In the beginning, when Sanity Clause sprouted into crotchety purpose a few months ago, I proposed that cultural issues would be more important than economics in the 2024 presidential election—and that, in fact, they usually are. A major market crash, or hyperinflation, would obviously change the equation; and so would a compelling political personality (Trump in 2016) or the need to get rid of one (Biden in 2020). But, in a multifarious and prosperous and lickety-split country like this one, the political zeitgeist is created on the playing field of culture. And of these itchy issues, the most important is, and always has been, race.
I’ve written a lot about blacks and whites these past months. But I’ve been surprised by the dominance of other cultural issues in the public square—race, yes, always (and in ways that are not always obvious), but also four others: sexuality, abortion, gun control and immigration. So, I’ve decided to try an experiment: a periodic ranking of the political import of these five cultural issues. The Cultural Anger Index, below, is a defiantly non-scientific system, although I may summon a poll or two, from time to time, to push a point (these issues, especially race, are fairly poll-resistant, in any case. in my experience). But, as April drifts into May in a pre-election year, this is where the cultural issues stand, in order of present importance, to my mind:
Abortion—But only because the Republicans, including a dunderheaded federal judge in Texas named Matthew Kacsmaryk, have made it so. They had a big win, overturning Roe, which they should have pocketed and let things settle. Kacsmaryk went several bridges too far and tried to ban the abortion pill. He was quickly reversed by the Supreme Court, in a move that indicates that political zeitgeist can indeed seep uphill to the towering heights inhabited by the Justices (save Alito and Thomas, who live on a distant, desert planet). The Supremes thus left Ron DeSantis—who just signed a six-week abortion ban—on the far-right edge of a political cliff. Even Trump—the ultimate cultural-issue potency test kit—has moved left. Advantage: Democrats.
Transylvania—More on this below. But sheesh, the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney controversy opened a rich new vein. Who ever thought an influencer—dreadful term—could have such influence? And DeSantis, never unmentioned when it comes to culture wars, has now proposed that gender stuff should not be taught in high school. You’ve heard of wedge issues? This is a wedge sliver. But it’s here, and queer, get used to it. Advantage: Republicans.
Race—Will never sink below #3 on this list, since it has an impact on most of the other issues (If the hordes crossing the southern border were Norwegian, I don’t think immigration would be much of a deal.) But there was the outrageous shooting of a black kid named Ralph Yarl, who committed the egregious crime of ringing the wrong doorbell. An 84-year-old white man answered. Blam. (Should there be an upper age-limit on gun ownership?) Advantage: None, although usually race skews to Republican advantage, because “crime” is a euphemism for black kids with guns.
Guns—I’ve been enjoying David French’s columns in the New York Times. He’s certainly a member of the Sanity Caucus. Here, a piece about why his family is armed…and why he’s appalled that gun ownership has become gun idolatry. Advantage: Democrats.
Immigration—Not much thunder on the border right now. Advantage: Democrats. (Usual advantage: Republicans.)
Meanwhile, Dame Edna Died
I remember when cross-dressing was innocent. I remember when Barry Humphries would come to town, doing his Dame Edna one-act show and receive reviews like, “Hey, that was funnier than we expected.” The tradition is ancient. All the women in Shakespeare were, famously, played by men. Rudy Giuliani performed at a New York press dinner dressed as a woman. There were crossed-dressed campus troupes like Penn’s Mask & Whig. Even the flagrant camp of Ru Paul was more funny than threatening. (There is a fair amount of inherent hilarity to the ceremonies of being male and female; mixing them up can be a revelation.)
But something has definitely changed. An issue involving 00.3% of the American population has become a blunt instrument. Part of it is technology: people like Barry Humphries were a lot less threatening when they weren’t injecting themselves with near-lethal doses of hormones and having drastic surgery performed on their bodies. Part of it is the preternatural need in Post-Modern Culture for identity groups—even those who represent 00.3% of society—to broadcast their right to be as outspoken as any insult comedian. Part of it is the bizarre fascination that the mainstream press has lavished upon this microcosmic splinter group—in an early Sanity Clause, I wrote about the apparent need of The Washington Post and New York Times to write a story about every single trans person in their catchment zones. Talk about itchy. There was no way this wasn’t going to cause a backlash.
And here it is. I placed Transylvania #2 on my itch list above, much to my amazement. Did I mention that trans people represent only 00.3% of the American population? Gay people weigh in at 5-6%, but probably more because some choose not to make it public…and their warp-speed acceptance into the mainstream has been cause for celebration. Gay marriage is legal. This raises the possibility that a third-grader in Dunedin, Florida, where Ron DeSantis grew up, might have two mommies. This complicates socialization. Things like mommies and daddies now have codicils that have to be explained. But explaining transexuality to an 8-year-old seems a little premature, don’t you think? (Unless her daddy has become a mommy, a trauma beyond measure—but this is, dare I say, only 00.3% of the population.)
