From A Polite and Ernest Semi-Angry Reader:
Dear Mr. Hanson,
I am a senior woman from Michigan, snowbird over the winter in Florida. I am so sad these days that anything written by either side is vituperative, mean spirited, and anger provoking. Your 10 new rules by radicals could have had a much nicer tone. Frankly, I think you are way off base by taking such an exaggerated view of all your beefs. It irritates the left and inflames the right. Ugh. I would appreciate it if you would rewrite that article with a gentler approach.
I have grown up respecting the two party system, and want it to survive in the most healthy fashion. My husband and I have great friends on both sides of the aisle, but it is not easy these days to have a civilized conversation, so we just avoid anything political. That is very sad, because growing up in a “mixed” family, we had wonderful disagreements, and we chewed on lots of issues without drawing blood.
Hopefully that will happen again. Please help that happen.
Respectfully,
Anne Roberts
———————————————————————————————————————
Dear Polite and Earnest Semi-Angry Reader Anne,
I don’t think my 10 rules are “beefs,” but simply descriptions of a new America, in which debt is not really considered debt; whether laws are enforced fully depends on the social/cultural context; and wokeness is a new religion. Do you disagree? If so, please explain where and why. When we owe $25 trillion in national debt and borrow $5 trillion over 2 years do you think it is more important to warn the country about the danger of insolvency or to keep silent so as not to “irritate the Left” or “inflame the Right”?
You and I grew up with a conventional two-party system, I in a Democratic household of the JFK brand.
The 8-hr work-day, Social Security, civil rights, disability insurance, meritocratic admissions to preclude racial prejudice, secure borders to ensure entry-level good wages, fair housing—all this was the Democratic Party until the 1970s/1980s. And even in the 1990s a radical child of the 1960s, Bill Clinton, could at times be reasonable (see the Democratic 1996 convention platform on illegal immigration and speeches on it by the like of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.) He was responsible with Newt Gingrich in working out a way to reduce budget deficits.
But we have now two new parties: a hard left socialist/progressive movement that appeals to the very, very wealthy, the corporate elite, woke minorities—versus a middle class, populist working-class party that wishes to retain traditions and customs and seeks to appeal by class rather than racial interests. The former Party has created the cancel culture, the boycott culture, and the transformation culture. It is at war with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The ACLU is not the ACLU of the 1960s but something quite different. The Left, not the conservative party, wants to alter the Constitution and ancient customs, by ending the 9-Justice Supreme Court, the filibuster, the states’ laws concerning national voting, a 50-state nation, and far more—largely because it feels its agendas do not win 50 percent support, whether the Green New Deal, open borders, reparations, or changes to the Constitution.
In my experience, conservatives usually don’t bring up politics, or like to argue; theirs is more a live and let live attitude. In most families with political tensions, the more leftward demand “discussions” and seek to prompt political debate, and see politics as more important than friendships.
Politics is part of life not an end in itself. Traditionalists don’t hunt down officials at their homes to “get in their faces” or metaphorically “bring a gun to a knife fight.” So I don’t think your admonition is quite as symmetrical as you think. Look at the campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney; both were reduced to caricatures of greedy, white capitalists. Trump was a creation of pent-up anger, it is true, but the anger was that of taking punches in a world where the Left had weaponized Wall Street, Silicon Valley, professional sports, academia, foundations, Hollywood, entertainment, and the corporate boardroom, etc. What is the political message you receive before a NBA game, or from a new Hollywood movie, or within a new commercial, or in a college president’s letter, or from Facebook’s rules?
I do think we can all avoid unnecessary animus. I try not to attack any writers/thinkers in personal terms and avoid naming them wherever possible, but do insist on replying to those who engage in attacks. Otherwise, the untruth is never addressed, much less corrected.
I wish a return to the old bipartisan give-and-take, but whether we like it or not, the country is moving in one direction of massive debt, larger government, less personal freedom, more tribal tensions, open borders, less meritocracy, and less civility—and most important, as I pointed out, a general decline in knowledge, given the watering down of K-12 curricula. Consensual government will not work when citizens do not know much at all of their nation’s origins and history, and feel their country is sinful and innately flawed at its beginning.
I appreciate your kind advice, but beg to differ this time. I try to give rational spirited critiques that can remind people of what is going both well and poorly. Simply hoping for the good times to return if we all forget our differences won’t work. If history is any guide, the smiling ostrich with his head in a hole will only empower those who have very focused and quite dangerous agendas.
Respectfully,
Victor Hanson
Discussion (18)
Join the conversation. Logged in subscribers avoid the Captcha verification and get priority commenting approvals. No vulgarity, links, or code allowed.
Many people believe that the role of government is to make the lives of the country’s citizens safer, easier, and more egalitarian. Back in the days of “give and take” there were two major approaches to social change. As explained in “Social Problems” by John J. Macionis, in sociology there are two doctrines on how life can be made safer, easier and more egalitarian. The first is called Symbolic/Interaction, which states that our institutions, culture, and environment form our attitudes and behaviors. Only by changing the institutions of the poor and disadvantaged will they be able to prosper. This was the typical Democratic Party position. On the other side are the Structural/Functionalists who believe that we have free will and can be anything that we want. That society is basically good and the problems are caused by deficiencies in the people not being able to adapt to changes in circumstance or the dysfunctional consequences of government action. These were typically Republican Party positions, i.e. as Reagan said the most terrifying words in the English language are “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” The disagreements between Symbolic/Interaction and Structural/Functionalism are like the disagreements of Nature or Nurture. I personally believe it is a mixture of both, which is why there used to be “give and take.” But today the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who believe that the role of government is to be able to reward themselves and their friends and punish their enemies. Sociologists refer to this as Social Conflict. People who believe in Social Conflict believe there are poor people because there are rich people. They believe that the immigrants and poor and downtrodden are holding us back, or else the banksters are stealing all our money. The defining trait of people who believe in Social Conflict is that they are never at fault. It is Trump’s fault they say, or the weather, or the Republicans searching for scandal, or obstructing, or you can fill in the blanks. No matter what happens or how bad it gets, they are always right. People who believe in and practice Social Conflict are criminals. (by definition) You cannot negotiate or compromise with criminals. Not to forget but there is also a small minority that believes that the role of government, specifically in the United States, is to: “Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” irrespective and regardless of the consequences. I confess to be in that minority.
Dear Dr VDH: carry on! Illigitimi non carborudi ( pls forgive my poor recall of 1959/60 Latin ). We need you! Stay the course! Best regards, Walt Mullon , Murrells Inlet, SC walter.mullon@gmail.com (516) 637-3312
Maybe you prefer the tone of the original Rules for Radicals ( Saul Alinsky). Such a kind positive message if you are a Communist, Marxist community organizer. THe kind tone of a Communist seeking to overthrow our country via community organizers that identify the "common enemy" to vilify and divide communities. What a nice message. Hillary loved the message, it fits her like a glove
Love your response. Truth.
Thank you. That is the best laid out rational argument I’ve ever read.
I can empathize with this semi-angry, reader Mrs. Roberts, but, as Mr. Hanson advises, there are dangerous and frightful wolves prowling in the dark, attacking our very existence as a nation and our cultural heritage, the results of which will not bode well for our progeny. I certainly do not want my children, grandchildren and beyond, to live in a world without the freedom to grow into their dreams, not an easy life, but with the opportunity to work hard for a better life. It may well be uncomfortable, even scary at times, to confront friends, relatives, or acquaintances with the truth of our situation, but I believe it behooves us to all confront, and stop those misguided ideologies the progressive movement is promulgating. To do so effectively and politely, requires study, reflection, effective resolve and understanding of what and why those with whom you disagree do so, as well as the truth of a solid long-term approach to the continuation of the tried-and-true values of Americanism and the credo that has been this country's strength. I believe the salvation of our country and its culture requires us to be able and willing to attack those wolves, so to speak, by engaging, with effective conversation those who have lost their bearings in the reality of where we, as a nation and culture, need to be headed, in order to survive the next 250 years and beyond.
Dear Prof. HANSON: In re:. RESPECTFUL & Semi-Angey Reader, Mrs. Roberts I believe your cogent and detailed reply to Ms. Roberts' concerns was likewise respectful, balanced, non-polemical, as well as a candid assessment of the present state of affairs, not just in the USA, but in the Anglophone West generally. I, too, am of your generation. Coincidentally, I received my undergrad degree from Stanford while you were in the midst of your Classics doctoral program there. The progressive Left has, as you we'll know, been playing 'the long game' in their march through all civil society, governmetal, and educational institutions for more than a century. Sadly, the predictable results are as noted in your reply. The choices before us are, at best, a Hobbesian bargain: CAPITULATE & see the USA we grew up in disappear before our eyes within a decade or less (resulting in a CCP takeover most likely in the resulting chaos) OR, FIGHT BACK ( as you and many others on the center-right have argued for several years) via creation of a parallel ecosystem of civic organizations and channels of mass communication. As for me, I CHOOSE the latter path! Love your work at HILLSDALE & your ties to the land and agriculture in G-d's greatest gift to mankind: the Cali CENTRAL VALLEY! WARM regards from a long time enthusiastic fan & supporter.
