ALAN writes:

The supine surrender of their legitimate authority by American white men is one of the most sickening spectacles I have witnessed in my life.

One day not long ago my cousin and I were reminiscing about our grandfather, who died many years ago at age 89.  “He was strict,” my cousin remarked when remembering him from our boyhood years. I imagine he meant that remark not as a criticism but simply as an observation.

When I was young, I too probably imagined him to be strict. But “strict” in comparison with what? Was he ever a petty tyrant?  Never. Not even remotely. He was “strict” in the sense of being disciplined and principled. He lived by firm moral standards of behavior, speech, and apparel.  He knew that such standards were necessary, not optional, because neither reality nor responsibility can be evaded.  He would never have been deceived by the pretentious claptrap of “tolerance”, “openness”, non-discrimination, and moral relativism that Americans today imagine make them superior to those previous generations of “strict” American white men.

Men Who Make St. Louis the City of Opportunity is the title of a book published in St. Louis in 1927.  It includes full-page formal portraits of 83 businessmen. All of them are white. Like my grandfather, they were “strict” in comparison with the lowered standards that Americans today are foolish enough to imagine are proper or sensible.  There are no Asians, Latinos, Arabs, Indians, or Africans pictured in the book. St. Louis had more than 800,000 residents in 1927, but they did not suffer from the astronomical rates of crime and lawlessness that St. Louisans must endure today while applauding themselves for their “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”

A few questions that loom are:

If American white men had not agreed to stop being “strict” by surrendering their moral and political authority over the past half-century, how would our nation look today?  Would those men welcome millions of trespassers and reward them with citizenship, education, and welfare handouts?  Would they welcome “immigrants” whose avowed goal is to conquer America and remake it?   Would those men permit the feminization of the armed forces?  Would they agree to celebrate “affirmative action” policies and “same-sex marriage”?  Would they make excuses for incompetent public schools and unaccountable school boards? Would they take pride in a police department that pursues parking violations with militant zeal but allows free-lance thugs to rule the streets?  Would they celebrate the amplified noise and profanity of rap “music” on the streets and in city parks?  Would cities like East St. Louis, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, and Detroit look as they do today?

— Comments —

Will G. writes:

“If American white men had not agreed to stop being “strict” by surrendering their moral and political authority over the past half-century, how would our nation look today?”

They apparently dropped the ball at some point.  My father-in-law would be considered a “strict man” in many ways.  He is 72, an ex-marine, retired executive from Anheuser Busch. A very driven and successful man. Give him a project and he is all over it and it will be done well.  They now live in a gated community in St. Louis and in Florida and they just tune out the rest of the world. I respect him for his accomplishments but his insularity is troubling.  It feels like an abdication of duty.  A lot of men like him picked up their marbles and went home. What would I do if I were in his shoes?  I don’t know. I am spending the second half of my life detoxing from the liberalism that infested the first half.  I am angrier than he is.

Laura writes:

It may not be insularity so much as quiet approval. He was prepared for all this, as was most of his generation.

Paul writes:

Alan hits the nail on the head with his eloquent essay.  I don’t think I have ever read a more succinct, accurate description of what the thinking was like in the fifties and mid-sixties (maybe longer) with my father.  Notice he distinguishes between superficial lay authority, which I usually rebel against, and morality.  My ex-combat Marine Dad was no saint, but my beautiful mother charmed him and calmed him.  My Dad knew exactly what has been going on as Alan remarkably lists.

Earl writes:

One of the traits of mature and strict conservative (and even libertarian) men is the desire to live a peaceful and quiet life where each is accountable to his own, where the greater passions of politics are able to be set aside in the various “pursuits of happiness.” These men can still be strict about themselves and their own, but would rather live in a society where they don’t have to babysit federal bureaucrats 2,000 miles away. It is a fundamental property of many mature conservative men to want to just let things be, once things are generally fair and just in their minds.

It is also a fundamental property of young undisciplined liberals to always be looking for the next liberation, pushing for more security, more equality, more “awareness raising campaigns” driven by every little wind of doctrine. Conservatives, even the strict ones, are seemingly hard wired to be wary about politics- at least until someone needs killing, anyways. Until then, they maddeningly focus on career and family, praying for their leaders and pursuing a peaceful and quiet life instead of agitating for social change & control. It took many years of offense (cataloged in the Declaration) before the “strict men” of colonial America finally threw in with the Sons Of Liberty.

Over the last 10 years I have watched the Internet debates develop from a place run almost strictly by college age liberals on Digg.com (for example) to a more fairly balanced debate where seniors and family men are catching up to these kids in their dorms with their fancy smartphones who have nothing better to do. But the Internet is still dominated by liberals. It is my belief that the strict men just don’t have the time or the desire to compete in the online political debate, and beyond. The Internet is a shadow of the greater sphere of the public debate, reflecting the same traits of mature conservatives and crusading ignoramuses.

Will G. writes:

Well said, Earl. At what point do they put down the golf club and throw in with the Sons of Liberty?

Jane S. writes:

It reminds me of a past discussion on VFR:

“To put it another way, Republicans represent the remnant of America’s old Anglo ethos, and the keynote of that ethos is the imperative not to make a fuss. As Hemingway’s narrator Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises says, ‘I try and play it along and just not make trouble for people.’ The Anglo ethos can work well in a traditional society formed and guided by that ethos. In a society that has already been half radicalized and is threatened with destruction, it is a formula for helplessness and surrender.”

Please follow and like us: