Ross Douthat is wrong about monuments

Douthat: 

To repudiate an honor or dismantle a memorial, then, makes moral sense only if you intend to repudiate the specific deeds that it memorializes. In the case of Confederate monuments, that’s exactly what we should want to do. Their objective purpose was to valorize a cause that we are grateful met defeat, there is no debt we owe J.E.B. Stuart or Nathan Bedford Forrest that needs to be remembered, and if they are put away we will become more morally consistent, not less, in how we think about that chapter in our past.

But just as Jefferson’s memorial wasn’t built to celebrate his slaveholding, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs wasn’t named for Wilson to honor him for being a segregationist. It was named for him because he helped create precisely the institutions that the school exists to staff — our domestic administrative state and our global foreign policy apparatus — and because he was the presidential progenitor of the idealistic, interventionist worldview that has animated that foreign policy community ever since.

Douthat is incorrect. You don't have to want to repudiate the good things a person has done to bring down a monument. Instead, you might want to reconsider how those good things are memorialized --  say, in the case of the recent controversy over the Freedmen's Monument: Nobody is against ending slavery, but they are uncomfortable at best with a monument that celebrates that accomplishment in a way that appears to reaffirm the submission of black people. You can disagree with that characterization, but the controversy is not remotely a renunciation of emancipation.

You also might want to bring a monument down after a reconsideration of the balance between a person's sins and virtues. Statues emphasize the virtues, to the near-exclusion of the sins. So even though Ulysses Grant was a greatly effective general during the Civil War -- not an accomplishment to be repudiated -- he also launched an illegal, bloody war against the Native American tribes that lived on the Plains. His legacy is thus much more complicated than a statue honoring him might indicate. You can honor the accomplishment while taking a dimmer view of the man.

I think our current round of statue-toppling is petering out, though I think a more process-driven statue reconsideration business will go on for awhile yet.  Probably, we'll find ways to recontextualize monuments in a way that honors the accomplishments of so-called "great men" without whitewashing their sins. History is nuanced, complicated. Bronze isn't. We have an opportunity to do something about that. 

Do American Christians need a strongman to protect them?

David Graham on Jeff Sessions, Christianity and Trumpism: 

When Plott asked Sessions, who is now running an underdog campaign to return to his old U.S. Senate seat in Alabama, how Christians could support Trump, he replied with a reference to Egypt and el-Sisi.

“It’s not a democracy—he’s a strongman, tough man, but he promised to protect them. And they believed him, because they didn’t want the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt. Because they knew they’d be vulnerable. They chose to support somebody that would protect them. And that’s basically what the Christians in the United States did. They felt they were under attack, and the strong guy promised to defend them. And he has.”

A few prominent, though isolated, evangelicals have been highly critical of the president. They argue that Trump shows none of the signs of Christian devotion or morality, and that Christians who align themselves with the president are making a crude bargain with a flawed man in an attempt to obtain safe harbor. Michael Gerson, in a 2018 Atlantic cover story, criticized the habit of “evangelicals regarding themselves, hysterically and with self-pity, as an oppressed minority that requires a strongman to rescue it. This is how Trump has invited evangelicals to view themselves. He has treated evangelicalism as an interest group in need of protection and preferences.”

I've seen and heard some variation on "American Christians want a strongman to protect them" theory a few times now, and it raises a couple of thoughts:

* I don't think American Christians are really in danger of losing their liberty -- but they are in "danger" of having groups they have disfavored over time achieve the same levels of liberty they have traditionally held in our society. Southern whites and their allies made similar arguments during the 1960s about Black liberation. To folks who have been on top for so long, equality isn't perceived as a net gain -- more freedom for everybody! -- but as a loss of their own advantages. It's not about liberty. It's about power.

* That said (and here my Mennonite roots are showing) I am constantly confused by the need of conservative American Christians to dominate the society around them when they profess to follow a religion whose central narrative act was one of surrender -- to the authorities, to death -- by the Most Powerful Being in the Universe. Jesus didn't seek a strongman to protect him. I'm not sure why his followers think they shouldn't observe and act on his example.

Coronavirus diary: Chess, my brain and my son

Since the pandemic began, my son and I have played a regular -- not quite daily -- game of chess.

I am the furthest thing from a grandmaster. My skills really haven't advanced much since I was in sixth grade and learned the game anew, playing against friends in study hall. T, honestly, has more experience than I do in recent years -- but he's a kid, so he has a bit less patience for how the game develops.

One thing that frustrates me about myself, though, is that I'm not great at doing the thing you need to do in chess, which is plan several moves ahead, to see the game unfold before it unfolds. I win a lot against T, but it's not like I'm great at planning victory. Often, it just seems to happen. But the result is that chess is an area where I'm unable to hide behind the Dunning-Kruger effect -- I can see, with some precision, what my limitations are. And they make me wonder about the makeup of how I think in other endeavors, if I'm similarly limited. Indeed, I've also had a chance to read a lot more during the pandemic, and I while I'm a competent enough writer -- I mean, I get paid to do it, right? -- I can see how my writing and the thinking that underlies it probably misses a dimension accomplished by people I admire and respect. I'm not sure how, or if, I can acquire that dimension. Those limitations bump up against my ambitions and pretentions, and that's very goddamn frustrating.

The solace I take, though, is that the more often T and I play chess, the more I can start to see a move or two ahead. It takes practice. That gives me hope the same is true for my writing and thinking, but who the hell knows?

One thing I do, though, is I try to make the game more than about wins or losses. In the last couple of months, my son has gone from being overtly frustrated when he loses to calm and willingness to learn from a loss. That's a big gain. And when I win, I try to explain to him what it is I did to win -- my strategy, such as it is, so that he can think about ways to create his own counterstrategy. I'm trying to help him learn to think about these things. And I'm trying to get better at my own thinking.

Terry Teachout, Matt Zoller Seitz, and grief

Terry Teachout and Matt Zoller Seitz hail from different spots on the ideological spectrum, I gather, but otherwise they share some striking similarities. Both are accomplished critics: Teachout, among his many accomplishments, writes about theater for the Wall Street Journal, while Seitz is one of the best movie and television critics of his generation.

They have also been recently widowed -- Seitz, unfathomably and horribly, for the second time. And Seitz's father appears to be in the end stages of cancer.

What I appreciate about both men is that they have been willing to share their grief, both through tweets and blog posts. Which seems timely -- there is so much for Americans, and the world, to grieve right now. But we're uncomfortable with grief, uncomfortable with showing it, uncomfortable with seeing it. We want it to fit into a neat process -- the "stages" of grieving -- but in truth, grieving isn't necessarily a linear process. And in a lot of cases, that process never becomes complete. We just learn to live with it.

Here's Teachout in a recent blog post:

And how am I feeling now that I’m back in New York? That’s hard to say. I think I’m starting to find my way out of the bewildering maze of sorrow, for I no longer miss Hilary with the same around-the-clock intensity that came perilously close to sinking me in April. At the same time, though, her memory is never far from my mind, and I’m still as lonely as I ever was. And while I’ve kept myself busy writing about theater webcasts for The Wall Street Journal, I miss going to the theater in something not wholly unlike the way in which I miss my life’s companion.

For my own part, I don’t know how I’ve managed to survive the simultaneous losses of my beloved spouse and the art form to which I have devoted more than a decade and a half of my life. But I’m still here, and if Hilary’s death and the closing of America’s theaters didn’t kill me, then I figure I’m in it for the long haul. I hope you are, too.

And here is a recent Twitter thread from Seitz:

This weekend marks the seventh anniversary of my mother's death. I still find that grief visits me suddenly and out of the blue, though I don't live with it as a constant low-level thrum like I used to. The really unexpected thing that's happened, though, is that she's gone -- but my relationship with her isn't. I still find myself wrestling with her life and how it affected mine, the love and the conflicts, in just about every interaction I have with my own child.

Anyway, I'm grateful to Teachout and Seitz for their willingness to grieve publicly. I suspect their acts will help others find comfort. We all grieve, sooner or later. You can't prepare for it, really. But maybe you can take solace in knowing you're not alone.

Movie night: THE FAREWELL

Three thoughts about THE FAREWELL, coming up...

* There's a bittersweet pain these days to watching certain movies from the before times. I'm not talking about MCU movies or anything blockbusterish -- I'm talking about films like this one, that don't invent new worlds but take a close look at one small corner of reality. To see people living life together, arguing, celebrating, being passive aggressive, even drinking in close proximity to each other ... to experience that for real is something I miss dearly. And it makes a movie like this a bit more intense for me than it might've been before the pandemic.

* A lot of the coverage of the film, when it came out, was about having Asian representation in the movies -- both onscreen and behind the camera. This is very specifically a Chinese-American movie; the whole plot, inasmuch as there is one, hinges on very specific cultural difference between the two countries. Yet this is also a profoundly human (and utterly lovely) piece about the way we are with our families that is recognizable to anybody who has actually lived in a family -- the conflicts, the lies we use to grease those conflicts, the love that underlies our frustrations with each other. So beautiful.

* Alex Weston's score is memorable and beautiful. 

Trump, America and history

I keep thinking about Donald Trump's most recent interview with Fox News, in which he was asked what message he would send to Black Americans whose ancestors were held as slaves. His response:

My message is that we have a great country, we have the greatest country on Earth. We have a heritage, we have a history and we should learn from the history, and if you don’t understand your history, you will go back to it again. You will go right back to it. You have to learn. Think of it, you take away that whole era and you’re going to go back to it sometime. People won’t know about it. They’re going to forget about it. It’s okay.

Now this is a lot of nothing masquerading as something. We know that Trump's knowledge of history is limited, and I've argued that he doesn't really have a sense of history -- if he could think beyond today's news cycle, this hour's tweet, he might take very different actions with an understanding that history's eye is on him.

I've come to suspect, though, that Trump sees and tells American history like he tells his own -- it's a narrative, one in which inconvenient facts are omitted or glossed over, so that the story is one of ever-greater triumphs, never mind all those bankruptcies and unpaid workers along the way. The end of the story is now, and the end of the story is that he's rich, so he must have won, right? It is history as PR.

A fundamental dividing line in this country is between those who want history to be public relations, and those who have a more tragic sense of how events have proceeded. It is probably easier to get elected if you hold the former view. But the people with the latter view, in my estimation, probably have a more realistic understanding of the country we live in.

Movie night: 'A Face in the Crowd'

Three thoughts about A FACE IN THE CROWD:

* Criterion: "A Face in the Crowd chronicles the rise and fall of Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes (Andy Griffith), a boisterous entertainer discovered in an Arkansas drunk tank by Marcia Jeffries (Patricia Neal), a local radio producer with ambitions of her own. His charisma and cunning soon shoot him to the heights of television stardom and political demagoguery, forcing Marcia to grapple with the manipulative, reactionary monster she has created."

So. You Know. Fiction.

* Patricia Neal's face during the movie's climax reminds me of the terror you usually see in horror movies.

* In fact, if I ran a film festival, I'd put this together with CITIZEN KANE, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE -- and, I think, the Boris Karloff version of FRANKENSTEIN.