Month: April 2022

What they’re for? Seems to me they don’t know.

A rare post. I got in here and found one from back in 2019 that I forgot to finish. Might try to circle back to it one of these days. The same old same old. Another know it all non-educator who claims to be a ‘conservative’ who was writing out of their ass. A day that ends with y around these here parts.

I’m posting today because one of Alabama Media Group’s ‘conservative’ and Christian columnist did another dog of a column. Dana Hall McCain’s ‘They know what we’re against. What are we for?’ on 9 April 2022 is the kind of thing I’d normally tweet a thread on but decided I’d go this route.

And it’s going to be a relatively stream of consciousness approach. Not trying to be polished or drop in scholarship. Might not do a single link. Always reserve option to amend, edit, etc. Here goes …

Anyone here can and should read what DHM wrote in her column. It’s a column that she’s presumably paid to write. It’s in the vein of a whole lot of other stuff she’s done. I don’t believe she’s all that sharp or deep. At least it doesn’t come out in her writing or in the interview or two I’ve heard her do. But she does seem confident and routinely self-righteous. I don’t know her. Just a guess or perception.

While that might seem somewhat harsh, I mean it as ‘an out.’ It’s OK. A basic thesis on her latest and much more I’ll routinely read from here in Alabama and beyond is that the professional ‘conservative’ types and such provided column space in most every outlet don’t need to be all that sharp.

Nuance or depth can hurt their ‘brand’ or ‘marketability.’ If they don’t neatly fit into certain pegs, they’re of limited utility. They’re mostly filling a role, a market need, etc. It’s effectively a talk radio gig. Possibly also some kayfabe component. It’s mostly about attending to audience needs or niches. There’s probably something to some advertisers wanting that type of content. I’ve read enough media criticism to think there’s something to my guess.

Plus, writing with any depth in a limited amount of space is tough. I can ramble on here. In most places one can’t. With that out of the way, here’s where I’ll really get going.

What’s mostly seeming to be conveyed in DHM’s latest column is another instance of a lightweight ‘conservative’ brought up in the Limbaughfied era writing about her ideology. She’s also apparently been raised in the evangelical or fundamentalist church, Southern Baptist I believe, and loops in that with her understanding of ‘conservative’ politics. Start there. And know that she’s hardly off the reservation. She’s probably well within the bounds of what has counted as ‘conservative’ for several decades.

That’s the problem! Seriously, the stunted and sick ‘thinking’ that’s full of contradictions and slop is the problem. It’s Limbaughism. Or is at least tainted by that cancerous crap. It’s something that smarmy Buckley guy and a few others cobbled together a few decades back that’s festered into an absolute fetid mess. A couple of periods it could’ve turned back from the place it was headed. But it didn’t. It just got worse. A generation or two, maybe even three, have been especially bent up because of this tradition.

Same probably with her faith stuff although I’m less confident about making that call. The title of this post is ‘What they’re for? Seems to me they don’t know.’ I don’t believe the average ‘conservative’ exactly know what they’re for. However, one thing they do know is that they distrust and even hate liberals, progressive, leftists, secularists, etc. I’ll get back to that later. And it’s important. Always remember that. It’s foundational.

Three main deficits seem present in her column. First, I read this

Many of the cultural positions of conservative politics are rooted in the Christian faith. A theologically conservative interpretation of the Bible (the interpretation most evangelicals adhere to) says “no” to what modern culture demands: personal autonomy with few limits. Our understanding of the scriptures dictates some behavioral guardrails that Christians believe beneficial to the individual and the collective whole.

Why?

The logic goes like this: We are created by a wise and loving God. As our creator, he knows what we need to flourish. Likewise, he knows what will ultimately hurt us. God gives us certain boundaries for living in the Bible out of love for us.

Gluttony? Feels good at the moment, but it has terrible consequences. Libertine sexual relations? Fun today, but it causes all sorts of heartache for you and others down the line. These are just two of a million examples.

I know it’s a short column, but ‘gluttony’ is what I’d like to see unpacked. That’s where much of the damage is done. And I’m talking about greed. Unfettered capitalism. Neoliberalism gone wild. Late capitalism. Whatever you want to call the condition where so much wealth is being accumulated up at the apex and regular folks are struggling. The condition where the planet is heating up and things may already be so bad that even mitigation options are becoming limited.

I understand why most Christians aren’t questioning capitalism. They can’t. Or is too difficult for most people – not just people wrapped up in evangelical-fundy faith traditions. A good place to drop a link to the late Mark Fisher’s ‘Capitalist Realism’ book. It’s a beauty. PDF is right there and it won’t cost you one thin dime.

There’s nothing more about ‘personal autonomy with few limits’ than how so much gets commodified and caught up in market ‘logic.’ The stories I can tell where I witnessed alleged Christians chasing money and engaging in sharp, selfish dealings. And I guarantee you that plenty of other people here in Alabama and beyond have their own. But that’s not the trouble. It’s the system. The structure. Again, nobody much can remotely escape capitalism’s imperative. We’re almost all trapped in the arrangement.

DHM can work herself up about what she thinks God wants us to do so as to flourish. She wrote something about how ‘conservatives’ will “take biblical wisdom about gender and sexuality and attempt to foster cultural norms that affirm those.” And then something about a hot stove. And then how not gossiping and staying sober has benefits. But nothing about money and accumulating or … makes the cut. It’s about our naughty parts. All of that’s safe. And such arguably allows some of the self-righteous to posture and preen.

Back to DHM’s column

You can also apply this principle to our most hotly contested, emotionally-charged issues. We need to spend more time casting a vision of God’s good design for human life and the peace found within it.

Progressives assert that accepting all choices as equal is the only compassionate response; they say the conflict experienced when desiring that which is not allowed brings too much psychological pain. They tell us that normalizing all inclinations, orientations, and self-identifications is the road to better mental health. But in the decades since the sexual revolution, America’s mental health has taken a nosedive, despite increased personal freedom and more people than ever before having access to mental health treatment.

Our permissiveness has not made us happier. We are not healthier. We just keep moving the guardrails of the human experience further and further from the centerline, assuming that more liberty will do the trick. All evidence is to the contrary.

Does living within traditional/conservative norms ensure lives free from pain and inner conflict? Absolutely not. But our anything-goes ethos is rife with bad outcomes, which bring their own brands of despair.

We can’t pass enough laws to heal our culture. That’s what conservatives must get our heads around. The bills we pass today to prevent Americans from indulging themselves to death stop the bleeding for a moment but will be undone in a few years if we can’t convince the younger generation that God’s way works better. Our children–even those raised in Christian households–are inundated daily with a narrative that celebrates all choices as equal and condemns limitations as hateful oppression. They need to hear from us what living according to traditional Judeo-Christian values offers them, not just the progressive hysteria about what these values ask them to give up.

Let’s immediately pull one sentence out of the above. “But in the decades since the sexual revolution, America’s mental health has taken a nosedive, despite increased personal freedom and more people than ever before having access to mental health treatment.” Huh? It seems to me putting mental health troubles on the sexual revolution is a big reach. I first think stress related to the end of Fordism, neoliberalism really getting wound up, etc. And Saint Ronnie did some stuff too which walloped this nation’s mental health structures. It’s complicated history. It’s too easy to just rip into Reagan. He’s no hero. But he’s also not the best target.

I’d also wonder if we have all that much ‘increased personal freedom’ in any society where survival and provisioning is basically dependent on our selling our labor to capitalists. Hell, we’re alienated and fragmented to pieces. There’s even been some stuff written on how under late capitalism if you’re not at least somewhat of a mental health mess then you’re the really crazy one.

Her “more people than ever before having access to mental health treatment” was what looks to me like her second trip into shaky territory. I know that under Covid there was a good bit written about backlogs and lack of access. And remember, if you’re poor or even a middle class make-do type then you’ll often have limited access to quality care.

And if you want to know what children are inundated daily with, I’d probably start with a neoliberalism narrative around markets, branding, competition, credentialism, etc. Freedom is consumerism, right? Individuals hustling to survive or even get ahead. DHM lamenting how “assuming that more liberty will do the trick” is especially notable to me since liberty is foundational to the ‘free market’ hoodoo so many folks here and beyond boost.

“The bills we pass today to prevent Americans from indulging themselves to death stop the bleeding for a moment …” sentence ought to be in The Lame Hall of Fame. Indulging? What? I’m of the understanding that choosing to try on another gender or such is rather risky and takes a fair amount of courage. Indulging? GTFOH DHM. And again, we have several other situations where ‘indulging ourselves to death’ might actually apply. I’d probably start with climate change and how some coastal areas are likely to be flooded causing mass migration. There’s crop failure and pretty much a bunch of other stuff dystopian movies are made of to think about. We’re seeing serious troubles around housing stock. Sprawl and other harms from how we drive. Hyper-consumption and pollution might merit a mention. Indulging?

The third distinct problem is how she equated being gay or bi or whatever and/or some sort of gender fluidity or feeling like you don’t really fit into the gender binary with touching a hot stove. Huh? That whole big portion of her writing shared early on is basically about how you ought not be gay isn’t it? Stay in your gender lane? Something, something God’s way right? I’ve never thought a whole lot about it beyond that some folks are gay or bi or whatever. That’s just the way they are. That some people don’t feel like they fit easily in the gender binary or spectrum or whatever it is has never troubled me much. Or really any.

And while I’ve been somewhat of a heathen for most of my life, I have held to a general belief that if there’s any omnipotent creator then he or she or it presumably made people the way they are. I’d always guessed that any God or Gods wanted people mostly to do right by each other and not be greedy assholes. Don’t be a jerk. Try to act like you have some decency and manners. I’ve been exploring some more around various faith traditions and generally think there’s a fair amount of theology to support most of this.

One’s sexuality, at least as I understand it, is just how they’re wired. You don’t really decide anything or pick a team. And it sort of works this way too, as I understand it, for those who may not feel like they comfortably fit into a gender role. Remember, gender gets, at least in part, socially constructed and maintained. Neither thing seems remotely equivalent to a child lacking understanding that they shouldn’t touch a hot stove.

Neither do I necessarily understand how ‘libertine sexual relations’ might relate to any of this. Some straight folks firmly in the cis set I’ve known or certainly read about have lived rather ‘libertine’ lives.

Furthermore, I understand at least some parents of students struggling with gender dysphoria or whatever is going on with them are doing right by their kids. There’s medical care and support, etc. And yes, I expect plenty of younger people aren’t getting that sort of love and care at home. I’m not all that comfortable with the approach to children where parents get to treat their kids as effectively a form of property. Some parents are relatively awesome, and some are awful. It depends. While surely some kids get influenced by culture and go through phases, I also think there’s something to the idea of supporting younger people as they find their way and especially if they’re starting to struggle. Again, it depends. I mostly just believe you should leave it to the adults around them to try to figure it out instead of relying on a bunch of politicians to limit their options.

As to how faith and tradition, ideology even, enters the mix, my understanding is that there’s some sociological and anthropological stuff about gender fluidity in other cultures and periods/places. We’ve had gays folks and such for all of human history. We’re finally getting to the point to where more and more people can generally be out and not have to build beards or otherwise pretend. This is a very good thing. You don’t get much more ‘dignity of human life’ than that development.

What exactly DHM feels about this development isn’t known. My guess is that she’s spent at least some time on the fainting couch because gay folks can get married and are supposed to be treated equally under the law. Something, something sanctity of marriage presumably. Or ‘family values’ in the James Dobson tradition.

However, one thing they do know is that they distrust and even hate liberals, progressive, leftists, secularists, etc. I’ll get back to that later. And it’s important.

I’d written that early in my post. DHM regularly wants to put a target on her perceived enemy, something plenty of these half-baked Christian evangelical, fundy types in Limbaughfied ‘conservatism’ are really bad to do, probably or at least possibly because they’ve been brought up in such waters or breathing that air. Why she’s telling a tale about “progressive hysteria” has to be motivated by something. Her reference to “progressive hysteria” reminds me of Alabama Media Group’s other professional ‘conservative’ columnist, a Christian too, tweeting ‘Give the progressive Democrats what they want’ in the wake of the Lia Thomas NCAA swimming situation. Want what?


Absent examples of actual ‘hysteria’ being supplied, I’m lost.

Again, I don’t know DHM. Don’t necessarily want to. There’s almost nothing to gain from trying to talk with a professional ‘conservative’ or a true-believer type. And it’s not about gaining by ‘winning them over.’ They can believe or think whatever they want. Whatever gets them through the night. I just wish they’d practice that approach as to others. If they’re going to change their minds it’ll be because they studied stuff on their own and kept an open mind.

In a very few instances, some might see things differently and crack open their minds when they’d previously been kept closed. I’ll occasionally see that sort of thing. People who’ve not been exposed to much alternative or broader or radical or … thought will sometimes have doors pried open that they didn’t even know were there. But still, they’re almost always going to have to do this on their own. You’ll often just get someone’s back up and force them to dig in if you tell them they’re wrong. So you mostly are just left to hope for people to figure things out on their own. To hope some might consider different options or thought or whatever is about all that anyone can do. You can write a little or tweet or talk some. But that’s not going to do anything for the true believers. They’re locked down.

Dial that ‘locked down’ status way up for many of these ‘conservative’ types, perhaps especially the evangelical fundy types, as many would probably then be facing a big existential crisis to even consider setting aside what many of them have believed and conveyed for years. And very few will even crack open the door to consider such much less fully explore their beliefs. Many were literally taught to be suspicious about Satan slipping something in on them which might get them off their Christian path.

If they’ve consumed really any ‘conservative’ media in recent decades, they’re primed to reject much that bumps up against their reality. It’s a doomsday machine without a cutoff switch. Grifters, market incentives, and much more maintains this machine.

To not dare go there is safe. In many parts of smallish town or social circle Alabama, they might not necessarily be at risk for being ostracized but there would almost certainly be some negative consequences. Economic penalties could follow for people in some circumstances. This stirring up a stink and questioning the dominant narrative can even echo harms across families and firms.

There’s possibly some Freud too to consider here. What looks like irrationality can, at least according to some stuff I’ve just started exploring, possibly point directly to the vulnerabilities a person doesn’t want to deal with. Pain or trauma gets bound up in a way where all sorts of silliness or coping or whatever it is gets projected out. Again, I’m just dipping into this. Can root out of links and possibly even write something halfway cogent on this if pressed.

What’s wild in my own life that even as many of these types do in fact “distrust and even hate liberals, progressive, leftists, secularists, …” and will actively try to do them in, how I’m increasingly locating and listening to conservatives and Christians is among my more positive or exciting developments. I’ve long liked some of the old-school types like Peter Viereck or Christopher Lasch. Alasdair MacIntyre is a new name I’m exploring. Very hard to label.

The Institute for Christian Socialism most definitely needs to be mentioned. I’ve always been a mutt and hard to label. It’s just that the more I decide facets of conservatism and Christianity probably need to be embraced in my own approach, the more I get aggravated by the likes of DHM claiming to represent either. As conveyed earlier, I know she’s absolutely within the much more dominant strands. And that’s a damn shame. She’s no Jimmy Concepts or outright goose but the way the weakest, most ridiculous, get going while some of the deeper and more substantive can’t get really any traction is bothersome.

For the record, I selected ‘Unitarian Universalism’ for my ID tags when I enlisted. I remain rather the heathen. And I’m probably still much more of a leftist. I consider myself still mostly riding with Marx, Gramsci, Freire, etc.
It’s just that I’m increasingly convinced you can get to essentially the same place through different traditions.

And since I mentioned traditions, the idea of building off of the old wisdom and understanding is increasingly important to me. I believe family and community can still be a big part of a healthy society. It’s just that I don’t think it matters all that much to see whatever DHM believes about “biblical wisdom about gender and sexuality” being maintained. And that’s especially true when she and fellow travelers are trying to do this through the power of the state. There’s nothing ‘conservative’ about that in my book. It’s more fash or fundamentalist.

Again, anyone selling what “living according to traditional Judeo-Christian values offers” really ought to start with socialism it seems to me. Until capitalism is crushed, you’re just nibbling around the edges. And by crushed, I view that term as transitioning into something better. More bottom-up and fragmented. Some role for the state. Possibly even markets. But nothing like where we currently are and the conditions we face. Collapse is around the corner unless there’s a transition. Furthermore, I think families and humans in general would do better under something different than capitalism – especially this late or neoliberal form.

If the likes of DHM are really worried about the children and something like traditional or conservative norms, then they’ll quit fulminating over fringe issues and focus on the important stuff. Either way, leave those kids alone. FWIW, here’s one of the politicians who passed these lousy laws saying DHM’s column was “Food for thought for evangelicals like me.” Food? That’s generous. For thought? That’s funny! Or sad. It’s justification for a really lousy set of laws. And especially that one making it a felony for physicians to treat patients. The others aren’t anything great but they’re less lousy.

Lastly, DHM and pretty much all like her will often seem to paint with a broad brush about ‘the left,’ progressives, liberals, etc. They often seem to make assumptions, build straw men, create logical leaps, etc. I have surely tried to not do that here. I know there are some legit conservatives and Christians out there still. They’re muddling along in their regular lives generally. They’re not looped in with columns and making a living, even a modest ones, off the content they file for a media outlet. Either way, I don’t mean to offend even DHM or any of her type. I’m not selling anything or aligned with really any group or cause. Just a guy with a keyboard. Comments are moderated, not always immediately, but they’ll almost always make the cut. And I try to respond to anyone who seems authentic. My basic rule is to not be disrespectful to others. You can generally unload whatever you want on me. I’ll handle it, or at least try to.

I’m even thinking about trying to do some public talks or make myself available to the ‘professional conservative’ performers as time allows. That main house I’m rehabbing and my dissertation still have a little ways to go but there’s definitely light at the end of both tunnels.

That’ll do. A rambling, disjointed mess. So it goes. Have too much else to get done to worry about it being better. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.