Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Trump, Scouting, my Dad, and Me

[Cross-posted to By Common Consent]

I don't know why this makes me so angry, but it does.

Maybe anger's not the right word; I'm not angry, I don't think. (I rarely get angry; not in my make-up, I suppose.) But I am annoyed, chagrined, bothered, upset, pissed off. And I suppose I know why too, though it's not easy to pull it all together.

My contempt for President Trump is out in the open, for anyone who cares to look or ask. But as a scholar of politics, and as someone who is ideologically disposed to look at socio-economic trends, institutional forces, structural incentives, and so forth, the way I look at the man and his presidency mostly stays in the realm of ideas and implications. Yes, I'm a social media addict who snarks within my own self-created informational bubble, like almost everyone else: guilty! But by and large, I really don't think my attacks on the Trump administration have been personal, and I think it's important--and have said so, often, even if I have not always resisted the temptation--to focus on the policy shifts, the party developments, the bureaucratic staffing (or lack thereof), the norm-bending, the rule-ignoring, and the legislative maneuvering taking place in Washington DC, rather than on the words that come out of this clown's mouth.

And yet, there he was, speaking at the 2017 National Boy Scout Jamboree:

I'll tell you a story that's very interesting for me. When I was young there was a man named William Levitt.....And he was a very successful man, became unbelievable--he was a home builder, became an unbelievable success, and got more and more successful....[H]e did this for 20 years, and then he was offered a lot of money for his company, and he sold his company, for a tremendous amount of money, at the time especially. This is a long time ago. Sold his company for a tremendous amount of money. And he went out and bought a big yacht, and he had a very interesting life. I won't go any more than that, because you're Boy Scouts so I'm not going to tell you what he did. Should I tell you? Should I tell you? You're Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life....

So he had a very, very interesting life, and the company that bought his company was a big conglomerate, and they didn't know anything about building homes....So they called William Levitt up, and they said, would you like to buy back your company, and he said, yes, I would. He so badly wanted it. He got bored with this life of yachts, and sailing, and all of the things he did in the south of France and other places....You'd get bored too, believe me. Of course having a few good years like that isn't so bad. But what happened is he bought back his company, and he bought back a lot of empty land, and he worked hard at getting zoning, and he worked hard on starting to develop, and in the end he failed, and he failed badly, lost all of his money. He went personally bankrupt, and he was now much older. And I saw him at a cocktail party. And it was very sad because the hottest people in New York were at this party. It was the party of Steve Ross--Steve Ross, who was one of the great people. He had a lot of successful people at the party. And I was doing well, so I got invited to the party. And I see sitting in the corner was a little old man, William Levitt, by himself....

He'd lost his momentum, meaning he took this period of time off, long, years, and then when he got back, he didn't have that same momentum. In life, I always tell this to people, you have to know whether or not you continue to have the momentum. And if you don't have it, that's OK. Because you're going to go on, and you're going to learn and you're going to do things that are great. But you have to know about the word "momentum." But the big thing, never quit, never give up; do something you love....[O]f course I love my business, but this is a little bit different. Who thought this was going to happen? We're, you know, having a good time. We're doing a good job.

You and I and everyone reading this has heard dozens of speeches worse than this--so what's the big deal? A stupid, rambling story about "momentum" and "never giving up"; what's the harm in that? The harm is that this was just a small slice of a huge, even more rambling speech that attacked (sometimes humorously, sometimes implicitly, but sometimes neither) former President Obama, Trump's 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton, the news media, and members of his own administration, and continually, continually, praised himself and his electoral win last November. The harm is that for more than 30 minutes a bunch of Boy Scouts were subject to the sleazy, stupid, self-aggrandizing ramblings of an over-his-head politician, and not to a speech that was remotely presidential.

And there's the rub: the Boy Scouts themselves, and the idea of, let's call it "presidentiality." We're all too cynical, too realistic, too grown-up, too mature, too liberal and open-minded and sophisticated for us such things, right? In our meta-meta-media environment, every sociological assessment of the Boy Scouts of America, and every nuanced criticism of presidential power, becomes part of prefabricated partisan narratives. "Big deal! You anti-Trump people are the ones who always hated Scouting anyway! And who cares if President Trump just gave a big lazy political speech? Everything's political anyway, right, isn't that you've always said? USA! USA!"

Except...I stand here, someone who thinks both that Boy Scouts of America v. Dale was rightly decided  and that the BSA has done the right thing in finally waking up and backing off from its anti-LGTB and anti-secular attitudes. I think that presidents have come to play an undemocratic and unhealthy role in warping and centralizing our political rhetoric and also that there is value to having the elected leader of the country be able to play a dignified, nonpartisan, civic role. Yes, those are a mix of perhaps incompatible ideas. But real life is filled with such mixes, and when someone comes along and crashes through all the informal, organic, inconsistent-but-still workable assumptions that hold our innumerable social and civic and even constitutional ties together, well, it's not surprising that it pisses people off. (Not just me: see here and here and here.)

I am not a professional Scouter, but I am a lifelong member of the Boy Scouts of America. That's the way it was--the way it had to be--in the family I grew up in, with the father I had. Jim Fox believed in Scouting, and he made it clear that he expected all seven of his sons to earn their Eagle Scout rank--which we all did. Is there something unseemly, something anti-intellectual, something illiberal in a family or a church or really any unit of people committing themselves so thoroughly to an organization which holds to such traditionalist, patriotic ideas? Yes to the last of those challenges; it would be silly to pretend that any movement that organizes boys and young men into troops, gives them uniforms, and instructs them in moral codes would be anything except, to one degree or another (your mileage will vary depending on your local leaders) anti-individualistic. But I reject the first two. Scouting absolutely isn't for everyone, and I'm happy to see my own church retreating from its too-long and too-total embrace of Boy Scouting as its youth program. (As a father of nothing but daughters, our children's experiences have all been with the Girls Scouts in non-church contexts--and for those of our girls whom Scouting has fit with their personality, their experiences have been very good.) But the civic principle behind Scouting--the idea of teaching young people principles as a part of a necessary project of cultural-formation, a project that will always include a mix of inspirational ideals--is not in any way, I think, hostile to the intellectual life or modern pluralism. Like it or not, free societies will inevitably generate civil religions; that's part of the way the great majority of human beings articulate their longings for community and meaning. I respect and support Scouting in the United States as a component of that--and am deeply disappointed and frustrated when a person who inexplicably ended up in one of the most prominent positions within that civic structure treats it as an occasion for cheap politicking and sleazy self-promotion.

Is all this about my Dad? Maybe. He wasn't a professional Scouter either, but he might as well have been; he gave huge amounts of his time to the organization, organizing and earning and leading and teaching in it, at all levels. He had the opportunity on a couple of occasions over the years to speak to thousands of Boy Scouts, assembled together--and when he did, he didn't let his conservative politics or, worse, his own self-estimation show. He used Scouting, for all its flaws and limitations (and he admittedly didn't recognize many of those which seem obvious to me today), to teach and inspire and encourage and share. He wasn't the POTUS, but he knew how to show reverence (the last, admittedly least practiced, but also possibly most important, component of the Scout Law) for those times and traditions when respect and encouragement and non-divisive fun is called for. Donald Trump knows none of those things. But why would he? He wasn't a Scout--to which I can only say, thank goodness. The organization has enough problems as it is.

Friday, June 30, 2017

30 on the 30th: Running in the Family and "It's Over"

March 1987 was all about U2; April 1987 gave us Prince; May 1987 brought Suzanne Vega. For late June of 1987, I toast the 30-year-old memory of that minor masterpiece, Running in the Family, by the fantastic (and too often forgotten) English funk-jazz-pop outfit, Level 42.

I'm cheating with this release in at least two ways. First, I've almost certainly missed it's U.S. release date; the album hit in March of 1987 in the U.K., and while it wasn't released simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic, I doubt it was this late. But hey--so much good stuff came out in the spring of that year that something had to be pushed back if I was going to keep myself to just one a month.

Second, I didn't listen to this album in 1987. I knew the radio hits--"Lessons in Love," most obviously--but I didn't have any real appreciation of this band, much less this album, until a mission companion of mine in South Korea a couple of years taught me something about funk and R&B music (which, as my entry on Prince a couple of months ago made clear, was far from thorough at the time!), and that inspired me to pick up Level 42's Level Best as an interesting example of what can be done with the style. That compilation album became one of my scriptures in the months that followed, and I couldn't wait to get back home and find out all the other tunes of theirs that I missed out on. Which I did--and now, 27 years later, while this doesn't have my absolute favorite Level 42 numbers on it (that would probably be "Heaven in my Hands" and "Tracie" from the following year's Staring at the Sun), it's an overall delight, one which never fails to take me back to memories both soulfully old and brassily kick-butt.

Which track to celebrate? How about this version of "It's Over," which is synth-heavy, but which also shows the way Level 42, and bandleader Mark King in particular, could very nearly create an authentic slow jam/quiet storm feel, when they wanted to.

Monday, June 26, 2017

15 Favorite Memories from My 20 (Well, Actually, A Little Less than 18) Years of Harry Potter


Twenty years ago today, June 26, 1997, the very first Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was published in the United Kingdom, thus beginning a fantasy phenomenon that has not only changed the book industry forever, but also one that defined our family for years, and which has lived in my imagination in a way no other geek property--not Tolkien, not Star Trek, not comic books, nothing--ever has, and almost certainly ever will. So, on this occasion, 20 memories and moments of fun to commemorate:

1) Actually, it's not 20 years; more like 17 years and 10 months. The first Harry Potter famously did not make a big splash in the UK--except among a few thankfully well-placed book-sellers and reviewers who championed it, and made sure Joanne Rowling's vision didn't die a premature death. The re-titled first book didn't make it to America until September 1998, and I certainly knew nothing about it. It wasn't until the summer of 1999, which our young family spent in Germany while I worked on my Ph.D., that we first heard the name "Harry Potter"; some Canadian grad-school friends of ours wrote us, telling my book-loving wife about this new children's book series they'd discovered. Returning to the states, attending a book club at a local children's bookstore in Alexandria, VA, my wife discovered the excitement which those in the know were feeling about the third Harry Potter book, which had come out in the UK at the beginning of the summer (Rowling cranked out a book a year from 1997 through 2000), and had developed enough of a following in America for Scholastic to manage to publish it just a few months later. And that was our start.

2) Though, again, actually MY start came even later. Through 1999 and 2000, Melissa read the first three books: Sorcerer's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and Prisoner of Azkaban. I didn't. But Pottermania was building; references were showing up in all sorts of media, and there was all sorts of buzz about a film adaptation of the series in the works. Melissa wanted the fourth book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which was published in July of that year--the series by then having become a big enough deal that a trans-Atlantic release date were coordinated--for her September birthday, so I bought it for her...but then read it before wrapping it and giving it to her. So I read the fourth book first, more than three years after the rest of the world had started to figure out what amazing thing Rowling had released on the world.

3) Finally Reading the First Three Books, and Truly Catching the Potter Bug. If we didn't have such a bookworm first daughter, I don't know when I would have gotten around to reading them, or if I ever would have. Maybe I would have continued to let time go by, and I would have become one of those grumpy folks who proudly insists they don't have time for all that Harry Potter crap. But fortunately, Megan demanded, and we responded, and the Fox household descended into a Pottermania that, in some senses, we've never recovered from (thankfully!). 

4) - 11) Less History, More Internet! The Harry Potter phenomenon was, and still is, inextricable from the way in which the internet absolutely transformed all our lives, how we shared information, how fan theories were assembled, we associated with fellow geeks, and more. The number of websites, blogs, e-mail lists, e-zines, and more dedicated to Harry Potter is probably incalculable. I certainly never perused anything like a 100th of them, even at the height of my fan addiction. Still, even just reading or watching or laughing or being thrown into nostalgic thought only 1% of this stuff is more than enough to allow judgments to form. So herewith, some favorites, many of which I suspect a fair number of anyone who actually reads this will already be familiar with:

Fan Fiction: "Interlude." Have I read a lot of Harry Potter fan fiction? Indeed I have. Did I ever actually write any? No comment. But seriously, read "Interlude," which is the best Rowling-compliant, tone-appropriate, world-building contribution to the huge "what happened to Harry, Ron, and Hermione next?!?" genre that I've ever read. (Also very good: "Roger and Lisa: A Romance," a wonderfully imaginative story created out of two barely-even-there characters from the Harry Potter canon; and "The Test of Time," a fic written back during the three-year gap between Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which I didn't read until years after the series was completed and found to be a cool look into what the real hard-core fans were imagining long before Rowling let her biggest secrets out of the bag. Plus, anything written by little0bird and Northrumbrian is worth checking out.)


Fan Film: "The Battle of Hogwarts" (Documentary). Be sure to watch all five episodes!



Fan Reading: "Wizard People, Dear Reader." Yeah, I really don't know any other way to describe this.





Fan Puppetry: "The Mysterious Ticking Noise." The first, the best.



Fan Music: "Cold, Wild Yonder." I never got into Wizard Rock as much as some, but Oliver Boyd and the Remembralls were really quite good.

Fan Musical: "A Very Potter Musical." All three of Starkid's Harry Potter parodies are worth watching, but there was an innocence, a hilarious "can-we-get-away-with-this?" joy to this first production, before these college kids all graduated and became YouTube sensations and went to Hollywood (or tried).



Fan Music Video: "Dark Lord Funk." Really good, but as my old online friend David Salmanson commented, "needs more Hermione."



