Syria, Vogue Magazine, and Liberalism as Fashion Statement
Events in Syria that seem — emphasis on the seem — to point to the imminent demise of Bashar al-Assad (often referred to as a strongman — more in a moment) have turned my mind again to last year’s coverage of the Syrian regime by Vogue.
Some will recall that in March 2011 the magazine published a glowing profile of Assad’s wife by novelist Joan Juliet Buck titled “Asma al-Assad, A Rose in the Desert.” That encomium has long since been cleansed from the Vogue site, leaving behind their own (stylish?) version of a 404 error. The original can be found here and elsewhere. It begins:
Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” She is the first lady of Syria.
It goes on from there, including photographs of the trendy Assads on the floor playing games with their kids, just like your average family in, say, the Upper West Side or Brentwood.
More recently, Vogue publisher Anna Wintour has surfaced as a leading public spokesperson for Barack Obama, making her a fascinating case study in what we might refer to as the psychopathology of the modern liberal. What is their weltanschauung and why do they think the way they do? In other words, just who are these people?
(On June 1, 2012, Wintour premiered a pro-Obama video inviting the public to compete for a dinner with her, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Michelle Obama. Interestingly, about a week after the appearance of the video — June 10 — and more than a year after the article, Winotour finally disowned Asma al-Assad.)
Generalizations are dangerous, but Vogue magazine may be a better indicator of this liberal world view than the more predictable Newsweek, Huffington Post, or even the New York Times. It is, after all, an arbiter of taste — and modern liberalism is, more than anything, about style. It is largely a fashion statement. You are who you appear to be. Substance is of less importance. Hence, Asma al-Assad is chic, therefore good (well, at least until her family acts out and starts killing people right and left — not cool).
On the other hand, conservatives are dowdy. They do not dress well. Some of them even go to church in silly bonnets. Their ideas are of no importance because they have no style.
The middle class has no style but they can shoot strait.
The notion of the Democratic Party elite as committed to “style” reminds me of the so-called moderates who have defined “class” as a life-style choice, to the confusion of the electorate. Their mentor in academe was the Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons, whose followers dominate the academy. I wrote about that here: http://clarespark.com/2012/06/03/connecting-vs-connecting-the-dots/. I am so pleased that Roger Simon nailed Vogue magazine, a perfect target for anyone who thinks that language and images make a difference in how our brains are wired.
I don;t thing you can call any of those class conscious people moderates. A political moderate is one who agrees with some of the ideas of both sides and believes we need to get consensus to more forward. That is becoming more difficult as both sides have become more extreme. I don’t know what a social moderate is. I simply now that all people, whatever class they may be in, put their pants on 1 leg at a time.
A social moderate only wants to kill half of the unborn babies.
The point Roger is trying to make here, that liberals value style over substance, is a rather weak one. I can rattle off countless republicans who fit this bill. Nancy Reagan who wore practically nothing but Galanos and Oscar de la Renta, not to mention her love of all things Loewe, even her luggage is not someone who comes to mind when speaking about substance. Mind you, I’m not one of those people who even thinks that the first lady (regardless of party) should be anything but fabulous but to try and turn fashion into an ideological issue is just silly. It’s, more accurately, a class and income issue. Rich Democrats and republicans shop at Barney’s and poor Democrats and republicans shop at Walmart. And let’s not forget all Nancy’s high-brow republican friends like Betsy Bloomingdale (wonderful store, actually) and Georgette Mosbacher. Both have faces so tight you could bounce a dime off of them. Yes, let us talk of substance. Actually, Mosbacher is now so bizarre looking she looks like a tranny. Need I go on …
You’re missing the point, deliberately I think. Of course there are Republicans who dress stylishly or love their accessories. The point is that their political philosophies don’t tend to run quite the same way, while they do with Dems. Republicans have supported dictators in the past (I’m sure you can come up with a list if anyone needs examples) but we never did it because they had snazzy uniforms, or fawned over how well they wore their clothes or played with their children. Mostly, we did it *in spite* of the way they ran their countries, for more or less pragmatic reasons. I won’t tell you that the pragmatism was always logical or ethical…but it wasn’t based on how cool they were.
Dems seem to care a lot about whether someone’s chic. If they are, the mass murder stuff can be ignored. It’s not like Syria’s Assad family just started killing people with the Arab Spring, they’ve been doing this stuff for decades. Enough haute couture, however, and you can dazzle Anna Wintour with your style, and she’ll overlook almost anything…
“The point is that their political philosophies don’t tend to run quite the same way, while they do with Dems. Republicans have supported dictators in the past (I’m sure you can come up with a list if anyone needs examples) but we never did it because they had snazzy uniforms, or fawned over how well they wore their clothes or played with their children … but it wasn’t based on how cool they were.”
I think your view is pretty speculative, deliberately, I think, as is Rogers. Moreover, the Assad regime, by the looks of it, will come crashing down soon due to the interventions of the Obama Administration, in spite of their “snazzy” attire. How “cool” will that be?
Yes. For many, leftism is mainly fashion, worn like jewelry, to be prominently displayed to elicit the admiration and praise of others.
Interesting how Mr. Simon makes the point about how the progressive elites are connected to the concepts of “style” and “cool”. They bring to mind those oh-so “chi-chi” supermodels who seem so “hawt” and sexy in those runway photos and videos. But spend some time with them and you’ll discover that they’re usually shallow, self-absorbed, and rather vicious if their wants aren’t fulfilled. One would have to be a masochist to associate with these people.
Don’t I wish.
I would love to spend some time with them.
They can’t be any more shallow than some of my own former girlfriends.
Word.
“And herr Hitler so does love his dogs….”
Yup, style over substance. Fawning over imbeciles and debutantes and how utterly “chic” everyone in the socialist camp is tantamount to ignoring the blister on your toe because the shoes are so stylish.
People, these “reporters” are the same people we went to high-school with, who forgot their homework, every day, who seldom had anything valuable to say, and generally weren’t worth looking at or listening to.
Their anger at being “ignored” all through their youth has perpetuated itself by now demanding the world listen to them while they try to push a string by creating the news rather than being an objective observer of facts.
This is how the “mainstream” operates. Brian Williams and company were all nobodys in the past and continue to be nobodys in the present. Instead of actually doing something, they have chosen to glom onto those they think are the “cool kids” and pretend to be part of the mover and shaker clan. Nothing could be further from the truth. They know nothing, they do nothing, they are nothing. Yet certain types give them credence for their fawning over BS like this. Useless, self-absorbed, cretins.
There most certainly WAS Nazi chic, back in the day, especially after Hitler’s PR triumph in the Berlin olympics, the Jesse Owens myth notwithstanding. Communist chic still goes on, of course.
“The determined embrace of Barack Obama — thought not nearly as odious as Assad, of course — comes from the same form of blindness, a kind of sexualization à la Vogue magazine of our political leaders. Coolness is all. Substance is nothing. Who cares what Obama really thinks? He’s in vogue (small and capital v).
“Who cares about the content of the healthcare legislation? Nobody knows what’s in it anyway, but it doesn’t matter. After all, it’s also in vogue.”
Yes. Exactly. It’s something very … what is it? Sick? Weak? Cowardly? Lazy? Is “shallow” an adequate word?
Regarding the “elites” — watching video of Roger Kimball’s interview with City Journal — he talks about the idea of “Benevolence” — an attractive quality with which to label onesself — whether or not that “Benevolence” does or doesn’t actually do anyone any good — or even does them harm.
Let’s not forget — no matter who is President — nor what is actually in the Health Care bill — the “elites” — and their own extravagant lifestyles — won’t be affected at all.
Perhaps, if Obama turned around and actually taxed them out of their very comfortable, sweet lifestyles — or they couldn’t have any other healthcare but Obamacare themselves — then they might begin to give some genuine thought to what they preach.
But, until then, they will continue to blow hot air and feel self-righteous and “cool.”
Being a part of the “In” crowd. The “better” ones.
It requires that there be an “Out” group — one to look down upon.
How can one be “In” without the “Outs?” They’re needed.
Not very “democratic.” Not concerned about “equality” — just the opposite. Complete and total hypocrisy.
If it wasn’t about politics, it would be about something else. It’s a very unattractive part of human nature — the need to look down upon others to bolster one’s ego.
At this point in time, and probably because it’s taken the form of politics — with many forces manipulating and exploiting that particular human flaw — it’s gotten completely out of hand.
perhaps ‘stupid’ best describes it.
Just an FYI which may or may not be a coincidence.
The Colorado Muslim Society (CMS), or Masjid Abu-Bakr, is arguably the most visible Muslim community in the Denver Metro area. Located in the suburb of Aurora, just southeast of Denver, Abu-Bakr is a Sunni community whose membership spans virtually every part of the global Muslim community. Currently Masjid Abu-Bakr is completing the final stages of its multi-million dollar expansion, thus doubling the size of its prayer facilities.
Interesting. Aurora. Any idea who the mass shooter is, or is that also a coincidence? If the person’s name was Eric or Jimmy, surely we’d know by now.
couldn’t be a Muslim or anti Muslim connection, of course not— ABC and George Stephanopoulos have already told us the guy is TEA PARTY
yup they looked into their crystal balls and found that info- not a shred of evidence or checking of course
you know- speculate, say it a lot, then retract after the people already got it in their heads- it’s the liberal way – I’m building a straw-man for you, oh not any straw-man will do…….. (the jerk movie tune)
…………………………………
on the topic:
Watch for the newest fashionista from Middle East- Queen Rania the pretty well dressed first lady of Jordan-sheis the “it” girl now– from the Jordan that keeps Pals as non citizens and where women have babies in the street b/c they can’t get into hospital, and most of them are now in full burqas- but hey she’s cool /sarc
Breitbart knew of what you speak- he was one of thge few conservs who fully recognized and tried to bust the leftard monopoly on “cool’. I know it well too- b/c I work in fashion industry too
and I am stunned into silence by what I hear and read from these people- thereis a blacklist on people like me- I post under alias for same reasons – I like to work in my profession-
as for who is good looking- I must say conserv news ladies are far more attractive than their lib counterparts – think Megan Fox vs Madcow for example
Vanity Fair (I think) years ago did a fawning profile on Queen Noor, the Evita-wanna-be of Jordan. They were called on it, I think by Commentary. But Google “Vanity Fair Noor” for a nauseating set of sequels.
The determined embrace of Barack Obama — thought not nearly as odious as Assad, of course…
I think “thought” should be “though,” though I’m not sure.
hdgreene – clever of you pointing out that we need to read carefully, notice words in context and work out the meaning.
“Though” would imply that Obama is a little odious but “not nearly as odious as Assad”
“Thought” implies that he is indeed “as odious as Assad” but that many people do not think so.
Reading on and looking at the context I would suggest the writer has deliberately chosen this word.
You watch Bill Maher (for example) and you have a guy talking about getting laid and smoking pot and he’s got an audience that cheers him on as he sneers and laughs at conservatives. For many, identifying with liberalism is their opportunity to sit at the cool kids’ table in high school. If you’re in college do you want to associate yourself with *sneer* Christians who *sneer* are for *eye-roll,sneer* abstinence or do you want to be down with partying? Liberals can tap into those hormonal insecurities and they do all the time. Or maybe they appeal to young people (now it’s my turn to sneer and eye-roll) because they have such great and consistant ideas.
Quite so, Mr. Simon. Well done.
It’s marketing. Do you climbers want some of this?
We promise you might, just might, get in the club.
A lot of this stems from the desire to be bad while being praised as good.
It’s the classic “style over substance”. I don’t care what you do as long as you look good doing it. But the embrace of Assad, and the other thugs, is just an extension of the liberal “fixed pie” theory. Liberals believe that there’s a fixed amount of wealth, so it you’re rich then you took it from the poor. They also inherently believe that there’s a fixed amount of freedom, if you waste freedom on the peons then there’s less freedom for the elites. Thus the whole “negative rights” nonsense.
The word is “dowdy.”
In the case of the Vogue piece and its timing, you also have to include the fact that Israel is decidedly out among the liberal arbiters of taste, and has been for over a decade now, for the temerity to keep electing a center-right coalition to lead the government.
Bashar Assad becomes more acceptable to someone like Anna Wintour for a profile story because the sophisticates on the left know that Benjamin Netanyahu is a horrid man, and if the leader of Syria hates him as well, there must be some shared style and taste between the liberal glamouratti and the Assads. To Ms. Wintour, assigning the piece on the Syrian dictator out of New York would be the same as assigning a profile on some rich political wanna-be in flyover country who nonetheless had the proper liberal beliefs and was planning to take on an evil Republican office-holder. There wasn’t thought one in Anna’s head about Assad’s brutality to his own people, only that he was an enemy of one of the left’s enemies, so that meant he must be an OK guy.
buts Arabs have those pretty scarves, and those long round collar shirts, pretty embroidery, it’s so inspring!! and the JEWS ugh they look stupid and ugly- big noses, stupid little caps or big hats, scraggly beards /sarc
seriously though Israel has a very vibrant export business in fashion. They are among the top designers of swimwear (not burqinis) Gottex for example
AKA Lawrence of Arabia syndrome, “the noble Arab sheikh of the desert”. Ironically, the actual Bedouins in Israel (who originally murdered the early Jewish settlers) actively co-operate with the state and a number serve in the army.
Actually it’s since 1973, the Yom Kippur War, where we had the audacity not to get exterminated.
There are, in fact, some nice companies who do offer “burqinis” in a new fabric that allows for modest swimwear, although I think they are exported to Israel from the US. I think I am getting the a Moslem ads here; the Jewish ones have longer dresses and assume you’ve brought your own headcovering. As a practical matter, this allows my sister (in New Jersey) to take the kids swimming.
Here in Israel there are a few small “religious beaches”, where there are separate hours for men and women. I go once or twice a yesr; for me it’s heaven to be able at least stand again in the ocean (often no real room for swimming), 35 years since I last did (on the other side!).
Yes, it is about style, it’s about being accepted by the “better” people, about living comfortably without guilt. But that also means there are no convictions to back it up. When people merely pay lip service to an ideology so they can fit in, they will walk away when there is actually a price to be paid and personal sacrifices to be made in support of that ideology. Maybe this is just the last stage of an obsolete political agenda.
Wonderful piece! Spot on.
Anna Wintour…What is their weltanschauung and why do they think the way they do? In other words, just who are these people?
Shallow, trendy, being “in” or “out” is all that matters.
Reportedly, Wintour was aghast at SJ Parker’s apartment where the din-din with the Obamas was held, and insisted on doing it over before the event.
I read last week in the Daily Mail that Asma al-Assad had ordered on the internet something like £270,000 in furniture from London for the summer home as the slaughter in the streets raged on.
She’s big on ottomans.
Surreal.
“Ottomans” as in empires. That wouldn;t go well with the Turks
One of the key texts of “liberal” (a/k/a “progressive”) thought was J.K. Galbraith’s Affluent Society which argued for more governmental spending and less private choice. Here is the most often cited passage from the screed:
“The family which takes its mauve and cerise, air-conditioned, power-steered, and power-braked automobile out for a tour passes through cities that are badly paved, made hideous by litter, blighted buildings, billboards, and posts for wires that should long since have been put underground.”
I can see his readers cringe. “Mauve and cerise, how hidieous?” Never mind that said color combination was never produced by Detroit. Air conditioning, power steering and power brakes are all standard items now, but in the 1950s they hinted of luxury and decadence. Of course, the same sights would be available to someone driving a pious black Ford stripped of all frippery.
His proof of underfunded government is equally wan. Admittedly government is responsible for the state of the highways, but contractors in Massachusetts (Galbraith was a Harvard prof) have always been equal to the task of spending every nickel appropriated and not giving fair value. Big Dig, anyone?
But the next three items are all aesthetic. Blighted buildings might require some public funding, if only to demolish (don’t tell the preservationists), but billboards and utility polls are privately owned.
This statement shows liberalism’s aesthetic bias, and that liberalism is based on contempt, not compassion.
Absolutely correct. It’s nothing but old-fashioned hatred for the vulgar bourgeoisie.
…liberalism is based on contempt, not compassion.
Absolutely. Extreme contempt, even going so far historically as to embrace eugenics, casting themselves in the position of deciding who is qualified to live and who isn’t.
Reportedly, playwright GB Shaw was one of those.
When HHS’ 15 member non-medical panel starts deciding what medical care you’ll be eligible for (and what not), one aspect of the liberal wet dream will come to fruition.
That the Left postures as though it is on the side of social justice,
but it is on the side of the greatest and most pernicious violators of
social justice. And its hands are drenched in human blood in terms of
the mass murdering ideologies and regimes it has supported and aided and
abetted.
~Jamie Glazov, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror
tanstaffl:
Here is another who agrees with you: Pope Leo XIII:
“Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.
You can read all of “Rerum Novarum” in 10 minutes. A search engine gets the PDF. In it you will find the arguments that socialism will damage worst the people it says it intends to rescue. Plus destroy initiative of the most productive and lead the entire people to hunger and want.
Here is an excerpt, which I think applies to your remarks:
“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.’
True; to be a lefty is to be always fashionable. Moral preening (forget practical disasters) never goes out of style.
Definitely, though, more non-lefties need to get into the creative arts. How easy would it be to do a TV show that satirizes the left day in and day out, the reverse of what “All in the Family” did? Or a redo of “West Wing” where the hero president isn’t a lefty?
Closing thought: There’s no one as eminently satirizable as Barack Obama, unclothed emperor. With the possible exception of Anna Wintour.
Good post, Phantomorphan.
If I recall correctly sometime in the mid ’90s a family on the Upper East Side of Manhatten took in a con artist pretending to be the son of Sidney Poitier.
Why would they check? Apparently, 52% of the country might do the same thing.
That scenario might make a good TV show or movie. Better would be a re-make of My Man Godfrey in which a clueless, self-absorbed rich family is taught some fundamental values by a “bum” they found in the city dump.
Family Ties already dabbled in that…by accident. The show was originally a reverse set up where Alex P. Keaton played by Michael J. Fox was the foolish young conservative that kept following his hairbrained beliefs into calamities which the old hippy leftist authority figures would have to guide him back to senseible leftist values and principles. However Michael J. Fox as Alex P. Keaton was so adorable and likeable that Conservatives watched the show and Alex P. Keaton became the young rebel sneering at the Leftist Authority Establishment (parents), speaking Truth to Power. The formula still was pursued, but was never much successful because of the likeability of Michael J. Fox and the sympathy it drove.
The show was supposed to be from the perspective of the hippy Leftwing parents in the new Reagan Era….old radicals now with children in the 80s, and sypathetic to and appealing to those folks that could identify with them, but what happened is that the conservatives identitified with Alex and their struggle against the New Leftist Establishment and the condescension of the Left academic-media zeitgeist.
Also check out Lillyhammer.
I didn’t watch the show that much, but I recall they still tried their darndest to make Fox’s character into an object of distaste. The problem was that the teen-age girls would have none of it.
Portlandia has some pretty amusing moments.
Shallow and trendy is why Colin Powell switched his support to Obama one week before the 2008 selection.
He didn’t want to be thrown off the DC social circuit.
John Roberts didn’t either.
Shallow and trendy is why “millionaires and billionaires” continue to throw copious cash at Obama, even as he (putatively) insults the hell out of their very existence.
“More recently, Vogue publisher Anna Wintour has surfaced as a leading public spokesperson for Barack Obama, making her a fascinating case study in what we might refer to as the psychopathology of the modern liberal. What is their weltanschauung and why do they think the way they do? In other words, just who are these people?”
Liberals and dirt bags like Anna Wintour will tolerate any killers as long as their wives have lots of cash and pose as European-style liberal elites. No matter that Asma al-Assad is married to one of the worst killers and sponsors of terrorists in the world. I guess if you dress well all is forgiven in the world of Vogue. I’m beginning to wonder if Gaddafi would have been more sympathetic to trolls like Wintour if he dressed better and gave great interviews with Vogue. How pathetic the far left is. They will suck up to the wife of a mass murderer, and at the same time they will deamonize people like George W. Bush. And they wonder why we hate them so.
It was approximately January 2011 that Hillary Clinton praised Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer”.
(of course, the accusations of her husband’s Oral office dalliances were a “vast right wing conspiracy.”)
Wintour is exactly that shallow and stylish as the body of her segment demands. She is just the opposite of the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who wrote raging books about the Muslim culture.
Ms. Fallaci had several interviews with world-leading figures like Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Libya’s Gadaffy; today both relegated to history’s heap-pile. The Italian writing Valkyrie despised both, although at the time of the talks they both considered fancy and modern by the lefties.
Tom Wolfe coined the phrase “radical chic” (in his eponymous book), to describe this phenomenon of upscale elites embracing radical and even anti-Western causes.
By doing so, it gives folks like Ms. Wintour the opportunity to express their “sophisticated” contempt for bourgeois Western society–while at the same time continuing to make money in that society. She can wear her radical anti-Westernism like she wears jewelry: Wear it in public during the day, take it off at night.
The uniform, the dopey helmet haircut and the gigantic sunglasses, make her a comic book character.
haha – good point. In reality, their clothes are as ridiculous as their ideas. Someone said: “The essence of a liberal is the belief that an esoteric knowledge enables the adepts to see past the surface.”
They are insecure cowards. Like a Halloween costume, they put on the clothes, thoughts and mannerisms of “cool”. Their greatest fear is that the mask falls off exposing them as the scared little dorks they see in the mirror every day.
IIRC, he connected it with Marie Antionette playing milkmaid. The idea was that the upper class attempt (badly) to idenitfy with the lower class, so as to stick it to the middle class.
IIRC, he connected it with Marie Antionette playing milkmaid. The idea was that the upper class attempt (badly) to identify with the lower class, so as to stick it to the middle class.
Yes, for awhile radical chic even visited Damascus, in April of 2007, when the third in line to be president, Madam Speaker Pelosi (I was never briefed on enhanced torture interrogations by the CIA), visited the Assads in spite of the Assads being on the list as a state sponsor of terrorism and facilitating the violence in Iraq. As I recall, Nancy complemented the Assads for being “reformers” while the Bush administration denounced her visit as counter productive, ie., diplomatic speak for reality challenged.
Yes, and she sported a fashionable head cover as well.
Remember how she presented herself as a shuttle diplomat using her “good offices” to promote peace between Israel and Syria? She delivered a message from the Israeli PM who immediately disavowed entrusting her with any such message and chided her for falling for Assad’s propaganda. She didn’t look so fashionable after that what with all the egg on her face.
I happened to be at the California State Fair the other night. I gotta tell you, there were but a precious few of my fellow fair-goers who weren’t dowdy (I guess the modern liberal elite don’t go to the fair). My friend and I, who I believe would never be taken for frumps, remarked upon it as we watched the crowd stream by and wondered where have all the beautiful people gone? It used to be that a normal person could go through a normal day in her normal life and encounter any number of well turned out, good looking people. Not anymore. What’s become of us? When did we lose our pride in our appearance?
No doubt it’s quite different for Roger down there in Hollywood. He probably encounters beautiful people all the time (of course, he probably encounters the modern liberal elite all the time). Roger, please tell them never mind the opinion and ideology. What we in the lower echelons could really use is some fashion sense and grooming tips. Send a little of that “chic” on down.
Oh, and while you’re at it, please send a little Hillary Clinton’s way as she has become a frightful frump, unkempt and uncaring.
It was the 60s radicals, people like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, who pioneered the unwashed, slovenly look. Just look at our teenagers, with their sloppy unkempt hair, clothes (boys with pants hanging under their butts), piercings, and ill-mannered language and behavior. Ugh. It’s all so disgusting.
Diana West, in her excellent book, “The Death of the Grown-up,” recounts how the main character in Booth Tarkington’s book, “Seventeen,” used to sneak into his father’s closet and take the father’s dinner jacket to wear when he went out on dates. He wanted to dress like a man, not a little boy. Now, as West points out, look at fathers and sons you see in public. They’re all dressed in shorts or pants, t-shirts, and baseball caps. Different wardrobes for children and adults used to represent a passage into adulthood. No more. They’re all adolescents now.
Tom Wolfe claimed that they (or rather the more common kids) were trying to dress like the poor (to stick it to the middle class), only the real poor weren’t dressing that way. The actual hippies went so far from hygeine, that doctors had to go to the history books to find their diseases.
Man, you have just screwed up. If Anna Wintour reads this article, you should be afraid. Very afraid.
Mr. Simon’s writing is always right on the mark. For years, I have been saying to anyone that will listen: “liberalism is more about fitting in than it is about right or wrong or common sense.”
LIBERALS:
self anointed aristocrats, elitists, arrogant, intolerant, egocentric, narcissists, insatiable seekers of power, wealth, influence and authority.
LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY:
based on contempt and hatred for the average person; considered by the liberal elites to be untermensch; not sophisticated, not capable and not worthy of entering the elitist liberal societal class ranks.
You will notice the great similarities betwixt the lifestyle, privileges and attitudes of the liberal elites and that of the ruling aristocracy that prevailed in Europe prior to about 1880 or so.
Vogue magazine may be a better indicator of this liberal world view than the more predictable Newsweek, Huffington Post, or even the New York Times. It is, after all, an arbiter of taste — and modern liberalism is, more than anything, about style. It is largely a fashion statement. You are who you appear to be. Substance is of less importance.
On the other hand, conservatives are dowdy. They do not dress well. Some of them even go to church in silly bonnets. Their ideas are of no importance because they have no style.
One of the most succinct statements defining modern “liberalism” I’ve ever seen. Thank you Roger!
Roger, I think this is one of the most well written, spot on critiques I have ever read.
a year or so ago a Wash Post article on trust fund young adults relayed how hard it was for them to accept their money and when they really wanted to help people, you know the poor. They went on about their meetings in a Dupont Circle Appt in DC (wealthy are)0 to moan about their poor fortunes and how they could justify having this money. It reminds of the social scene described in the article. If the people really wanted to help, they’d give away their money. But of course then they would no longer fit in with the in crowd and they;’d be just like everyone else.
Shameless money-grubbing must be a hard thing for this stylin’[1] in-crowd. And they’re really trying to dress it up as something better. But in the end, it’s just a $3 Raffle sale. First, it was for dinner at Wintour’s with S.J. Parker and the Obamas, and now another $3 Raffle for Dinner with Axelrod and the Obamas in Chicago.
If I want tacky and tasteless for dinner, I’ll go to Hooters, where I can have it pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
[1] – All hip, black, street cred for my dropped ‘g’ should be forwarded to my account.
Well; it is a very interesting point and something I have thought about before.
Putting aside the fact that some (many?) dichotomies are false for the purpose of this; the lack of counter narratives (or the left’s ability to avoid hearing them) to push back on the left has them taking both good sides of things quite often.
This being an example. Some how they maintain a status obsessed ideology while claiming to also want material equality. Really it seems they are not intolerant of inequality so much as they are greedy… Some how they claim conservatives are materialist and greedy right before noting they don’t seem to care about expensive clothes or foods… ahem… insert red neck joke. Really; isn’t the person happy in the trailer park the example of a not greedy and non materialistic person? Anyway; no one ever calls them on things… old story for them.
It is funny you should make the Hollyhype Westworld comparison, ’cause those cats definitely have a strong para-military to keep the Have-nots out of the nice lawns and way downtown for the rest of us to step over.
Back in the 80′s I saw this hilarious movie starting Martin Mull, titled “The Serial”, it was mocking the trends and fads of the Marin County elite. Haven’t been able to find it. I wonder if the Hollywod elite have refused to put it out in DVD format because it hits too close to home.
I remember that movie. It was very funny (Tommy Smothers’ priest–LOL). And it is available in DVD–Amazon carries it.
I subscribed to Vogue for over thirty years before finally canceling. I’m not sure if I evolved or if the magazine devolved, but the final straw happened about five years ago.
Vogue published a fawning profile of a young, pregnant female “journalist” who finagled her way into U.S. military detachment deployed in Afghanistan so she could prove…..well, something or other. The soldiers were understandably alarmed at being put in the terrible position of being responsible for the safety of a silly civilian dilettante who was also a pregnant woman. So this monstrously selfish lunatic was not only risking her life, but the lives of brave soldiers and her innocent, unborn child. The article also took pains to point out that though unmarried, she had made the laudable (according to Vogue, anyway) decision to have a child via a sperm donor. The editors found all this admirable, but I was so outraged and disgusted that Vogue assumed I would find it admirable that I never bought another Vogue.
Since then I’ve noticed most women’s magazines exhibit a reflexive liberal slant, which I find insulting and has effectively ended my former magazine addiction and saved me a lot of money. I still care about fashion and beauty but can pursue these things according to my own standards.
Agreed, the women’s magazines (Vogue, Glamour, Marie Claire, Oprah) have a “reflexive liberal slant.” That’s why I prefer apolitical magazines like Allure and Lucky.
When I think of cool, I think of jazz musicians who wear nice suits and chainsmoke Lucky Strikes.
Not so much Anna Wintour.
Lauren Weisberger’s novel, The Devil Wears Prada (2003) is really about Vogue magazine and Anna Wintour. It was made into a film.
After seeing that commercial Anna Wintour did for Obama, where she wears the Obama 2012 scarf around her neck, I insist that the book and movie should be retitled:
“The Devil Wears Obama”
Vanity Fair, I think it was, did the same with Queen Noor of Jordan years ago.
The actual book “Vanity Fair” give the example of the classic concept of the mermaid, beautiful above with the monster hidden underneath.
Sometimes, Firefox seems to get the auto completes wrong for certain fields, sometimes it seems like it fills in the fields from info from different sites. Is there an add on that will allow me to edit auto complete fields individually? I don’t want to wipe them all out and start again. As well, sometimes, I click the wrong button and tell it to never save password, is there a way to change that?. . Thanks..