|
Studies in Arrogance and Incomprehension
We can always count on The New York Times to remind us how complete has been conservatives' loss in the culture wars. Elisabetta Povoledo reports from Venice that Mayor Luigi Brugnaro had to retreat from his proposed ban on books headed for the magical city's preschool library about (1) a male dog that aspired to be a ballerina; (2) a little boy who wanted to be a princess; (3) a penguin egg hatched and adopted by two male penguins. In the end, the mayor whittled his banned list to two, one of which is "Jean A Deux Mamans" that, says the Times, "touch on same-sex families living happily ever after."
Camilla Seibezzi, a civil rights advocate, promoted the books because prejudices against same-sex marriage are "consolidated at 3 years of age." The mayor counters that "These books risk confusing children." Elton John weighed in on Ms. Seibezzi's side, calling the mayor "boorishly bigoted... stupid." The mayor's response, "... at home parents can call themselves daddy number one and daddy number two, but I have to consider the majority of families, which have a mum and a dad. It is parents who should educate children about these things, not schools." A bookseller entered the fray with the observation that "it's an issue drummed up to ingratiate the electorate," surely not a crime in a democracy.
I have no idea whether any or all of the antagonists are right. But I do think it reasonable to say that the reporter reveals an incomprehension that is a testimonial to the thoroughness with which conservatives have been routed in the culture wars. "As subversive books go, many of the 49 children's tales hardly seem seditious." Not to the New York Times, surely, but perhaps to Italy's Roman Catholics, 75% of the population, and to the Vatican.
Then there is a report in the paper of record that polling data show that Republicans are less likely to be divorced than Democrats, and more likely to have happy marriages. The significance of these findings, says The Grey Lady's David Leonhardt, is that "they're a reminder that conservatism also has values and cultural attitudes - about the importance of marriage and family - that seem to improve the environment in which children grow up." The "reminder" is needed, I assume, by regular readers of the New York Times. There's more, and better: "... it's worth looking for potential lessons from any political ideology." Even conservatism. The broad-mindness is breath-taking, a lesson for Times' readers who until now did not feel it worth looking beyond their daily liberal fix.
|
