It's still late in the day - today's edition

I tend to concur with David French's assertion that the Left still prevails culturally in post-America, even in the wake of the massive state-and-federal-level victories for Republicans in November:

Even while Streep was still speaking, conservative Twitter sparked to life, making all these critiques and more. Yet there was one sentiment that I thought was misplaced, a dash of triumphalism that rang hollow. “This is why Trump won,” said some. “Keep talking like this, and Trump wins again,” said others. In the narrow political sense, there’s some truth to this. Lots of voters don’t like to be hectored. Lots of voters defy Hollywood’s commands.

Indeed, since 1968 — when the modern Left really got rolling — the Democratic party has been largely losing ground. It’s lost most presidential races, it’s lost its stranglehold on the House of Representatives, it has lost the Senate, and now its fortunes in the states are at a low ebb. For all their celebrity star power, the Democrats are the weakest they’ve been in generations.

But in that same period, whose cultural values have most advanced? The secular Left has taken a sledgehammer to God, family, and country — the pillars of our national culture — and Hollywood has led the way. American irreligiosity is rising, the family (especially in our most vulnerable communities) is collapsing, and generations of children are now raised to view their nation not as a flawed but indispensable beacon of freedom but rather as a bigoted oppressor, an instrument of evil across the globe. 

In fact, it’s strange to even think of Trump as somehow a triumph over Hollywood. In many ways, he is Hollywood — a towering celebrity who has exhibited and lived exactly the personal values that fill the pages of People magazine and Us Weekly. To “beat” Hollywood, the GOP turned to Hollywood. It can mock celebrity culture no longer. 

Hollywood sells the best cultural drugs. Truth is optional, self-indulgence is a virtue, and bullying is bravery. And last night it was all wrapped in Streep’s alluring package, an emotion-laden call to arms that stirred the hearts of millions.

Over the long sweep of history, what matters more? Donald Trump’s immigration policy or the fate of the family? Paul Ryan’s entitlement reforms or the faith of a nation? The fate of the family and the faith of the nation narrow and constrain our politics, limiting our choices to those options that are palatable to an increasingly dependent people. Hollywood is helping redefine our nation’s character. And if the Left keeps winning our culture, the GOP can keep winning our politics and the nation will still lose.

So laugh all you want at Streep, conservatives. When it comes to the things that truly matter, she’s winning, we’re losing, and Donald Trump isn’t going to turn the tide.

Still, it's hard not to see an impending crackup on the Left, as identity politics demands such impossible contortions of its adherents that the fissures can't be healed:

The New York Times published a story today about racial divisions that are springing up around the Women’s March on Washington, the progressive event scheduled for the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration. At the core of the story is Jennifer Willis, a white woman from South Carolina who was planning to attend the march with her daughters. But after reading something online which she found off-putting, Willis decided to cancel her trip. From the NY Times:

Ms. Willis, the South Carolina wedding minister, had been looking forward to the salve of rallying with people who share her values, a rarity in her home state, where she said she had been insulted and shouted at for marrying gay couples.

But then she read a post by ShiShi Rose, a 27-year-old blogger from Brooklyn.

“Now is the time for you to be listening more, talking less,” Ms. Rose wrote. “You should be reading our books and understanding the roots of racism and white supremacy. Listening to our speeches. You should be drowning yourselves in our poetry.”

Willis felt offended at the assumption that she wasn’t already aware of her advantages but told the NY Times, “The last thing that is going to make me endeared to you, to know you and love you more, is if you are sitting there wagging your finger at me.”

For her part, ShiShi Rose tells the Times she wasn’t trying to discourage anyone from attending the march, but adds, “I needed them to understand that they don’t just get to join the march and not check their privilege constantly.”

The last word in the piece is given to Willis who asks, “Can you please tell me what that means?” I think she already has an instinctive sense of what it means, which is why she was offended. It’s progressive code for: Shut up! 

But maybe that's the endgame, what final leftist "victory" looks like: Somali-level anarchy and the momentary rule of a succession of tribal warlords.

You know, something like a state of affairs in which "many . . . fall away, and betray one another and hate one another . . . [and] many false prophets  . . . arise and lead many astray."

The more the 21st century progresses, the more I come to see the importance of cultivating traits like humility and clarity. I'm less inclined to see any of my fellow fallen mortals as the embodiment of all I hope to see prevail in this realm.

One encounters much talk in conservative enclaves of reversing the cultural rot depicted above by French - that sledgehammer that has been taken to our culture's pillars. I'm beginning to see that such a process will not be birthed at any kind of convention held in some big urban hall or in the panel discussions in the banquet rooms at some scenic resort. There will be no drafting of a document that will serve as our unshakable road map to a future of restoration.

There will be no New Era for the material realm in which safety, peace, happiness, general prosperity and comity reign without disruption.

There is no substitute for the real work we must do: fix our gaze on our real home and pray that He who reigns there will have the mercy to let us in.