Edmund Burke, George Will, and the Duke of Sussex

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri notes in The Federalist that George Will was his introduction to Aristotle and Edmund Burke. I can’t say that but like Senator Hawley Will was for years a must read for me. Too bad that he changed, from Senator Hawley:

Will’s fulminations are typical of a certain set of Clinton and Bush-era commentators who call themselves “conservative” but sound more like a cartoon version of libertarianism. Will shrugs at the decline of the working class and the loss of the communities that sustain them. He celebrates instead the “spontaneous order of a market society,” by which he apparently means woke capital, offshoring, and the growing corporatist alliance between big government and big business.

Will advises working families displaced by lost jobs and neighborhoods to shut up and move, like the Joad family in Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.” Packing up all their belongings and abandoning their family farm demonstrated the Joads’ “dignity,” Will opines. Interesting. He might want to re-read Steinbeck.

Or Edmund Burke. Will casts himself as a champion of individual liberty, but his reduction of individual freedom to market choice—the right to buy cheap stuff from China—wouldn’t have made any sense to Burke. (Or the American founders. Or the voters who cast their ballots for Donald Trump.)

Burke understood that individual freedom is formed by culture and community, and you have to work to defend both. The “little platoons,” Burke said—home and church, school and neighborhood—are where we grow, where we learn to love, where we find the strength and support to make something of our lives. And they are where we forge the common bonds that sustain our national sense of purpose.

In a nutshell, that sums up much of the never Trump nonsense, doesn’t it? I can’t say with complete confidence that it is choosing one’s paycheck over one conscience, but it sure looks that way. In fact, it stinks of selling out, for a price, to the globalists, who seem to think that the most important part of trade is a cheap workforce. Of course, it also provides a way to prevent competition from other smaller companies (and individuals) who might just find a better way to make things in America (or Britain for that matter). And that’s even better for the corporatists.


A Time for Choosing

Gavin Ashenden has a few comments on the plan of the Sussex’s ‘to carve a progressive role’. I couldn’t agree more with him when he says:

There is a tragic element to the blinkeredness and immaturity that mistakes a bid for independence as ‘carving a progressive role.’It isn’t that at all of course. In reality it is choosing between two competing philosophies or ethics. One, which the monarchy is founded on and depends on, is a Christian one in which doing one’s duty on behalf of others takes priority over self-interest. The other is a concentration on self-interest and self expression (however it is justified) at the expense of self-sacrifice and duty.The problem for the Sussexes is that they  have chosen to put their own self-interests before their public  duty and family. It has been tried before both by ordinary people and by prominent people like Edward 8th. The tragedy is that it almost always ends in a growth of self-pity and sadness.

I can’t say I’m especially surprised, Meghan (or should that be ‘Me Again’?) like most actresses appears to have more ego than sense, not to mention an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and an addiction to saying ‘Me, me, me!’ incessantly. Harry if he read his family history ought to know better though, and has shown some real leadership at times.

If one were to look at his grandmother’s and especially her mother’s life, one would see just how hard a taskmaster duty can be, even when it comes in a gilded carriage. But as General Lee often noted:

Duty, then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.

It is a very high and hard standard, in both stories today. But nothing less is acceptable in free people.

12 Bucks for a Cup of Joe – Why it is Worth it to Many

Barista Ryan McDonnell siphons coffee using vintage technology at the coffee experience bar of the Starbucks Reserve Roastery and Tasting Room. (David Ryder/Bloomberg)

Barista Ryan McDonnell siphons coffee using vintage technology at the coffee experience bar of the Starbucks Reserve Roastery and Tasting Room. (David Ryder/Bloomberg)

George Will notes in the Washington Post the other day that Starbucks has a new and exclusive coffee experience awaiting you. Let him explain.

Indiana’s Thomas R. Marshall, who was America’s vice president 100 years ago, voiced — he plucked it from a Hoosier humorist — one of the few long-remembered utterances to issue from that office: “What this country needs is a good five-cent cigar,” which would be $1.11 in today’s currency. A century later, what the country needs is a $12 12-ounce cup of coffee.

Or so Howard Schultz thinks. Betting against the man who built Starbucks to a market capitalization of $86 billion is imprudent.

Today, you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a Starbucks store. There are 25,000 in 75 countries, with another 12,000 due by 2021, so Starbucks is not an elusive or exclusive experience. This poses a problem peculiar to affluent societies, and an opportunity. Seattle, where the original Starbucks was opened in 1971, now has a Starbucks Reserve Roastery and Tasting Room where customers can turn a cup of “small-batch” coffee into an experience — Starbucks sells experiences as much as coffee — of both conspicuous consumption and conspicuous connoisseurship. Bloomberg reports that for a pittance, a.k.a. $10, skinflints will be able to buy a cold-brew coffee, which presumably is an excellent thing, infused with nitrogen gas, which sounds like an acquired taste.

Well, OK, even though my taste runs more to strong although not burned Java. In fact, I dislike  Starbucks, and find the average convenience store coffee better, although I admit that gets you negative style points from the cool kids.

My favorite(s) come from the Black Rifle Coffee Company, a fairly new outfit, started by veterans. I like the coffee, and I like the badassery, which feels so very American, for a change. Like this from their site:

Patriotism, honor and sacrifice; three words that hipsters, (most) millennials and as of recently…an NFL quarterback know nothing about. Thousands have served our country through 2 wars and have seen first-hand what sacrifice means. Personally, I have lost many of my best friends and teammates to both wars. Whether they agreed on the politics behind being there, when our country asked, they called! So sitting on my ass while our nations anthem is played is something I cannot fathom. I can say with a substantial amount of certainty that with any other veteran, this is also the case. With all that said, the United States of America would not be who we are without the right to free speech, expression, religion and most importantly…the right to bear arms.

Worth my money, and yours, to have people around that understand that.

Back to George:

Four decades ago, the economist Fred Hirsch distinguished between the material economy and the positional economy. Once a society has satisfied basic material needs (food, shelter, clothing), it turns yesterday’s luxuries (cars, air conditioning, college educations) into necessities. Because these are mass-market commodities, such material prosperity is a leveling, egalitarian force. Positional competition is emphatically not.

In the competition for an “elite” education or an “exclusive” vacation spot, one person’s success is necessarily a loss for many other persons because positional goods cannot be expanded indefinitely. Of course, Starbucks Roasteries could be expanded by the thousands, but this would make the “experience” banal and drain the stores of their positional power.

via Starbucks shines in our ecosystem of snobbery – The Washington Post

Yep, he’s right. In fact, my liking for BRCC is kind of like that as well. It’s damned good coffee, in my opinion, but a good part of the appeal is in the values they promote. And in a sense, we all do this. Why do we drive a Caddy instead of a Chevy, or a Ram pickup instead of a Prius, or any of those myriad choices we make. It has a lot to do with how we see ourselves, and how we want others to, as well. Nothing new under the sun, it’s always been that way, and it always will. That’s why I wear Lucchese boots and a Stetson hat these days, instead of Chuck Taylor All Stars and a stray baseball cap.

You know, I always laugh at people buying bottled water, but it’s the same thing, Richard Hammond explains it pretty well, amongst other interesting things to do with water.

George Will’s Libertarian Evolution

Pretty interesting stuff, really.

 

Enjoy

%d bloggers like this: