Traveling with remarkably little time for reading or blogging.
The conflict between individual freedom and the common good—between loosing and binding—is what lies at the heart of what is most necessary and most problematic about the Benedict Option. This is because, on the one hand, the trumping of individual freedoms by a common way of life always threatens to turn into autocracy and domination. But, on the other hand, we are all too aware that, in the liquid modernity in which we find ourselves, the trumping of the common good by individual freedom always threatens to destroy community.
This is what accounts for the strange mixture of attraction and repulsion that so many of us—liberal individualists that we are—feel when we read about the Benedict Option. We are attracted to it, and our attraction resonates because of how deeply we want community, how desperately we want to be reassured that the world makes sense and that our lives have a place within it. But the repulsion is there as well, and not only because, like the freedom-addicts we are, we are so hooked on individuality. The repulsion is there because there is a great goodness that we have found in the recognition that each of us is—really, in all actuality—a unique facet of the immortal diamond, the one who shines in ten thousand places, lovely in limbs and lovely in eyes not his.
The BenOp puts God at the center of a christian’s universe again. God stops being a means to an end like political victories or commercial success, and instead resumes being the End that Christians should strive for. The BenOp also forces hard choices around how to live in this world. It is not about disengaging from it but it definitely lays down markers for what’s acceptable and what’s not. It moves away from thinking of Christian faith as some kind of a la carte menu (something for everyone here), and instead challenges and asks Christians to commit fully to their faith and its demands no matter how they diverge from social and commercial norms.
I also like how the BenOp essentially gives primacy to the spirit and soul over the intellect. In our culture today, we obscenely fetishize innovation…the ability to use the intellect to solve problems and satisfy needs. We valorize those we think are innovative, disruptive, builders of stuff that is new and different. The BenOp is a recognition that an innovation focused intellect is just an endless spinning down an unending rabbit hole..that the spirit is more important, and it can be nourished, strengthened, and made beautiful by rediscovering and dedicating oneself to the timeless and essential truths that God has provided us with through the Faith He has revealed to His creation.
(Kamran Hashim, a Muslim, via Rod Dreher)
Ross Douthat — in one of this wild thought experiments — thinks we need a Teddy Rooseveltian trust-buster for big cities:
Yes, for many of their inhabitants, particularly the young and the wealthy, our liberal cities are pleasant places in which to work and play. But if they are diverse in certain ways they are segregated in others, from “whiteopias” like Portland to balkanized cities like D.C. or Chicago. If they are dynamic, they are also so rich — and so rigidly zoned — that the middle class can’t afford to live there and fewer and fewer kids are born inside their gates. If they are fast-growing it’s often a growth intertwined with subsidies and “too big to fail” protection; if they are innovation capitals it’s a form of innovation that generates fewer jobs than past technological advance. If they produce some intellectual ferment they have also cloistered our liberal intelligentsia and actually weakened liberalism politically by concentrating its votes.
So has the heyday of these meritocratic agglomerations actually made America greater? I think not. In the age of the liberal city — dating, one might argue, to the urban recovery of the 1990s — economic growth has been slack, political dysfunction worse, and technological progress slow outside the online sector. Liberalism has become more smug and out-of-touch; conservatism more anti-intellectual and buffoonish. The hive-mind genius supposedly generated by concentrating all the best and the brightest has given us great apps and some fun TV shows to binge-watch, but the 2000s and 2010s haven’t exactly been the Florentine Renaissance.
… We should treat liberal cities the way liberals treat corporate monopolies — not as growth-enhancing assets, but as trusts that concentrate wealth and power and conspire against the public good. And instead of trying to make them a little more egalitarian with looser zoning rules and more affordable housing, we should make like Teddy Roosevelt and try to break them up.
With each message, I experienced a growing panic. Nothing in comparison to what I feel about, say, the American president maybe colluding with Russia or everyone losing their health insurance, but an unsettled feeling nonetheless, the nagging qualm that I was going to have to do something about all this, that out of joy had come duty. After all, someone had gone to the trouble of writing “HBD” on my Facebook page! The very least I could do was like it in return. But you can’t just like one post and not the others, you can’t just pick and choose the good ones from the ones attached to names you don’t even recognize and clearly only accepted as friends while drunk. And Facebook makes scrolling through all of those messages time-consuming and a bit difficult; you have to keep clicking to see more, and then pressing that little thumb to express your like on each, and in the meantime more are still coming in. It all starts to feel distinctly uncelebratory and more like a Sisyphean task, if Sisyphus was a guy who sat behind a MacBook Air and had the job of liking everybody’s Facebook posts.
Peggy Noonan’s WSJ column on the failure of AHCA is characteristically excellent. Her ability to see the “people issues” is why she was such a great Reagan speechwriter.
Dem president + Dem House + Dem Senate = Obamacare. And GOP president + GOP House + GOP Senate = Obamacare. Huh?
— Jason Riley (@jasonrileywsj) March 24, 2017
* * * * *
“Liberal education is concerned with the souls of men, and therefore has little or no use for machines … [it] consists in learning to listen to still and small voices and therefore in becoming deaf to loudspeakers.” (Leo Strauss)