A Housewife's Lament

As always, letters to advice columnists only give us a sketch of what is going on in an individual’s life. The woman who writes this letter to Carolyn Hax is ready to redefine her marriage, as something like an open marriage. Apparently, responsibility is too much for her, so she yearns for independence. For the record, she has two children under twelve.

If one were to hazard a guess-- it’s all we can do here-- one would suggest that she took a few too many courses in Women’s Studies or has watched too much televised dramatized feminist propaganda. These shows have not, as they would wish, changed the institution of marriage. And they have certainly not improved women’s lives. But they have created unrealistic expectations and have fomented discontent. 

Surely, there are other alternatives, but it seems clear that the woman in question does not understand what it is to be a wife. In truth, she does not seem to be a very committed mother, either.

An alternative explanation would have it that she has done too much therapy and has been persuaded that she needs to follow her desires, to do what she really, really wants. Note the last sentence in her second paragraph.

Anyway, she opens by saying that her husband is a very nice man, who does his chores and is a Good Person. Obviously, she wants out. Huh?

Apparently, said husband is not quite as exciting, not quite as dramatic as the life she had been led to expect in her women’s studies courses.

Let’s take a look at her letter, with a few comments:

I have a nice husband: responsible, holds a good job, does most of his chores around the house regularly, is a reasonably good dad, and is a Good Person. And I'm so restless and unappreciative of that right now.

Evidently, he ought to become less of a Good Person and more of a prick.

Maybe it's the pandemic, but I honestly feel like it's deeper, and it's been brewing for a while. If you asked me what I want, it would be this:

1. Stay married, but see other people from time to time. (I don't have anyone in mind. I've never cheated. Not even sure I want to. But seems fair to be open to this.)

Seriously, what does it mean to say that it would be fair to be open to cheating… thus, to an open marriage. Fair to whom?

2. Live together in separate bedrooms, but sleep together from time to time.

We know nothing about their sexual relations, so we do not know what this means. Many couples do sleep in separate bedrooms, so it is hardly an outrageous thought.

3. Co-parent but travel independently and often. I'm a writer and I long to spend a month in different locations, just to soak up the sense of other places. My husband never travels unless I plan and direct the entire thing, and that's exhausting.

She does not tell us whether she is a working writer, a compensated writer or someone who keeps a diary. Does she recognize that co-parenting will take her husband away from his job-- the one that supports the family? Apparently, she does not? Again, too much feminist propaganda.

4. We'd be a family at holidays and other important events in our kids' lives, to disturb them as little as possible, but we wouldn't hide that our marriage is different from their friends' parents'. We'd be together when we're together but live independent lives, schedules allowing.

Obviously, her new options would seriously disrupt her children’s lives. She does not seem to care about that either.

The couple’s friends and their children’s parents would certainly not look kindly at any of this. The result will be some level of social ostracism. And, of course, her children would feel abandoned.

This is probably the most honest I've been about these selfish thoughts, and I can see this being hard on our kids, both under 12. I doubt my husband would consent to this. I don't know if I should indulge this line of thought or start shutting these ideas down.

— I Want an Independent Life

At the least, this shows how dreadfully awful it is to pretend that these are honest thoughts, and that there is some special virtue in such honesty. True enough, she understands that they are perfectly selfish thoughts-- why is that something that she ought to indulge?

At least, she knows that her plans would damage her children. She does not very much care. As for indulging these thoughts-- where did they come from?-- or shutting them down, the correct answer is to shut them down.

Of course, that is not the way Hax sees it. The columnist goes into full homewrecker mode in her response, disgracefully so.

It’s counterintuitive, given you’d be banishing these thoughts as a way of recommitting to your husband — but if the marriage in its current form leaves you agitated and emotionally starved, then you’re going to find some other way “out,” be it divorce or distance or bickery contempt.

So it is an act of love for this Good Person you chose to try to reshape your marriage into something that enriches you both — and teaches your kids how to coexist without gritting your teeth.

Abandoning home and hearth and children is not an act of love. It will not enrich, but will impoverish everyone involved. Hax is amazingly clueless here.

Unfortunately, Hax imagines that if the woman does not act on some of her delusional beliefs, bad things will happen. It recalls a chapter in Malcolm Gladwell’s last book, Talking to Strangers, where he offered some thoughts on suicide.

He addressed an interesting psychological issue-- if a person wants to commit suicide and the means are not readily available will he seek other means or will he simply abandon the idea? Is suicidal ideation a wish that will necessarily lead to action (as a Freudian might imagine) or is it an hypothesis that will be tested according to whether, to use Gladwell’s example, the Golden Gate bridge has suicide prevention netting.

Gladwell shows that the former, Freudian position is wrong, and that people who want to commit suicide are capable of shutting down the idea when the voice of reason intervenes, or better, when reality seems to be rejecting the idea.

This tells us that this discontented feminist ought to abandon these absurd thoughts or else should reconsider the belief system that the culture has drummed into her mind. 

Hax does not see it this way. She looks at the list of options and chooses No. 3-- that is, for the woman to betray her husband, to abandon her children and to run off to satisfy her Wanderlust. This counts as a perfectly deranged piece of advice. So, take a look at it.

Since you have a wish list already — thank you! — choose one item promising the most relief for the least disruption. No. 3, yes, as soon as it’s safe? Since it’s milder than 1 and can even preempt it? Frame it for your husband as (you hope) a healthy expression of a fundamental — perfectly normal and okay! — difference between you two. See if he’ll embrace it.

There is nothing normal about abrogating fundamental responsibilities to care for children. Whatever is Hax thinking?

Families often manage business travel. If you do your same share of the work, just differently — vs. dumping it all on him — then this could tell you how much independence your well-being requires, whether he can be open to or (ideally) better for it, and whether this “difference” alone creates a more sustainably happy household.

Trust it, talk it, try it, add/subtract as needed. Good luck.

If the woman runs off, she and her husband will not be doing the same share of work. Besides, keep in mind, it seems likely that husband is doing most of the providing for the family. 

Unless she is a travel writer, which seems unlikely, she ought to be capable of writing from her home base.

Hax wants to know how much independence her well-being requires. That is clearly not the issue. Ask yourself this: How much betrayal will make her happy? That is more to the point.

And how much damage will she do to her children by abandoning them? How much well-being will she garner when she measures the consequences of this foolhardy and reckless action-- on children whose security depends on her presence.

She is an adult woman, a wife and a mother, with adult responsibilities. The fact that she only has a minimal sense of what these roles involve speaks ill of her. The fact that Hax entertains them for an instant speaks worse of her.

Merry Christmas

With thanks to those who have supported this blog throughout the year. It has been one helluva a year. With thanks to those who have donated and to those who have contributed comments.

My Christmas gift to all, the Bach Christmas Oratorio, in its entirety:

New York vs. Florida-- Who's Doing Better?

In a recent post Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian blog took the measure of New York City. In its current condition, New York is, as they say, circling the drain. (via Maggie’s Farm) In a later post he compared New York with Florida-- almost as a control experiment.

He began by examining the state of the restaurant business. As you know, Gov. Cuomo has shut down all indoor dining in New York restaurants. Given the current climate, that means that restaurants will remain virtually closed. OK, some will do takeout, but the state of the restaurant business is dire.

And of course, Menton remarks, there is no evidence that restaurant dining has caused the virus to spread.

Broadway theatre is closed, for another six months. 

More elevated forms of entertainment, from concerts to the opera to the ballet… are also closed, for at least five and maybe more months.

As for the famed Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, here are the current rules:

Yes, it is there. You can even go to see it in person — provided that you are willing to put up with advance registration, a scheduled time, mask-wearing, social distancing, a five-minute time limit for viewing, etc., etc., etc. Or you can just watch their virtual live cam, safely from you home in Peoria — which is what they strongly recommend. After all, you wouldn’t want to get too near an actual live human being this year.

As for the hotel business, Menton reports that 200 of the city’s 700 hotels have closed. The rest have occupancy rates well below 40%.

The subway system is still running. Unfortunately, precious few passengers using it. For the record, people are using busses, though not at the level of past times.

Still running! And at close to full schedule, if you can believe that. However, the authorities have done their best to scare away as many riders as possible, leaving the trains almost empty even at peak hours. On my line, trains that used to run irregularly, due to the difficulties of dealing with the crush of customers, now come every four minutes like clockwork. Word is that the MTA is about to get several billion in new “stimulus” funds from the latest Congressional bill, to keep the empty trains going. Thanks, flyover people! Here is a picture of the subway car I came home in this evening — with one other lonely passenger down at the other end. In normal times, this would be standing room only.

Will it all limit the spread of the virus? We do not know, though certainly we hope that it will. Since America’s states are the laboratories of democracy, as the old saying goes, we can examine how well other states, states like Florida and Texas, do with it. As you know, they have not imposed the same shutdown conditions as New York.

As for the larger issue, will New York City survive, as of now it seems unlikely. Or, at least, it seems unlikely that New York City, like San Francisco and other mismanaged large blue cities, will ever return to their former glory.

Happily for those who are in charge, they can blame it on the bug. And of course on Donald Trump. 

For our edification, Menton has explained in another post how things are going in Florida. (also via Maggie’s Farm) He begins:

By contrast, Florida, led by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has been very much at the opposite end of the regulatory response spectrum.  As to results, here’s the bottom line:  As one would expect, the economic decline caused by intentional government suppression of the economy has been much, much less severe in Florida than New York; but just as important, Florida has also experienced, and continues to experience, superior health results to New York.  In other words, Florida stands as a clear demonstration that all of New York’s behavioral mandates (e.g., masks) and intentional destruction of small business have had no measurable effect whatsoever in decreasing spread of the virus or in improving health results.

That’s not all:

In Florida today, theaters are open, concerts are happening, and the iconic theme parks are accepting visitors (if on a somewhat restricted basis).

As for mask mandates, counties that had mandates did marginally worse than did those who did not. When it comes to death rates, New York has consistently led the nation. 

Menton offers the numbers:

• Florida.  Deaths per million population, pandemic inception to date (figures from Worldometers.info as of December 22):  966.  Deaths within last 10 days, most recent first, from Dec 21 back to Dec 12:  106, 86, 69, 108, 102, 112, 89, 137, 81, 71 — total of 961 over that 10 day period.

• 
  

• New York.  Deaths per million population, pandemic inception to date:  1,886 (almost double Florida’s rate — and Florida has far more elderly people).  Deaths within last 10 days, most recent first from Dec 21 to Dec 12:  179, 95, 85, 121, 156, 112, 126, 120, 87, 79 — total of 1160 over the ten days, or more than 20% more than Florida, even though Florida has more than 10% more population.

And New York City has nearly twice the unemployment rate as Florida. All those restaurant and theatre closings have put a lot of people out of work.

Menton concludes that New York’s political leaders want to make it appear that they are doing something, even when they are not. After all, Gov. Cuomo, the Lord High Executioner of the coronavirus is widely lauded for his leadership-- evidently the facts no longer matter. We are living in an age of idolatry.

Self-Impoverishment

You like to hope that the letter writer here is not of the male persuasion. One likes to think that he is really a she, searching for some deeply meaningful occupation even if it involves self-impoverishment. That is, abandoning a well-paying job and a nice apartment in favor of destitution. It's a form of virtue signaling.

But, Carolyn Hax and the other commentators here seem to assume that a male has written this letter, and who am I to dispute their wisdom.

I do however dispute their attitude. The man has had the same girlfriend for the past five years. And no one, not a single commentator, not Hax herself, seems to be concerned about the prospect of marriage and children. No one, not a single soul, seems to care about whether this young man will be able to support a family.

At our current cultural juncture, a man's being a breadwinner, supporting a family, allowing a wife and mother to have the option of spending more time with her children… does not cross anyone’s mind.

Unfortunately, the man in question does not tell us how old he is, what his current job entails and what the new job offer will entail. One suspects that he is working for a large corporation, even a high tech company, and has been offered a job at a soup kitchen, or at some such charitable enterprise. You know and I know, that whenever anyone starts drooling over work that matters, it involves charity, not corporate enterprise.

The problem is, his vain and quixotic pursuit will cost him his current apartment and his future home. He says not a word about why after a five year relationship he is still thinking in first-person terms.  

And you will notice, that his criticism of his girlfriend merely concerns her raising the issue of impoverishment, not the issue of their potential future together.

Without further ado, here is the letter, from an online discussion:

I was just offered a job that would revolutionize my life. It would mean a substantial pay cut — I might have to downsize to a smaller apartment and push off some goals such as homeownership — but it's in my dream field, doing work that matters, on a schedule that would allow me much more time to do other things I love.

This would be an easy decision if I were single. I would take the job and enjoy the self-actualization.

But I have a girlfriend of five years, and her contribution has so far been to remind me of how tough it would be to return to a higher-paying job if I take this detour.

Honestly, I resent that and wish she would not weigh in, since I feel the "voice of reason" perspective is already covered elsewhere. But now the doubt is there, and I don't know what to do.

— Not Single

One admires the girlfriend’s discretion and tact. She is telling him that if he chooses the path of self-impoverishment she will be looking for a new boyfriend. He is not smart enough to see this, and none of the Hax team is either.

Being an adult involved in a relationship he has responsibilities to at least one other person. He seems not to understand this, because his dream is beckoning. He seems not to understand that a loss of status, accompanied by a loss of income, will almost inevitably entail a loss of friends. If you cannot keep up with the way your friends spend money you will be losing  friends. Sorry if that sounds vulgar, but it shows us a truth.

As for the voice of reason, he does not tell us how it has been covered elsewhere. One imagines that his family has discouraged him from blowing up his life in order to go into the charity business, but, if he is a product of today’s American educational system, their caution will probably fall on deaf ears.

Poaching American Intellectual Capital

How come no one thought of this?

Actually, some people have thought of this. And Reuters is reporting the news.

Now that America is going all-in for diversity, many superbly qualified older white men will be getting laid off. They might be suffering early retirement, but they also might get thrown off the corporate promotion escalator. Replaced by minority or female applicants they might find their aspirations stymied.

What will they do? Obviously, they will seek employment elsewhere. They will seek jobs where their talents are not disparaged because of the color of their skins.

Where will they find enterprises that are willing to do them justice? Why, in Chinese companies.

Say what you will about Chinese corporate culture, one thing we know is that they do not have diversity programs. And, China has one of the strictest meritocracies that the world has ever seen. If a Chinese student does poorly in his college admissions exams, nothing that anyone can do will get him entrance into a prestigious institution. Such is not the case in the United States.

At a time when diversity mandates have crushed the hopes of white American males, and at a time when our government is placing stricter controls on the sale of intellectual property-- technology and the like-- China has figured out that human capital, in the person of discarded white executives, is becoming easier to poach.

Reuters reports:

American company men may find a savior in China Inc. As corporations try to make their ranks more ethnically representative, many experienced – if white and older – males will find themselves without a job. Chinese companies, deterred from acquiring U.S. firms with valuable intellectual property, can recruit their discarded human capital instead.

The new diversity regime is going to make it far easier for Chinese companies to poach talent:

The goal is to reach new customers and positively transform corporate cultures. In the immediate term that may translate into net layoffs of older, more expensive, Caucasian men.

Some of those hitting the streets, resumé in hand, will have value for the right employer. Economic research firm Sonecon put the price of intellectual capital of U.S. companies at $9.2 trillion in 2011. Acquiring that by buying companies will be difficult under President-elect Joe Biden, who is expected to continue the crackdown on Chinese acquisitions. 

Poaching talent is easier and, in some cases, may be more efficient.

In the past some technology companies from the People’s Republic had reputations for poaching American experts, extracting trade secrets, then tossing them back. But those with expertise in artificial intelligence or international communications are keepers. And with Chinese retail traders starting to play U.S. stocks, American financial experience is becoming valuable too. Webull Financial, a Chinese-owned trading app that competes with Robinhood Markets, hired a white American dude as chief executive.

And, of course, China seems already to have recovered from the coronavirus. It’s businesses are up and running, making money and at the ready to hire more white talent. As Reuters puts it, companies are people, not patents:

Chinese companies that have bounced back from the pandemic might even be able to offer more competitive pay packages. It may be a less direct way to get at American intellectual assets, but then companies are made by people, not patents.

The Racialization of Just about Everything

For the moment, at least, it’s all about race. Thanks to the American intelligentsia, every question and every issue will be reduced to race. America is becoming completely racialized. And that means, David Marcus explains in The Federalist, that, in the name of anti-racism, America is becoming more and more racist. (via Maggie’s Farm.)

First, a word from Roger Kimball, from the Epoch Times-- paywalled. Kimball is writing about the Dalton School. You recall from two posts on this blog, that the Dalton faculty has proposed a series of reforms, designed to destroy the educational potential of its student body. The goal will be to indoctrinate these children in the basic tenets of critical race theory, to make them, if they are white, guilt ridden slugs-- ready for the Ivy League.

Kimball explains:

Consider, for example, its [Dalton’s] much ballyhooed “Commitment to Anti-Racism.” (Surgeon General’s Warning: have some Dramamine or an air-sickness bag handy.)

This desideratum is plastered all over Dalton’s web site.

But a closer look shows that it is really just code for the more insidious racism of the woke and malignant charlatans who view every aspect of life through the distorting prism of race.