Fan Feminist Criticism: "Hermione Granger and the Goddamn Patriarchy." Speaking of Hermione, there was this.

12) Reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I picked up my copy of Half-Blood Prince at a midnight release event in Jonesboro, AR, where we lived at the time, and by the following afternoon, I was stoked. I had back through the previous two novels in preparation, and I was sure that this book was going to be where Rowling really kicked out the jams and let this fantasy adventure she'd been developing take flight. I thought that her way of keeping her story in the realm of children's literature was just a delaying tactic; that something in the stories of Harry, Ron, and Hermione just had to explode, sooner or later. I went through most of Half-Blood Prince therefore slightly frustrated...until: BOOM! The Horcurxes! The death of Dumbledore! The betrayal of Snape! It was, and remains to this day, one of my great reading memories; I was just so excited by what was on the page!

13) Getting into the Fandom. As the link above shows, my response to Half-Blood Prince touched a nerve with some, and suddenly I was part of a broad--actually world-wide, if you look at my blog's stats--argument about Rowling's agenda, about Harry, about Snape, about the whole Harry Potter phenomenon. The two years between Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was really the closest I ever came, in all my years of blogging, of breaking away from the great anonymous pack of online scribblers and becoming someone who was known and read. I put up a bunch of predictions I worked out in my own head for the final book, and it unleashed a torrent. And it was great fun....even though it turned out I was basically wrong about pretty much everything.

14) Getting to the Ending. But who cares about bring wrong? When I finished Deathly Hallows, around 10am after having read straight through since picking up the book at another midnight release party, as much as there was stuff I felt Rowling hadn't done as well as she could have, or hadn't done at all, I was nonetheless exhausted and delighted. I rode the story all the way to its conclusion, arguing all the way, and that was a memory to treasure.

 15) Making it Part of the Family. Through all these years, and in the years since, through the movies and a trip to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando, I read the books to our daughters: to Megan (whose passion for Harry Potter has continued all the way up through her Honors graduation at KU--her thesis title: "Reading a Gender Binary into the Magic of Harry Potter: The Case of Neville Longbottom"), to Caitlyn (though less to her than the others), to Alison, and most recently to Kristen. It became something we all shared, a language, a way of thinking and laughing, and in that way became more than a series of novels. It because part of our collective consciousness--and what more can you say about a work of literature than that? So thank you, Jo Rowling: you've given our family something we can never repay. 20 years is just the start of it, I think.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Sheffield (and me) Dreaming the Beatles


I wasn't a Beatles kid--except in the sense, as Rob Sheffield wonderfully invokes in his terrific new book, Dreaming the Beatles, every American (and maybe every modern Western person on Earth) who lived in the second half of the 20th century both was and is. We all heard the songs, either directly or as reflected in the songs of others, and they got into our heads. For myself, my earliest memories of the Big Important Bands of Pop Music were a function of the rock music I got off AM radio back in the 1970s--the Rolling Stones, the Who, Boston, etc. The Beatles--either as a band or John, Paul, George, and Ringo's solo stuff--was surely mixed in there, but it wasn't until a good 10 or 15 years later that I really started to excavate those memories, to listen to those Big Important Bands and get a better sense of who these rock and roll and pop artists and bands were and what they'd accomplished. And what did I find, over the years of listening, exhaustively, to the songs of the Beatles? That Sheffield's basic thesis is correct: the music and style and legacy of the Beatles quickly became and still remains a near-omnipresent cultural force, one that so many of us (even--and maybe especially--those who insist otherwise) cannot help but creatively realize or just outright recognize in near every pop song we ever listen to. We might as well dream the Beatles, because we're hearing them just about everywhere we turn, anyway.

Sheffield's book isn't a history of the band--though he synthesizes a huge number of histories that have been written of the band, and repackages their insights into a couple of dozen vaguely chronological chapters which become brilliant snapshots of the Beatles and their Meaning For Us All. Mostly, the book is a 1001 miniature essays and aperçus, wonderful fan-boy observations and geek-outs and occasional (sometimes genuinely harsh, but never not loving) snarks. He won my love with his song chapters: one on the underappreciated gem "Dear Prudence," another which actually found something new to say about the exhaustively documented "Strawberry Fields Forever," and one which made a case for a mostly ignored favorite of mine, "It's All Too Much." He won my respect for his several chapters on the individual Beatles, which were never contrarian for the sake of it but which nonetheless leaned into dominant Beatles myths in important ways (as someone who has for years called George my favorite Beatle, Sheffield's unapologetic consideration of Harrison's inconsistency and half-heartedness, his occasional desire to have it both ways, to benefit from but nonetheless not be of the Beatles, and how that is reflected in his solo recordings, gave me real food for thought). Above all, he captivated with his breezy yet sharp sociological survey of the roots and consequences his Beatles world, which is also my own.

Sheffield is about three years older than me, and the way his deeply religious (Roman Catholic, specifically) youth became part and parcel of how he thought about the pop music he loved and the world of sex and friendship and geekery and art that it opened up to him was something I could instantly relate to. His take on what the legacy of The Rolling Stones meant versus the legacy of The Beatles for us Generation X kids is really kind of profound. And his take on how our collective memory of that Beatles legacy shifted over time is even more so. He hones in how that memory was marketed and sold to succeeding waves of young people; he makes a good case for seeing the 70s Beatles legacy (trashy yet massive selling collections like Rock 'n' Roll Music and Love Songs, along with the slightly more respectable Red and Blue collections, which were the holy texts that I discovered in South Korea on my mission) as differing markedly from the 80s Beatles legacy (the whole Baby Boomer re-appropriation of The Beatles, what with 20th anniversary re-releases of the original albums and a host of "you-had-to-be-there" declamations all over television and the movies), and both of them being very different yet from the legacy of the Beatles in the 1990s and beyond (including everything from Live at the BBC to the Anthology albums and more). The book is more than just a wonderful re-telling of a hundred fascinating parts of the Beatles' story; it's a manifesto for making the Beatles our (my) story as well.

Anyway, if I haven't sold you on it yet, there's this: Sheffield is fine and funny writer, and there were a dozen points in this delightful read where I was barking out loud with laughter. Your mileage my vary, of course, but let me throw out some of my favorite passages here to encourage you:


When talking about the recording of "Dear Prudence," which John had written while they were in India, and was worked out in the studio during a two-week period when Ringo was on break from the band:

"John, Paul, and George mesh beautifully, as if they're smoothing over the conflict, or looking for the sun beyond it....They might be trying to remind themselves of why this used to be fun. John hiccups like Buddy Holly, as if this is the song Buddy would have written in 1968 if he'd given up his seat on that plane, lived into the Sixties, and tagged along with them to Rishikesh instead of that dweeb Mike Love" (pp. 24-25)

Keith Richards, talking about the "sheer sexual exhaustion" which the Beatles faced with having to deal with screaming fangirls all the time:

"'Three thousand screaming chicks could just wail you out of the whole place'....All those years of screamers took their toll--especially since the Beatles were way ahead of the Stones when it came to on-the-road girlie action. 'They talk about us, but the Beatles, those chicks wore those guys out. They stopped touring in 1966--they were done already. They were ready to do to India and shit.' Well argued, Keith" (p. 163).

