quite frank in
their desire to destroy the institution of marriage, the traditional family,
and the culture built on top of those arrangements. Contemporary progressives
instead have settled into rank and comfort, secure behind the walls of their invisibly gated communities.
Defining the limits of respectability is, in fact, the central mode of
contemporary progressive politics. Contemporary American progressives do not
engage with conservative ideas or nonconforming political opinion — they simply
attempt to define those as infra dig and outside of the boundaries of
that which polite intellectual society is obliged to consider.
The Right has reciprocated, in its way. And that is a big
part of what the Trump phenomenon is all about: so-called nationalists who despise
the commanding heights of American culture, politics, and business, along with
the institutions associated with them. Hence the bumptious anti-“elitism” of
contemporary conservatives whose creed is “American Greatness” but who sneer at
the parts of the country where most of the people and the money are, who sing
hymns of national glory while abominating the East Coast, the West Coast, the
major cities, the Ivy League, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the major
cultural institutions (and, indeed, high culture itself as effete and elitist),
the political parties, trade associations, broad swathes of the economy
(“financialization”), newspapers — even the churches, as conservative American
Christians (from Catholic to Evangelical) embrace a new antinomianism based not
in religion but in the politics of cultural resentment.
None of this really comports with the facts on the ground
in that “Real America” we hear so much about on talk radio. In the real
America, rural farmers are part of a very large and complex network of
industrial and scientific innovation, international trade, and business
innovations made possible by the “financialization” dismissed by populists
Right and Left. American farmers rely on scientific work done at elite
universities, on technology from Silicon Valley, on high finance, and —
horrors! — on international trade, not least trade with China. Some of them
employ a fair number of immigrants, too. The
American farmer is as much of a “rootless cosmopolitan” as any Connecticut hedge-funder
or California code monkey.
If your project actually were “American Greatness,” then
these facts would have to be taken into account. (A bit of humility would help,
too: Do you really think you know what share of the U.S. work force
should be engaged in manufacturing vs. finance vs. everything else? How did you
come to know that?) The real world is complex, and it is not neatly fitted to
either ideological notions or tribal allegiances. But if your project is takfiri
politics — creating an enemies list and casting your antagonists into the outer
dark — then all that matters is denigrating Harvard or the New York Times
or Facebook or Elon Musk, because what you are involved in is not
nation-building but only a status game.
There is much that is in need of reform in American life.
But reform is not very much in fashion among populists, who are ensorcelled by
the much more exciting prospect of revolution — and destruction.
(Conservatives should be suspicious of excitement.) These remixed Jacobins are
part of King Henry VIII’s “mass that . . . follows anything that moves.”
(That’s King Henry VIII the character from A Man for
All Seasons, not the historical English king.)
And we have seen their kind before, for example in the
Italian Futurists. The Italian Futurists were contemptuous of institutions and
tradition — and of their ancestors and heritage — eager for epoch-defining
conflict, big
on he-man “alpha male” posturing (“contempt for women” was one of the
virtues listed in the “Manifesto of Futurism”), cultishly nationalistic,
partisans of “energy and rashness,” Year Zero thinkers dismissive of all that
came before them. The Futurists engaged in sophomoric romantic posturing (“Our
hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite
alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost . . .”), celebrated
conflict (“We want to glorify war — the only cure for the world”), and pledged
to “demolish museums and libraries.” They asked, rhetorically: “Do you want to
waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from
which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?”
Familiar stuff, as was their adolescent rhetorical
climax: “Standing on the world’s summit we launch once again our insolent
challenge to the stars!”
The stars, I cannot help but notice, are still there.
Human progress and American greatness stand on a
foundation of much less exciting work: amending a law to make it a little bit
more just, improving crop yields a little bit year after year, the monotonous
grind of fundraising and committee-sitting for worthwhile things, teaching
literature and history to one callow teenager at a time, raising good children,
doing jobs that are difficult, thankless, and obscure.
These are things done by grateful people.
Revolutions are hatched by the other kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment