Cars: Just Say No

 

By Frank Filocomo

My war against cars continues...

The coldness of the city, which every New Yorker can feel, is compounded by its prioritization of cars over people. 

In the Big Apple, pedestrians take a backseat - no pun intended - to these four-wheel death contraptions. 

In Streetsblog NYC, Nolan Hicks reported on a pedestrian that was struck and killed by a van making an illegal maneuver:

According to the NYPD, the driver, whose name was not released, pulled out of a parking garage on Morton Street just east of Seventh Avenue at around 8:30 a.m. But instead of turning right to drive eastbound on one-way Morton, he made the illegal left, and then struck and killed the 27-year-old woman. 

This, regrettably, is all too common.  

Too many drivers are indifferent to the welfare of pedestrians, and think that the world revolves around them and their vehicles. 

Thus, following the rules of the road become secondary:

Residents of the area said that many drivers make the illegal left turn to head the wrong way on Morton from the garage because it eliminates the need to circle around the block with a right on Bleecker Street and then a second right onto Carmine Street before making the left onto Seventh Avenue.

So, this young woman, who had her whole life ahead of her, is dead because some self-centered ass wanted to shave a few minutes off of his commute. 

This is, in many ways, emblematic of our me-centric culture. 

A few days ago, I was crossing the street in front of my building. Our municipal government, which is profoundly incompetent, somehow managed to make the crosswalk more dangerous by placing these ambiguous stop signs, and then subsequently removing them. 

See below:

New crosswalk sign.

These signs, aside from being ambiguous in intent, are inconspicuously placed outside of my building. Many drivers disregard them and plough through the crosswalks without yielding to pedestrians. 

So, when I went to cross the other day, a vehicle saw me, but didn't stop until the last second. I put my hand up, gesturing for him to break. He rolled down his window and shouted, "Hey, s****head!"

Again, what a total ass. 

Pedestrians must be made to feel safe when crossing the street. 

Please also see Streetsblog NYC's blueprint for how our new mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, can make our city more livable. 

As Kevin Duggan writes, it is incumbent on the city to "reduce the dominance of cars."

Is the Real Enemy Capitalism or Oversized Government?

 By Christopher Turturro

The more we allow government to intrude into our lives, the worse things are going to get.

In 2025, the demonization of free enterprise is all the rage. Everyday, I hear more about how capitalism isn't working, and that we need a change in our system, etc. While I agree that the status quo is no longer sufficient, capitalism is not the root cause of the problem; bloated government is. Because government is overreaching and ineffectual, radical ideologies seem more appealing to the little guy. This is happening all over America, especially in major cities. 

The overpriced cost of living has pushed people to their breaking point, so much so that people here in NYC were willing to vote for a Socialist/Communist, who just became the Big Apple's next Mayor. People are revolting against a free market system that they feel is rigged against them. But the system wasn't always this way, and capitalism isn't the enemy. The real enemy is government overreach and control through financial and regulatory means, which is negatively impacting all of our respective bottom lines.

Take NYC, for example. We pay city tax, state tax, local tax, federal tax, and sales tax. Just like that, about 25-35% of all our money is gone before it even gets into our pockets. This is all under the guise of morality for the "greater good" in our city while it continues to decline. After we receive our post tax paychecks, the rest of our purchases are also subject to sales taxes. We then pay taxes on land we already own and purchases that were previously taxed on other individuals, such as used automobiles. What do we get for all this taxation in NYC? For starters: terrible infrastructure, some of the worst roads in the country that destroy your vehicle, utility companies such as Con Edison that are partially taxpayer funded and keep raising rates yet can't keep up with the demand during summer season. Regardless of the fact that our taxes fund these companies and programs, we receive no help from government when our vehicles fall apart due to crumbling roads, or when our homes have no air conditioning in the summertime for hours or even days. In addition, NYC has a law enforcement agency that is more focused on generating extra revenue for the city than enforcing Constitutional law and helping citizens.