Talking about the, at the time, terminally uncool Paul, taking of the usual step of an actual political stand, in which he angrily denouncing Margaret Thatcher and her cuts to support for health workers in the National Health Service in a personal telegram:

"McCartney warned, 'What the miners did to Ted Heath, the nurses will do to you'....[T]he telegram was a major U.K. scandal, with Tory politicians denouncing him....Many rock stars talked shit about Maggie--Elvis Costello, Morrissey, Paul Weller--but Paul was the one more famous than she was. He had something to lose by hitting send on this, and nothing to gain. What, you think he was trying for coolness points? This is Paul McCartney, remember? He was in the middle of making Give My Regards to Broad Street. He could have clawed Thatcher's still-beating heart out of her rib cage, impaled it on his Hofner on live TV, and everybody would have said, 'Yea, but "Silly Love Songs," though'" (p. 255).


Anyway, it's a great book, and everyone should read it. And, just because I've been listening to the Beatles all while writing this blog post, here's a quick alphabetic Top Ten, ten Beatles tunes that, if I had to choose right at this moment, I'd insist be on the desert island mix-tape to keep me sane if I had to do without all the rest. I purposely tried to hit as broad a range of albums as possible--and looking it over now, I realize I've left anything from Revolver off my list. Which, of course, is unacceptable. But that's why coming up with only ten Beatles songs will always be unacceptable. They're too much with us--or, at least, too much with me.

"A Day in the Life"
"Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite"
"I'll Be Back"
"I'll Follow the Sun"
"It's All Too Much"
"Maxwell's Silver Hammer"
"Penny Lane"
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
"You Won't See Me"
"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away"

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

30 on the 30th: Solitude Standing and "Gypsy"

March was The Joshua Tree; April was Sign o' the Times. For May, something much softer, more introspective and haunting: the 30th anniversary of Suzanne Vega's Solitude Standing.

Was I, as a high school senior, just preternaturally mature and world-weary and reflective, way back then? Not necessarily--I'm sure (and, if necessary, my memory can drag up more than enough evidence in support of the claim) that I was pretty much just as selfish and immature and oblivious as any usual 18-year-old; probably more than usual, actually. But I do think that maybe, just maybe, my seemingly inborn critical tendencies, the fact that I could from a very young age separate myself from a situation and ask existential questions about it may have set me up to receptive to the whole "sensitive singer-songwriter" phenomenon, years before I came to recognize what was going on in those James Taylor and Cat Stevens songs I loved so much. It's easy to dismiss this kind of vibe as a product of teen-age moodiness, a pretentious yearning that's been parodied by far too many Saturday Night Live sketches to possibly count. But defensible or not, Suzanne Vega spoke to me, made me feel sad and wise and thoughtful--and those are good feelings to have, in their place.

For this album, it was--radio-listener that I was and am--"Luka" and "Tom's Diner" that first caught my attention. But years later, listening to it again (along with what I consider to be her best album, 99.9F°), it is "Gypsy" that sums up the appeal of someone like Vega so well. This is a live performance from "Austin City Limits," and really, nothing more needs to be said. Just listen.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Sunrise, Sunset, Etc. (Sniff)

Don't be so slow, Mom; I want to get across this bridge! Well, I know where I'm going; you come along later.
Dad, leave me alone; I've discovered something here! Just let me figure it out on my own; I'll let you know if I have any questions.
Gosh, you people really take your time! Well, I'm on my way; come and find me if you want later, but I've got places to go.
For Megan, University of Kansas Class of 2017, who has always marched ahead, getting to where she wants to be, and always getting there before anyone else. Never stop, you beautiful young woman you.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

30 on the 30th: Sign o' the Times and "Strange Relationship"

Following up on last month, April's entry into the class of 1987: Prince's stupendous Sign o' the Times.

Did I buy this album as soon as it hit the stores? No way; it was a double-album, and I was much too cheap to spend that kind of money on a Prince album. But I had friends who did buy it, and I listened to it whenever I could, to try to dig into the rich catalog it displayed beyond the radio hits ("U Got the Look" most especially). Growing up as I did in a conservative but not particularly controlled family environment, it was easy to be scandalized by Prince, and there were various comparisons that I, like many others, made in my head between him and Michael Jackson. This Slate article captures some of that (and yes, I do remember watching that Billy Crystal skit on SNL), but for me in particular there was a kind of Buddy Holly vs. Elvis Presley quality to it: Prince was terrifically talented, sure, but he also was dangerous, probably corrupt, at the very least a provocateur for the sake of provocation. Better to stick with the safe, good kid from the Jackson 5 (or so it was easy for a white 18-year-old kid to believe at the time).

But the tracks on Sign o' the Times challenged all that, or at least started to. Yes, my musical tastes at the time were pretty limited, but still: I was aware of Parliament Funkadelic, I'd heard of James Brown, I watched Soul Train on occasion. Listening to "Sign o' the Times," "Starfish and Coffee," or "I Could Never Take the Place of Your Man," I realized: this man was coming up with original, cool takes on all sorts of soul and R&B, not to mention rock and roll. It would take me years to fully articulate this opinion, but I think it was with this album, way back during my senior year, that I realized that Prince wasn't just some brilliant, oversexed weirdo, but rather was actually one of the most talented pop songwriters and performers of the second half of the 20th century, up there with Bowie and Dylan. Michael Jackson? A great and culturally important entertainer and singer, for certain, but that's all. Prince, on the other hand, really was The Artist, and Sign o' the Times was the proof.

What track to play? "Strange Relationship," a funky, upbeat love song with just a touch of Prince's ever-present naughtiness. This is a live performance from Las Vegas, and I love the horns.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

30 on the 30th: The Joshua Tree and "Running to Stand Still"

A few days ago, while listening to a local radio station, a series of songs, all from the year 1987--my senior year and my first year of college, a year fully three decades distant from me now--sent me on a nostalgia trip. Of course, when it comes to pop music, I do that rather easily. But a quick bit of Googling started me thinking as well: whatever social and psychological reasons may account for the affection I felt for that music, and for so much else that was on pop radio that year, the fact simply remains: 1987 was a tremendous year for solid, rocking, blusey, folky, loud, funky, brilliant, powerful pop tunes. Running through the list of albums released that year, albums that I have played to death (as both cassette tapes and compact discs) over the past 30 years, convinced me: this is a series worth putting on the blog.

So, while I missed January and February, beginning today, on the 30th of every month, through the end of the year, I'm going to highlight one of those great 1987 albums, and one track in particular from it that I remember and love. I'm not a music critic, so this is just going to be a personal reminiscence: 10 albums that are 30 years old (and I'm going to try to note them as close as possible to their actual release dates), that I still can happily listen to all the way through (and so should you).

First up, probably the biggest of them all: U2's The Joshua Tree, released in early March, 1987. An album that became so anthemic, so iconic, that of course it now attracts all sorts of revisionist criticism and contempt...but no one, not even the people who voice such attitudes, actually believe them, because the songwriting, the instrumentation, the vocals, the guitars, the drums, the whole package of American blues, Irish folk, barely sublimated Christianity, and focused rock and roll power, remains overwhelmingly excellent. With the possible exception of "Trip Through Your Wires," which is a pretty straightforward makeshift blues tune, there isn't a dud on the whole album, and fully half of the tracks are out and out masterpieces. For all that, it's not my favorite U2 album (I'm one of those oddballs that love the mix of apologetic pretension and self-indulgence on Rattle and Hum). But it is, probably, their one utterly essential recording. I can remember driving through the backwoods of central Virginia, in the summer of 1993, getting completely lost while looking for a friend's house during a weekend off from my internship in Washington DC, and playing this tape over and over--and somehow, in those hot green woods, the moody, passionate anthems of U2 were exactly what I needed to hear.

What track to play? "Running to Stand Still," the most beautiful tune on the album, a wonderfully humble collection of lyrics about love and self-destruction that carries across the decades all the more effectively for that simplicity. This is the live performance from Rattle and Hum, of course.

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

On Dreher's Benedict Option, the Christians and Localists Who Can Live It, and the Ones Who Can't

[Cross-posted to Front Porch Republic]

Rod Dreher and I aren't close friends, but I've been blessed with the opportunity to associate with and learn from him a handful of times over the years, and like tens of thousands of his blog's regular readers, I've been further blessed by the ideas and arguments his writings have sparked in me--even the writings of his that I've thought to be overwrought, off-the-mark, or just plain wrong. The publication of The Benedict Option, a manifesto that he's been mulling over ever since he first staked out intellectual territory as a "crunchy conservative" more than ten years ago, feels like a capstone to that long intellectual association. I don't mean that to sound like a dramatic conclusion or completion; Rod and I, like many others, will no doubt continue to argue in a friendly way about all these issues for a long time to come. But this book helps me understand, better than I ever have before, a gap which exists between his perspective on what both community and Christianity mean and my own. Perhaps future events or arguments will lead to that gap being bridged, or perhaps they will widen it even further. For now, though, it exists, somewhat avoidable in its breadth, but by no means impossible to speak across. That, too, is a blessing.

I have three points to make about this book. The first is that it's really pretty great. Some chapters are better than others, but all are solid, as much as your mileage of appreciation may vary. (For example, I found chapter 2, "The Roots of the Crisis," in which Rod lays out the whole intellectual history of Western Christendom's rise to and fall from sociopolitical and cultural prominence in 26 pages, a little simplistic and pat, but those who aren't scholars may well disagree with me; on the other hand, I thought chapter 10, "Man and the Machine," was a sharp, haunting synthesis of the many powerful arguments which have been made regarding the "fatal error" of accepting unquestioningly "a world mediated by technology"...though I have no doubt that plenty of conservative Christian couples who only have children thanks to in vitro fertilization will be infuriated by his description of the damaging liberationist logic which he sees that practice as implicitly licensing--pp. 223, 234-235.) Overall Benedict Option is not, I think, Rod's best writing; ideas are most deeply and effectively explored when they are organically revealed in the context of a story, and he did that better when he told the tale of his sister's life, her death, and the hometown they shared in The Little Way of Ruthie Leming (a book I couldn't write enough about when it first came out, and which I still buy copies of to give to students of mine as they graduate, marry, or move away), and then again when he wrote a spiritual autobiography of sorts as a sequel, How Dante Can Save Your Life. Benedict Option isn't organic in that sense; while there are stories in it, they are arranged to serve as parts of his argument. Here the ideas, not the stories, come first.

The second thing to say about this book is what all those ideas are for--but in all likelihood, anyone who has read this far already knows the answer to that question. Rod's great desire is for what he accepts as the truth claims and the culturally and spiritually formative power of traditional Christianity to be conserved, in the midst of a world which he sees as denying and undermining the conservation of both of those things left and right. By so doing, Rod argues that the moral stability (and thus the social and cultural stability as well) of Western civilization is at great risk. "We Christians in the West are facing our own thousand-year flood....The light of Christianity is flickering out all over the West. There are people alive today who may live to see the effective death of Christianity within our civilization....This may not be the end of the world, but it is the end of a world....The floodwaters are upon us--and we are not ready" (p. 8).

So far, so very much like many other reactionary jeremiads, whether from James Burham in the 1960s or from Newt Gingrich in the 2010s. But Rod's great insight, one which he has expanded upon and deepened as he has worked out the implications of being a "counter-cultural" conservative, is that the usual political tools of conservation which many American Christians have trusted in ever since the rise of post-WWII fusion conservatism--namely, using political organizing to capture and then maintain a commitment to the Republican party as a way to defend economic freedom, provide for a strong defense, and codify into law socially traditional Christian moral principles--have utterly failed. Hence the need for a turn to an older strategy--one older, as the above referenced intellectual history implies, than the founding of the United States, and indeed older than the entire post-Protestant Reformation socio-economic project of liberal individualism and moral pluralism. Rod's strategy is one of strategic withdrawal from (which also means, as Alan Jacobs astutely observed, a greater strategic attentiveness to) the ordinary cultural practices of the modern world around us, with the aim of developing sustainable local and communal alternatives to them, as the Benedictine monks of old did in the face of the chaos of the post-Roman world. "American Christians are going to have to come to terms with the brute fact that we live in a culture...in which our beliefs make increasingly little sense. We speak a language that the world more and more either cannot hear or finds offensive to its ears. Could it be that the best way to fight [this] flood is to...stop fighting the flood?" (p. 12).

The idea of recasting a broad social and cultural transition and struggle as something other than a straight-up political battle between interest groups and party factions is hardly new, of course. But Rod expresses the ideal of this old vision--a humble, communitarian, civic, populist, local, familial, and "tending" vision, to use the language of political theorist Sheldon Wolin--beautifully:

Here's how to get started with the antipolitical politics of the Benedict Option. Secede culturally from the mainstream. Turn off the television. Put the smartphones away. Read books. Play games. Make music. Feast with your neighbors. It is not enough to avoid what is bad; you must also embrace what is good. Start a church, or a group within your church. Open a classical Christian school, or join and strengthen one that already exists. Plant a garden, and participate in a local farmer's market. Teach kids how to play music, and start a band. Join the volunteer fire department....We faithful Orthodox Christians didn't ask for internal exile from a country we thought was our own, but that's where we find ourselves. We are a minority now, so let's be a creative one, offering warm, living, light-filled alternatives to a world growing cold, dead, and dark....Ceasing to believe that the fate of the American Empire is in our hands frees us to put them to work for the Kingdom of God in our own little shires (pp. 98-99).

