My wife's terrific new book is out today. I am on social media, she wisely is not. Therefore in the style of a Bernie Sanders meme I am once again here asking you to buy it: amazon.com/Mom-Genes-Scie…
If you need more inducement here is a positive review from someone who is not me: wsj.com/articles/mom-g…
Like the Bernie meme I will return to ask you once again and once again to buy it, especially as Mother's Day draws near, but if you do so now you can safely tune me out: amazon.com/Mom-Genes-Scie…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Short take on the Snyder Cut (longer take in the next NR): The new Justice League is effective on its own terms, but those terms are a step back from what Snyder was trying to do in Man of Steel (where it mostly worked) and Batman v. Superman (where it completely didn't).
For all the four-hour-ness and not-Marvel-ness, Justice League is much more of a conventional superhero movie than its predecessors, which were more interested in the terror and havoc Superman's arrival wreaked on *us*.
The setup in Batman v. Superman, especially - how do our leaders, our weirdos, our normies, our merely human heroes all relate to a demi-god - was genuinely original. Unfortunately the plotting was just terrible. And no less terrible in the director's cut, alas.
If Democrats do abolish or dramatically weaken the filibuster it will because the Republican Party, by its nature as a blocking coalition, struggles to make credible policy threats.
The Democrats have all kinds of internal divisions but they have a core agenda (for now) that unifies the party. The Republicans, given 51 Senate votes, would still lack such an agenda, and so the prospect of giving them more power to legislate inspires little liberal fear.
This might be short-sighted: A post-filibuster GOP could face new pressures that make it policy-oriented and more threatening to liberalism. (Indeed that's one reason conservatives who want a more ambitious GOP might welcome the change.)
If the problem with meritocracy is really that it has led to a decline in "public virtue" and "a belief that some things just aren’t worth it" among the elite, then really, truly biting the bullet would involve saying that maybe we need ... a more hereditary elite.
The argument being that you need some people inside your elite who are secure enough in their place within it that they aren't in competition with each other all the time and have the leisure to set some rules about morality and good form. americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/02/redisc…
To celebrate publication day for The Decadent Society paperback, a Substack post on "post-liberal" responses to political decadence: douthat.substack.com/p/the-rights-a…
A self-promotional thread:
The Decadent Society is out in paperback in about a week. It's new and improved! It has new material, not just a new subtitle! It addresses the rather un-decadent events that intervened just as the hardcover was coming out!: amazon.com/Decadent-Socie…
I'm grateful to everyone who purchased The Decadent Society in hardcover. But I'll be honest: I think more of you would enjoy the book. So I've done what self-promoters do nowadays: Start a Substack with posts on the book and its themes. Here's the first: douthat.substack.com/p/the-pandemic…
There will be, time permitting, about 10-12 more posts on decadence coming in that space over the next 2-3 weeks. After that, it will become a space for intermittent posts about TV, books and movies. If that sounds attractive, please subscribe. douthat.substack.com