Today’s list features a longer-than-usual read from the National Review on the rotten legacy of the Baby Boomers. In a searing condemnation of how the Boomers have destroyed Hollywood, universities, the American National Football League and even sports commentary, Victor Davis Hanson asks: What caused this societal meltdown among our Boomer custodians?
He concludes, ‘It is hard to destroy the NFL or to discredit a liberal-arts degree from Yale, or to turn NBC or CNN into a bastard of Pravda or to make the Hollywood of John Ford, Frank Capra, and Alfred Hitchcock into that of George Clooney. But we managed it — and more still to come before we are through.’
In an excellent summary of how Orwellian the politically correct language has become, Hanson points out: ‘Orwellian administrative language, sanctioned from those who should have known better, masks an anti-democratic reality of which even its adherents are ashamed. “Safe spaces” mean segregation. “Affirmative action” is synonymous with implicit racial quotas. “Theme houses” are race-based apartheid living quarters. “Trigger warnings” are censorship. “Student loans” are paramount to indentured servitude for over a decade. And “diversity” ensures monotony and orthodoxy in thought and expression.’
This piece describes the landscape in America, but it is a must-read.
This next piece concerns the sad demise of some Catholic universities in America, and how even there the cultural Marxists are on the march.
Finally, there is this piece describing the raging battle between classical liberals and conservatives in the US, particularly in the wake of Trump.
It highlights that ‘Brexit and Mr Trump’s rise are the direct result of a quarter-century of classical-liberal hegemony over the parties of the right. Neither Mr Trump nor the Brexiteers were necessarily seeking a conservative revival. But in placing a renewed nationalism at the center of their politics, they shattered classical liberalism’s grip, paving the way for a return to empiricist conservatism. Once you start trying to understand politics by learning from experience rather than by deducing your views from 17th-century rationalist dogma, you never know what you may end up discovering.’