Through over taxation, government has destroyed the incentive to work harder, put in overtime, and advance. Why? The harder you work, the more you're punished when your paycheck comes, and during tax season. Doesn't sound much like a capitalistic, free market society to me. What happens when you don't get a return on your investment that you had no say in depositing? You become angry and frustrated and instead of blaming the people who hold the cards, you blame the cards themselves. America was a country built on community, individualism, and freedom. The more we allow government to intrude into our lives, the worse things are going to get.

Things didn't always used to be this way. Take, for instance, how life was in our country just a short time ago, in the mid- to late-20th century: families could survive off of one parent's income with a home, kids, and a vehicle. Even an annual vacation. Most of American history shows us that families were able to thrive in a household where one parent worked and the other took care of the family if they so chose to. To blame our current day issues on capitalism is very disingenuous and to turn a blind eye to the real problem and blame a free market economic system is deceitful. The only difference between then and now is the magnitude in which the government has grown. All the choices they supposedly made on our behalf have not benefited the average American, and have affected the cost of so many things in our country.

It's crucial that we continue to speak up against government overreach and corruption. Doing so will take time, prudence, and determination. 

Christopher Turturro, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, is an HVAC mechanic and 

U.S. Air Force veteran.

The Progressive Monopolization of the Commons

By Troy M. Olson

One of the more frustrating aspects of New York City's local politics is how driven it is by progressive activists with pet causes, time on their hands, and no access to a mirror or larger perspective on life. But the average activist is largely harmless in the scheme of things. It's the multiplication of them pursuing a fact-free proposition that can be the problem. However, what compounds this in the city is what passes as the "leadership class" for progressives also monopolizes public time for these same issues far beyond its weight class. Transportation and trip modes in the city is a perfect example of how out of touch this group is.

In NYC, you would think that buses and bikes have taken over the city from Zohran Mamdani's "free buses" campaign plank (one of four top repeated slogans and issue planks that he either does not have the power to do or wouldn't do a thing in the scheme of things) to the TransAlt (Transportation Alternatives) bike lanes all over the city obsession.

Source: NYC DOT Citywide Mobility Survey courtesy of Reza Chowdhury's X 

Let's look at the facts: a bus makes up just 4% of the total trip mode in NYC, while a bike makes up just 3%. On the other hand, walking takes up 46%, vehicles 32%, transit 18%, and rail/subway 14%. These percentages add up to more than 100% because some will combine more than one in their daily commute to work or wherever else they're going. 

Walking is the most common trip mode in the city. And increasingly, its conflict is not with cars but with bikes, especially of the e-bike and scooter variety, who, unlike vehicle operators, lack the requisite understanding for their responsibility on the road, do not face the legal liabilities like someone operating a vehicle does, and pretty much do whatever they want at increasing levels. 

Many people in their various trip modes frequently break the rules of the road and the street. But those on bikes seem to not have grasped the consequences like the rest. Pedestrians and frequent walkers know they're going to lose a battle and perhaps their life against a car. Those driving a car, even the terrible drivers, have an ingrained sense of destruction of what a car accident will do not just to a pedestrian, but to the drivers. Bikes operate in this middle ground where they have become both a hazard and dangerous to pedestrians and a hazard and dangerous to vehicles too, although in this case they seem to lack the understanding of how vulnerable they are on a bike if they face off against a car. Putting a bike lane all over the city has not brought any greater order to this off-kilter relationship, no matter how many statistics NYC's Department of Transportation wants to roll out. People make value judgments with their eyes and experiences. 

NYC is a place that is totalitarian in its administrative code and closer to anarchy in its day-to-day realities. And the increasing anarchy in transportation to being driven by the 3% of those whose trip mode is with a bike of some form. The 4% part of this equation is part of the "free bus" plan that Zohran keeps talking about. A few things on this: while, no doubt, the honest citizens of the city would benefit from this, especially elders, there are already many fare evasions on buses just like there are in the subway. This is not going to be some game changer because it already happens, would make the MTA's finances even worse off, cannot even be done unilaterally by an NYC Mayor, and again... we're talking about 4% of trip modes. What about safety for pedestrians, the most common trip mode? What about congestion pricing? A tax on the second most common trip mode and as you can see above, utilized by every income bracket considerably more than bikes, buses, and yes, even the subway. 

