Caring for Our Fellow Citizens, Just Like Hamilton Did

 

How can we truly become, as the late Amitai Etzioni put it, a "community of communities?" Or, put differently, how can we reclaim a kind of patriotism that engenders feelings of togetherness and societal cohesion? 

In an essay for the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead extols the virtues of a Hamiltonian-inspired patriotism. "Then, as now," Mead writes, "Americans must embrace a duty of care toward one another... And just as individual Americans have duties and ties to their family members that they do not have to the public at large, they have obligations to their fellow citizens that do not extend to all humankind." 

Conservatism today, in contrast to the kind of small-c conservatism embraced by Hamilton, is too often conflated with a obligation-free libertarianism. While the former puts emphasis on responsibility and duty, the latter jettisons all of that in favor of maximum autonomy and un-ordered liberty. 

A country of individuals pursuing their own self-interest without any conceptualization of the common good, however, will further fragmentate. We will continue to see our fellow citizens as strangers with little in common, save the pursuit of material maximization. If there is to be no spiritual re-evaluation of our civic priorities, we will descend into a Southern Italian-style amoral familism. 

"Hamilton," Mead continued, "risked his life for a nation that was just being born." But are we, nearly 250 years later, still determined to preserve this awesome inheritance through civic duty and a shared sense of patriotism? 

This will, firstly, require us to see each other as neighbors in a common fight for the creation and preservation of community. And, secondly, to view each other, not as ideological combatants, but as members of a uniquely pluralistic family. 

I'll admit, I was encouraged to see myriad displays of the American flag and chants of "U.S.A." at the Chicago Democratic National Convention. Democrats, I think it's fair to say, have wrestled with, what I call, a "patriotism problem." That is, they are often characterized as having an overly critical view of America, one that can almost be seen as disdainful. 

Here is a video of Ella Emhoff - daughter of Doug Emhoff and Kamala Harris - affectionately referring to her father as "Mr. U.S.A." 

This is a positive development. I hope it is sincere. 

Reclaiming Hamilton's vision is, I think, well within our ability, but it will require work. 

Some of my friends and colleagues, while appreciative of my writing on communitarianism and de-polarization, think this is all pie in the sky. I think they're wrong. Though I agree that we are at an emotionally over-wrought place in our shared American story, I do believe that there are greener pastures ahead. 

Give it time and patience, my friends.   

Raj Chetty and Economic Mobility

 


Raj Chetty is an unsung hero. 

When it comes to the area of social capital, his exhaustive and trailblazing research is unmatched. 

My first article for National Review, Conservatives for Community, written in August of 2022, was inspired by Chetty's study on social capital and economic mobility in Nature. 

To quote myself:
The study, which breaks down social capital into three categories — economic connectedness, social cohesion, and civic engagement — found that children have a much greater chance of being upwardly mobile if they reside in communities with high levels of “economic connectedness.” Economic connectedness (EC) refers to the integration of people from different economic backgrounds. The study concludes that levels of EC vary depending on one’s geographical residence. Impoverished inner-city areas, for example, have remarkably low levels of EC, since most residents occupy the same socioeconomic stratum. Conversely, an area with a healthy combination of high-income and low-income residents increases the odds of economic success for low-income individuals.

While this was eye-opening to me at the time, I had no idea that Chetty had been a prolific researcher in this field for years. 

I recently finished re-reading J.D. Vance's magnum opus, Hillbilly Elegy (a book that is especially pertinent now), and was surprised to find mention of Chetty's work from 2014:

In a paper analyzing the data, Chetty and his coauthors noted two important factors that explained the uneven geographic distribution of opportunity: the prevalence of single moms and income segregation. Growing up around a lot of single moms and dads living in a place where most of your neighbors are poor really narrows the realm of possibilities.  

Chetty - and this was less surprising - was also cited in Robert Putnam's Our Kids, probably my favorite of Putnam's books. 

I actually had the opportunity to see Chetty speak in-person earlier this year when the Royal Society of the Arts awarded him their Benjamin Franklin Medal for his years of paradigm-shattering work. Chetty - with the aid of some instructive PowerPoint slides, chock-full of exciting new data - reinforced his thesis that economic connectedness is, in fact, the key explanatory factor for upward mobility. Other types of social capital, he explained, were less important. 