I dispute only one thing. Why do we need meritocratic admissions, unless it is written on a stone tablet somewhere that Harvard and Yale rule everything and every other institution of higher learning in America exist in some hierarchically organized chain? Seriously, everyone who is even slightly bright can go to college, and anyone who is even moderately bright, is aware of the possibility and can pay for it can attend a selective university. I've been around a little in my life, and I can guarantee you, the laws of physics are the same in downtown San Jose as they are in Palo Alto.
Dear angry reader, throughout history God has abandoned nations when they turn from Him and operate on their own power, He gives them over to their own devices and you can see what has happened to America, our government promotes and celebrates with hearty approval every perversion and sick twisted thing imaginable. It's called sin. So what you are seeing is no mystery, we are simply a nation under God's judgment, all of this insanity is nothing more than the consequences of Godless, depraved minds that have been given over and there's nothing we can do about it but repent and hope for the best....Read the Book. . .
Mr. Hanson, I have enjoyed hearing your viewpoints on the FOX stations, and my ears pickup when the hosts mention you as an upcoming guest. Your historical analyses drove me to purchase several of your military history books, “Soul of Battle” and “Savior Generals “ to name a few. The prologue of “Soul of Battle” mentioning the B29 raids was extremely moving! I don’t if appropriate but the Jack Nicholson line from “A Few Good Men” “You can’t handle the truth” is applicable to the left and a great majority of ostrich Americans. Very respectful,
Rebuttal Polite and Earnest Semi-Angry Reader Anne, I love your posts. This is the problem in America, they keep giving the LEFT a pass. There is NOTHING impolite about your posts. Perhaps if enough Americans weren't so trusting of the LEFT we wouldn't be in the horrible predicament we're in. Maybe she'll think differently when she has no lights, heat or AC when prices skyrocket. I have no sympathy for those who do not see the left as they really are: Marxists
Yes, and this why Mr Hansen deserves the respect and accolades he earned. Most people like me would react to the "angry reader" negatively, noting 'hurt' feelings has been over heard & over done that it must be written in some play book of the left under Pawn Tactics. We hear about these feelings alot, it is another person excusing themselves for not engaging in learning of common sense or taking part in an intellectual thought process. Having said that. I will read Victors nice reply again, before i grab my blanket and suck my thumb.
Anne is a conundrum. She knows enough to read VDH articles but apparently not enough to understand that all the activism comes from the Left and that their agenda goes well beyond the platitudes they speak.
I too am a "senior woman living in Florida" from Massachusetts. I have found all of your columns, podcats and other recordings(haven't missed one that I know of this past year) fact-filled, logical, thoughtful and quite gentle. Needless to say you answered this angry Reader far better that I could. However, I wanted to disagree as a contemporary of her. But like you, I refuse to be an ostrich and stick my head in the sand hoping for "things to work out". As a former teacher, school board and State Board of Ed member, I am beyond dismayed at how K-12 education is watered down. As Santayana said" Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it". I am becoming more comfortable speaking out by asking Democrat acquaintences to look at the FACTS. Lastly--I don't know what's happning but the past week or two there's been a flurry of articles, recordings etc. I love them all!
Angry reader: "It irritates the left and inflames the right." So why are YOU "provoked"? Speaking of "flames" it is the emotionally-overcharged leftists burning cities and killing and stoning police and anyone in their way...urged on and supported by the by the cooly-calculating. They draw real blood.
I, too, would prefer an era of bipartisan comity, but I think that is a mis-reading of American history. We are a vast country with diverse people, and always have been. Disputes are now delivered to your living room courtesy of modern media, which gives good or bad as long as they get paid. Similar to the Roman road system, which could move goods or soldiers quickly, but also barbarians, quickly. Thank you for your writings, and always keep telling the truth as best you can.
Victor, Thank you for that thoughtful and well reasoned reply, I completely agree with you.
Yes, I lean toward the vituperative when an entity steals my country, using illegal unconstitutional interventions to install an Executive which is false and not legally in power. Being a military vet and a triple board certified surgeon, I tend to lean strongly toward being a "rule-follower". Anything less is unacceptable and leads to law breaking or malpractice. I believe in right and wrong. Our present Executive leadership is illegal and thus the laws they are passing via EO mean nothing to true Americans. Period.