> I don’t really think of myself as “conservative”. I agree with Dávila that “The reactionary does not become a conservative except in ages which maintain something worthy of being conserved.”
The "things worthy of being conserved" do still remain, no matter how diminished they become by the pounding of outside forces. But in a time when that which is worthy is diminished, I believe the duty of a conservative is not simply to conserve what little remains, but to *restore.*
As C. S. Lewis famously wrote in response to abuses of the term "progressive" to give a veneer of respectability to the destruction of society a century ago — what, you thought all this was new? — “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”
This remains to this day the clearest explanation of the true conservative mindset that I've seen. Turn around and go back to the right road, restore that which the fake-progressives have tarnished, and get back to making real progress.
The conservative formula ('do the right thing, suck it up, subordinate your ego to the greater good') is in fact good advice and should be followed, and yet, there is a hunger in the soul for 'glory' or just 'an exciting story' that is unfulfilled by the 'trad program,' and which is why the Gospel of Expressive Individualism finds such fertile ground.
What's needed is some sort of formula that can reconcile the self and the greater good, that acknowledges that one must both die to oneself and one's ego, yet also offer the self the eventual promise of redemption and glory. And that, my friends, is where Jesus Christ enters the picture...
I’m struggling with a similar issue as I read Meyli Chapin’s book “Terrorist Attack Girl”. Meyli was a 26 year old Stanford graduate and Google employee when she was trapped for 17 hours in a luxury Nairobi hotel taken over by Islamic terrorists in 2019. Off-duty SAS soldier Christian Craighead single-handedly stormed the hotel, killed all the terrorists, and saved 700 people in including Meyli.
Conditioned to be a narcissistic, self-regarding and entitled progressive brat Meyli responds to her sudden desperate danger with abject cowardice. The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, “the coward dies a thousand deaths, the hero dies but one” and Meyli seems to be quoting him in reverse when she writes, “it would take months to undo the hundreds of deaths I had died there, in my head.”
Especially by contrast with the exceptional courage, prowess and selflessness of Christian Craighead (the two are now close friends), Meyli comes across at the start of her ordeal as utterly contemptible.
And yet . . . as with Gould and Gessen, Meyli Chapin gradually sheds her narcissistic, dysfunctional ways and begins to practice behaviors consistent with the traditional virtues she blithely ignored (and probably sneered at) for most of her life.
If you listen to Meyli on the podcasts she’s done (which I recommend) she comes across as a very likable, thoughtful, articulate person who is now grounded in real values.
As you say, the proper stance for all of us is to welcome with open arms the Goulds, Gessens and Chapins, honor them for their honesty and personal transformation, and rejoice over them as lost sheep who have been found, as prodigal children who have voluntarily returned home.
I completely agree. I was impressed by the author’s willingness to tackle her mental health challenges, her husband’s willingness to stick with her, and her own willingness to change. Real life is very messy and complex. To the extent that I had a criticism of the article, it was that it seemed to have little insight on what her children must have gone through during this period. But perhaps she is trying to protect their privacy, or it’s simply too painful to talk about as a mother, or both.
I get what you're saying, but the problem is, after all the pain she caused, she decided to write an article that further humiliated him by airing all their dirty laundry. The contempt stems from the lack of any sort of real remorse on her side.
On the other side, the husband of a relative of mine walked out one day. Hardline Catholic she was, she refused to marry again, and he came back over a decade later, begging forgiveness, which she gave him.
The difference is the second story has a redemptive arc, while the first does not.
There really must be something in the (bottled) water in brownstone Brooklyn...one sip and they all turn into the same person!
Overeducated and oversocialized, desperate to somehow be both a cutting-edge egalitarian and a well-known high achiever, afflicted with a terminal case of status anxiety, preaching alternative lifestyles yet all married with kids, always one step away from the next nervous breakdown (and the next marketing plan to publicize that nervous breakdown), all of them seeming to have the same thoughts, ideas and obsessions, all suckers for whatever fad appears next that will hopefully let them seem like one of the cool kids...
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the anxious conformity of our soi-disant nonconformists.
One more from Gomez Davila:
"Modern society affords itself the luxury of letting everyone say what they want because today everybody thinks basically the same thing."
Is this not what "love your enemies" means? Both these people hate conservative Christians with a passion, favor policies to drive us out of the public square, handicap our churches, destroy our ability to teach our children, and do all of it smiling and talking about how inclusive and tolerant they are.
And yet, they are also human beings. Who, despite their flaws, must be treated as human beings. Because we all have flaws. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I agree with you. It reminds me a bit of the reaction to Bill and Hillary Clinton remaining married in the wake of the public airing of his adultery with an intern. Don’t get me wrong, there are a million things to criticize about both of them both regarding this affair (which would have gotten almost any supervisor in a field other than politics fired) and many, many other things. But I don’t remember much in the way of commendation for the parents of a teenager deciding to stay married, especially from folks who most of the time describe themselves as pro-family.
Disclaimer: none of this is meant to be an endorsement of the Clintons. I just think that in an age of easy, mostly stigma free divorce, I’m glad when people try to work past their rough patches. There’s a billboard on the interstate not far from where I live that is advertising a divorce lawyer. The sign says “Life is Short, Get a Divorce” That’s the predominant mindset out there. In this day and age, I’m pleasantly surprised whenever couples, especially couples with children, work through their issues.
When you had the word own in quotes it made me realize that the left actually does “own” us. It’s their schools we go to, corporations we work for, media we consume.
They take our children and our bodies to do with whatever they’d like.
They keep us around because we are their workers.
Like all subjugated peoples, we are subversive when amongst ourselves, and like to talk about “the system” but we are not really free to leave it.
But weirdly—they are less free than we are because, internally, we ARE free while they go on not knowing that the very system they belong to “doth mock the flesh it feeds on”
They won’t be getting out intact.
Anyway—I’m glad you are reading these New Yorker worthy essays so we don’t have to. Always love your take.
The fact is that if the genders here were reversed, no one would consider what he did remarkable. Women are just EXPECTED to be doormats and continue enduring misery. Gessen recognized that Gould needed him to be very much the opposite of ‘masculine.’ Good for him. More males need to follow his example.
I’m just astonished at what people who can write do write. If people read it and click it, then I suppose that’s how we measure value these days.
I just wonder if, 100 years from now, cultural anthropologists will read about their marriage and shake their head, similarly astonished at their self-centered lives or marvel at their bravery for sharing those details with the world?
> I don’t really think of myself as “conservative”. I agree with Dávila that “The reactionary does not become a conservative except in ages which maintain something worthy of being conserved.”
The "things worthy of being conserved" do still remain, no matter how diminished they become by the pounding of outside forces. But in a time when that which is worthy is diminished, I believe the duty of a conservative is not simply to conserve what little remains, but to *restore.*
As C. S. Lewis famously wrote in response to abuses of the term "progressive" to give a veneer of respectability to the destruction of society a century ago — what, you thought all this was new? — “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”
This remains to this day the clearest explanation of the true conservative mindset that I've seen. Turn around and go back to the right road, restore that which the fake-progressives have tarnished, and get back to making real progress.
Brava, and this piece pairs well with Kat Rosenfield's joint review of the Rob Henderson and Molly Roden-Winter memoirs: https://unherd.com/2024/02/polyamory-is-a-luxury-belief/
The conservative formula ('do the right thing, suck it up, subordinate your ego to the greater good') is in fact good advice and should be followed, and yet, there is a hunger in the soul for 'glory' or just 'an exciting story' that is unfulfilled by the 'trad program,' and which is why the Gospel of Expressive Individualism finds such fertile ground.
This also resonates with Stella Tsantekidou's reflection that 'actually, a truly 'trad' society [clan above self] kind of sucks and isn't that great to live in.' https://humancarbohydrate.substack.com/p/why-i-am-worried-about-the-rise-of
What's needed is some sort of formula that can reconcile the self and the greater good, that acknowledges that one must both die to oneself and one's ego, yet also offer the self the eventual promise of redemption and glory. And that, my friends, is where Jesus Christ enters the picture...
As always, a wise and beautifully written piece.
I’m struggling with a similar issue as I read Meyli Chapin’s book “Terrorist Attack Girl”. Meyli was a 26 year old Stanford graduate and Google employee when she was trapped for 17 hours in a luxury Nairobi hotel taken over by Islamic terrorists in 2019. Off-duty SAS soldier Christian Craighead single-handedly stormed the hotel, killed all the terrorists, and saved 700 people in including Meyli.
Conditioned to be a narcissistic, self-regarding and entitled progressive brat Meyli responds to her sudden desperate danger with abject cowardice. The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, “the coward dies a thousand deaths, the hero dies but one” and Meyli seems to be quoting him in reverse when she writes, “it would take months to undo the hundreds of deaths I had died there, in my head.”
Especially by contrast with the exceptional courage, prowess and selflessness of Christian Craighead (the two are now close friends), Meyli comes across at the start of her ordeal as utterly contemptible.
And yet . . . as with Gould and Gessen, Meyli Chapin gradually sheds her narcissistic, dysfunctional ways and begins to practice behaviors consistent with the traditional virtues she blithely ignored (and probably sneered at) for most of her life.
If you listen to Meyli on the podcasts she’s done (which I recommend) she comes across as a very likable, thoughtful, articulate person who is now grounded in real values.
As you say, the proper stance for all of us is to welcome with open arms the Goulds, Gessens and Chapins, honor them for their honesty and personal transformation, and rejoice over them as lost sheep who have been found, as prodigal children who have voluntarily returned home.
Them keeping it together is noble... but the grotesque, narcissistic divorce porn... definitely scorn worthy... lets not get the two twisted.
Yet another case of antidepressant effects causing a ‘diagnosis’ of bipolar disorder. Common pattern.
I completely agree. I was impressed by the author’s willingness to tackle her mental health challenges, her husband’s willingness to stick with her, and her own willingness to change. Real life is very messy and complex. To the extent that I had a criticism of the article, it was that it seemed to have little insight on what her children must have gone through during this period. But perhaps she is trying to protect their privacy, or it’s simply too painful to talk about as a mother, or both.
I get what you're saying, but the problem is, after all the pain she caused, she decided to write an article that further humiliated him by airing all their dirty laundry. The contempt stems from the lack of any sort of real remorse on her side.
On the other side, the husband of a relative of mine walked out one day. Hardline Catholic she was, she refused to marry again, and he came back over a decade later, begging forgiveness, which she gave him.
The difference is the second story has a redemptive arc, while the first does not.
There really must be something in the (bottled) water in brownstone Brooklyn...one sip and they all turn into the same person!
Overeducated and oversocialized, desperate to somehow be both a cutting-edge egalitarian and a well-known high achiever, afflicted with a terminal case of status anxiety, preaching alternative lifestyles yet all married with kids, always one step away from the next nervous breakdown (and the next marketing plan to publicize that nervous breakdown), all of them seeming to have the same thoughts, ideas and obsessions, all suckers for whatever fad appears next that will hopefully let them seem like one of the cool kids...
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the anxious conformity of our soi-disant nonconformists.
One more from Gomez Davila:
"Modern society affords itself the luxury of letting everyone say what they want because today everybody thinks basically the same thing."
This is why I subscribe, Mary. Thanks.
"I don’t really think of myself as “conservative”."
I try not to think of myself as anything, because ideology and tribal loyalty each has a way of short-circuiting critical thinking.
Is this not what "love your enemies" means? Both these people hate conservative Christians with a passion, favor policies to drive us out of the public square, handicap our churches, destroy our ability to teach our children, and do all of it smiling and talking about how inclusive and tolerant they are.
And yet, they are also human beings. Who, despite their flaws, must be treated as human beings. Because we all have flaws. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I agree with you. It reminds me a bit of the reaction to Bill and Hillary Clinton remaining married in the wake of the public airing of his adultery with an intern. Don’t get me wrong, there are a million things to criticize about both of them both regarding this affair (which would have gotten almost any supervisor in a field other than politics fired) and many, many other things. But I don’t remember much in the way of commendation for the parents of a teenager deciding to stay married, especially from folks who most of the time describe themselves as pro-family.
Disclaimer: none of this is meant to be an endorsement of the Clintons. I just think that in an age of easy, mostly stigma free divorce, I’m glad when people try to work past their rough patches. There’s a billboard on the interstate not far from where I live that is advertising a divorce lawyer. The sign says “Life is Short, Get a Divorce” That’s the predominant mindset out there. In this day and age, I’m pleasantly surprised whenever couples, especially couples with children, work through their issues.
Wonderful piece!
When you had the word own in quotes it made me realize that the left actually does “own” us. It’s their schools we go to, corporations we work for, media we consume.
They take our children and our bodies to do with whatever they’d like.
They keep us around because we are their workers.
Like all subjugated peoples, we are subversive when amongst ourselves, and like to talk about “the system” but we are not really free to leave it.
But weirdly—they are less free than we are because, internally, we ARE free while they go on not knowing that the very system they belong to “doth mock the flesh it feeds on”
They won’t be getting out intact.
Anyway—I’m glad you are reading these New Yorker worthy essays so we don’t have to. Always love your take.
"A new study has found that exercise is twice as effective at alleviating depression than taking anti-depressant drugs."
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-075847
Next time try to go for walks in order to preserve the relationship... If that matters!
The fact is that if the genders here were reversed, no one would consider what he did remarkable. Women are just EXPECTED to be doormats and continue enduring misery. Gessen recognized that Gould needed him to be very much the opposite of ‘masculine.’ Good for him. More males need to follow his example.
I’m just astonished at what people who can write do write. If people read it and click it, then I suppose that’s how we measure value these days.
I just wonder if, 100 years from now, cultural anthropologists will read about their marriage and shake their head, similarly astonished at their self-centered lives or marvel at their bravery for sharing those details with the world?