In fact, during the congestion pricing discussion the last few years these same activists would use the data on how many New Yorkers drive (around one-third) for their commute to make the case that the majority is somehow with them. I have my issues with the MTA, but even its Chairman points out how flawed Zohran's transportation plans are for the city. 

A real discussion on transportation in New York City would be holistic and in proportion to actual trip modes. This is not what we're doing and this has not been at all how the public debate has gone this year. Progressives in leadership and in their activism are guilty of the same mistake they accused "car culture" of: they are not centering their ideas and transportation around the actual needs, realities, and preferences of people. They have been myopically obsessed with being anti-car and making it as hard as possible to own and operate one. So far they have been unsuccessful. We're not a city of bike riders using these bike lanes, they're still mostly empty years later. And those who do ride bikes are still going on sidewalks, still operating how they wish when they're in traffic, and, at the recreational level, they are even going into city parks where families with children and seniors frequently gather. Simply put, they control by law or by behavior a share of the public commons far beyond what is justifiable. 

I wish this were just an isolated issue. But it's not. Issues like this are why it's so easy to call urban progressivism an elitist philosophy and worldview.

On issue after issue, this is the case and nothing much will change until the hard organizational work to build out a civic alternative is done. NYC will never get more affordable, is about to get more dangerous, and to add insult to injury, we will keep paying more and more for less and less, until the day the "new Tammany Hall" and its progressive activist and leadership class is defeated and dismissed from its monopoly control over the city's politics and future.

Troy M. Olson is an Army Veteran, lawyer by training, and co-author of ‘The Emerging Populist Majority’ now available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Target. He is the Sergeant-at-Arms of the New York Young Republican Club and co-founder of the Veterans Caucus. He has appeared on CNN, CBS, and OAN. He lives in New York City with his wife and son, and is the 3rd Vice Commander (“Americanism” pillar) of the first new American Legion Post in the city in years, Post 917. You can follow him on X/Twitter and Substack at @TroyMOlson

Cars and E-Bikes: A Recipe for Disaster

 

By Frank Filocomo

"Walking," writes Robert Orr in Public Square, "immerses you in your surroundings in ways driving never can."

At 28 years old, I've never owned a car. While I do have a driver's license, I've never desired a vehicle of my own, opting instead for public transit and my own two legs. 

For a fare of $2.90, I can go just about anywhere I need to - in New York City, that is. 

Cars, despite being money-guzzlers, are dangerous and unsightly. SUVs are especially offensive. 

As I've written before, our cities are designed in a way that is pedestrian-unfriendly. Cars rule the roost.

Orr continues:

Long walks reveal not just charm, but also the harsh truths of how our streets are designed: for cars, not people. I remember some close calls; fortunately, they have been limited to being knocked down by a few cyclists so far. The rise of e-bikes, scooters, and skateboards indicates that encounters may become more serious. Even on sidewalks, pedestrians rank lowest.

The e-bikes, as Orr writes, present a new problem. These cyclists - if you can even call them that - often ignore traffic laws, plowing through four-way stops and riding the wrong way down one-way streets.  

Man on delivery e-bike.

I get that having our DoorDash meals delivered to us in a timely manner it like really important, but man, these guys are pedestrian accidents waiting to happen. 

In an article for Carscoops, Stephen Rivers writes that there is a "small subset of consumers who buy up or create e-bikes that aren’t legal on city streets and then ride them there anyway. In New York City, that growing gray area has already turned deadly."

Let's see if the city actually bothers to do something about this...

Again, our communities must be livable. It shouldn't be too much to ask that pedestrians not have to fear for their lives when walking to the grocery store. 

New York City's Antagonism Towards the Second Amendment

By Christopher Turturro

As a Brooklyn native who was born, raised, and still resides here, I'd like to talk about the 2nd Amendment infringements that we New Yorkers regularly face. Before I start, I would like to thank another Brooklyn native, Frank Filocomo, for giving me the opportunity to write for this blog. Frank and I been good friends for years and are both very invested in the politics of our hometown. 

As a citizen of the United States and stalwart believer in the Constitution, it is my opinion that we are allowing local, city, state, and federal governments to become too big to the point that they see the country's founding document as nothing more than a piece of parchment, subject to individual interpretation. 

The city of New York makes becoming a law-abiding gun owner nearly impossible. The process of obtaining a license takes anywhere from 6 months to a year. You must provide all residence history, employment history, driving history, and medical history pertaining to mental health. You also need 2-4 references who will vouch for you and state that you have "Good Moral Character."

What, though, is "Good Moral Character," as defined by the State? Should we allow the State to make those decisions on our behalf? Losing the right to own a gun because an old boss fired you due to an argument/disagreement? Getting arrested due to a physical altercation because you were defending yourself? These are just a couple of ways the NYPD cooks up their decision-making on who they "believe" should have the right to own a firearm, even though this is plainly written in our Constitution. Some people have the funds and the connections to fight these denials when they happen. What happens, however, to the less fortunate who are plainly trying to exercise their rights? 

Before the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it was practically impossible to get a concealed carry license in New York City unless you were a political figure, business owner, or celebrity. Talk about the importance of "having connections." The constitution was written for the people, not for the upper class to interpret it how they want. Don't forget that the NYPD will ALWAYS exempt themselves from these draconian laws.

Regular citizens cant have an AR? The NYPD can. Regular citizens cant own more than a 5 round magazine? Again, the NYPD can. The list goes on and will continue to go on until reform happens.

All these rules and laws that are written for the common folk like us has no effect on criminals illegally purchasing firearms. The government knows this just as the people do. Big Brother uses crime for their own political purposes, tightening restrictions on firearms, and making life more difficult for law-abiding citizens. This, however, is a topic for another time.

If the states have the ability to make their own laws and interpret the Constitution as they see fit, we are headed down a dangerous road. The Constitution is an instructional rulebook that was written and designed purposely for ALL states to follow, not a Microsoft Word document to be changed and edited when government officials deem fit. If we continue to allow elected officials to deliberately attack the Constitution like this, their insatiable hunger for further restrictions will only grow. Our government will continue to use police force and 3-letter agencies as political pawns to further their agendas to infringe on our rights. 

Christopher Turturro, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, is an HVAC mechanic and 

U.S. Air Force veteran.

Our Paradoxical Relationship with Cities

 

By Frank Filocomo

Americans have always had a rather uneasy relationship with urban life. 

On the one hand, many of us relish the cultural and ethnic diversity of cities, their bustling night life and venues for entertainment, and their seemingly limitless opportunity. On the other hand, we take issue with their atomization, libertinism, filth, and lack of community. 

This latter strain of hostility toward city-living has existed since the birth of the nation. 

In Governing, Alan Ehrenhalt writes that anti-urban sentiment is ingrained in our country's ethos. 

He emphasizes Jefferson's agrarianism and disdain toward the industrializing North. 

Southerners - not all, of course - have always seen the North as being privileged and indifferent to the plight of rural America. 

When I was writing my master's thesis on the history of U.S. trade policy, I noted the hostility between the agrarian South, which preferred trade liberalization, and the industrializing North, which favored protection from imports vis-à-vis tariffs. 

There was always a feeling that Northerners weren't a part of "real America."  They were big city cosmopolitans, uprooted from tradition and the land, and concerned only with profit. 

The cities, in other words, were soulless places, devoid of community. 

From the article:

All of these resentments were being expressed at a moment when millions of European immigrants were flocking to urban areas throughout the country and young people were leaving the farms to seek a more fulfilling urban life. That only made anti-city views more strident and anti-city politicians more resolute. When the 1920 census showed cities overtaking small towns in population, states refused to reapportion their congressional and legislative constituencies to reflect the change. 

Today's populist movements sound very similar, expressing a disdain for the elitism of city folk. 

Do you recall when, during one of the many GOP primary debates in 2016, Ted Cruz accused Donald Trump of having "New York values?"

"The values in New York City," Cruz remarked, "are socially liberal, are pro-abortion, are pro-gay marriage, and focus around money and the media."