Rod's description of "antipolitical politics" is deeply influenced by the writings of dissidents from Eastern Europe during the era of communist tyranny there, Vaclav Havel most particularly. He sees the Benedict Option as a way to talk about Christians building, as Czech and Soviet and other dissidents had to, "'parallel structures' in which the truth can be lived in community," a "parallel polis" for the sake of "establishing (or re-establishing ) common practices and common institutions that can reverse the isolation and fragmentation of contemporary society" (pp. 91-92, 94). What he's talking about is coming to recognize that ordered actions and traditions, routines of integrity and sacrifice and commitment, performed in particular places among a shared community, are valuable in themselves, and not because it may have some practical consequence in the public world. In comparison to the utilitarian and individualistic assumptions of liberal modernity, this is a powerful vision.

It is also, in a perverse way, an appealing one; few are the people who haven't, at one point or another in their lives, enjoyed seeing themselves as the lone sane people in the room, as the brave and necessary and suffering resistance to a malevolent agenda, whether embodied in some ignorant bureaucracy or a hateful boss. But there is a complication which comes relying upon such language: it tends to reinforce a circle-the-wagons mindset, thus making the appeal to an alternative seem more exclusionary than perhaps it ought to be. The attention which Rod--a strong moral traditionalist when it comes to sexual morality, who writes that "the modern re-paganization called the Sexual Revolution can never be reconciled with orthodox Christianity" (p. 197)--has paid on his blog, and in this book, to same-sex marriage, transgender issues, and more, often takes this form. In a response to a review of The Benedict Option by Emma Green, in which she notes that the book provides very little advice on how conservative Christians should deal with "the LGBT Americans they blame for pushing them out of mainstream culture"--something Green correctly observes Benedict Option Christians couldn't avoid even if they wanted to, since there will always be "challenges at the boundaries of sub-cultures," Rod becomes a little defiant:

LGBT activism is the tip of the spear at our throats in the culture war. The struggle over gay rights is what is threatening our religious liberty, putting Christian merchants out of business, threatening the tax-exempt status and accreditation of Christian schools and colleges, inspiring the federal government to order public schools to allow transgenders into locker rooms....Our religious liberty and the doctrinal integrity of our churches, especially our understanding of human nature and the meaning of sex and the family, depends on it.

There are lots of "ours" in those sentences, just as the passages quoted above speak of "we Christians" a lot. Of course, American Christians are Rod's target audience, and he's one himself, so that makes sense. But the more you dig into this book, the clearer it becomes that, as much as what he has to say about liturgy ("corporeality is how God created us to function....liturgies do more than pass on information....they form our imaginations and our hearts"--pp. 109,111), work ("Germany's strict laws mandating shop closing times...make life less convenient for consumers...but...the protection of that regulation....cultivate[s] more balanced, integrated lives for the German people"--p. 178), community ("we have to start locally....in order to know what our neighbors need and want, we will have to be close to them"--p. 95), and technology ("to see the world technologically, then, is to see it as material over which to extend one's dominion....technology as a worldview trains us to privilege what is new and innovative over what is old and familiar and to valorize the future uncritically"--p. 221) may appeal to and positively provoke many, Rod really isn't speaking to all of us Christians. Which leads to the third thing to say about his book: that its persuasiveness is very much dependent upon looking inside yourself, and figuring out whether you are part of its true target audience or not.

Rod writes that the Benedict Option is of crucial importance to "orthodox Christians" (sometimes using a small o, sometimes a capital O) or "believing Christians" or "faithful Christians" or "serious Christians," all of whom "recognize the toxins of modern secularism." But recognizing that isn't probably enough--after all, there are thousands of liberal Christians and others who would readily admit to the role modern secularism has played in robbing American culture of a way of talking about the necessity of justice and the plague of greed. (Think of anything written by Ron Sider or Karen Armstrong or Jim Wallis or dozens of others, or most anything published in Sojourners or Commonweal.) So more specifically, Rod means "faithful Orthodox Christians...theological conservatives within the three main branches of historical Christianity." But even more, it means believers who have "internalized" the "classical Christian view" that "[t]he point of life, for individual persons, for the church, and for the state, is to pursue harmony with [Christianity's] transcendent, eternal order" (pp. 18, 54). But even there we have a problem. At one point Rod refers to Hillary Clinton as someone "deeply hostile to core Christian values" (p. 89)--yet I strongly suspect that Clinton herself (a life-long church-attending Bible-quoting Methodist, one who has frequently spoken publicly about her prayer life) could quickly--and honestly--assent to believing that "the point of life is to pursue harmony with a transcendent eternal order." Rod has long been bothered--and rightly so--by "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism," a sociological label developed to capture the vague spiritual sensibilities held by so many Americans, but allows that even that collection of beliefs includes the conviction that God "created and orders the world" (p. 10). So it can't simply be a matter of affirming the existence of a "transcendent, eternal order"; the Benedict Option is, I think, to Rod's mind, essential to the cultural survival of a Christianity with a very particular doctrinal version of the universal moral order.

The importance of doctrine rears its head when Rod writes, briefly, about my own faith, Mormonism, and some of the ways our congregations work to encourage "unusually strong social bonds" and a "unified community of believers": "The Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormons) may not be Orthodox Christians, but they are exceptionally good at doing the kind of community building that...is a vital part of being a Christian" (pp. 131-132). I don't mean to make a big deal out of this generous passage, especially since Rod surely knew that his book would be read by any number of old-school evangelical Protestants for whom Mormonism is a dangerous cult and thus must be discussed carefully. But still: so we're not Orthodox Christians, in The Benedict Option's particular definition of "Orthodox Christians," even though he then goes on to say that we're doing exactly what, in his view, Orthodox Christians in today's secular world should be doing? Well, of course, I suspect he might reply; what you do is important, but so is where you stand, doctrinally and denominationally, when you do it. (Rod's complimentary words attracted some thoughtful attention in Mormon circles, but none focused on this particular point, perhaps mainly because most American Mormons couldn't care less about the doctrinal boundaries of traditional Christian denominations.)

So clearly, Rod's argument does not escape doctrinal presumptions. To his credit, he does not over-emphasize this. On the contrary, he speaks highly of intentional Christian groups which take an ecumenical approach to membership (so long as they "avoid watering down doctrinal distinctives for the sake of comity"--p. 137), and he never denies to those who don't hold to his correct doctrine of the eternal order the right to label themselves "Christians"; he never calls Hillary Clinton an apostate or an anti-Christ, for example. But still, he plainly believes that there are Christians--like himself--whose doctrinal take on "core Christian values" will make them targets when and if religious protections which long sheltered religious traditionalists from the full give and take of modern liberal pluralism are taken away...and then there are those that, for better or worse, are already pluralistic enough that living in a "post-Christian" nation will not be threatening. The Benedict Option is a strategy for the former group.

The clearest way to know if you are in that former group, I think, again comes back to sexual morality, about which Rod has written much and thoughtfully before. "Sexual practices are so central to the Christian life that when believers cease to affirm orthodoxy on the matter, they often cease to be meaningfully Christian," Rod writes, and the greatest example of that heterodoxy, in his view, is the belief that sexuality is subject to individual determination--that it is not essentially a corporeal, or communal, or cosmic, but rather a consumer good: "Sexual autonomy, seemingly the most prized possession of the modern person, is not only morally wrong but a metaphysical falsehood." Hence, the line is drawn. If you are essentially opposed or want to distance yourself from any kind of sexual identity or practice which exists aside from or outside of "the covenant through which a man and a woman seal their love exclusively through Christ," then Rod sees you as likely the kind of Christian that is probably in need to seeking a Benedict Option solution in your life  (p. 197, 200-201). If you're not, though, then the Benedict Option probably won't be necessary.

Of course, ideas have a life of their own, and the fact that Rod's argument for the Benedict Option includes elements that are pretty much incompatible with how my wife and I understand the needs of our family at the present time (for example, Rod's emphatic insistence that "it is time for all Christians to pull their children out of the public school system"--p. 155--really doesn't resonate with us) in no way prevents me from taking inspiration--a localist, communal, tending inspiration--from the ideas Rod presents. But it is, nonetheless, a cause for reflection when one comes across such a stark gap. Alan Jacobs strongly dislikes Rod's tendency to talk about the Benedict Option by way of "tip of the spear at our throats"-type formulations, but he wonders if he doesn't have a motivated interest for thinking that way, and that perhaps Rod and his audience of doctrinally traditional believers are "just better Christians" than he is. Liberal Christian (and liberal Mormon!) that I am--as much as I dislike the baggage carried by those particular labels--I confess: I wonder that as well. But I also wonder if Rod's determination on this point may at least partly reflect a perspective that hasn't yet been fully disentangled himself from the tight political association which right-wing Catholics and evangelical Protestants built into the electoral infrastructure of the Republican party from the 1970s through to the 2000s, an infrastructure that became so second-nature to culture war arguments in the wake of the 1960s that the America-centric perspective it lends to debates over Christianity's doctrines and social role is probably pretty hard to shake.

Two examples from The Benedict Option. While writing about the importance of staying involved enough to fight on a national level of religious liberty guarantees, even while focusing primarily on building up local and familial religious practices and resources, Rod comments that "without a robust and successful defense of First Amendment protections, Christians will not be able to build the communal institutions that are vital to maintaining our identity and our values" (p. 84). There's a lot of sense to that...and yet, it's a comment which he makes immediately after having devoted an entire chapter to thoughtfully (and justly!) praising the Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy, as an antidote to the disorder of the modern world...an antidote which exists in a country where, obviously, there is no First Amendment. And yet, they abide.

Another, more relevant, example: Rod writes that "Marriage has to be sexually complementary because only the male-female pair mirrors the generativity of the divine order" (p. 201). There are fascinating debates that could--and should!--be had here regarding natural law, Platonic philosophy and the Great Chain of Being, the Holy Spirit, the authority of tradition, and the Hebraic core of actual Biblical ethics (Rod insists that real Christians cannot "abandon clear, binding biblical teachings on homosexuality" (p. 213), but surely only the most blinkered devotee of Biblical inerrancy would insist that the traditional conservative condemnation of homosexuality as disordered can be fully elaborated from the seven short verses in the entire canon of the Bible which mention it)...but even setting all those discussions aside, it is worth noting that Rod speaks of "marriage" here--the civic, legal institution--as opposed to "sexual relations"--that is, the practice which impacts directly upon his understanding of the moral telos of our created embodiment. Which prompts the question: even if one accepts "the generativity of the divine order" as a doctrinal, cosmic, anthropological fact, what does that necessarily have to matter for how a society which does not have an established church--and Rod never calls for one!--chooses to legally respond to the reality of sexual pluralism (a reality which Rod does not deny, even going to far as to point out the many ways Christians need to repent of their "rejection and hatred" of gays and lesbians in the past--p. 213)? Yes, yes, there will be marginal cases, issues involving children, involving those who lack material resources and are culturally adrift, involving conflicts over clashing rights in arenas of medicine, education, business, caregiving, and more. I've never denied the importance of these marginal cases (much as I didn't care for much of the baggage attached to the case, I think Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius was correctly decided, and have said so repeatedly). But to take those marginal concerns, and see in them a wave which will flood public Christianity entirely away is, I suspect, to have at least some part of one's thinking frozen in an era when a particular kind of traditional Christian doctrine really did serve as an at least informal civic establishment in the United States, conveying the idea that if the dominant institutions and practices of public life weren't legally shaped around and weren't politically supportive of the cosmic order, the functions of the universe itself would be violated. Well, count me as modern--and, while you're at it, as Augustinian too: I just don't think, even if I believed all the foregoing was true (and I don't, not anymore; I changed my mind about same-sex marriage five years ago), I just don't see our collective individual choices necessarily having such permanent cultural warping effects on the world around us, nor do I see such cultural warpings as disturbing God's sovereign intentions for the universe even one tiny bit.

So I come to the end of this fine and challenging book and have to conclude: Rod's thoughtful and important call for strengthening our families and rebuilding our communities by way of the same rules of attentive withdrawal and humble practice which communist dissidents and Catholic monks alike long exemplified is one that I can be inspired by and learn from--but it's a lesson he's not actually directing it at me. This makes me sad, a little bit: because when I look at the end of the book, and I read passages like this...

The Benedict Option is a call to undertaking the long and patient work of reclaiming the real work from the artifice, alienation, and atomization of modern life. It is a way of seeing the world and of living in the world that undermines modernity's big lie: that humans are nothing more than ghosts in a machine, and we are free to adjust its settings in any way we like (p. 236).

...I think to myself: yes, that's what I want and need. If I am to make rational sense of the fact that I find my soul responding to much of Rod's antipolitical politics, his parallel polis, his localist alternatives, and his traditionalism, will I need, ultimately, a deeper conversion? Maybe. Or maybe not. But in the meantime, I hope Rod never forgets: for all our disagreements (and some of them are pretty huge), there are plenty of capitalist dissidents and liberal communitarians and heterdox Christians and modern pluralists and aspiring "intenders" like me who think you're on to something. Even if you're not talking to us, we're listening, and we like a lot of what we hear, and are thankful for it.

Thursday, March 02, 2017

Mid-Sized Meditations #13: How Big Does a City Need to Be to Go Blue?

