Since we’re discussing Romantic individualism, I’ll point to this: John Fund notes that women were turned away from the Cannes Film Festival for the crime of not wearing high heels – even women who couldn’t wear them for medical reasons. Fund helps us see the human suffering involved when people’s selfish desires (in this case, for sexual attractiveness) are manipulated for gain by the powerful, and even those who don’t want to participate find (as at Cannes) that the social system created by the uncontrolled desires of those around them is too rigid to be escaped. NRO’s new web format makes it difficult to cut and paste an excerpt, but it’s worth your time.

The headline on Fund’s piece invokes the legacy of the corset. This reminded me that when Rousseau first conquered me and made me his disciple, one of the things that really impressed me was his fierce attack on corsets, and the other self-tortures of the Paris elite. From this I’ll draw two conclusions: That Romantic individualism, both then and now (Fund points to contemporary examples of RIers who have resisted killer heels) has the resources to expose and shame systems of injustice even in spite of its false religious starting points; and that those who expose and shame systems of suffering and injustice will attract followers. Christians should take notice.

HT readers may be interested in my thoughts on Romantic individualism and technocracy in the new Avengers film, which is not “the movie for our time,” but is good enough for what it is:

Mild spoiler warning!

Rogers opposes Stark’s individualism not by overt appeal to God but by appeal to human relationships. We are made to live and work with one another, to solve – or at least cope with – our problems “together.” The solution to our problems lies not in machines and systems but in people wanting to be in right relationship with one another.

This is just as religious a claim as “there’s only one God, ma’am.” I am not sure it isn’t an even more religious claim. For it asserts that we are made not simply to be what we are and do what we want, but to overcome what we are and control what we want in order to achieve a fulfillment that lies outside ourselves.

Greg has an excellent note on an NR column by Henry Olsen.  The nut is this promising little paradox:

[W]hile Sam Brownback has slashed Kansas taxes for the very richest and seen little beneficial result, economically or politically, Scott Walker has pursued broad-based tax relief and succeeded on both counts. The political benefits have come not only because Wisconsin has seen more growth but because of the more democratic and republican political morality Walker’s policy represents.

(source: The Real Job Creators | Greg Forster | First Things)

On what a father hopes and fears:

One of my most deep-rooted fears is that by trying to teach my boys right from wrong, I’m teaching them to be suckers. You try to teach your child the value of hard work, the value of honestly, the need to treat people with kindness and so on, and maybe the rest of the world isn’t teaching their kids the same things. A lot of parents aren’t even in the picture for their kids, and the lessons that are getting fed into their heads are more or less the opposite of what those kids need.

So my hope is that the boys grow up strong, smart, confident, and big-hearted, and that the country is in a good shape as they enter adulthood — secure, prosperous, full of opportunity, and considering how things are going lately, still having a Constitution and rule of law. I mentioned earlier that politics is probably inherently depressing. Parenting provides a pretty good contrast. When I shift from writing duties to daddy duties late in the day, I’m shifting from a world where I can’t control much to a world where I have a lot more control and influence.

(source: Jim Geraghty on the Spot)

A parallel noted:

China’s third step to weaken Islam, though, strikes much closer to home. The government is now forcing Muslim store owners to do something their religion forbids: sell alcohol and cigarettes and display them prominently. Muslim storeowners who refuse face massive penalties, and have been told they will “see their shops sealed off, their business suspended and legal action pursued against them.”

Why the coercion? The government claims the mandate is designed “to provide greater convenience to the public.” But that claim is hard to take seriously. The government’s interest is not so much in providing public access to cigarettes and alcohol generally, but in making sure that those products come from particular parties — namely the religious objectors. Local party officials are at least candid enough to admit it, saying, “We have a campaign to weaken religion here and this is part of that campaign.”

Sadly, China’s cigarette-and-alcohol mandate bears a troubling resemblance to our own federal government’s contraception mandate, which forces religious ministries like the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide health plans that include access to free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

(source: American nuns, Chinese booze and religious persecution: Column)

…and it’s important to note that the parallel goes beyond the “contraception mandate” issue, too.

Harassment and legal assaults on people in business and public life that try, however imperfectly, to live in good conscience as Christians throughout their life–rather than in segregated corners, churches, and closets–has become a daily commonplace.  

Not betraying your artistic or other gifts by using them in support of a fake marriage, for example, has become the sort of thing that can cost you livelihood at the hands of faceless bureaucrats and the torch-and-pitchfork crowd.  Even nonpayment of bills is less dangerous!

We find ways to do otherwise, friends, or we start building the underground.  Everyone must choose.