New York City, in other words, is basically an unmoored urban experiment, separate from the rest of the country.  

I was recently in an Uber, and my driver, a very affable Bangladeshi man, told me that New York is not "real America." I knew what he was saying: us New Yorkers are not nearly as communal or family-oriented as in other states. 

In his culture, you still have multi-generational households and societal and familial obligation. 

I hear these contentions, and I don't dismiss all of them. 

Ehrenhalt doesn't dismiss them all, either. He does, however, rightly note that America's cities, despite all of the bad press, are still booming:

Young Americans have not lost their attraction to living in city centers, despite the decline in city population ushered in by the COVID-19 pandemic. Downtown populations in many places have been going up in the last couple of years. Meanwhile, developers have been engaged in urbanizing the suburbs, designing Main Streets and re-creating many of the elements of central-city residential and commercial life in communities that began as refuges from that life.

We may not be fond of admitting it, but we are drawn inexorably to cities, even as we like to complain about them. That has been true since Thomas Jefferson’s day, and it is not going to change anytime soon.

Kind of hard to reconcile these two realities, right? 

I often complain about New York City, where I was born and raised, but, I can't imagine calling anywhere else home. 

I'm reminded of the LCD Soundsystem song, "New York, I Love You but You're Bringing Me Down."

Are You a Bad Neighbor?

By Frank Filocomo

 

In Front Porch Republic, Nishon Schick penned a thoughtful article, "Confessions of a Bad Neighbor." 

Schick wasn't someone who blared loud music at 3:00AM or engaged in verbal altercations with her neighbors, rather, she was reticent and reserved, closed off from the community. 

She writes that, on one occasion, her roommates accused her of, among other things, being "anti social."

I found this line to be instructive: "A new family moved in, who are 'good neighbors.' That is, they keep to themselves and don’t play loud music."

So, that's it? "Good neighbors" are typified by their inconspicuousness and low volume? 

The short answer: no. 

Neighbors are community-members who should feel as though it is their obligation and duty to look out for each other. 

Non-participation in one's community is, in effect, a tacit rejection of said community. 

Schick gives an example of some truly good neighbors she once had, though she didn't appreciate their kindness and hospitality at the time:

They were friendly in a way I could not understand. They invited me to sit on the porch with them and the other neighbors who lived on our block. They offered to fill the empty beds in front of my apartment with flowers. Without asking, they filled our shared porch with plants in beautiful stone pots. I didn’t know how to respond to any of this, so instead I started to avoid them. I stayed inside if I heard them out front. I kept my head down if I did have to leave my house.

For many years, I too have been a bad neighbor. Like, Schick, it wasn't my raucousness that made me a bad neighbor; it was my inwardness.  

There's one older gentleman in my building - a slight, unassuming man - whom I've never exchanged more than a passing "hello" with. Recently, I ran into him at the local pub. With timidity, I started conversation with him. He took well to it, and we drank beer together and chatted for 30-minutes or so. I felt silly about the whole thing. "I should have introduced myself ages ago," I thought. "Why am I so closed off?" 

While, you certainly don't have to become acquainted with every single one of your neighbors, it's good to make more of an effort. Even casual small talk in the elevator - say, about the weather - isn't a bad first step. 

Being quiet and keeping to yourself does not necessarily make you a "good neighbor." 

Our Communities Should Be Designed for People, Not Cars

 

By Frank Filocomo

"It is important to remember that when we demand minimal congestion and fast travel," writes Adam Bonosky in Public Square, "we are asking for ourselves, our kids, our grandkids, and our neighbors to be designed out."

As community members, we have to ask ourselves: what is more important, fast travel or the preservation and well being of our localities? Any sensible person would say the latter. 

Many of America's cities, however, are designed in a way that leaves pedestrians out of the equation. 

Writing for Axios in 2023, Thomas Wheatley reported on the need for pedestrian safety in Buford Highway, a community in Atlanta, GA: "Though designed for cars, Buford Highway is used by a surprising number of pedestrians going to work, school, shopping, or medical appointments."

The area, though, isn't exactly known for being safe for passersby:

For decades, traffic planners have prioritized the speed of automobiles over the safety of pedestrians on Buford Highway. Doraville has seen more than 30 crashes involving pedestrians over the past five years.

Bonosky says the answer is slower traffic. It makes sense: if cars are whizzing by, pedestrians have a higher likelihood of being struck and killed. If, on the other hand, roads are narrower, have tighter turns, and are generally less conducive to high speeds for cars, people will feel much safer. 

This should be a no-brainer. But you'd be surprised: not everyone takes kindly to these people-centric, New Urbanist approaches.

In September of 2024, I wrote a piece called, "The Case for Walkable Cities," in National Review, wherein I argued that people shouldn't have to worry about "two-ton steel contraptions zipping by" when they're out on the town. When I sent the piece to the submissions editor at the time, he warned me that readers might offer some pushback. Boy, was he right. 

"Frank, you've got something there, and it's bad idea you've got," wrote one commenter.

"WTF publication am I reading? Beat it, Frank," wrote another. 

I was accused of being a collectivist, hellbent on taking people's cars from them. Surely, if I think that people should take priority over cars, I must be a central planner! A Marxist, even!

While I was a bit taken aback by the intensity and volume of the comments, I expected the sentiment: to conservatives, anything that sounds hippy-dippy is bad. 

Moreover, the conversation becomes about rights. "What about my rights?" In other words, my vision of safer American cities, to them, sounded like a slippery slope to State-coercion, wherein the purchasing of cars may very well become forbidden.  

This is, of course, nonsense. Just as people have the right to live in sprawling suburbs where SUVs zip by, other people also have the right to live in walkable cities with ample public transit and greenspace. 

This goes back to what has been my central critique of the boomer-conservative/neoliberal mind: when our philosophy becomes libertarian and focused only on my rights, the common good suffers. 

We must begin to think more seriously about the common good. 

Safer communities is a start.

Pub Talk

 

By Frank Filocomo

Be intentional about disrupting isolation.

I was at the local pub with a friend this past weekend. To the right of me was someone I've never seen before, a stocky gentleman with a Guinness in his right hand. 

He told me he was from Portland, a city known for two things: "Antifa and Sasquatch." His words, not mine. He was an eccentric lad, to be sure. But I appreciated the conversation. 

Next to him was a young guy - 24, I think - who told us that he'd soon be enrolling in the Army. 

The four of us had a shot of Captain Morgan. We laughed and regaled each other with stories all night.

More often than not, bar-goers, instead of starting conversation with the patron right next to them, will reflexively turn to their smart phones. I see this all the time. 

But, what do you have to lose by starting up some casual conversation? If they express disinterest, leave them alone. The least you can do is try.

Addendum: I recently wrote my first piece for RealClear Books & Culture, "How In-Person Events Can Help Us Fight Loneliness." You can read it here. 

Untethered, Unmoored, and Unhappy

 

By Frank Filocomo

Liberalism leaves much to be desired. 

There's no question that liberation is, at least on the surface, a worthy goal. We ought to be free to live our lives as we see fit, right? And who are others to tell us what faith to practice, whom to associate with, or how we should love?

All of that is fair; there's a lot of merit in the "live and let live" proverb. 

When I was an undergrad, I recall reading Matt Kibbe's Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff. It offers good insight into the libertarian mind, in a way that the layperson can digest. I recommend reading it. In fact, it was my introduction to libertarian philosophy, which I adhered to for all of about a month.

The thing with liberalism - and libertarianism, its more radical kin - is that, while it is mostly right in its admonishments regarding state coercion, it offers little in the way of identity and belongingness. If liberalism is seen as an end in itself, life will have little meaning. 

