09/22/07

He has a point

Hog on Ice has a point - h/t Instapundit though I think Reynolds is missing the point*, and it's a bit ironic that the author of An Army of Davids is linking this.  Granted, I haven't read Reynolds' book, but I gather it's about overcoming a monolithic system - a sort of antithesis to what HOI wrote.  That is, HOI is decrying the monolith's inability to accept new talent while Reynolds' is saying the monolith is irrelevant. 

HOI's post dovetails with what I wrote here and here - and what Dirty Harry at Libertas wrote here.

I keep waiting for one of the tens-of-thousands of conservative millionaires — millionaires because of this country’s foreign policy — millionaires because of incredibly brave young men and women who fight the wars for us — millionaires because of America herself — to announce they’re ready to drop $50 million into a pro-war/pro-American film should someone only bring them a great script and director.

We bitch about Hollywood liberals but conservatives are just as guilty; maybe even more. As twisted and immoral as most liberal beliefs are at least they fight for their beliefs. Conservatives on the other hand, refuse. I’ve been reluctant to say this up to now because I was positive that at some time a principled, grateful, patriotic Hollywood insider would finally grow the guts to say “enough.” Because I was sure an outsider — a sane Mark Cuban — would finally say “enough.”

Where are you people? Believe it or not there’s a bigger moral world out there than your standing in the Hollywood community; than the cocktail parties you get invited to. At what point do you figure out that being liked by people who won’t respect you for fighting for your own principles isn’t worth it?


The thing is, in certain situations the monolith does matter.  It matters - in the vein of what Dirty Harry is talking about - because most people don't have several million dollars laying around to make a movie.  You have to work in the system, work with the monolith.  The frustration is born from the knowledge of there being people in Hollywood who agree with us, who have the ability to make statements, but lack the desire to do so.  Bruce Willis is willing to give a speech at a ball for the heroes Michael Yon portrays in his Gates of Fire report (among others), but he isn't willing to take on Goliath and tell their story in the most compelling medium Man has yet to devise.

And is anyone willing to fund that sort of project?

The other thing is, we know top-down generally does not work.  Just look at talk radio - specifically, Limbaugh's success versus Air America's dismal failures.  In fact, it's a basic principle of Conservatism - rugged individualism.  The blogosphere may have put a new sheen on that thought and the internet may be the best vehicle to see it fully realized, but the Army of Davids is not at all new.

But that doesn't leave us in a good spot - as HOI described.  We do have to realize that all of this must be passed on at some point.  The proverbial torch cannot be held by the same person forever.  We have to train and equip new bearers; otherwise, we can only settle for everything we claim to oppose.

So, Andrew Meyer may have found his meal ticket with that little stunt, but there's also Jason Mattera taking on Murtha - where will he be in five years?  Some of this is solely about initiative, but some of it is also about talent without opportunity.

*The point not being we need yet another screwball - relating Ann Coulter's antics to Andrew Meyer's; rather, we need the Old Guard to accept and foster a continuance of who they are and what they stand for instead of being (seemingly) deathly afraid of new faces.

Posted by: Jason at 01:55 AM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 4 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.0056, elapsed 0.0142 seconds.
24 queries taking 0.0095 seconds, 38 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.