52 Albums, Week 34: Tranceport (Paul Okenfold)
52 Albums, Week 35: Triplicate (Bob Dylan)

Sunday Night Journal, August 27, 2017

The Sunday Night Journal is now a bit different from its earlier version, the one that appeared for most of the years from 2004 through 2012. Many of those earlier ones (not all by any means) were worked on for much of the week before they appeared. Not necessarily written, but much thought about, and perhaps written in a partial and/or rough draft. By Sunday I generally knew pretty much exactly what I was going to say, and put a good bit of effort into the attempt to say it well.

That's no longer the case, as regular readers (all two dozen of you) may remember: when I decided to revive the journal this year I meant for it to be a more casual thing, in great part an outlet for my unstompable urge to comment on this or that thing that has nothing directly to do with the book project that's getting whatever attention I can manage for writing during the week. I actually do sit down Sunday afternoon or evening with no more than a mental list of one or two or three or four things I want to mention. And so much of what comes out is more or less off the top of my head. I may just be thinking out loud. 

Such was the case last week, when I wrote what amounted to a prolonged grumble about various parties who have been trying to bully everyone who is remotely associated with the political right into denouncing Nazis and Klansmen. I really had only intended to write a paragraph or so, but I kept banging on. I am naturally, and no doubt too cynically, a little suspicious of public expressions of deep emotion about events that the expresser is not personally involved in, and much more so about the species of it for which the useful phrase"virtue signaling" has been coined. I think there's been a whole lot of virtue signaling going on. And the demand had pushed my contrariness button. 

Anyway: that's all by way of saying that there's a provisional quality about what I write  here now, and I may have second thoughts, which I may or may not voice later on. Last week someone privately brought up a more substantial reason--more substantial than virtue signaling--for making the denunciation loud and clear. Among other things, this person pointed out that Trump's presidency has from the beginning had the potential to destroy the conservative movement, and that this has been the reason why so many principled and thoughtful conservatives appropriated the label NeverTrump for themselves (yes, that's supposed to have a Twitter "hashtag" but I refuse to cooperate, as Twitter seems to be an important vehicle for fulfilling the worst possibilities of the Internet). 

I more or less agreed with their basic position although I never claimed the label (like I said, I'm contrary). But the reason was more straightforward: I couldn't see Trump as a competent president. I really didn't give a whole lot of thought to the farther-reaching implications and possibilities. 

From the period in the late '70s and early '80s when I began the process of admitting that I was in fact some sort of conservative, I've tended to keep the movement at arm's length. That was mainly because I always had significant disagreements with it and am anyway not much of a movement-joiner. Worse, the vehicle for the expression of more-or-less-conservative ideas in practical politics was and is the Republican Party, and a pretty poor vehicle it is. I've more than once said that I don't care at all about the fortunes of the Republican Party, and I haven't really changed my mind. But more than one person on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide have speculated that Trump's ascendancy could destroy the Republican party.

A lot of Trump's supporters would say that would be a good thing. But that would depend entirely on what replaced it. Being a pessimist, I am always ready to point out the folly of thinking that things can't get worse. What might replace the Republican Party? Trumpism? Well, what is that? I honestly don't know. I've mocked those who call him a fascist, because fascism is an ideology, and if there is anything that Trump is not, it's an ideologue. If he can be compared to any dictatorial type, it's to what we used to call tin-pot dictators: the ones who have tended to rise to the top in some countries where the balance between authoritarianism and anarchy is difficult to find. These men are typically motivated mainly by wealth and power, not the desire to impose an abstract system, which is the essence of both fascism and communism. 

At any rate I have never seen any evidence that Trump is a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. I've often made a distinction between "conservative" and "right-wing," and I think it applies to him. He may (or may not, depending on his mood) be right-wing, but he's not conservative. That doesn't mean that he won't do things that conservatives applaud, and if he gets to nominate one more conservative Supreme Court justice his presidency could turn out to be more good than bad for conservatism. But because he is more or less on the right, his association with nasty forces could produce such animosity that it would cripple anything resembling conservatism as a political force. (I started to say "taint", but that's not strong enough; liberals have believed that conservatives are racist fascist etc for fifty years and nothing is going to change that.)

A lot of conservative Christians, mainly evangelicals but a fair number of Catholics as well, see Trump as a sort of warrior who will stop and maybe turn back the revolution of militant secular progressivism that seems determined to force Christians into a choice between capitulating to anti-Christian doctrine (error has no rights!) or being expelled from legitimate society. But any victories for Christians in this situation could well turn out to be Pyrrhic. 

Seems to me there are two possible outcomes. One: Trump and Trumpism turn out to be flukes, and after one term (or perhaps an uncompleted term), national politics returns to the old Democrats-vs.-Republicans pattern more or less as if nothing had happened. Two: Trumpism splits the right, broadly construed, into the factions that I've called conservative and right-wing, with conservatism a minority. It's not far-fetched to imagine that progressivism would be both the cultural and political beneficiary of that.

And why should we care? What does it matter whether conservatism is conserved? The whole question of what conservatism can mean in a fundamentally liberal order has also bothered me from the beginning, and of course conservative thinkers have chewed away on it for a long time. The question of what is left to preserve seems more challenging every year. Still: the liberal order had Christian roots and respected Christian belief and institutions, and it produced a pretty decent society, all the obvious evils notwithstanding. What is likely to replace it is the intolerant and totalizing progressive religion that is currently flourishing all over the place. 

There was a striking comment on one of Rod Dreher's posts a few days ago. As I write this I don't have the link handy but will try to find it and post it in a comment. The topic was, well, all this stuff. As you know I find Dreher's high level of agitation a bit much and don't read him that often, but have been doing so recently, and he has been saying some useful and interesting (if sometimes overwrought) things about the current controversies. Anyway, this commenter observed that some Christians see Trump as a Constantine figure, one who will (re-)establish Christian faith as the dominant political force in the U.S. (Impossible by that means, I think.) But he suggested that they might have it wrong: perhaps the actual Constantine was Obama, and Trump is Julian the Apostate.


A whole lot of pixels over the past week or two have been generated by arguments over whether the fascists or the anti-fascists are worse. It seems a moot point to me. What strikes me as more important, and more worrisome, is the thought of two very nasty factions battling in our streets. That, more than Trump himself, seems to me to conjure 1920s Germany. 

The evil of the "fascists" is obvious. (I put the word in quotes because I have the impression that they haven't fully adopted (or maybe even understood) the ideology, but are acting out some bit of theater.) I hear people saying that it's more important to condemn them than to condemn their violent opponents. I don't know about that. I know that the only two people I've ever heard explicitly state their intention to kill their political enemies were on the left. One was a young man who had been part of the protests in Seattle in 1999. This was at my parents' house at Christmas, probably of the same year. He was an in-law of an in-law who was only there the one time, and I don't remember his name. He sat across from me in a comfortable chair and calmly spoke of the necessity for the revolution to kill all the Christians. I didn't take him all that seriously, but still, it was disturbing. 

The other is a guy whose bloodthirsty hopes I've seen on Facebook via his comments on other people's posts. I don't know how seriously to take him, either. But on my personal scorecard of threats, that's anti-fascists 2, fascists 0. 

Oh yeah, and there was the guy I knew in the '60s, whose ex-wife I discovered lived down the street from us in the 1980s. I asked about him and she said he had gone far into hard leftism (she herself was still an unreconstructed hippie), and that the last time she'd seen him he'd been talking about the necessity of killing not only the bourgeoisie, but their children, so that there wouldn't be anyone left to seek vengeance.

At any rate I don't see why we should have to declare ourselves less unfavorably disposed toward the one than the other.


Changing the subject (at last!): I noticed a week or two ago that there are new episodes of the British mystery series Hinterland on Netflix. I liked the previous episodes pretty well, though not as much as some similar productions. I like this series better than the others. I'm not altogether sure why. Partly it was the plot (or plots--there are per-episode stories and a continuing one). Also, it seems to me that the cinematography is exceptional. And the sound track, a subdued minimalist combination of piano and electronica, is very good. 

Fans of the previous series will be relieved to know that the red parka is still there.

There are also new episodes of Shetland. I don't know how long they'd been there. Here, again, I liked this series even better than the earlier ones. 

And there is a new series of Endeavour in progress. Which I also think is better. Maybe I just always think the most recent one is the best. But no, that's not true. I could give instances that went the other way. House of Cards, for one.

[A Monday morning addendum: I had only seen the first episode of Endeavour when I wrote the paragraph above. Later last night I watched the second one. It was fairly terrible. Aside from the fact that it featured a walking cliche of a nasty Christian as a major character, seeing to it that she was humiliated even though she really didn't have that much to do with the main plot, the main plot was a mess that almost became nonsensical. The only thing good about it was a pretty good portrayal of a rock band of the time (ca. 1967), though even there I think it got some things wrong: an English rock band in the late '60s afraid of taking LSD?]


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Glad to see that both Hinterland and Shetland have some new episodes. I kind of gave up on Endeavour awhile ago, though.

I watched a very good series from France last week, The Disappearance, about a teenage girl who goes missing from a music festival on her birthday. Although I didn't find the mystery element in this one quite as gripping as in some of the others we've discussed, the overall quality is excellent. And the actors who play the girl's parents are outstanding, esp. the father.