They believe they declare their election by broadcasting their obsession with race.

One suspects that the goal is to elevate the performance of minority students by undermining the performance of white and Asian students. Rather than think that they were admitted to Dalton in order to fulfill a diversity quota, minority students will now become leaders in a moral crusade against racism.

It’s time for Dalton parents to withdraw their children from the indoctrination mill.

For his part, Marcus has pointed out other instances where anti-racist racism has prevailed. For instance, an ethics professor believes that the coronavirus vaccine should be given to minorities before it is given to the vulnerable elderly population.

He writes:

Dr. Harald Schmidt, a supposed expert on ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that essential workers, not the elderly, should be the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines. 

His reason? “Older populations are whiter,” he told the publication. 

“Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

To be clear, the term “level the playing field” here means allowing people to die because of the color of their skin.

Discriminating against people on the grounds of race. Letting them die because of the color of their skin. Racism uber alles.

As it happens, Marcus astutely notes, the war against racism, led by the Black Lives Matter protesters, with an assist from Antifa, has disproportionately hurt minority businesses and minority neighborhoods.

Nothing, it seems, is more important than protecting the lives of the oldest among us, except for fighting racism. The great irony of course is that the lockdowns themselves have disproportionately destroyed minority-owned businesses. Yet, for the Marxists on the radical left, this doesn’t matter. They don’t fight racism by giving people tools to lift themselves up, they purport to do it by making people dependent on the state.

And then there is the effort, also reported here, to destroy the public education system in New York City. Top public schools, especially middle schools, will no longer accept children on the grounds of merit. It will allow race to factor into the equation, even to become a decisive factor. This will desegregate the schools, diminish academic performance and cause many families to leave the city.

Next, in outrageous racism infecting our educational system, this week, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio announced sweeping changes to the way in the city’s top public schools consider applicants in an attempt to diversify, or as some unhinged proponents of his plan put it, “desegregate” these schools. Essentially, admissions will focus less on grades and more on skin color.

The dirty little secret of his proposal is that it is Asian students, not white students, who dominate admissions to these schools and who will bear the brunt of de Blasio’s abject racism.

Of course, this is wrong. Marcus explains why:

It simply accepts that there is nothing we can do to help black and brown students achieve except put our thumb on the scale. De Blasio and his racist allies like School Chancellor Richard Carranza would argue that systems of white supremacy are responsible for the achievement gaps, but if so, how do they explain the success of Asian students, and why are they being punished?

As for the rising crime rate in America’s cities, caused in large part by the arrival of pro-crime prosecutors and pro-crime mayors. Again, who is getting hurt in this madness? Members of minority communities. How are we supposed to deal with the issue? Simply, by pretending that it is not happening. If we do not talk about it, it is not happening. Right?

What’s the real problem with crime? Is it that murders are skyrocketing across America, with the victims disproportionately black and brown? No, discussing that makes white progressives uncomfortable. Indeed, they would much rather indulge absurd fantasies about “defund the police” initiatives lowering crime than actually try to save lives in minority communities. And now, they don’t even think the media should report on those deaths.

It’s the new cultural agenda. We must see everything through the prism of race and we must pretend that achievement differentials do not exist. 

Time to Defog Andrew Sullivan's Crystal Ball

First out of the box in the prophecy derby is Andrew Sullivan. Readers of this blog know that at times I find Sullivan illuminating. At times, I do not.

This week is one of the nots. 

Sullivan predicts that 2021 is going to be great. It will be so good that we will not know what to do with ourselves. We will see a miraculous economic recovery, a perpetual orgy, and more fun than we deserve.

By Sullivan’s lights the social rifts that 2020 exposed will vanish in the cold night air. Everyone is going to love everyone else because, you guessed it, Donald Trump will no longer be president.

In a strange way the stock market, which keeps rising and rising, as though floating on air, is offering the same story. And Bitcoin is flying through the roof. What could go wrong?

For a more sober assessment, famed market strategist David Rosenberg suggested that if you think Bitcoin is really worth what the market says it’s worth, he will happily sell you some Dutch tulip bulbs. Or else, he recommends that we all read up on the madness of crowds.

Speaking of madness, Sullivan sees a glass half full and declares it to be full:

Next year is going to be epic. It will be a year of rapid economic growth, extraordinary medical triumph, huge psychological relief, mind-numbing political normalcy, and pent-up social liberation. It will be lit. The summer will be remembered as the most hedonistic since the 1980s. There will be parties; there will be orgies; we will drink and do drugs; we will travel in unprecedented numbers; and after a grim year of withdrawal, fear, anxiety, and solitude, we will become human again.