In UnHerd, Paul Kingsnorth writes about liberalism's shortcomings vis-à-vis culture and place. Offering an astute anecdote, Kingsnorth relates a story about a campfire he participated in in the Indonesian rainforest:

Twenty-​­five years ago, I found myself sitting around a fire in an Indonesian rainforest. There were people around the fire from a few different countries... One of our hosts from Borneo began singing something beautiful in his language. Then a German picked up the guitar and belted out something lusty and Germanic. Then a couple of others. It was all quite fun. Then the guitar came round to another English ­person —​­ one who, unlike me, knew how to play­ it —​­ and there was a momentary silence, followed by a hushed consultation with a couple of other English people. What shall I play? It became quickly clear that none of us had a clue what a traditional English song was... In the end, the inevitable happened: the Englishman played a Bob Dylan song. Everybody, including the people from Borneo, sang happily along.

Much of the West's belongingness problem can be traced back to the Enlightenment-rationalism of centuries past. Enlightenment-rationalism teaches us that our thinking ought to be governed primarily by reason and reason alone (ever wonder why the country's leading libertarian publication is called Reason?). That is to say, history and tradition are mostly irrelevant. While, again, it would be wrong to say that Enlightenment thinkers presented no merit in their arguments, it would fair game to point to their lacking emphasis on communal identity. 

And it's worth noting that the liberal project is not a partisan one. Both the establishment Left and Right adhere closely to its tenets. 

This opens the door for a "third way," if you will: a philosophy that is premised around belonging. For years I've argued that that philosophy is communitarianism, which I've written about extensively. 

The third way presents us with an escape from spiritual homelessness.

More from the article:

The quest for culture is always a quest for home. Probably humans can never be truly at home on this earth, but there are degrees of homelessness, I think. When you’re young you want to run away from home and sit around an Indonesian campfire with people from many nations and sing. But you find that home has followed you and that you don’t know what it quite is, or why that bothers you so much. As you get older, you realize both why home matters and how fragile and elusive it is. Then you find you are living in a world whose forces have set out to destroy your sense of home wherever it can be found.

Some may pit communitarianism and liberalism against each other, as though they are diametrically at odds. That, as the late Amitai Etzioni has articulated, is not at all the case. Communitarianism takes a "yes, and" approach to society: a combination of individual autonomy and social order and cohesion. 

While it's tempting to jettison one ideology for another, a more promising future lies within the "yes, and." 

Charlie Kirk, R.I.P.

 

By Frank Filocomo

On Tuesday, September 9, I moderated an event with my friends Richard Brookhiser and his wife Dr. Jeanne Safer. The event, which was hosted by Braver Angels, centered around Jeanne's 2019 book, I Love You, But I Hate Your Politics. To anyone currently in a politically-mixed relationship or friendship, or for those otherwise curious about the topic, I encourage you to pick up a copy. It is rich with accounts of couples, friends, and family members that have had to navigate political difference. Jeanne's thesis is simple, but powerful: "...character, not political conviction, determines whether or not people can discuss controversial issues amicably."

The event was a ton of fun. We shared stories, laughed, and discussed some possible tactics for conversing with those who are politically different. The audience erupted in applause when Rick announced that September 12 would mark 45 years of marriage between him, a conservative American historian and writer for National Review, and Jeanne, a psychotherapist and life-long liberal. 

Just one day after this panel, conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. The brutal killing by a coward, whom I shall not name, was broadcasted all over X and other social media. I don't recommend trying to find the footage; it is traumatizing. Kirk's wife and beautiful family will never be the same. To that point, much of the conservative movement won't be the same either. Kirk, since the age of 18, was a juggernaut, someone who, full-throatedly and unabashedly, defended conservative values on college campuses throughout the U.S. This, in turn, inspired young conservatives all over the country to start their own Turning Point chapters at their respective colleges. 

You see, many young conservatives have been reticent to out themselves as right-of-center for fear of being ostracized by peers and faculty. This is a rational fear, but one that Kirk rejected. His courage inspired us all. And, while I never followed Kirk all that closely, I always marveled at what he had built. 

This country is in such desperate need of spiritual healing.

I'd like to share with you all a couple of links from people much wiser than myself:

Read Lura Forcum's Substack entry on how listening to each other can help mend our political divide here.   

Marianne Williamson calls for love and peace here. 

Ross Douthat remarks that "the decisive battle, now as always, is inside the individual human heart." Watch that video here.

R.I.P., Charlie Kirk.

Let us strive for a better tomorrow.