I recently had a heated conversation with a good friend about all this. He argued: Such people have rights. Agreed. But there are limits to rights—people shouldn’t be allowed to strap on bazookas, for example (or even AR-15s, I’d say), because firearms are legal. And there is the right of 99.7% of the public not to have their young children confused and frightened by this rare and exotic business. And there is also…sanity.
Sanity dictates that in this atomized, anguished world, a fair number of young people are going to be chronically unhappy. They always have been. Puberty ain’t for sissies (you can take that as literally, or figuratively, as you wish). But now there are options: if you throw like a girl, you can become a girl. I don’t want to denigrate the actual cases of people born to the wrong gender—we had one such “girl” in my kids’ school who is a boy now, happily, I’m told—but have I mentioned that we’re talking about 00.3%. of the population here?
From a conservative point of view, there is a tinge of indulgence at the bottom of this issue. No doubt, a great many people are skeptical of Transylvania because its offends their traditional sense of gender. But it’s also true, no doubt, that for many young people, Transylvania is a stage or a suspicion or a rebellion or a pose—a witting attempt to overthrow tradition and find that entirely elusive teenage quality of emotional stability. Fine, but you simply do not want boys and girls to be making life-altering decisions, based on hormone-riddled transitory inclinations, before they are old enough to vote.
From a liberal-permissive point of view, there is more than a tinge of opportunism when it comes to the culture warriors of the right. I mean, they’re running out of issues. What is left to be scandalized by? Homosexuality is mainstream. Abortion rights have been overturned. The social landscape has been thus settled for the immediate future regarding those two issues, or sent to the states. But there is a vacuum: upon whom can Franklin Graham threaten fire and brimstone? The thou-shalt-not brigades need a cause. Shame on them for poster-boarding this one, which provides identity for—if I can just point out one last time—00.3% of the nation. Even the remotest possibility that a cultural issue involving 00.3% of the population might return Donald Trump to office should be a non-starter.
Sanity dictates compromise. I’d suggest these two: No teaching about the intimate geography of Transylvania in elementary school. No sex change therapies (and please, please do not call them “gender-affirming.”) until the age of legal liquor consumption. It would be nice to get this off the table. There’s enough other stuff to worry about.
Just Talk…Just sayin’
Amanda Ripley has been writing some amazing stuff recently in The Washington Post. Every piece is fresh, simple and sane. This one, about the effect of civil, private conversation among politicians is definitely worth reading. It reminded me of an interview I once had with the late House Republican leader Bob Michel, who was stunned by the sledgehammer advent of Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. I asked Michel—who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and therefore had some perspective on what was important in life—what had changed during his decades in Congress. “Democrats and Republicans used to sit facing each other across long tables in committee meetings. Now, we sit at banquettes, staring at the television cameras.” It was a lot easier to be rude that way. Michel also told me that the Crown Royal distillery was in his district and after committee meetings, he’d invite members to his office “for a snort.” Lubrication lubricates. But now, as in so many other areas of American public life, conversation has been supplanted by performance. I’ve been an advisory member of the With Honor PAC, which supports the bipartisan For Country caucus of 30 recent military veterans in the House—they are a prime source of my semi-insane, sagging optimism about our country. They understand the difference between an improvised-explosive-device and the debt ceiling. (Hint: one is real). They talk to each other. They should be an example to their less-civilized colleagues.
Tucker
What on earth will he do now? Run for President? Don’t count it out.
If you’re not yet getting a regular dose of Sanity Clause, apply here—it’s free, for now:
If you’d like to indoctrinate a friend, press here:
We thank you for your eyes.
Quick point. I doubt if the "hordes crossing our border were Norwegian." they'd be bringing in fentanyl, trafficking of innocent women and children, MS 13 gang members and violent, warring drug gangs. What a poor attempt at deflection on our border crisis.
I would be more afraid of Carlson politically, except that Murdoch is already anti-Trump, and after this split with Tucker, I don't see Fox as being pro-Carlson. I don't think there can be a lane that's anti-Trump AND anti-Fox and still get any R votes. There would be a helluva lot of buzz, and a quick 25-30% in snap polls, but, imho, a low ceiling. (Unless it's a trick, and he's leaving Fox to run, with Murdoch's blessing and support. There's a scary thought.)