ROCK’N’ROLL CONSERVATISM MAILBAG: Rob Dakin: I would define myself as an unattached believer in the truth of the gospel message, with strong Gnostic tendencies. I think that the material world is a fallen one, possibly “created” by some kind of demiurge, rather than the Ultimate One; that Jesus had little, if any regard, for things material; and that He came to show men how to overcome that death which is attachment to matter. That said, here I go, parachuting directly into the muck of the world:

1) Rock’n’Roll Conservatism: I am old enough to have been around for the entire history of rock music as popular entertainment. When I was a young boy, the most subversive music on AM radio was probably Hank Williams. Perry Como was huge. I remember very distinctly when Elvis first came upon the scene. In the art class at my grade school some of the girls used their crayons to draw brides, some drew horses, but the brightest ones began drawing Elvis. You can love rock’n’roll and be “conservative” at the same time, I suppose. But, to me, that is only to say that no person ever achieves total consistency. I believe that genuine rock’n’roll is subversive of conservative values in its essence. It is a distillation of adolescent angst arising from the rebellion against authority and resultant separation anxiety that is an unavoidable part of growing up, combined with the relentless horniness that gives rise to it all. Music that is anything other than that may SOUND like rock’n’roll, but it’s pure Parkay–not butter. I am sure you are well aware the that the very term “rock’n’roll” is a transparently descriptive blues euphemism for the sex act. In short, the horror with which the conservative communities of the mid-1950s greeting the advent of rock’n’roll was consistent with the values of that community and justified according to those values. It was also prophetic: rock’n’roll was the sound track of the sexual revolution, the drug culture, and the accompanying excesses of the 1960s.

2) School Vouchers: This is a bad idea, as just about anybody who, like me, has school-age children and does not live near a big urban center will tell you immediately. Moreover, I believe that the voucher movement is not given impetus by legitimate grassroots organization. Vouchers are being pushed by corporate interests, backed by Republican politicians: very much top-down. If you gave me a voucher for ten times the kind of amounts that I’ve heard proposed, I would not be able to use it to send my girls to any school other than the one they now attend, unless I put them in a boarding school somewhere–a thing I would never do. There are no private schools here. The public schools in the southeastern Ohio counties surrounding mine are almost all in deplorable condition, and there are no alternatives. If there were some mechanism by which alternative schools could be first funded, built (the physical plants of the schools around here are mostly not salvageable), equipped, and staffed (by whom? there is already a teacher shortage; the teachers who working are all unionized, etc.), and this done everywhere, simultaneously, so that nobody is deprived of the opportunity. If, if, if–then I’m with you.

Well, insofar as I don’t think there are any proposals on the table for a national voucher system, you needn’t worry. Places that have the resources (= private schools) to support voucher systems should implement them. Other places can see what has worked and what hasn’t, and decide whether vouchers fit their needs and capabilities. I suspect that the success of vouchers where they are tried will inspire lots of places that had previously thought such a system impossible. As for where this movement comes from, all I can say is that some of the strongest voucher supporters are, unsurprisingly, totally ordinary parents who want their kids to have a better education. Did inner-city parents originate the voucher idea? No–Milton Friedman did. Do many, many inner-city parents support his idea now? Yup.

Michael Yaeger, RNRC founding law student: Two […] specific comments. First, the title “rock n’ roll conservatism.” It’s obviously cool in that it gets at the point that we like pop culture, but to non-sympathetic (i.e., lefty) folk it would probably provoke dumb jokes along the “military intelligence” line. Oy. On the other hand, it’s a cool name and I certainly can’t think of anything better. Names such as “Modern Conservatives” (like modern orthodox), etc., are lame. Nothing else seems to get at how we don’t have a perfect moment in mind, that we’re not standing athwart history yelling “stop!” ; we’re saying that we can do better than we ever have, but only by using the wisdom of the past.

Second, I completely agree with your statement on the law–i.e., that, when possible, judges should not “make” law. There’s no better way to say it short of a three volume set on jurisprudence. I do wonder, though, if all those talk show commentators realize how complicated the whole thing is, and how hard it is not to make law. I guess this is a non-point for the Rock n’ Roll Manifesto. But in any event, sometimes the right doesn’t give the left enough credit on this stuff. We really had to change the Constitution to deal with economic and demographic changes–not as much as we did, but still. Paper money, the SEC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, and other parts of the administrative state seem to do more good than harm. And there are some benefits to not amending the Constitution too often, much less passing whole new Constitutions. Do the French, with their five official republics, have the same reverence for the law that is so common in America, land of at least three unofficial republics since 1789?