What Have the Good Old Days Done For Us Lately?

Kevin D. Williamson writes Against Nostalgia. (archive.today link)

We live in a time when nostalgia is manufactured the way cheap plastic toys are and for the same purpose: to distract the immature. The difference is that a great deal of that immaturity in our time is found among people old enough—really, truly old enough!—to know better.

You see this kind of baloney (more like soy-based baloney analog, really) on social media. Or so I am told: I’m the kind of cultural reactionary who does not think you can be a genuine cultural reactionary on social media. If you have an ear for contemporary rightist discourse, then you know what I mean: “This is what they”—them Jews, you know, possibly some swarthy Latinos or uppity black professors and/or schemin’ Chinamen—“took from us.” Or: “RETVRN.” Or: “What has conservatism conserved?” Or: Fetishization of a certain kind of classical architecture by people who do not understand why we do not do a lot of mass-wall construction in the United States. You know: Fair-weather Falangism. Monobuttocked monarchism. Classicists with no class. The would-be imperium of the insipid and the impotent. Very online dude-bros who possibly think about ancient Rome too much.

Double points to KDW for that last link, which goes to one of the funniest SNL sketches ever.

Also of note:

  • A myth is as good as a mile. Becket Adams notes the damage When Myths Become Media ‘Facts’. (NR gifted link) A couple examples, among many:

    In 2017, for example, the New York Times claimed that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin inspired the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz. There is no evidence to support this claim. There never has been. Palin later tried to sue the New York Times for defamation. The idea that the former governor incited the shooting originates from the wild speculations of the New York Times’s Paul Krugman, who leveled the accusation just moments after news of the shooting spree first broke. The myth then gradually grew over time until it became a commonly accepted belief in certain social circles. The idea transformed from the unfounded speculation of an angry crank to a generally accepted “truth,” as declared in an official New York Times editorial.

    Another good example of this sort of thing, where a false assertion eventually becomes the accepted prevailing narrative, involves that damned tan suit former President Barack Obama wore in August 2014. It started out as a bit of a joke — the idea that the worst scandal of his presidency was that he wore a tan suit to a press conference. But the joke has since metastasized into something of a sincere talking point. Obama had a scandal-free presidency! He was as clean as a whistle! Why, Republicans were so desperate for a scandal, they pretended as if it was a major crisis that he wore a tan suit! Obama obviously didn’t have a scandal-free presidency. This is a straight falsehood that many now treat as truth.

    I'm old enough to remember Lois Lerner and the IRS.

  • I suppose a false choice is better than none, right? Jacob R. Swartz wishes the not-stupid party could be smarter: Democrats offer a false choice between socialism and technocracy.

    The unity that once held the Democratic Party together has given way to ideological meandering, oscillating between "woke" moralistic left-wing populism and technocratic managerialism. These two impulses now define its fractured identity: the former emerging from the Occupy movement and the momentum of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns, the latter from the evolution of the Clinton-era "New Democrat" consensus.

    The 2025 elections crystallized the divide through two major victories—socialist outsider Zohran Mamdani in New York City and Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who's more in line with the neoliberal wing. Each has been called the party's "future," though their wins more clearly reveal how ideologically hollow the party's core has become.

    Both models come with glaring weaknesses. Mamdani's democratic socialism—state planning, rent control, punitive taxation, and the belief that "no problem is too large for government to solve"—risks collapsing into familiar 20th-century contradictions. Spanberger's approach, while more viable, offers not innovation but a refined status quo: moderation as technique rather than vision.

    To quote Woody Allen once again: "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

  • Nevertheless, some will manage to do the impossible. Megan McArdle finds The signs of educational decline are now impossible to ignore. (WaPo gifted link)

    There has been a lot of that going on recently, most notably in education. Instead of rectifying disparities in preparation and achievement, people decided it would be simpler to adjust the measurements. Parents opposed standardized testing, got their kids disability diagnoses that allowed them extra time on tests and lobbied teachers to change bad grades. Exhausted teachers responded with grade inflation, which also helped conceal that low-income and minority kids weren’t doing as well as their richer and White peers. Progressive educators watered down curriculums, gutted gifted and talented programs, and weakened admissions standards for honors classes and magnet schools. Colleges dropped standardized testing requirements, in part because that made it easier to diversify their student body. None of these things happened everywhere, but they happened in many places, and all of them made it harder to see — or rectify — pandemic-era learning loss.

    The results of this thinking can be seen in a recent report from the University of California at San Diego, which like the rest of the UC system stopped accepting standardized test scores in 2020. In 2024 the school had to redesign its remedial math program to create a class that focused entirely on remediating elementary school and middle school math. In 2025, more than 8 percent of entering students needed that class.

    These are college students who chose to enroll in a major with a math requirement yet struggle to round numbers to the nearest hundred, add or divide fractions, or work with negative numbers.

    Students, parents, teachers, administrators, politicians, …: they've all gotten real good at pointing fingers at each other.

  • It's a story, but not the whole story. Dan McLaughlin wants a word with you, PBS poster boy: No, Ken Burns, the United States Is Not an Iroquois Nation. The problem is even worse than that, though; it's what Ken left out:

    While there is time to discuss the Haudenosaunee, there’s no mention of Magna Carta or the Glorious Revolution. No time is given to Locke or Montesquieu, or to the ancient Greek democracies or the Roman Republic, the birth and death of which fixated the Founders (hence, the popularity of Joseph Addison’s 1713 play Cato). There’s nothing on the Mayflower Compact or the 1619 founding of the Virginia House of Burgesses, both made by men who had doubtless not yet heard much if anything about Native Americans in upstate New York. The Founding Fathers are extracted entirely from the context of the English political culture, the Scottish Enlightenment, and the classics.

    You can’t make this mistake by accident. Few people in history have left behind a richer record of what they were thinking than the American Founders. They debated, in closed sessions and open newspapers and pamphlets, the drafting and ratification of 13 new state constitutions (14, counting Vermont’s 1777 constitution as an independent republic), the Articles of Confederation, and the ultimate federal Constitution. James Madison took copious notes at Philadelphia in 1787, which were published after the death of everyone involved.

    I know Locke and Montesquieu were white guys, but… come on.

Recently on the book blog:
Recently on the movie blog: