The Left elite's media sources are going the way of the dodo because they don't reflect reality. They won't go quickly but begin to become just a niche source. They are no longer mainstream, but they don't know it yet.
It's interesting what gets amplified. I enjoyed Louise Perry's The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, for example, but I'm not sure she made any profound points that social conservatives hadn't made decades prior.
Louis Perry is a perfect example. Conservatives - including religious conservatives - drool all over someone like Perry who is willing to criticize the sexual revolution. They'd 1000% rather have a disaffected liberal make a mild version of their own positions than they would see a genuine conservative make the point.
I think the existential threat is women not having babies. Anything that doesn't convincingly address that problem is just shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
You are much better at appreciating 'not-totally-insane' center leftists than I am, Aaron. So in that sense, I'm grateful you give Reeves the support and recognition he probably does deserve. Thanks for this!
>The Nation is an old school left wing publication, but they are sympathetic to Reeves’ agenda
I'll admit that I don't think I've looked at The Nation for 20 years, when it was dedicated to criticizing Bush and any Democrats that were seen as too cozy towards him and the GWOT. So this is surprising to me: by even giving Reeves' ideas consideration, The Nation is effectively criticizing the Democrat mainstream (i.e. the Kamala campaign) from the right. Is this normal now?
That campaign's inability to speak a single word in favor of men having value in and of ourselves was so bizarre that it appeared as if a geas were cast upon it.
The Left elite's media sources are going the way of the dodo because they don't reflect reality. They won't go quickly but begin to become just a niche source. They are no longer mainstream, but they don't know it yet.
It's interesting what gets amplified. I enjoyed Louise Perry's The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, for example, but I'm not sure she made any profound points that social conservatives hadn't made decades prior.
Louis Perry is a perfect example. Conservatives - including religious conservatives - drool all over someone like Perry who is willing to criticize the sexual revolution. They'd 1000% rather have a disaffected liberal make a mild version of their own positions than they would see a genuine conservative make the point.
I think a lot of that is because they see it as evidence that they aren't just preaching to the choir anymore.
I think the existential threat is women not having babies. Anything that doesn't convincingly address that problem is just shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
You are much better at appreciating 'not-totally-insane' center leftists than I am, Aaron. So in that sense, I'm grateful you give Reeves the support and recognition he probably does deserve. Thanks for this!
>The Nation is an old school left wing publication, but they are sympathetic to Reeves’ agenda
I'll admit that I don't think I've looked at The Nation for 20 years, when it was dedicated to criticizing Bush and any Democrats that were seen as too cozy towards him and the GWOT. So this is surprising to me: by even giving Reeves' ideas consideration, The Nation is effectively criticizing the Democrat mainstream (i.e. the Kamala campaign) from the right. Is this normal now?
That campaign's inability to speak a single word in favor of men having value in and of ourselves was so bizarre that it appeared as if a geas were cast upon it.