(It's been a while since I wrote one of these; nearly 2 1/2 years since I started the series, and I don't know how well the current topic fits with where my research continues to wander. But as The Wichita Eagle ran today a shortened version of some of my thoughts here, I ought to at least try to make them fit.)

Here in Wichita, KS, we have a special election coming up on April 11. The congressman from the Kansas 4th congressional district, Mike Pompeo (who, for the record, I always kind of liked as a straight-up, by-the-book, uncomplicated and unconflicted Reagan conservative) was Trump's choice to be the new director of the CIA, and that meant a replacement was needed. In February the local Republican and Democratic parties chose their candidates (the Libertarian party did as well, but for purposes of this analysis, I feel comfortable setting Chris Rockhold, who I'm sure is a perfectly nice guy, aside), and the choices were revealing--and not just in terms of political ideology. They reflect even more, I think, a shifting in how these two Kansas parties are choosing to deal with our existing political geography--or rather, how one party is arguably resisting, denying, or ignoring an important potential political shift, while the other has chosen to bet on the possibility that this shift, centered in the mid-sized city of Wichita, has a real chance of electoral success.

On the Republican side, candidate Ron Estes is the State Treasurer of Kansas, a long-time Republican politician, and a vocal supporter of Governor Brownback and President Trump (see here and here) who, in his acceptance speech last month, remembered to acknowledge every major faction in the Kansas Republican establishment: pro-life voters, small-government activists, promoters of an aggressive national defense, and more.

On the Democratic side, by contrast, James Thompson is a political newcomer, someone whose engagement with Democratic politics is more in line with the challenge to the Democratic establishment posed by Senator Bernie Sanders (who handily defeated Secretary Clinton in the Kansas Democratic caucus last spring, which I wrote about here). While Thompson does in some ways resemble those few Democrats that have achieved success in Kansas outside of the 2nd congressional district (that is, outside of the Kansas City-Lawrence-Topkea area) over the past 25 years--he is, for example, a military veteran who is culturally comfortable around guns, even identifying himself as a "strong 2nd Amendment man"--he departs in some important ways from the old model of Democrats like Wichita's Dan Glickman: rather than being conservative or at least quietly moderate on certain social issues, he is strongly committed to defending the rights (including reproductive rights) of women, racial minorities, and the LGBT community, as well as taking consistently progressive positions on taxation (opposing Governor Brownback's insistence that business owners not pay taxes) and poverty (promoting an increase in the minimum wage) and trade (opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

So Estes is a conservative Republican and Thompson is a progressive Democrat? Perhaps--but there's more to it than that.

Note that Estes’s primary commitment is to political movements that have been constructed and taken root both nationally and state-wide. There were Republicans competing for the 4th congressional district nomination which represented a conservatism that might have dissented from elements of Brownback’s record or Trump’s agenda, but they never really threatened Estes’s level of support. Ultimately, Estes is a loyal Kansas Republican, and the Republican establishment’s endorsement of him was no surprise. He really is best understood as a creature of a state-wide, and a nation-wide, conservative party infrastructure. In a country which just elected a president on the basis of, when you come right down to it, just a half-million or fewer votes spread across the rural and exurban counties three mostly white states, a Republican candidate like Estes makes sense.


Thompson's win of the Democratic nomination, which came only after a close race against Dennis McKinney--a former state legislator and very much the model of the sort of Democrat that was once, a generation ago, frequently (if not regularly) successful in non-northeastern Kansas politics: namely, a Democrat who is culturally conservative, strongly populist , with farming roots--doesn't immediately make the same amount of sense. A political newcomer, a Wichita lawyer, a progressive Democrat, running in a district that includes (thanks to redistricting) a significant chunk of rural south-central and southwestern Kansas? Don't the Democrats need to run a well-known, electorally proven moderate or conservative to have any kind of chance? Certainly there were plenty of people around here that were saying exactly that. But the Democratic party delegates took a chance of something different--and they weren't without reason to do so, I think.

Thompson's nomination is one more small data point in an evolving Democratic party. The evolution he at least partly reflects isn't just a matter of his connection to Bernie Sanders’s failed but energizing challenge to Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. It is also reflected in the millions of protesters nation-wide (including perhaps 3000 right here in Wichita) who marched to express opposition to the misogynistic and xenophobic implications of Trump’s election. It’s reflected in the way, across the country, progressive activists are organizing around public schools, government offices, and other local institutions to mount an urban popular resistance to what they fear will come from Washington D.C. All the talk of "sanctuary cities" and "islands of blue" in the midst of conservative red states--Atlanta in Georgia, Salt Lake City in Utah, Charlotte in North Carolina, etc.--all this and more is potentially a component in what Thompson’s candidacy presents the 4th congressional district with. It is certainly a component of what got him nominated, as his support among Democratic delegates found great strength among those who applauded his extensive work as a civil rights lawyer throughout the city of Wichita.

Now, Wichita votes consistently more Republican than any of those aforementioned cities, and its urban population isn't as large or as racially diverse or as skewed towards high-tech, government, or academic-centered employment as any of theirs are either. So outside of large metro agglomerations or straight-up university towns or state capitols--which, between those three variables, explains well the persistent (though not always electorally successful) liberal base of northeastern Kansas--is the political divide between cities and their surrounding counties just not big enough to make a difference? The 4th congressional district of Kansas includes in its borders 672,000 people; all but 30,000 of those are part of Wichita's metropolitan area. Obviously many tens of thousands of those people are conservative, Republican-voting Kansans--but more of those individuals, proportionally speaking, are to be found living in Wichita's residential neighborhoods and its surrounding suburbs and bedroom communities. What about the tens of thousands of people who live in Wichita's downtown, in College Hill, in Delano, in Linwood, in Riverside, in Chisholm Creek, in Crown Heights? Lots of people who vote Republican live in those places too, of course--but might there be a chance that in those urban neighborhoods, among Wichita's African-American, Hispanic, immigrant, single, younger, and more secular populations, there could be enough progressive voters (or at least enough anti-Brownback and anti-Trump voters) to put a Democrat over the top in a district that has been Republican since Bill Clinton was president? It's a risky choice, but not just a Hail Mary pass; there is actual data regarding the changing political culture of America's cities to back it up.

In nominating Thompson, the Kansas Democratic party is watching to see if a different kind of campaign–one that balances urban issues with rural ones, and one more forthrightly connected to the interests of Kansas’s more diverse and more independent urban and suburban populations–has a chance of success. And the national Democratic party, I'm sure, will be watching too. Ever since the rise of the Occupy Movement and Black Lives Matter, ever since Sanders’s challenge to the Clinton machine, there have been questions whether a strongly progressive party might–especially given the level of support for such movements among the diverse residents of America’s cities–have a real electoral chance. It would be fascinating if Wichita, KS, rather unexpectedly, becomes one of the first real tests of that idea.