But then he adds a sobering note:

Of course, if that doesn’t guarantee catastrophe, nothing will.

There you see it, the voice of reason crying out in the wilderness of Sullivan’s thought. When the conventional wisdom holds that nothing can go wrong, the chances are that something is going to go very, very wrong-- a black swan, as it happens. 

The greater the consensus, the more likely it is that the consensus is wrong.

Anyway, Sullivan found it especially galling that one Donald Trump was president. When you think that Trump is the Antichrist, defeating him means that the New Jerusalem is about to descend on our miserable world. 

Somehow or other, for reasons that are thoroughly opaque, Sullivan associates the New Jerusalem with non-stop decadence. 

Of course, Sullivan fails to notice that Trump-haters like his very self have contributed mightily to the appalling atmosphere of the past four years. We have seen Trump slandered, defamed, harassed and lied about-- on an hourly basis. And we have seen the radical left blame Trump-- because they have no sense of responsibility. Their mantra-- look what Trump made me do.

Fair enough, when Trump leaves the White House, the Trump hating left will immediately rediscover its long lost faculty of reason. But we will understand nothing about what is going on in America if we do not understand that the toxic cultural environment we live in was largely caused by those who despise Trump. If Trump is gone they will surely find someone else to hate.

The summer’s Black Lives Matter riots destroyed over a billion dollars worth of property. They tore down the hopes of minority families and minority communities. And they gaslighted the country into believing that America’s crime problem is being caused by white police officers.

First and foremost, Donald J. Trump will not be president. Savor that for a moment. Remember how he has invaded our minds and souls and even dreams for years. But in 2021, there will be days you don’t have to flinch at every ping of a news alert, when the constant possibility of a sudden lurch of despair in your gut recedes, days when you don’t have to think about him. It’s happening already. When did Trump last control a news cycle? He’s fading like the Cheshire Cat, leaving just the trace of a sneer.

I don’t think we’ve fully absorbed yet the psychological toll a madman with such power has inflicted on so many of us for five years. But imagine it going away!

As it happens, Trump will be going away. Yet, the vile, virulent, vituperative  and vicious attitude of the American left will not be going away. Just wait and see what will happen when these imbeciles see that they cannot get their way.

Sullivan thinks that these leftists will immediately find their long lost sanity. He is dreaming:

What makes 2021 more than just a change of regime, however, is that this massive psychic relief for half the country will almost certainly be accompanied by an end to the plague and the end of the winter. No Trump; no quarantine; no viral fear; and the rites of Spring. And more: a near-inevitable V-shaped economic rebound.

And Sullivan is especially happy to see that the absence of the viral threat will produce a permanent orgy, a return to decadence, to parties and drugs. And yet, why does that represent a return to sanity or even a return to decency?

Sullivan believes that history repeats itself-- it doesn’t-- and he imagines that the 2020s will be a repeat of the 1920s. It feels feebleminded to me, but what do I know.

Anyway, Sullivan describes the roaring twenties:

Fashions changed sharply to become more risqué; and Prohibition only intensified the desire to let things rip. The Cabaret culture in Weimar Germany; the bright young things of London and Paris; the flappers and the bootleggers and the speakeasies and the endless dancing and newly scandalous “petting parties” were all familiar features of the post-plague West. The wealthy also lost any inhibitions about flaunting their possessions, clothes and cars; and the younger generation, in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words, “brusquely shouldered my contemporaries out of the way and danced into the lime-light … A whole race going hedonistic, deciding on pleasure.” Something similar happened after the AIDS epidemic relented. Many gay men, finding it hard to process what they had just gone through, sought refuge in sex again, but this time with crystal meth, plunging them into a vortex of hedonism that verged on nihilism.

I don’t think it takes too much imagination to ask what followed the roaring twenties. As in, a horrifying economic depression, the rise of fascism and Nazism, and finally a world war, with tens of millions of casualties.

But, party like there’s no tomorrow, because if you act like there’s no tomorrow, there probably will not be one.

At the present time, America is engaged in a civilizational competition or clash-- as you will-- with China and the other rising powers in the Far East. Anyone who imagines that a new wave of cultural decadence, led by a demented old man with a hair sniffing fetish will make America more competitive should defog his crystal ball. Better yet, he should defog his mind.