Daily Archives: September 3, 2022

Margaret Thatcher is the most controversial Prime Minister in recent British history. Finding herself governing a country on its knees in the late 1970s, the Tories leader applied a series of unprecedented economic measures that polarized the judgment on her. Charismatic figure, accusations of authoritarianism, and populism were not alien to her. The essay aims to analyze the Iron Ladys rhetoric in the light of Cas Muddes theory of populism. Populism is a thin ideology, which sees society divided into two categories (the pure people vs. the corrupt elites), based on the concept of the general will. Thatcher used nationalism (thin ideology) only occasionally to shape her political offer, which was based on conservatism (thick ideology). Secondly, the Manichean worldview in Muddes terms (good people, bad elites) is not Thatchers case. As for the volont gnral, the Lady relied more on the idealization of her electors to justify her policies.

Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) was a British politician, the most controversial Prime Minister in recent British history (Campbell 2009), with a powerful personality (Hadley-Ho 2010). Serious, intelligent, competitive, and hard-working (Cannadine 2017), imperious, vehement (Lewis 1975), the Iron Lady contributed to change the European history as well as her country and party. Loved and hated alike since the beginning of her career, she earned the title of That Bloody Woman (Rosaspina 2020). Determined, ambitious, uncompromising; you turn if you want to, Thatcher (1980) said in a Conservative Partys congress: The ladys not for turning. Daughter of a grocer, she identified herself with the suburban bourgeoisie, which later became the basis of her political support (Riddell 1985). She entered the House of Commons in 1959 after Oxford graduation in chemistry. Minister of Education (1969-1972), party leader from 1975, PM from 1979 to 1990, she won three general elections. She brought a change of emphasis in British politics (Lewis 1975). And promised to stop British economic decline, affirming Thatcherism, seen by critics as an attack on the physical, economic, cultural and intellectual life of the nation (Trimm 2010, 163).

Characterized by a charismatic, strong, and personalistic leadership, during her mandate she applied a neoliberal program in Great Britain: liberalizations, privatizations of many public companies (Harvey 2005), cutting taxes, welfare, and social services (Cooper 2012), curbing unions power. State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and [] free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results (Thatcher 1988). Under her government and leadership inflation, deficit and unemployment collapsed (Campbell 2009); pro-decriminalization of homosexuality, pro-abortion, and pro-divorce (Rosaspina 2020), she had more progressive (therefore ambiguous) than many would say. Her rhetoric was unmistakable, and with her Great Britain became competitive again after years of stagnation. This came at the price of social division on her persona and policies, based on social conservatism and economic liberalism (Beaumont 2010). Thatchers policy has often been characterized as populist, reflected in an apparent identification with the common people [] against the elites of the British establishment (Fella 2008, 187-8); Hall (1988) interpreted Thatcherism as authoritarian populism, while Reyes (2005) preferred conservative populism.

She adopted a populist critique of the post-war social democratic consensus (Fella 2008, 188). Cas Mudde (2004) provides a definition of populism allowing a better understanding of what the concept is sociologically referred to: his concepts of thin ideology, antagonistic groups, and general will are interesting to be seen in Thatchers case. Was the Iron Lady populist following Muddes sociological theory? Surely, she was not populist in populisms informal terms. 1) promising people what they want to hear, with a highly emotional and simplistic discourse (Mudde 2004, 542) and 2) giving money to people increasing public spending, pleasing them and buying their support (ibid.), aka clientelism (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2017). The risk is to identify charismatic leaders as populists, but Mudde provides a theory framing populism. The choice to analyze Thatcher within an academic framework is unusual since her critics were not based on her (alleged) populist discourse or attitude. Studies on the relation Thatcher-populism are very few; furthermore, there has not been any adaptation of Muddes theory of populism to the Conservative Partys leader. The conclusions are that Thatcher only partially and ambiguously reflects Muddes definition. She was an ambiguous figure as well as a complex character, between conservatism and liberalism, anti-statism and nationalism.

The papers objective is to analyze Margaret Thatcher starting from some of her political discourses, in the light of the theory on populism formulated by Cas Mudde (2004) in his article The Populist Zeitgeist. The papers purpose is to verify if Mrs. Thatcher can be considered populist according to this theory. Thatcher is here framed within Muddes theory her discourses have been retrieved from the homonymous Foundation, covering her 1979-1990 PM activity. The speeches are a product of a long process of selection out of hundreds of documents. Muddes theory is adequate and suitable to European right-wing parties and politically neutral, which is an advantage when analyzing controversial characters. Mudde (2004) does not see populism as a pathology of Western democracies. He acknowledges that the concept of populism is highly charged and negative, both in scholarly and public debate (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, 149).

He sees populism as an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the pure people versus the corrupt elite, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volont gnrale (general will) of the people (Mudde 2004, 543). According to Mudde (ibid.), populism is a thin ideology and does not have the consistence that other isms (such as liberalism, fascism, socialism or conservatism) Indeed, it can be attached to all kinds of ideologies, which we call the host ideologies (Mudde-Hanso 2018); populism alone in its pure form does not almost exist. As a thin-centered ideology, populism can be easily combined with [] different [] ideologies, including communism, ecologism, nationalism or socialism (Mudde 2004, 544). Thin-ideologies are opposed to thick ideologies, that have a dense morphology [] and [] are crucial for developing an overarching network of ideas that offers answers to all the political issues confronting a society (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, 150).

Mudde (2004) emphasizes the Manichean distinction between two classes, the people and the elite; the people are always opposed to the (cultural, economic, political, mediatic) elite. The first group is pure, the second is corrupt. Populists argue that political parties corrupt the link between leaders and supporters, create artificial divisions within the homogeneous people and put their own interests above those of the people (ibid. 546). Populists define who belongs to the people or the elite (Mudde-Rovira Kaltwasser 2013). The former is depicted as a homogeneous and virtuous community; the latter [] homogeneous but pathological (ibid. 151). In relation to Thatcher, Muddes theory main elements populism as thin ideology, populism as a Manichaean division, populism as a general will of the people are individually analyzed.

Thatcher was inspired by Conservatism, a thick ideology, with some liberal elements. Her policy was oriented to a traditional (center-)right conservative thought. As for the thin aspect, she adopted nationalism, emphasizing the UKs greatness, believing that her country was composed by extraordinary people. An important example of the mixture of nationalism (thin ideology) and conservatism (thick ideology) was her bellicosity during the 1982 Falklands crisis when Argentina invaded the British islands in the Atlantic. The reaction was Thatchers top-moment of nationalism, an occasion to reinvigorate her imagine, driving the attention away from the domestic economic troubles (Cannadine 2017). She fought a battle of principle, boasting her nationalistic rhetoric centred on the Britishness. After the victory against Argentina, she proudly showed her nationalism in the Parliament: Our country has won a great victory and we are entitled to be proud. This nation had the resolution to do what it knew had to be done (Thatcher 1982).

Many thought we could no longer do the great things and believed that our decline was irreversible, while others maintained that Britain was no longer the nation that had built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world. Well, they were wrong (ibid.). A second example of the use of nationalistic (thin) rhetoric is related to the negotiations with the European Community. The Lady resorted to nationalistic discourses to underline not only the UKs uniqueness vis--vis Brussels bureaucrats, but also the diversity(or superiority) of the British people (typical for nationalism) and this can also be related to Muddes theoretical second element, the antagonization of one group, the good free Brits and the bad bureaucratic Europe. Adding some nationalism (and Euroscepticism) to her Conservatism, the lady wanted to emphasize the UKs uniqueness. Certainly, we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers and sense of national pride (Thatcher 1998).

Populists accept the essence of democracy, in terms of popular sovereignty and the majority rule. They want the people to elect their leaders (Mudde-Hanso 2018): despite Thatcher was accused of nationalism and imperialism identification with authority, traditionalism and firm leadership (Hall 1988) but there are no doubts that she was intrinsically democratic. She believed in the rule of law (Fry 1998) and voluntarily resigned as PM in November 1990. Populism is inherently hostile to the idea and institutions of liberal democracy or constitutional democracy (Mudde 2004, 561); she was not. Verdict: She only occasionally used nationalism (thin ideology) to formulate her political thought which was conservatism (thick ideology) to boost British pride; Thatcher was not strictly populist in Muddes terms.

Thatcher always stressed the importance of individual responsibility for the community. We must recognize certain groups of people who need help, but the rest of us must take responsibility for ourselves, and [] stop being [] a subsidized-minded society (Thatcher 1975, 50). Most famously, too many have been given to understand I have a problem, it is the Governments job to cope with it! or [] I am homeless, the Government must house me! and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first (Thatcher 1987). Thatcher did not divide society in good people and corrupt elite. In her mindset, there were conservative voters, decent people, common men, and women, who worked, produced, and were harassed by the State. They were the bourgeoise, small-medium entrepreneurs and traders who paid taxes, homeowners, car owners, (small) business people, farmers, private-sector workers, pensioners [] dismayed by [] higher taxes, regulation, bureaucracy, interference, excess paperwork, waste, centralizing decisions and political correctness (Reyes 2005, 109).

On the other hand, she stigmatized other categories of people: hooligans, protesters, the left, the Labour party, IRA terrorists, and the European Union. She idealized her enemies but did not attack the elite and making a eulogy to the sacred pure people. Cultivating social envy against the elite has never belonged to her o British conservatives. However, for Thatcher, everything was a battle (Fella 2008) and in this sense, there was a social division in her mind, but not in Muddes terms. Thatcherism shows how a populist discourse can be constructed from a structurally elite position (Reyes 2005, 106). Thatcher did not consider the people pure (a priori). She considered the individual man and woman, forged consent through the cultivation of a middle class (Harvey 2005, 61) with close political attention to the elites which were not corrupt in her mindset, but the result of meritocracy. According to Mudde (2004, 546), what is clear is who and what populists are against. Thatcher was against the abovementioned categories. In this sense, populism not about class (ibid.). Thatcher did not reject the political class as a whole and most of all did not delegitimize it just because it was the political class as populists leaders usually do. Populists are reformist rather than revolutionary, they do not oppose political parties per se. Rather, they oppose the established parties (ibid. 546).

Thatcher did not oppose the conventional political cleavage left-right. Finding the enemy or separating those who vote for a movement from those who do not, is typical of politicians; it is simply how politics works. She did not as Muddes theory does see juxtaposition between the corrupt elite and the pure people. She created the division between society as a sum of individuals vs. socialists and other political enemies. Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise (Thatcher in Reed 2020). She produced the same level divide we (conservatives) and they (socialists) not, as Mudde suggests, looking to the corrupt elites-pure people scheme. Verdict: Although she emphasized the difference between opponents and supporters, Muddes Manichaean worldview is not consistent with her discourse. Thatcher did not see society divided into corrupt elite-pure people; since she was a politician, she just exalted herelectorate denigrating adversaries.

The concept of volont gnral is expressed by the formula Thatcher always used to justify her policies, to give herself legitimacy, to unify the country (nationalism, thin ideology), to emphasizing/dividing the electorate and supporters (Manichean division friends and foes, and not people-elite), but to present her actions as good for the people. With the concept of TINA There Is No Alternative (Reyes 2005) it is as if Thatcher considered herself as the guarantor of order and the popular will. Since there is no alternative to her, what she did was the product of general will. She assumed that the general will was to preserve the identity and the post-British empire, therefore for example not giving up the Falklands was imperative. Yet we also fought alone for we fought for our people and for our own sovereign territory (Thatcher 1982); our people means the Brits who, according to her, expected the government to be though on Argentina, to protect the great British nations unity and safety.

Thatcher was able to couple nationalism with cleavage-making within the society/electorate, but as PM she wanted to unite the Brits interpreting and emphasizing their general will: a safe, prosperous and great country was in the peoples interest. Thatcher (1980) interprets the will of the people: Decent people do want to do a proper job at work, not to be restrained or intimidated [] They believe that honesty should be respected, not derided. They see crime and violence as a threat [] They want to be allowed to bring up their children in these beliefs. Speaking of they, she makes herself as a guarantor of the will of the people. Our aim is to let people feel that they count for more and more. If we cannot trust the deepest instincts of our people, we should not be in politics at all (ibid.); trust the instincts of the people is the typical assumption related to the (populist) general will of the crowd. The concept of the general will is also visible when speaks of a majority of the population or a majority of the electorate.

A party is about adding up those special interests and making certain that the views of the whole majority, the majority of taxpayers, the majority of consumers, the majority of people in this country on law on order [] So always [] in my policies, we have [] to look at the broad majority interests of the great mass of British people (Thatcher 1984). It is Muddes will of the people that Thatcher is referring to, to justify her political action. At the end of her political career, Thatcher (1990) said: We have given power back to the people on an unprecedented scale. We have given back control to people over their own lives. She believed she has done what people hoped for, what the general public the people expected her to do. Verdict: The concept of the general will is coupled with nationalism. The Lady relied on the concept of voters majority and idealization of the average elector as justification for her policies as the general will of the public, justifying her practices based on the popular mandate and the citizens will.

Margaret Thatcher was a polarizing and controversial figure. Her policies, as well as her political speeches, her attitude, her posture, were loved and hated by the Brits. She is a protagonist of the British politics of the second part of the last century. She was accused of authoritarianism, more than populism: therefore, following Muddes theory main elements, the Lady can only be considered marginally populist. Intransigent and tough, she embraced conservatism (thick ideology) since she was a teenager (Campbell 2009); occasionally, during her political career, she coupled it with nationalism (thin ideology): from the Falklands to the negotiations with the EEC. Secondly, she divided the society and the electorate she cultivated from the one she attacked (typical from politicians), but not depicting Muddes category of the pure people vs. the corrupt elite.

Lastly, the will of the people she referred to, most of the time was the will of the majority (which voted for her as PM three times). Thatcher who was more complex than one may think (Fry 1998) is not conventionally acknowledged as populist; not even, though marginally, in Muddes terms. She was an ambiguous character in terms of Muddes formulation, but some elements of her discourse partially reflected his guidelines. The closest to the professors formulation is the concept of thin-thick ideology (Thatcher coupled conservatism with occasional nationalism, the thin ideology accompanying the thick one); then there is the concept of Manichean division of us vs. them (though, not in Muddes terms of good people vs. corrupt elite), conservatives vs. labourists (which, however, is typical for every politician).

Thatcher, a true individualist, did not attack the elite because of their being elite or defended the people a priori. Muddes theory can only be partially applied to Thatcher, who in general and historically is not (considered or) conventionally seen as populist. However, it is only by embracing a plurality of perspectives and theories [] that we can truly further our field of study (Mudde 2016, 16); people are complex, and their political activity or personality is hard to be encapsulated in rigorous scientific theories. Margaret Thatcher was not strictly populist in Muddes terminology; however, some elements only limitedly fitted her. She might be considered just a little bit populist, therefore surely ambiguous as a character.

*About the author: Amedeo Gasparini, class 1997, freelance journalist and researcher, managing Blackstar, amedeogasparini.com. MA in International Relations (Univerzita Karlova, Prague); BSc in Science of Communication (Universit della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano); [emailprotected]

References

Beaumont, Alex (2010) in: Hadley, Louisa; Ho, Elizabeth (ed.) (2010). Thatcher & After. Margaret Thatcher and Her Afterlife in Contemporary Culture. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Campbell, John (2009). The Iron Lady. Margaret Thatcher, from the grocers daughter to Prime Minister. Penguin Books: London.

Cannadine, David (2017). Margaret Thatcher. A Life and Legacy. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Cooper, James (2012). Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. A Very Political Special Relationship. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Fella, Stefano (2008) in: Albertazzi, Daniele; McDonnell, Duncan (ed.) (2008). Twenty-First Century Populism. The Spectre of Western European Democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fry, Geoffrey K. (1998). Parliament and morality: Thatcher, Powell and Populism. Contemporary British History, Vol. 12, Num. 1, pp. 139-147.

Hadley, Louisa; Ho, Elizabeth (ed.) (2010). Thatcher & After. Margaret Thatcher and Her Afterlife in Contemporary Culture. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Hall, Stuart (1988). The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis Of the Left. Verso: London.

Harvey, David (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Lewis, Russell (1975). Margaret Thatcher. A Personal and Political Biography. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London and Boston.

Mudde, Cas (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition. Vol. 39, Num. 4, pp. 541-563.

Mudde, Cas; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristbal (2013). Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary Populism: Comparing Contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition, Vol. 48, Num. 2, pp. 147174.

Mudde, Cas (2016). The Study of Populist Radical Right Parties: Towards a Fourth Wave. Available on: https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/publications/c-rex-working-paper-series/Cas%20Mudde:%20The%20Study%20of%20Populist%20Radical%20Right%20Parties.pdf.

Mudde, Cas; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristbal (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Mudde, Cas; Hanso, Hille (2018). Mudde: Populism Is Based on Morals. Available on: https://icds.ee/en/mudde-populism-is-based-on-morals/, 23.05.2018.

Reyes, Oscar (2005) in: Panizza, Francisco (ed.) (2005). Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. Verso: London.

Riddell, Peter (1985). The Thatcher Government. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rosaspina, Elisabetta (2020). Margaret Thatcher. Biografia della donna e della politica. Mondadori: Milan.

Thatcher, Margaret (1975) in: Lewis, Russell (1975). Margaret Thatcher. A Personal and Political Biography. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London and Boston.

Thatcher, Margaret (1980). The ladys not for turning. Available on: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/apr/30/conservatives.uk1.

Thatcher, Margaret (1982). Speech to Conservative Rally at Cheltenham. Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104989.

Thatcher, Margaret (1984). TV Interview for BBC (I like Mr Gorbachev. We can do business together). Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105592.

Thatcher, Margaret (1987). Interview for Womans Own (No such thing as society). Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689.

Thatcher, Margaret (1988). Speech to the College of Europe (The Bruges Speech). Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107332.

Thatcher, Margaret (1990). HC S: [Confidence in Her Majestys Government]. Available on: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108256.

Thatcher, Margaret (2020) in: Reed, Lawrence W. (2020). Margaret Thatcher on Socialism: 20 of Her Best Quotes. Available on: https://fee.org/articles/margaret-thatcher-on-socialism-20-of-her-best-quotes/, 08.02.2020.

Trimm, Ryan (2010) in: Hadley, Louisa; Ho, Elizabeth (ed.) (2010). Thatcher & After. Margaret Thatcher and Her Afterlife in Contemporary Culture. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

See the rest here:

The Lady Is Not For (A Populist) Turning: Thatcherian Ambiguities In Cas Mudde's Theory Analysis - Eurasia Review

When heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on any man, it will exercise his mind with suffering, subject his sinews and bones to hard work, [and] place obstacles in the paths of his deeds, so as to stimulate his mind, harden his nature, and improve wherever he is incompetent. Meng TzuThis is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one. Being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. George Bernard Shaw

As human beings, we collectively have acknowledged that our species was given the gift of higher consciousness, a far greater ambition than the kingdoms of the animals, vegetation, and everything else that exists in our natural world (including our ability to invent machines that would replace our hand labor, even our ways of thinking, which we now can legitimately refer to as our artificial world). Many of us may recall, from our first reading of Western philosophy in college, the miraculous philosophical mediation of Immanuel Kant, who somehow managed to propose a most plausible, generous synthesis, bringing together the effectual destruction of mind by Bishop Berkeley and the aggressively dismantled matter by David Hume when philosophy itself was in the midst of its ruin, when there was absolutely nothing left, hence leading to the known axiom, No matter, never mind.

Many of us know how hard the founding members of the UShowever imperfect they all were, namely John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washingtontried to bring a similar synthesis of what they had learned of the philosophy of continental rationalism from Europe and the philosophy of British empiricism. We can only imagine through their reading of the former, including Ren Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibnizall of whom regarded reason as a fundamental source and test of knowledgeon one hand, while digesting the latter, Thomas Hobbes, Bishop George Berkeley, and David Humeall of whom were invested in sensory experience being the primary basis of knowledgethey were able to wisely create a constitution thatseparated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.In other words, however much friction arose, as the so-called Trumpian America of our present day resembles Jacksonian America of the 1830s, democracy is both extremely fragile and extremely resilient. For it has at times fallen into the hands of ambitious autocrats who take advantage of the vulnerability among frustrated citizens, whose livelihoods were taken away by technological machines or bureaucratic machines. Yet, every time the four-year term for each president (who was given the opportunity to advance his political agenda) is fulfilled, if he succeeds one more term is granted at the maximum. If he fails, we can be certain that the next president will surely advocate everything as the complete opposite. Our framersof theconstitution were conscious of the potential rise of tyrants, demagogue as they had observed in old Europe and elsewhere, and hence American democracy has its ownself-corrective mechanism, which thus far has been an effective tool, capable of rebuilding itself from its constant failure.

Since the collapse of communism and the Soviet Unionthe one common enemy that brought the two parties working together at least till 1991both parties have been complacent in economic neglect on domestic frontsputting into practicing the idea that money can buy any elections anywhere, and anytimewhile advancing the agenda of liberal hegemony in the rest of the world. We can all agree that this naive ambition has proven to have been a disastrous consequence, as not every nation would like to be assimilated into the US's idea of a melting pot. Even at the moment when our two parties inability to listen to one anotherNO MATTER, NEVER MIND, end of storycasts a dark cloud everywhere we turn in the suburbs, rural areas, and especially in the midwest (where Americans have truly felt they were abandoned for three decades now), we feel a great urgency to reapply that self-corrective mechanism among ourselves. We must reclaim the middle ground, the public sphere, communal spaces as a place where all voices can be expressed with civility without the fear of being stigmatized by political correctness and so on. How can we grow without being challenged? How can we grow without a belief, for belief itself needs to be defended as much as it needs to be questioned by ourselves and others. As John Stuart Mill once famously remarked on liberty, He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

The very idea of giving our fellow human beings labels, identifying them by some invented names, boxing them in some specific niches, is the most destructive thing we can do to ourselves. It not only makes us into machine-like conformists, but it takes away our chance to feel our own true suffering, for without suffering, there will be no growth and compassion for our fellow human beings. For every one of us is so specifically ourselves in our voices, our temperament, like an instrument that has a particular and unique sound. Shall we work together to create opportunities for us to bring each of our unique sounds to sing in unison, instead of surrendering to uniformity, from here onward throughout our city, and other cities in the US?

In solidarity, with love and courage, as ever,

Phong H. Bui

P.S. This issue is dedicated to the extraordinary lives and works of our two legendary friends, the artist Jennifer Bartlett (1941-2022) and the photographer Eric Boman (1946-2022) whose legacies have enriched the cultural firmament of our world. We send our deep condolences to Jennifers former two husbands, Ed Bartlett, Matthieu Carrire, her daughter Alice Carrire, and the extended family members, as well as Erics lifelong partner artist Peter Schlesinger, his friends and admirers, including Gabriela de Ferrari. We send our belated birthday greetings to our beloved friends, including Anselm Berrigan, Agnes Gund, Charles Schultz, Ysabel Pinyol Blasi, Augustus Duravcevic, Amanda Millet-Sorsa. Wed also like to send our huge congratulations to Jacob and Marine Ninaud Bromberg on the birth of their daughter Isadora Zazie Moon Bromberg. We would also like to send our deep gratitude to our Production Assistant Maia Siegel. Lastly, you all are invited to join us at the two opening receptions of our forthcomingSinging in Unison: Artists Need to Create On the Same Scale That Society Has the Capacity to Destroyexhibitions (see below):

Singing in Unison, Part FiveMiguel Abreu GallerySeptember 7, 202268 p.m.88 Eldridge StreetNew York, NY 10002

Singing in Unison, Part SevenIndustry City September 23, 2022900 3rd AvenueBrooklyn, NY 11232

View post:

Dear Friends and Readers, The Brooklyn Rail - Brooklyn Rail

From September 2, 2020, I am a Christian. Here is what I believe about abortion.

Subsidiarity, mofos.

I want to talk about abortion with my fellow white evangelical Christians.

More specifically, I am addressing those evangelicals who have not sworn their full allegiance to Donald Trump. We might refer to this group as the 19 percent meaning the minority of white evangelicals who did not vote to elect Trump in 2016, but I am hopeful that the share of those willing to read or to listen here will be somewhat larger than that.

We might describe my intended audience here as a spectrum ranging from Michael Wear to Russell Moore, which is to say those of my fellow American evangelical Christians who are Trump-resistant or at least somewhat Trump-reluctant. Some of you are emphatically opposed to Trump while others may be ruefully supportive of him due primarily to his support for judges and policies more likely to end legal abortion.

Wherever you fall on that spectrum, you and Idisagree on the meaning and the morality of abortion.This post is not an exercise in persuasion or in condemnation. Nor does it involve the suggestion of any sort of compromise or middle ground or third way. All I want to do here is to explain, as simply and clearly as I can, what it is that I believe about abortion and what the political implications of that are for me.

The difference between what I believe and what you believe is, in some ways, a lot smaller than you might imagine. The implications of that difference expand outward, producing very different responsibilities and obligations for the law, for citizens, and for all of civil society including the church.

Here is that difference: You believe that full human personhood begins at the moment of conception, which is to say that a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst, a zygote possesses an equal moral standing to that of any child or adult. To end a pregnancy, therefore, is to take a human life an act indistinct from taking the life of any other child or adult.

I do not believe that. I make a distinction between the potential human personhood of a fetus/embryo/blastocyst/zygote and the actual human personhood of actual infants, children, and adults. I believe that potential human personhood has great value and great moral significance, but not as great as that of any and every actual human person. Abortion is a serious and significant matter, but it is not at all like murder.

The prolific evangelical apologetics writer Norman Geisler put it this way:

The one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder. Murder is a man-initiated activity of taking anactualhuman life. Artificial abortion is a humanly initiated process which results in the taking of apotentialhuman life. Such abortion is not murder, because the embryo is not fully human it is an undeveloped person.

That distinction, which Geisler argued was derived from biblical teaching and biblical prooftexts, led him to conclude that abortion was justified and even obligated in some cases:

When it is a clear-cut case of either taking the life of the unborn baby or letting the mother die, then abortion is called for. Anactuallife (the mother) is of more intrinsic value than apotentiallife (the unborn). The mother is a fully developed human; the baby is an undeveloped human. And an actually developed human is better than one which has the potential for full humanity but has not yet developed.Beingfully human is a higher value than the mere possibility ofbecomingfully human. For whatishas more value than whatmaybe.

Birth is not morally necessitated without consent. No woman should be forced to carry a child if she did not consent to intercourse. A violent intrusion into a womans womb does not bring with it a moral birthright for the embryo. The mother has a right to refuse that her body be used as an object of sexual intrusion. The violation of her honor and personhood was enough evil without compounding her plight by forcing an unwanted child on her besides. the right of the potential life (the embryo) is overshadowed by the right of the actual life of the mother. The rights to life, health, and self-determination i.e.,the rights to personhood of the fully human mother take precedence over that of the potentially human embryo.

The crucial point here is that final sentence, so let me repeat it: The rights to life, health, and self-determination i.e.,the rights to personhood of the fully human mother take precedence over that of the potentially human embryo.

Please note what this does not say or mean or imply or entail: It does not mean that the potentially human embryo has no rights, or no value, or no meaning, or no significance, or no dignity. To regard the potentially human embryo as meaningless or worthless would be wrong wrong both in the sense of immoral and in the sense of inaccurate.

How, then, ought we to account for and to honor the moral claims and moral value of the potential personhood of the unborn? How do we, as you all often say, protectthe unborn?

The problem with that question is the word we. Who is we?

That is always an essential question in Christian ethical teaching and Christian political thought: Who is we? And the way that Christians, for centuries, have tried to answer that question to clarify and differentiate all of the potential meanings of we fall under the heading of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is both a prudential principle and an ethical one. To violate or to reject subsidiarity, then, is both immoral and ineffective. Subsidiarity clarifies the varied and various roles that different people, different actors, different institutions and agencies have the varied and various responsibilities and obligations we all share in different and differing capacities. It describes what the epistle calls the inescapable network of mutuality that binds us all together directly and indirectly. Our various places and roles in that network shape our various responsibilities and duties to one another. To abdicate the responsibilities that are rightly ours, or to usurp the responsibilities that are not rightly ours, is both imprudent and immoral.

Subsidiarity teaches that those closest to a given situation have the greatest responsibility for that situation. Every other actor and agency in the network of mutuality also bears responsibility, but their indirect responsibility takes the shape of supporting those closest, who hold the primary and most direct responsibility.

I believe in subsidiarity. It seems clear to me that the primary responsibility for protecting the unborn is given to those whose bodies are literally transforming for that very purpose, which is to say with the actual human persons, the women* whose bodies are carrying and have carried every potential human person who has ever later been born. They are the most direct actors here, exponentially closer and more responsible than anyone else, and the responsibility and obligation of everyone else is to ensure they have all the moral and material support they require to fulfill that role.

I trust those women. I trust them more than any indirectly responsible actor who would trample on their subsidiary obligations by trying to usurp the responsibilities entrusted to those women by nature and natures God.

Will 100% of those women make 100% of the best choices 100% of the time? Of course not. They are, like all of us, human, and no human or group of humans is ever always capable of always making only the very best choices. But their humanity is all the more reason to affirm their agency and dignity to choose, not a license to strip them of that humanity by stripping them of their responsibility, dignity, agency, and freedom.

It is not my job not my ethical duty nor my capacity to usurp their primacy here. Not as their neighbor, not as their relative, not as their congressional representative or as their pastor or as their president or as their appellate-court judge. Every other actor, agency, institution, civil society organization, magistrate, and pastordoeshave anindirectrole to play the role of supporting these women to make the best choices and to have the best choices available to them.

What does that mean in practical terms? It means, for most of us, working to create a context for their choices in which they are never constrained by desperation or duress, by the market-worshipping coercion of penury, by fear or want or threat. It means working to establish a context in which financial support, vocational opportunity, human potential, human thriving and human dignity are not contingent or conditional or inconstant. It means creating a context which is hospitable to welcoming new life, and therefore a context in which the choice of hospitality is possible and promising. (If I were to choose a text for a sermon on the politics of abortion, it would be the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath.)

Sometimes, when I describe this role and this obligation, those who wish only to deny subsidiarity by a top-down decree criminalizing all abortion will accuse me of just trying to change the subject. But thisisthe subject. Subsidiarity teaches me that what is best for the unborn will be what is best for their mothers. The only way to protect the unborn is by protecting those carrying them protecting their health, dignity, wellbeing, financial security, agency, and freedom.

My uncle was an obstetrician in the 1960s. He was hired to reform a regional hospital in central Pennsylvania that was struggling with one of the worst infant mortality rates in the state. He took the job only on the condition that he could, instead, address the crisis that hospital hadnt recognized that it also had one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the nation. Some thought that he, too, was trying to change the subject, but he insisted that if they took better care of those mothers, the infant mortality problem would also be resolved. And it was.

If we want to protect the unborn then we must trust those entrusted with that duty. Erasing or outlawing their central role, their humanity, and their agency is both imprudent and immoral. We for any given value of we need to center them, support them, and provide for them a larger context in which they are best able and equipped to do what is best for themselves and for those potential and actual human persons in their care.

This is what I believe. This is my abortion politics. The sectarian nuance and the detailed working out of this may vary somewhat, but this is, in broad terms, what tens of millions of other American Christians who are also Democratic voters also believe.

Again, I am not telling you this in an effort to persuade or to convince. I have done that elsewhere and will do it again, but thats not what this post is about. I am not here attempting to create any compromise or debate and would not welcome either one. (Although Im sure the DEBATEME!-boi reply guys will still show up in comments, because fish gotta swim.)

I am telling you this only because I think it is something you should know. What you decide to do with that knowledge, what you feel youreallowedto do with that knowledge, I leave up to you.

* Mostly women, but not only women. That needs to be said here, for accuracys sake and not for the sake of what many of my fellow evangelicals might dismiss as political correctness.

See more here:

9/2 Flashback: On abortion | Fred Clark - Patheos

Lars von Triers The Kingdom Exodus warrants comparison with David Lynchs Twin Peaks: The Return for multiple parallels between the two: Both are peak prestige TV with indelible auteurist hallmarks, returning for their third seasons after a quarter-century hiatus. Both invoke the supernatural, concoct elaborate lore and boast captivated cult-like followings.

Though the Danish Kingdom is of course much lesser known, its first two seasons did make enough of a cultural impact through international theatrical runs to spawn a Stephen Kingcreated American remake, Kingdom Hospital.

Kingdom Exodus, making its world premiere at the 2022 Venice Film Festival, gets much more meta. In the cold open, Karen (Bodil Jrgensen) watches von Triers signoff from the previous seasons finale on TV. Frustrated by the series loose ends, she heads to bed and affixes restraints to herself to prevent sleepwalking. She experiences a nightmare, rises, unties herself, hops into a cab inexplicably waiting outside her house, and heads to Copenhagens infamous Rigshospitalet, the Kingdom Hospital.

Also Read:Lars von Trier Is Making a Third and Final Season of 90s Series The Kingdom (Video)

The imagery is pristine and dreamlike to this point, something straight out of Melancholia. As soon as Karen steps inside the hospital, though, the visuals immediately deteriorate to the washed-out aesthetics of the previous seasons. She inquires about Mrs. Drusse (Kirsten Rolffes) and Little Brother (Udo Kier) with a security guard, who rants that the bloody TV show by blundering fool Trier has damaged the hospital irreparably. Later Karen encounters hospital orderly Bulder (Nicolas Bro), who pulls some strings in getting her admitted so she can continue to investigate.

While the series central battle between good and evil rages on, so does its age-old rivalry between the Danes and the Swedes, with the arrival of Swedish neurosurgeon Halfmer (Mikael Persbrandt), son of Helmer (Ernst-Hugo Jregrd) from previous seasons. Upon landing on the rooftop helicopter pad, Halfmer orders the ground crew to take me to your leader like some alien. He learns the hard way about the staffs many bizarre and degrading rituals and discovers a support group for Swedish expats working there.

Story continues

Director of photography Manuel Alberto Claro (a von Trier regular) and editors Jacob Schulsinger (Force Majeure), My Thordal (A Taste of Hunger) and Olivier Bugge Coutt (The Worst Person in the World) have faithfully maintained the series look and feel despite not having worked on previous seasons. Kingdom Exodus more overtly evokes mockumentary because of its self-reference. While previous seasons also employed handheld camera, swipe pans, rapid zooms and abrupt cuts, the mustard-hued cinematography made everything look so highly stylized that it might have muddled the series mockumentary aspirations.

Also Read:Lars von Trier Diagnosed With Parkinsons Disease

The meta-ness seems characteristic of the narcissism that has taken over von Triers oeuvre since the last season. Camilla (Solbjrg Hjfeldt), a returning character, tells Karen, the director forced us to say all his stupid lines.A guided tour of the hospital makes a show of von Triers private room. The filmmaker also appears as none other than the devil himself. He doesnt sign off during the credits as with the previous seasons, though, presumably because of his recently disclosed Parkinsons diagnosis.

While often self-deprecating to the point of good-humored self-flagellation, von Trier at times also appears unrepentantly defensive. Much like his previous feature, The House That Jack Built, parts of Kingdom Exodus seem to indirectly address the criticisms and allegations lodged against him over the years the cinematic equivalent of subtweeting, if you will. Halfmer emails colleague Anna (Tuva Novotny) a consent form for permission to pat her backside, which prompts her to contact the resident Swedish lawyer (Alexander Skarsgrd, whose father, Stellan, appeared last season as Helmers attorney), who has set up shop in a restroom. Halfmers ambiguous relationship with Anna comes off like some sort of thinly-veiled response to Bjrks accusing von Trier of sexual harassment on the set of Dancer in the Dark.

The director also exhibits disdain for political correctness in what he sees as its hypocrisy and lack of practicality. Halfmer outs himself as a bigot upon his arrival at Rigshospitalet, freely dropping offensive epithets, though he is quick to criticize the lack of diversity among the staff and adamantly insists on wide implementation of gender-neutral pronouns. The latter leads to brain surgery being performed on the wrong patient in a scene that recalls Ridley Scotts Hannibal, only less explicit.

Also Read:The House That Jack Built Theatrical Cut Film Review: Lars von Triers Serial Killer Sagas a Pointless Bore

Theres nothing this season nearly as disturbing or memorable as the live birth of Little Brother. The most unhinged scenes involve hothead Naver (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) twice dislodging his own eyeball from its socket. Special effects are serviceable, but not enough to make up for some of the plot holes and logical flaws. Although the season promises answers, it predictably opens another can of worms.

Much like Twin Peaks: The Return, Kingdom Exodus expands on its lore, universe, and dimensions even further. Fear of the unknown is always dependable in this genre, and Rigshospitalet remains fertile ground ripe for exploration, even if promotional materials indicate this is the final season. Perhaps as an intentional nod at Twin Peaks, Kingdom Exodus also utilizes the doppelgnger trope. Just like those from the Black Lodge, doppelgngers in Rigshospitalet are evil and murderous.

The Kingdom Exodus is definitely a worthy entry in an iconic series, and fans of the show and of von Trier will most certainly find it entertaining and well worth the quarter-century wait. It never resonates with poignancy like Twin Peaks: The Return in its contemplation of the passage of time, though. Its at a slight disadvantage in that regard because it doesnt have one lone Agent Cooper to serve as its heart and soul. Now that von Trier himself is facing illness and mortality, perhaps it will prompt the auteur to dig even deeper to deliver his best work yet.

The Kingdom Exodus will stream on Mubi this fall.

View original post here:

The Kingdom Exodus Review: Lars von Trier Goes Full Meta With the Return of His Creepy Hospital Drama - Yahoo Entertainment

NR|1h 53min|Documentary, Biography |30 August 2022 (USA)

The third cousin (once removed) of the Fiennes acting family (Ralph, Joseph, and three others), Sir Ranulph Fiennes (full name: Ranulph Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes) has lived a life that would make most overachievers blush and cause others to reconsider their own bucket lists.

To wit:

He was the first person to circumnavigate the globe, not (the relatively easier) east to west, but north to south, while crossing both polar ice caps in the process.

He, with Mike Stroud, a physician who accompanied him in a vehicle for safety and possible medical reasons, were the first to cross the entire continent of Antarctica and did so over the course of a mere 92 days.

At the age of 65, he climbed Mount Everest, becoming the oldest British person to ever do so.

At the age of 59, he ran seven marathonsin seven consecutive dayson seven continents.

He served eight years in the SAS (Special Air Service), a covert branch of the British Army, as a demolitions expert, and in 1968 helped defeat a Yemeni communist insurgence in Oman.

Not quite as impressive: He was on the short list to replace Sean Connery as James Bond and has written 24 fiction and nonfiction books.

Every one of these accomplishments is worthy of its own stand-alone feature, and it is to the credit of director Matthew Dyas that the 113-minute-long documentary Explorer goes by in a flash. Theres not an ounce of fat in the entire film. Dyas, along with editors Ben Stark and Charlie Hawryliw, doesnt include a single unneeded frame.

Having previously collaborated with Fiennes on the overlooked 2019 docuseries Fiennes: Return to the Nile, Dyas has what appears to be unlimited access to his subject. Although the bulk (about 70 percent) of the film is culled from the usual archival footage, stills, newsreels, and the like, the remainder is recently shot and most of it is just Fiennes discussing, while regularly downplaying, his many astonishing accomplishments.

Born in 1944 four months after his namesake father was killed in World War II, Fiennes, his three older sisters, and their mother relocated to South Africa to live with his grandmother, described here as difficult. He admits, with a certain wistful air, that he was spoiled by the females in his early life, something that could turn many men into sissies, but it had the exact opposite effect on him.

A decade later, when he returned to England at the age of 12, Fiennes met Virginia Ginny Pepper, whom he would eventually marry in 1970. Theirs was a unique relationship. It was a rarity, even back then, for childhood sweethearts to wed. And not only did they remain together until her death from cancer in 2004, but she was his professional partner as well.

It was she who managed the logistics of the three year-long global treks, and Fiennes lavishes relentless praise upon her, stating that the mission could not have succeeded without Ginny at the helm while operating out of their home base. Fiennes makes it clear: Ginny wasnt a woman behind the man, but rather side-by-side the man as a team. Watching them go from preteens to senior citizens is nothing short of awe-inspiring.

A further example of the impeccable character and modest grace of Fiennes takes place with the discussion of his baronetcy. Largely a ceremonial and useless title bestowed by the Crown, it is hereditary, and upon his birth, Fiennes became the 3rd Baronet of Banbury, thus making him a knight.

Fiennes bristles at being referred to as sir, claiming that being rewarded for inheriting a title or award for simply being born is meaningless, and that the only people who should receive such honors should do so by earning it with merit.

Fiennes was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1993 for human endeavor and for charitable services. His various expeditions also raised 14 million pounds ($16,440,000) for various charities up to that point and, since then, another 5 million pounds ($5,870,000).

What is most surprising about Fiennes was in hearing his reasons for becoming an explorer in the first place. Far too frequently, when questioned why they climb mountains or engage in equally dangerous activities, most adventurers and thrill-seekers respond with the tired and clichd because its there.

Although born a royal, Fiennes didnt enter the world wealthy. He didnt participate in these many events out of curiosity or some sort of inner drive, but simply for revenue. It was his chosen profession. He wasnt an eccentric millionaire wanting to prove this, that, or the other. He did it to make ends meet.

For instance, during the four-year buildup to the around the world expedition, Fiennes and Ginny amassed $27 million from close to 650 sponsors, mostly companies that manufacture goods and equipment he would use during his trip. Its not all that different from the practice of businesses that pay race car drivers to wear logo patches on their hats and jumpsuits and slap decals on their vehicles.

Late in the film, Fiennes presents questions that many of us ask ourselves daily (if not more frequently) regarding the mounting political correctness verbiage that has infested our vernacular. He queries his detractors who accuse him of white privilege, and the exact meaning and intent of being woke.

The only privilege Fiennes had was being born with great intellect, superior athletic skills, and an uncanny ability to conquer the elements. He is also thoroughly lacking vanity or hubris.

You know that guy: the salt-and-pepper-haired dude hawking Dos Equis beer on TV, online, and in thousands of subsequent memes? The one who is touted as being The Most Interesting Man in the World? He cant hold a candle to Ranulph Fiennes.

ExplorerDocumentaryDirector: Matthew DyasRunning Time: 1 hour, 53 minutesNot RatedRelease Date: Aug. 30, 2022Rating: 5 out of 5

Excerpt from:

Film Review: 'Explorer': The Amazing Life Story of Author and Renowned Overachiever Ranulph Fiennes - The Epoch Times