A move toward localism needs to occur at a smaller scale than the state. The urban/rural divide exists within states and this is one of the fundamental polarizing forces in the United States.
Basically, rural Americans who are skeptical of cultural and demographic diversity and possess traditional cultural values find themselves at odds with a Party that increasingly caters to woke white and minority interests.
One partial solution is for the woke to recognize that they are engaged in an imperialistic project and are attempting the forced conversion—via academia, HR departments, prestige media, etc.—of millions of people who want nothing to do with their project.
Don’t like the elite condescension toward working-class Michiganders who overwhelmingly voted for Whitmer and have supported her policies. Maybe try to be a less sanctimonious toward good every day people?
The Great American films overwhelming affirm social conservatism. This is because there are deep truths about love, sacrifice, honor, loyalty, and family that social conservatism gets right. Even the classic slashers are filled with conservative themes.
Halloween: A film about the reality of existential evil and the inability of man to fathom or understand such evil. Dr. Loomis is a tragic character precisely because he realizes this truth while the milquetoast liberal adults of Haddonfield deny that such evil is a possibility.
Laurie Strode, played by J.L. Curtis, is a deeply conservative character. But note that she's not overly prudish or ridiculous: She does smoke marijuana with her teenaged friends. But she's a loving friend, daughter, and babysitter who takes her social obligations seriously.
I'm beginning my foray into books that are critical of "race science." First on my list: Gareth Evans' "Skin Deep." Unfortunately, it is not an accurate book--though it is breezy and well-written. His attacks on Jensen are especially malign and loaded. 1
Obviously, I have no issue with an individual criticizing or debunking empirical research. But good debunking requires actually immersing yourself in the literature and understanding the complexities and technical minutia. 2
Evans repeatedly engages in guilt by association and moralizing but offers very little of substance. Skin Deep is a tome that will only be enjoyed by those believe that HBD is a inherently racist enterprise. As noted, his handling of Jensen is particularly lamentable. 3
Part 1 R&J's (2005) "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Intelligence" is still the most comprehensive review of the topic available. I'm revisiting the article to see how well it's held up over the last decade. I'll provide a summary and add some commentary. 1
As R&J note: "Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability." 3
1) Like many individuals loosely affiliated with the HBD (human biodiversity) community, my motives have been repeatedly impugned and I have been accused of proffering unsavory, even incendiary, views (I've also been attacked for working at Hillsdale College!!) A few comments:
2) I'm interested in HBD for the simple reason that I think the Darwinian paradigm is the most powerful paradigm in the biological and social sciences. To dodge the ramifications of Darwinism is intellectually dishonest. And human variation is inherently fascinating to me.
3) I believe that an honest reading of the evidence suggests that there are genetically based racial (or group) differences in cognitive ability (as well as differences in many other traits--both psychological and physiological) (obviously a false dichotomy, but a useful one)