A California court’s ruling that the state of California must approve of same-sex marriages is being hailed as a blow for freedom. In fact it is exactly the opposite.
Most contemporary commentators on both left and right believe that freedom of expression and the promotion of positive, life-affirming values are antithetical goals. That is not true, as many past societies demonstrate. In this article, reprinted from Conservative Battleline Online, S. T. Karnick outlines just what kind of culture we should be working toward.
In all the controversy over the Dana Jacobson issue, I suspect that it is all too easy to lose sight of what actually is important about it. What happens to Jacobson as a result of what she has done is important to the general public, but not because Jacobson is any serious danger to society. Of course not. It is important because the response to her by her bosses and the elite in general represents what kind of society and culture we live in and whether we can cause positive changes in both. It is not obvious that we can do so without much struggle.
Lee Harris, a very intelligent man who writes thoughtful books and contributes insightful articles regularly to TCS Daily, recently wrote a very interesting and well-informed article about Christmas for that online publication. Harris is clearly sympathetic to the celebration of Christmas while being fully cognizant of the pagan foundations of both the date chosen and the various traditions associated with the day. In contrast to many complainers on both sides of the arguments over whether public celebrations of this great holy day should be encouraged or even allowed, Harris points out that these varied foundations are not faults but strengths. He correctly characterizes Christmas as "a great multicultural festival" good not only for Christians but indeed for everyone. His conclusion is particularly interesting and sensible: not only should Christians embrace the celebration of Christmas wholeheartedly, so should non-Christians as well.
The controversial fantasy film The Golden Compass opens today in theaters across the United States. With a production budget reported to be in the $150 million range, the film will have to sell a boatload of tickets in the United States and abroad if the investors are to get any return on their money—and the controversy over the film’s origins in the first novel of an openly atheistic trilogy of books does not help things from their perspective.
Novelist-journalist Norman Mailer has died at age 84, according to his literary executor. Malier, known for his interesting but often overly dense prose, puzzling choices of story material, combative journalism, "existential" philosophisizing, and aggressive self-assertiveness in his personal life, burst on the scene at the age of 25 in 1948 with a well-written, critically acclaimed, and popular debut novel, The Naked and the Dead. Intelligent, wily, handsome, charismatic, and highly personable when he wanted to be, Mailer was the embodiment of the "hipster" culture that arose after World War II, in which authors such as he, Gore Vidal, Jack Kerouac, and Stanley Baldwin rebelled against the overly bureaucratized and stifling, government-dominated society that had arisen during the first half of the twentieth century and found its greatest expression during World War II, when nearly everything in American society was under control of the national government.
Are democracy and free markets inherently hostile to each other? That’s the question Brian Anderson takes up in his new book, Democratic Capitalism and Its Discontents, my review of which appears in the Nov. 6 issue of National Review, currently on sale at newsstands and online. In my view, the problem is with democracy, not markets. Finding any faults with democracy is undoubtedly a bizarre thing in our time, but it is clear to me that the contradictions that seem to be inherent in democratic capitalism are in fact inherent in democracy itself, and that market capitalism is the victim of democracy, not an abuser. Hence my thought, taking after that of the American Founders, is that where democracy interferes with freedom, it is democracy that ought to give way. I recognize that this proposition may sound rather radical, and I shall defend it further in future, but in the meantime, here’s my review of Brian Anderson’s book, which will give you a sense of the outlines of the argument:
Recent Comments