Im not getting the analogy here. How was Obama like Constantine or Trump like Julian the Apostate?

I've been getting trailers for 'The Disappearance' on my various feeds. I also get trailers for it watching Netflix and HBO.
I think I will watch it.

If anyone hasn't seen it, Get Out is an enjoyable movie I watched last week.

Haven't heard of either Get Out or The Disappearance. I need to quit watching all these detective things and get back to some actual movies. It's just soconvenient to watch things that come in 45-60 minute pieces(mostly--Hinterland is 90).

The analogy is that Obama established progressivism as the religion of the state, and Trump is a last gasp attempt at reversal, which will probably fail. Not an exact analogy of course since there is no official establishment, but it's a pregnant thought.

I like the characters in Endeavour, and all the connections with Morse. But if last night's episode is the shape of what's to come...ugh.

Aside from the fact that it featured a walking cliche of a nasty Christian as a major character . . .

It's gotten so bad that I really do wonder if TV writers, especially in the UK, have a check-off list for their scripts that includes a box labeled "at least one crazy/evil Christian character".

The funny thing is that just a few days ago I had been thinking that they were getting better about that. Can't remember what had prompted that thought. Then came this. Couldn't have been more heavy-handed if they'd had her curse somebody's little dog. The BBC does apparently have something close to a check-off for homosexual characters and sympathy. That was part of the stick used to beat the lady in this story.

I generally watch a movie on the weekend, when it's easier for me to block out the time. I watch mini-series episodes on weeknights so I can stop at one if necessary. I almost never binge watch and I usually will not start watching a movie that I don't think I'll be able to finish, either due to time constraints or tiredness.

I'm currently rewatching River. Knowing the plot ahead of time has allowed me to pay more attention to the acting and the directing. Stellan Skarsgard is just brilliant in it.

I rarely re-watch that kind of show but River might be worth it.

At the moment I'm planning to watch John Huston's adaptation of Wise Blood this weekend. As I mentioned to you yesterday it's been sitting forgotten on my DVR for a while.

Also formulating a plan for watching Tarkovsky's Stalker, which I doubt I want to do in one sitting.

Oh no, I just remembered Alabama's first game of the season is Saturday night, which is when I would have watched WB. Have to come up with a different plan....

"I rarely re-watch that kind of show but River might be worth it."

I'll watch the 'really' good ones again, but usually only after a fair amount of time has gone by, at least several years generally speaking. River was a little different in that it was shorter than most of those series, and also was more character- than plot-driven.

"Also formulating a plan for watching Tarkovsky's Stalker, which I doubt I want to do in one sitting."

That one may actually have an intermission.

Not sure now that I'm going to be able to get it. Netflix says "very long wait" which sometimes means "never".

You could try your library or interlibrary loan. I get a lot of movies that way.

Filmstruck has a bunch of Tarkovsky movies, including Stalker. I just watched a short film by him, The Steamroller and the Violin which I really liked. Don't worry, the steamroller and the violin don't have a bad relationship.


That's reassuring. Naturally my first thought on reading that title was "perverts!"

Stalker is only available if you have the Criterion option and I only have the basic subscription. They rotate stuff in and out of that level and it was in for a while, but now I've missed it. I'm thinking about dropping our Filmstruck subscription, actually, as we haven't used it much at all. First that was because they didn't support Roku, then...inertia or too many crime dramas or something....

Our library's collection doesn't get much out of the mainstream.

Oh, well I never considered not having the Criterion option because that's why I have Filmstruck. There are hundreds of movies on there that I want to watch.

And then, you know I have renounced the dark and gritty, so that pretty much does it for British crime dramas.

The other night though, I saw that there were new episodes of Endeavour and I watched the first one before I remembered it was dark and gritty. ;-)

From what you say, I think I'll let Bill watch the second one after I go to bed, although it will probably put him off Endeavour for life.


It may very well. I suppose I've gotten too accustomed to the dark and gritty, as the first Endeavour didn't strike me as being so very much that way. The second episode is not really that way at all (though I guess standards vary), it's just stupid. And obnoxious.

I was a little annoyed when I discovered that Filmstruck was a two-tier thing. And since it didn't have Roku support at first I definitely didn't want to pay more. Now...I don't know...I may try it.

Well, if it wasn't for Bill, and I had to choose between Netflix and Filmstruck, I would definitely choose Filmstruck, but then there is Bill, so I have both. I may quit getting DVDs from Netflix though.


I don't think I'd want only Filmstruck, and the reason is not an especially good one: at least half the time, probably more, when I want to watch something I want it to be fairly undemanding. I'm sure you can find that on Filmstruck but that's not what it's mainly about.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)