RUTHFULLY YOURS

Dennis Prager conducted the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra last Wednesday night, and what had threatened to become another dispiriting episode in the culture wars turned instead into an evening of passionate advocacy for high culture and classical music. Santa Monica is one of the most liberal cities in California, so it was not wholly surprising that when the orchestra’s conductor invited Prager, a conservative talk radio host, to conduct a Haydn symphony for an orchestral fundraiser, a rebellion broke out among some musicians and the city’s political class. Two violinists in the ensemble, both UCLA professors, penned a letter suggesting that their fellow musicians boycott the upcoming performance. “A concert with Dennis Prager would normalize hatred and bigotry,” wrote Professors Andrew Apter and Michael Chwe in their March 27, 2017, letter. A webpage asked readers to urge their friends not to attend the concert, since attending would help “normalize bigotry in our community.” Local politicians weighed in. Councilman Kevin McKeown warned that the orchestra’s decision to invite Prager may “affect future community support for the Symphony.” Mayor Ted Winterer sniffed that he had “certainly . . . not encouraged anyone to attend.”

Fortunately for the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra, the boycott attempt, despite sympathetic coverage in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, was a dud. And the concert was a rousing success that ideally won new converts to classical music and to the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra itself.

On Wednesday evening, no protesters showed up outside or inside Disney Hall, Frank Gehry’s famed curvilinear eruption of steel designed for the Los Angeles Philharmonic. The orchestra’s affable full-time conductor Guido Lamell polled the house, virtually full, before the music began. How many audience members were Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra attendees? he asked. A good number of people clapped in affirmation, leading Lamell to offer his sympathies for their having made the “cross-country trip” from Los Angeles’s Westside to downtown. How many were attending their first classical concert? Another burst of applause. Then came the key demographic question: Are there any fans of Dennis Prager here? The response was thunderous. “OK, I get the message,” Lamell laughed. “I won’t keep you away from him for too long.”

Lamell opened the program with a lively reading of Mozart’s Le Nozze di Figaro overture, which he rightly introduced as one of the greatest opera overtures of all time (actually, its only competitor for first place is the Don Giovanni overture). Then he turned over the podium to Prager. Two string players joined the welcome, clapping with their free hand on their knee. Prager told the audience about attending his first classical music concert, which brought him to tears and led to a lifelong love affair with Haydn. The Classical period, he said, represents “controlled passion,” in contrast with the Romantics, who did not control theirs—yet passion will break out in the fourth movement of this Haydn symphony as well, Prager explained. Wonderfully, Prager had chosen a work from the criminally underperformed middle period of Haydn’s prodigious symphonic output. These so-called Sturm und Drang symphonies contain some of Haydn’s most pathos-filled, dramatic writing, and the Symphony No. 51 in B-flat major, composed in 1771, was no exception. It opens innocently enough with a brief, quizzical exchange between frisky strings and mournful horns before bursting forth into agonizingly poignant and dark harmonies. Cleverly syncopated passages in the first movement make the rhythm tricky. Major and minor keys interweave, adumbrating Schubert’s bittersweet longing.

Hillary Clinton’s memoir of the 2016 presidential campaign will arrive this fall, and NBC News has a preview:

In audio clips of Clinton reading from the book, “What Happened,” which were first obtained by MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday, Clinton recounted her thoughts as she toyed with the idea of telling her Republican rival to “back up, you creep” as he stood behind her during the second presidential debate.

“My skin crawled,” Clinton said.

No doubt a lot of reporters have similar reactions to America’s 45th President. Tuesday night in Phoenix must have presented a particular challenge for any journalists who are still trying—or at least pretending to try—to cover Mr. Trump objectively. That’s because he spent much of the evening criticizing the news media.

According to the Washington Post:

“I mean truly dishonest people in the media and the fake media, they make up stories,” Trump said. “ … They don’t report the facts. Just like they don’t want to report that I spoke out forcefully against hatred, bigotry and violence and strongly condemned the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and the KKK.”

The Post described the scene inside the Phoenix Convention Center:

Three times, the crowd burst into chants of “USA! USA! USA!” And once, at the mention of Trump’s former rival Hillary Clinton, they chanted: “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!” Several parents put their young children on their shoulders so they could get a good look at the president.

But as the night dragged on, many in the crowd lost interest in what the president was saying.

Hundreds left early, while others plopped down on the ground, scrolled through their social media feeds or started up a conversation with their neighbors. After waiting for hours in 107-degree heat to get into the rally hall — where their water bottles were confiscated by security — people were tired and dehydrated and the president just wasn’t keeping their attention.

This seems plausible. Political speeches that run more than an hour are almost always tiresome, even when the audience is hydrated. Still, given the fact that Mr. Trump’s opponents constantly seem to be able to field energetic, angry crowds at public events all over the country, it is bound to cause more chatter about which political party’s base is more energized.

By one important measurement, it’s still not close. With the arrival of July fundraising reports for the major parties, it appears that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez may be on his way to setting a record—but probably not the one he intended. According to the Post:

After a strong $12.2 million raised in March — the first full month of Perez’s chairmanship — fundraising has dried up considerably. The $4.7 million it raised in April was the lowest for that particular month since 2009. The $4.3 million raised in May was the worst for that month since 2003. And now the $3.8 million raised in July is the worst for any month since January 2009.

While we are fighting the battle of the monuments and picking over the political corpse of Steve Bannon, a terrorist killed 14 people in Barcelona, the Mueller fishing-inquisition continues to grind on, the DOJ is slow-rolling the release of documents about the Lynch-Clinton tarmac powwow, Hillary Clinton is not being held accountable for the manifest betrayals of her oath to the Constitution, Obamacare repeal and replace is dead and tax reform seems moribund, and the left continues its assaults on the First Amendment. The circus tent is on fire and we just keep watching the acrobats and jugglers.

We can debate whether or not all this misdirection is being cleverly manipulated by Donald Trump so he can work on his policy reforms under the radar. Leftists have so many outrage-buttons to punch, it’s often impossible to resist pushing them and then watch their heads explode in shrieking dudgeon. But we won’t know the cumulative effects of this 24/7 demonization of the president until next year’s midterms. One thing is for sure, there had better be a big legislative win, say on tax reform, if the Republicans want to keep control of Congress. The president needs a substantial victory in order to overcome the fallout from the various conflicts over symbols and bad manners that the Trump-haters are perpetually fomenting.

The current squabbling over Confederate monuments is a perfect example. Emboldened by the alacrity with which so many Republicans piled on the president for his reticence in condemning white supremacists, the race hacks and their various street enforcers have moved from attacking statues of Confederate soldiers and generals to widening the bronze and marble rogue’s gallery to include slave-owning founders like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. And of course, many Republicans and conservatives are meekly going along. They can’t miss an opportunity to preen morally, flaunt their sympathy for the long-dead oppressed, and distance themselves from an uncouth president many of them argue won only because he appealed to déclassé Republican xenophobes and racists.

As usual, there is more heat than light in this preposterous conflict over public statues. For the shrewd activists behind the push to scrub public spaces of reprehensible historical figures, it’s all about demonstrating their political power. The anti-monument sentiment is not widespread among the people, black or white, nor is there a grassroots movement to destroy politically incorrect statues. More materially significant is the fact that eliminating every monument memorializing a Confederate general or a slave-owner will do absolutely nothing for the black underclass. Those black men will not stop slaughtering each other; they won’t be finding jobs; they won’t be raising the children they father; they won’t stop destroying themselves with drugs; they won’t be graduating from college at a rate higher than the current dismal 40%; and they won’t be escaping the dependency reservations onto which they’ve been herded by the Democrats and so-called black “leadership.”

Like black studies departments, black history month, school curricula filled with victim melodramas, MLK Day, or endless movies about noble black victims from our benighted past, clear-cutting monuments will not change one bit the social and cultural dysfunctions created and funded by a patronizing and virtue-killing welfare industry, one abetted by a duplicitous race narrative that benefits the black politicians, activists, professionals, public employees, school teachers, and professors – most of whom have no intention of figuring out how to save their so-called “brothers” and “sisters” languishing in ghetto hell-holes. It’s much easier and cheaper to chant yet again the “whitey did us wrong” mantra, flagellate guilty whites, and then watch stupid white people hand over more political leverage and power, so that the race tribunes can continue the policies that are destroying the lives of millions of less well-connected black people.

Then there was the Google employee who circulated an internal memo challenging the “diversity” orthodoxy that corporations like Google––and now it appears the State Department––repeat over and over despite the lack of any empirical evidence that a superficial diversity of sex, sexual preferences, ethnicity, or skin color among an ideologically and socially homogenous group is useful for anything other than Silicon Valley robber-baron virtue-signaling. But as Harvard president Larry Summers learned more than ten years ago, supposedly oppressed upper class feminists are a formidable enemy you don’t want to provoke. Feminist identity politics is predicated on victimhood and grievances, so to suggest that a disparity in any profession or pursuit might result from differences between the nature of the sexes or personal preferences, is to blaspheme against an article of faith, and bring down the inquisitorial wrath of these presumed powerless victims. No, misogynist patriarchal men are to blame for a lack of female programmers, or the mythical inequities in compensation. These are the wages of an inveterate sexism that oppresses the freest, richest, healthiest, best-educated, longest-living women in the history of the planet.

Back in May, a New Orleans statue of Joan of Arc was tagged with “Tear it Down” graffiti.

Why Joan of Arc? Any famous historical figure is by definition controversial. Joan is a French national symbol, but Shakespeare depicted her as a malicious witch. The French Quarter where the statue stands is a mostly white neighborhood. France was dealing with a controversial election.

This is what happens when you open a can of historical, religious and nationalistic worms.

The war on Confederate memorials quickly escalated into attacks on Abraham Lincoln. The Lincoln Memorial was vandalized in Washington D.C. and in Chicago, a statue of Lincoln was burned. Abraham Lincoln fought the Confederacy. But from a black nationalist perspective, Lincoln and Lee were both racist white devils. And to the left, they both embody white supremacy.

What began with tearing down General Lee, escalated to vandalizing statues of Junipero Serra.

Serra was an 18th century Catholic priest who set up missions in what is now California. He’s hated by some American Indian activists who accuse him of racism and colonialism. There are statues of Serra all over California. And while most Americans have never heard of him, a pitched battle is underway between Catholics who venerate him as a saint and left-wing activists who call him a genocidal racist.

These leftist activists began by vandalizing Columbus statues and then Junipero Serra. But Serra was also America’s first Latino saint. To Latinos, Serra is a hero. To some American Indians, he’s a villain. And Christopher Columbus is in the same boat. The statues of Columbus spread across America were often put up by Italian-American associations. Italian-Americans marched in Columbus Day festivals. Serra pits Latinos against American Indians. Italian-Americans and American Indians face off over Columbus.

The battle over Junipero Serra is a microcosm of the gaping national and religious fault lines on which so many statues stand. Our towns and cities are full of statues celebrating some group’s version of history. The civil society we used to have allowed different groups to each celebrate the heroes of their history.

It’s not just Confederate memorials that are the controversial remnants of an old war. The Hundred Years War that Joan was part of had its own winners and losers. And if that seems like ancient history, our cities are full of memorials and statues featuring Irish, Italian and Latin American nationalist figures.

Springfield, Massachusetts has a garden dedicated to the 1916 Easter Rising. There’s a statue of Irish nationalist Robert Emmet in Washington D.C.’s Triangle Park. Three miles away stands a statue of Winston Churchill near the British Embassy. There is a great deal of national history that separates both men, but they can coexist together in our civic spaces because of mutual historical tolerance.

There can be a statue of James Connolly in Chicago and of Winston Churchill in Fulton, Missouri.