Vance, by explaining Chetty's thesis about economic mobility in layman's terms, really drives the point home: When everyone around you is impoverished, it is very hard to escape. When individuals of lower socioeconomic status forge connections and relationships with others of higher socioeconomic status, conversely, it is hugely advantageous to the former group. The later brings a lot to the table: professional connections, robust social networks, and a culture of hard work and high expectations. 

The bottom line is that social connection is a powerful tool. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum; we are, inherently, a apart of our environments: our families, friend groups, professional networks, and so on 

Not even the most ideological libertarian actually thinks we can go it alone. 

Coconut Conservatism and Communitarianism

 


Is Kamala Harris channeling her inner-Amatai Etzioni? Let's take a closer look...

Harris is known for being a rather confounding orator. Often times, it does appear as if she is trying her hand at a sort of avant-garde slam poetry. Former President Donald Trump - whose name I don't believe I have written before for this blog - quipped in an interview with Tucker Carlson that Harris "speaks in rhyme." This, I think, is an apt descriptor of her unorthodox rhetorical style. 

But perhaps we ought to give her some credit. Maybe she is actually saying something?

Andrew Day, a staff writer for Robert Wright's Nonzero Newsletter, has pioneered a new term that I think beautifully encapsulates Harris's elusive ideological disposition: Coconut Conservatism. 

Day explained, rather convincingly, that Harris's now-viral remarks about falling from a coconut tree are oddly reminiscent of a Burkean, small-c conservatism, or, put another way, communitarianism. 

Crazy as it sounds, I think there might be something to this...

Day:

She was expressing a pretty conservative insight. It's not like left-wing collectivism; it was more like right-wing communitarianism. She was talking about how we exist in a context and how, if you want to help young people, you have to be aware that they're not just individuals; they're shaped by their families and by their educators, so it's like a whole communal framework. 

Kamala's diatribe about context and place could have easily been said my Amitai Etzioni, Yoram Hazony, or Patrick Deneen, albeit much more eloquently. 

This, however, wouldn't be the first time a Left-winger has tapped into the small-c conservative framework. Last year, I wrote a post about Marianne Williamson's communitarian streak. 

Do you recall this exchange between Williamson and Fox News personality Sean Hannity? Skip to 6:00...


Williamson very aptly explained that "we don't feel deeply at home on a spiritual level on this planet because this world is not based on love the way it should be." This, too, is communitarian. 

Libertarian-oriented conservatives, who often come across as cold and overly individualistic, can learn a thing or two from Harris and Williamson.

Coconut Conservatism is the future...


Why America Needs The Ten Commandments to Return to the Public Sphere



To any casual observer of contemporary American politics, it is clear that the United States is at a serious cultural crossroads. In the figurative sense, America today is like a ship without a sail or a vessel without a destination. Historically founded upon Enlightenment-Era principles rooted in Judeo-Christian values, the country prospered socially and fiscally primarily due to the virtuous characteristics of many communities comprised of families and individuals who sacrificed and contributed for the greater good. While changes have been gradually occurring in American society over the last six or more decades, the realities of social decline within the nation are today arguably at their most glaring point in history. This deterioration is, at root, most visible at the "micro" level- in family units and individual households, communities and states. Make no mistake: these various "micro" spheres of social composition are not small in relevance or weight- in fact, they guide the "macro" trend, or the larger diagnosis of the cultural health of the nation. In my recently published book, American Restoration, the vital importance of the American community is discussed among other things when examining the cultural deterioration that has occurred in the country over the last several decades. Ultimately, the health of communities consistently erodes in any society when the social, fiscal, and moral integrity of the families that comprise them declines as well.

One glaring statistic that cannot be ignored is the near-death of the American nuclear family. The "nuclear family" unit was the dominant traditional familial social structure that existed in the United States from its conception through the near-present and in much of the western world throughout history. In this structure, two parents (typically a husband and wife) live in a single residence with one or more children. According to statistics published by Pew Research in a 2023 report, in 1970 67% of American adults aged 25 to 49 lived with a spouse and at least one child. By 2021, that number had declined to only 37%. Yes, at present, the majority of Americans no longer live in a Nuclear Familial Structure. Marriage rates have also declined precipitously, and less and less young people are getting married- these realities are outlined in a recent report published by the National Center for Family and Marriage Research. 

One might ask: Why does this matter? Is it really that "big of a deal" if most American children grow up in single parent households? Many young Americans today put an increasingly small level of importance on traditional family structures. According to a report conducted by the Institute for Family Studies in 2022, only 30% of Americans who are college educated and liberal in political affiliation believed that children were better off if they had two married parents. In stark contrast, 91% of conservative-leaning individuals with a college education believed children were better off in this regard. These realities demonstrate the growing cultural divide in the United States, and the increasingly prevalent reality that vast cultural differences are exacerbating in the country. America can no longer boast that its collective body of people- the citizenry- subscribe in strong majority to a uniform set of shared moral and social values. This great fragmentation within national society all starts at the family level. 

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, most children that grow up in a two-parent household are more likely to enjoy stability which in turn benefits them greatly when taking into consideration academic and behavioral growth and achievement over time. A child who not only has the nurturing hand of a mother to guide and encourage them but also the stern, masculine influence of a father who will lead with "tough love" and honest criticism is objectively at an advantage to the individual who may only be raised by a single parent. Single-parents often lack the time or resources that two-parent households can dedicate to a child due to the subjective realities of the situation they are in. While these statements are generalized and made in a broad sense (the writer does not mean to imply that single-parents are incapable of providing a stable and secure upbringing for children), they do hold truth. Research strongly suggests that two-parent households are strongly linked to the well-being of children in fiscal, social, and emotional regards. In the aforementioned publication released by the Institute for Family Studies, a study was referenced that showed that social misbehavior in an educational setting was twice as common amongst children living with separated or divorced parents compared to those living with married parents. This study also reported that 40% of Millennials (individuals born between 1981 and 1996) who grew up in a two-parent household achieved academic success and graduated college by their mid-20's in comparison to only 17% that came from broken households. 77% of Millennials who grew up in two-parent households reached "middle class" or higher in terms of socioeconomic status by their mid-30's, while  only 57% of those who grew up without two-parents in the home reported the same. 

If the United States is going to return to a place of socio-cultural stability and relative prosperity in average communities across the nation, it must begin with the revival of the individual family unit. Families were and still are the driving forces behind the vibrancy of neighborhoods and communities, and individuals that comprise these communities contribute to societal stability and generate meaningful change. Historically, the traditional American family operated within a Biblical structure. The Judeo-Christian values that formed the bedrock of American culture at the political and social levels even when the Republic existed in its most nascent form in the 1780s (and even prior) were the ethical guiding forces for the American family unit and every citizen. At root, the choice to subscribe to these values was an individual choice; that person could choose to follow the moral principles outlined in the Christian and Jewish faiths, or they could not. While many people did indeed live non-virtuous lives, in previous years however, communities across America boldly adhered to these objective moral principles in the public sphere. People had a strong incentive to abide by these principles- if they did not, consequences often followed. By setting objective moral standards for what was deemed right, and what was wrong, American communities had a clear, concise ethos for all to follow. For example, in years past, it was quite taboo in many American communities for people to act in unruly ways in public. The excessive and open use of profanity was highly frowned upon, individuals (especially women) were expected to dress modestly and to lead faithful, non-promiscuous livelihoods. The consequences for such behaviors that went against these expectations (while not always legal in nature) were often social. A persons reputation mattered greatly in close-knit communities like small towns or tight city neighborhoods, and once that reputation was tarnished in a serious and legitimate way, the repercussions were often irreparable. Today, there is no longer a "built-in" deterrent for questionable or improper personal conduct in many communities across America because there is no longer an objective standard of morality that exists in the nation in a large sense. In truth, America has increasingly become a society based around "moral-relativism" and subjective notions of morality. Moral relativism can be defined as the idea that there are no objective or absolute moral principles. History has shown that this never ends favorably- in societies that have moved away from the objective adherence of Judeo-Christian values and the objective sense of public morality that these values provide, horrific atrocities have often been committed (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia under Stalin, Mao's China, etc). 

Make no mistake- the writer is not calling for a unification of church or state, or for a "forced" conversion of Americans to Judaism or Christianity. What must be said, however, is that America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, and throughout national history these values provided the figurative pillars of social, political, and cultural support that allowed the nation to thrive. In the simplest of terms, these values can be outlined through the Ten Commandments which are found in the Hebrew Bible (the Torah) and the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. Appearing in distinct Books (Exodus and Deuteronomy), these commandments were (according to Christian and Jewish tradition) given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai after he delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and established a new covenant (or social agreement) with God. These commandments were then, and are still today, rules to abide by in order to lead a virtuous and moral life. For thousands of years, nations across the western world have socially operated in at least a general adherence to these commandments as they set  objective standards for what is right, and what is wrong. These commandments along with the seven deadly sins (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth), defined in 375 A.D. by the Christian Monk Evagrius Ponticus created a uniform and universal notion about righteous and unrighteous living for societies to follow. This created a "cement-like" foundation, and individual adherence was paramount; for if one did not follow these commandments and routinely engaged in ethically questionable activities, they were not only hurting the community and their families, but God himself. 

America is at a crossroads. A country without an objective moral compass cannot remain a country at all. And a people without a shared culture, stable families, or a sense of common decency and etiquette, possesses no possibility of maintaining social cohesiveness or healthy communities. Now, more than ever, America needs the Ten Commandments. By returning to the basics and the foundation of western society, only then can the country begin to face the many social, fiscal, political, and over-arching cultural problems it so desperately needs to address. 

Spatial Awareness and Old Gadgets

 

What do we miss out on when we fail to notice?

I recently re-read a brilliant piece by author Elizabeth Stice in Front Porch Republic: The Power of Place: Payphones. 

Stice is a self-described "payphone flaneur." In other words, she traverses areas off the beaten path in search of old payphones. This new hobby, she explains, has significantly augmented her sense of place and spatial awareness. 

Here are just a few payphones that Stice has photographed:

You can find a plethora of such photographs on Stice's Instagram page, @phoningpalmbeach. She updates this account regularly, with her last post from just a day ago. 

From Stice:

The value in seeing payphones is the way it develops a practice of seeing. So often we are driving or walking down streets, unaware of what serves us no purpose or where we aren’t heading. Looking for things forces you to notice things.

I'll admit: I shut off my peripheral vision when traveling to work, or even when going to meet a friend. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian walker, with my sights set on the destination, and the destination alone. But, in doing this, I am missing out on my surroundings: trees, people, architecture, animals, and, yes, even relics from the past. 

Do you ever notice these signs?

Fallout shelter sign on building

These are, of course, relics from the Cold War. During a time of collective paranoia about a potential nuclear holocaust, these signs indicated that a building had a basement that could, if needed, function as a fallout shelter. Surely, you've come across at least a few. 

Sadly, though, much like the payphone, these signs are being torn down and discarded, as their utility and practical use has obviously waned. 

I was, however, pleased to discover Fallout Five Zero, a site dedicated to keeping the memory of these once ubiquitous signs alive. 

Remnant from a fallout shelter sign on Bishop Cheverus School in East Boston.
 
Look at the sad, pale shadow of where this fallout shelter sign once was. You can find many similar photos on the Fallout Five Zero page here.  

How often, though, do we notice things like this? I can tell you, pretty matter-of-factly, that I would have walked right past this sign remnant. Sad, really. 

We (and by we I, of course, mean me too) have to pay closer attention to our surroundings. Many of our communities are replete with rich, historical nuggets. They die when we stop noticing them. 

Stice's article also got me thinking about old technology, that we would today consider obsolete. When, for instance, is the last time you saw a walkman?  

I just purchased one, and have been thoroughly enjoying the hunt for cool cassette tapes to play on it. I'm loving this one from jazz saxophonist, Coleman Hawkins. 

My new Coleman Hawkins cassette (The Golden Hawk, 1979).

These cassettes have, no doubt, been accruing dust for decades. By listening to them today, I am, in a way, keeping them alive and breathing. 

My main extrapolation here, I suppose, is that we benefit from 1. being cognizant of our surroundings and 2. appreciating what has been forgotten. 

My father recently reminded me of this Ernest Hemingway quote: "Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name." 

Let us strive to keep our communities - payphones, fallout shelter signs, and all - alive...





The Need For Intact Families

The societal salience of two-parent households used to be obvious. Today, however, this social structure has been labeled reactionary, an antiquated norm from a bygone era. 

But there is no disputing the facts: children raised by both parents are far better equipped for the world than their counterparts from single-parent households. 

While inconvenient for some to hear, this is an empirical reality. 

Robert Putnam in his 2015 book, Our Kids: The American Dream In Crisis, takes this even further with his thesis that kids raised by a mother and father with college degrees have the best outcomes. 

His rigorous research, both qualitative (interviews and anecdotes) and quantitative (graphs and regression models) makes his conclusions hard to challenge. 

But, college education aside, we must concede the point: children from two-parent households are more likely to perform well in school and in their professional careers, and are less likely to become addicted to drugs and commit crime. 

What's more, children raised by both parents perform far better economically. There is myriad data to support this. Author William A. Galston once wrote that "the best antipoverty program for children is a stable, intact family." 

Certain paleo-conservative and traditionalist sectaries, it should be noted, will take the two-parent family to mean the "nuclear family," wherein mom stays at home and dad is the breadwinner. This is, in fact, reactionary and unrealistic. The perceived halcyon days of the 1950s are, whether they like it or not, long behind us. Today, dual-income households are the norm. 

This fact, however, does not diminish the overwhelmingly positive role that both parents play in a child's formative years. 

I am beyond fortunate to have been raised by two incredible parents. I am deeply saddened, however, when I think of all the children who were not so lucky. They started from a severe disadvantage. 

Gen-Z, some of whom are becoming parents now, must inculcate robust family values in their children. We need badly to return to a previous temperament that glorifies the two-parent model. 


Why We Must Feel Responsible for Each Other

This quote from the late Amitai Etzioni has become my new mantra: "...we are not merely rights-bearing individuals, but also community members who are responsible for each other."

While these words sound good on paper, are they realized in practice? 

The answer to that is quite simply: no. 

This, from Joseph Longley in Governing:

In 2023, for the third consecutive year, drug overdose deaths robbed more than 100,000 Americans of their lives, according to recently released data. The scale of this loss — a fivefold increase from the early 2000s — is shocking: Overdose deaths today outnumber fatalities from gun violence and car accidents combined.

Would a nation of people who truly felt "responsible for each other" stand idly by as over 100,000 of their brothers and sisters suffered such miserable and premature deaths? I would think not. 

Longley presents us with some disturbing data:

Despite the crisis we are in, 85.1 percent of people with a substance use disorder didn’t receive any addiction treatment in the past year. Meanwhile, only 43 percent of local jails provide medications for opioid use disorder — basic health care required by federal law. As a result, individuals returning from incarceration are up to 129 times more likely than the general population to die of an overdose.

Rather than offering these people the medication that they so desperately need, many states have doubled down on regressive punitive measures:

This legislative session... at least three states — GeorgiaIdaho and South Dakota — have enacted laws that make providing a deadly dose of fentanyl a homicide, despite evidence showing this does nothing to decrease overdose deaths. Arizona is among states that increased mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking, despite the evidence that mandatory minimums do not deter crime.

Humans require human-centric solutions, not neglect and punitive-posturing from states eager to win political points. 

Longley:

While legislators may be tempted by the political sugar rush of passing tough-on-crime legislation, actually ameliorating this crisis requires patience, persistence and funding. With record federal funding and $50 billion in opioid settlement funds hitting state and local coffers, states and local jurisdictions can absolutely afford to make robust, game-changing investments in the entire continuum of care for substance use disorder: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services.

This, though, requires a shifting of temperament from policy makers. They must understand that addicts are people, too. They, probably more than anything, just need someone to walk with them. 

Marvin Olasky - in his seminal work, The Tragedy of American Compassion - emphasizes the importance of suffering with the needy, as opposed to helping them from a distance. 

It seems to me that, to truly help someone in need, you need to suffer with them. 

These states, however, appear to be legislating their way out of an issue that requires real human connection and understanding. 

To be sure, I could never understand what people suffering from addiction are going through. Not the faintest clue. But I do know this: a society that wishes to flourish and endure, must never let their people die such deaths of despair. 


Sorry, What Was Your Name Again?

Dale Carnegie - in his 1936 book, How to Win Friends and Influence People - wrote that "a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language." 

Too often, though, I find myself forgetting people's names at various functions and gatherings. This is not only embarrassing for me, but insulting to the person on the receiving end of my lapsed memory. 

Your name is your identity. 

As Alan Ehrenhalt once told me, "At the pharmacy that I go to, I know the names of all of the technicians, and they know my name, and I actually find that rather comforting." 

One thing that can help facilitate name-to-name, weak-tie relationships are name badges. This is something that Starbucks understands. 

Sherry Turkle, in her book, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age, writes:

When Starbucks got into financial trouble, it rebuilt its brand with seemingly small changes, some of which highlighted the importance of conversations between customers and baristas. Every employee wore a name badge, and counters were lowered so that it was easier to strike up a conversation. 

But name badges, while useful in some settings, are unlikely to become quotidian. I can't imagine walking down the streets of Midtown Manhattan with a sticker reading, "HELLO, my name is Frank." 

What might be more practical, is to just ask. And when someone tells you their name, do your best to try and remember it. 

Jazz guitarist Jimmy Raney, during a 1993 master class at the University of Louisville, made an interesting parallel between remembering chords and "licks," and remembering people's names:

Take what you like and play it on your instrument. There's some kind of a connection there. I find that if I can't remember someone's name, if I write it down, I'll never forget it. If you have a friend, and you've met their wife forty times, but every time you call him you can't remember his wife's name... All I have to do is write it down, and I'll never have to look at it. 

This is a neat trick. 

I also find it helpful, when someone introduces themselves to you, to repeat their name at least ten times in your head. In fact, it helps if you say it aloud. Though, that may make you seem a bit... unstable.

Example:

Jim: Hello, my name is Jim. 

Bill: Nice to meet you, Jim! Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim. Jim. Got it!

Anyway, just some food for thought!

I have much growth to do here. Tips/suggestions are welcome! 

 

 

On Memorial Day, This Is My True North


**The Following Post is Adapted from a X post made earlier in the day by the author, it's been edited slightly from its original version**

In 2012 I was 9 months into my deployment overseas. I had a two week leave at the latest you possibly could have it. To coincide with my then-fiancé's law school graduation. By this point, time was moving excruciatingly slow. As an engineering company we mostly knew our hardest missions were behind us, and thankfully we were kept very busy still, but we were very much in the rear. At the time I was disappointed by this, which is something I look back on with shame. My personal disappointment was more relief for everyone who cared about me. But you don't think about these things when you're a young man. In this era Afghanistan was becoming more and more of a mess, and worse, an unreported-on mess. ISIS was a “JV team” and I knew the country back home was checked out. This fact frustrated me further. When I got to the last point before a flight to Germany (where all our leave flights go through) and then to the United States, I saw an Army unit arrive from Afghanistan. The collective look of tired on their faces said it all. When I got on my final flight and was a mere hour from surprising my now-wife at trivia night like we used to play when I was home, they announced from the cabin to wait for the remains of an American soldier to be taken off the plane first. I was the only one in uniform at this point, surrounded by civilians. Complete quiet took over. But I could feel a lot of eyeballs on me. Even though I was in the middle of the plane there was no way I was going to leave ahead of anyone else. Everyone left except the airline crew and me. Then I got my things and walked out.

To this day I do not know who this soldier was. I could have easily look it up via the date and fact that his final destination was my born and raised home state of Minnesota. One day, probably when my son is older we’ll figure it out together. Until then, a mystery soldier he will remain. Who like so many other war dead gave the last full measure of devotion. 

Tomorrow is for all of them.


Skate Parks and Third Places

 


Skateboarding was an integral part of my childhood. 

Though I was never particularly good - with my specialty being the tic tac, a trick that one of those skateboarding pugs could probably do - I enjoyed it thoroughly. 


While skateboarding for me was mostly a solitary activity, I did, on occasion, meet up with friends to ride the metaphorical concrete waves. 

In fact, an old buddy and I used to spend hours on end playing SKATE using silly, made-up tricks. 

Sort of like this (but nowhere as good, obviously). 

Samuel J. Abrams, in an article published earlier this year for AEIdeas, described skate parks as "critically important third places that drastically improve neighborhood social capital and community strength." 

Before I go any further, I want to make sure we're all on the same page about what "third places" are, so I'll let Ray Oldenburg, the man who pioneered the term, explain it himself:

The third place is a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work.

I frequently use this term in my writing with the assumption that people know what I'm talking about, but I want to avoid speaking in a sort of communitarian jargon. Thus, Oldenburg's definition is instructive. 

Back to skate parks...

Abrams wrote this article in response to Mayor Eric Adam's (and Tony Hawk's) new plan to build a 40,000 square-foot skate park, called the Skate Garden, in Brooklyn's Mount Prospect Park. 

While this park would certainly serve as a much-needed "boon for the community," it has been met with resistance from some local killjoys. One group in particular, Friends of Mount Prospect Park, has been opposed to the Skate Garden from day one. 

This from their petition:

Green space is precious in Brooklyn. Our City needs to be more resilient and green. We should preserve and enhance the green space in Mount Prospect Park – not pour concrete on top of it. The plan to site one of the largest skateboard arenas on the East Coast in this neighborhood park is unacceptable. Especially in a borough full of asphalt, there’s no good reason to give up a well-loved park to build a new skateboard complex.

The Skate Garden, however, would integrate the park's greenspace and would not remove any of the park's amenities. It would serve as a compliment, not a replacement. 

And, moreover, as Abrams notes, "parks need to be more than just green spaces." Adding fun, engaging, and interactive features to preexisting parks, like the Skate Garden, is actually a community-friendly, New Urbanist idea. One, I would argue, that we should embrace. 

But, perhaps this is just more anti-skater prejudice. 

I'm sure you've seen these skate-stoppers around the city:

These prevent skaters from grinding on ledges. But, more importantly, they are emblematic of the city's skate-negative posture. The city is, in effect, saying, "you are not welcome here." 

I hope, for the sake of Brooklyn - young Brooklynites, in particular - that Adams and Hawk are allowed to move ahead with the Garden. 

Mark Judge was the inspiration for this post, and I highly recommend reading his article for Chronicles here





The Power of Reading Everything

 


In one of my more popular posts, I remarked on my late introduction to the wonders of literature. Some, having read it, were incredulous. Perhaps they were under the impression that anyone who wears the sort of thick-framed glasses that I do must, in fact, be an avid reader. But, alas, it was only a few years ago that I came to understand the unparalleled power of reading. 

It's absolutely imperative to note, though, that to really be a reader requires one, not just to read books by authors who are ideologically uniform, but rather, to read damn near everything.

I have, thus far, read books by libertarians, Marxists, liberals, post-liberals, neoconservatives, paleo-conservatives, moral relativists, feminists, environmentalists, and on and on. You come to realize - if you are reading the right authors, that is - that all of these ideologies offer something interesting to digest. 

Edward Said made me rethink my, and our, myopic and utterly reductionist understanding of the dynamic between the Occident and the Orient. 

Wendell Berry made me think twice before separating human welfare from land and animal husbandry. 

Theda Skocpol enhanced my understanding of the importance of civic participation. 

Patrick Deneen made me look at classical liberalism with a more critical eye. 

Amitai Etzioni strengthened my understanding of the common good. 

All of these writers are of wildly different political backgrounds. But they've all made me a far better thinker. If, conversely, I remained an uncritical inhabitant of an ideological echo chamber, I would be nothing more than a dogmatist, regurgitating meaningless platitudes. 

Don't be a walking bumper sticker; be a well-rounded thinker, unafraid of challenging your own paradigms. 

There's no question that I have my own biases and certain ideological-predilections, but I try my best every day to make myself almost uncomfortable, reading anything and everything worth reading. 

 

America's Spiritual Sickness

By Frank Filocomo It's officially been a year since conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was murdered in col...