After I finished Dombey and Son a few weeks ago I, though bogged down in the cunning, jealous quarrels of Strawberry Panic (see the post from the 30th of last month, below), I began Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Finding that "great and challenging novel based on a supreme belief in the rights of the individual" awkward and somewhat anti-inspiring, due to its fidelity to a confused and inorganic philosophy, I turned to an exposition of a more desirable and less facetious ideal. I began The Conservative Foundations of the Liberal Order: Defending Democracy Against Its Modern Enemies and Immoderate Friends by Daniel J. Mahoney, chair of Political Science at Assumption College, intellectual mentor, and good friend.

The Conservative Foundations is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a traditional conservative leaning academic publisher, and may be purchased directly from their website; lest lay readers fear that a conservative academic press publishes only a staid run of books, as this sign from the site shows, they too know how to have a good time. The book covers the thought of a slightly heterogeneous variety of thinkers who have best explained how our liberal democratic order presupposes a variety of non-democratic inheritances--the nation, religious piety, the integrity of the family, and the noble love of freedom--necessary to prevent the depoliticization of the West and a descent into nihilism, and to preserve respect for the human person. There are, in Professor Mahoney, many principles which lead him to his views, but in this work he generally argues from a conservative liberal perspective (the liberal order is best served by conservative means). A testy traditionalist such as our Pundit will find points of strong agreement and steadfast disagreement on almost every page.

Mahoney begins the work with a striking quote from philosopher Michael Polanyi. In part it reads,

Tom Paine could proclaim the right of each generation to determine its institutions anew, since the range of his demands was in fact very modest. He unquestionably accepted the continuity of culture and of the order of private property as the framework of self-determination. (vii)

Not to mention the obstacles to the "right of each generation to determine its institutons anew," if culture is seen as a social construct composed of unattached individuals, to whom all overbearing "institutions" are seen as illegitimate oppressors! This is the case with the anarchists Mahoney derides later. Even from this point, though, one wonders whether the likes of Paine and his radical polemic are worth preserving with such contrary means. Indeed, the fortuitous and unnecessary nature of the circumstances of the American founding is a major theme in The Conservative Foundations. Describing the thought of Orestes Brownson in his The American Republic, he observes,

the founders' practical achievement was in decisive respects better than their theory. On the theoretical plane, they endorsed social-contract theory, the conceit that the political community is an artificial construct of free and equal individuals who voluntarily depart what Locke called the 'inconveniences' of the 'state of nature.' However, they were not fully aware of all the metapolitical implications of this doctrine. As Tocqueville appreciated, it could be applied to every aspect of human life and even to the governance of the cosmos itself. But as wise and prudent statesmen the founders respected America's unwritten or 'providential' constitution, the habits and mores of the American people so eloquently described by John Jay in Federalist 2, as well as the 'territorial' character of American democracy. (5-6)

In other words, the Americans are a nation in the original sense, but in the tradition of their founders can recognize themselves as such only by conceit. From this, the astute reader will note that by saying that this theory, endorsed in the Declaration of Independence, can be applied "even to the governance of the cosmos itself," Mahoney acknowledges that classical liberalism is a precursor of the nihilizing deconstructionism he rightly ridicules when he discusses Raymond Aron and May 1968. He sees the founders' prudence as an example to be followed, and is hopeful that statesmen of moderation can continue to work in their tradition. Against this, I can only point to a quotation, in which Aron works toward an interpretation of Edmund Burke's writings on the Revolution in France:

They can be read as definitive condemnations of political rationalism--or of ideological fanaticism. (9)

I answer that political rationalism is ideological fanaticism. Political communities are essentially organic, not rational; reason can touch on the goods of the political order, but only imperfectly. Insistence on rational politics encourages fanaticism, or where zeal is lacking, deferential mediocrity, as in the spectacle of Christian politicians enacting secularism to save democracy from the influence of the influence of religion, sometimes in earnest. Therefore, it would seem that advocates of moderation should reject principles that are more likely to discourage prudence than be subject to it. Mahoney and I recognize the same facts and tendencies--Max Weber would be proud--but reach different conclusions as to what must be done. Yet we do agree when he criticizes efforts by the likes of Jacques Maritain and the last Roman Pontiff to "baptize" democracy for Christianity (46-47), preferring "a Christian religion faithful to its own wisdom" (49).

He praises Churchill and de Gaulle as the finest statesmen of the 20th Century; while I am not prepared to offer a definitive alternative duo, I do contest, for example, the greatness of any Prime Minister who "suggests 'we must take the loss with the gain. On the uplands there are no fine peaks," or in Mahoney's language "We must resign ourselves, then, for the most part to a kind of decent mediocrity" (61), and question whether de Gaulle "saved his beloved France... from disgrace" in 1958 (65). On the other hand, he follows the bothersome practice of begrudging violent fanatics these same virtues, especially courage, which they obviously exemplify, whether we like it or not. (Currently Anders Behring Breivik is subject to this same light dismissal.) His understanding of the totalitarian phenomenon is hardly to be surpassed; he emphasizes the similarities of communism and national socialism, and the similar conditions in which they arose, though I think it might have been of interest to discuss how the one was simply an intensification of certain liberal tendencies, while the other offered an illiberal alternative ideology.

Perhaps the best, and maybe the most relevant chapter, is on May 1968, and Raymond Aron's dissention from the foolishness of the '68. This passage caught my interest:

The partisans of 1968 were mesmerized by the vision of direct democracy in an industrial society and appealed to "participation" ("autogestion") as the only legitimate governing principle within every educational, social, economic, and political institution. Authority as such was identified with domination and repression. (97)

Cute how college students thought the ecomony et al could be run by plebiscite. Unfortunately this "antinomian" ideology, whose slogans included "Demand the impossible," "It is forbidden to forbid," and "Take your desires for realities," is the philosophy of the legion "immoderate friends" of the title. "[T]he thought of '68," he paraphrases Roger Scruton, "became the official philosophy of the humanities in universities throughout the world," (99). Given the earlier analysis of democracy's incongruity with Christian piety, the natural order, and political prudence, I would take this development as evidence that democratic zeal is unlikely to suffer moderation, and that informed conservatives ought to reject intellectual accomodation to the liberal order. To cite Alain Besançon by way of Mahoney, "If the American and French revolutions installed democracy in the political realm, ' '68 has extended the field of democracy to the whole of the social order," or alternatively, "the revolution is not finished," (101). No, it is not! I have a hunch that the tweeting mobs letting it all hang out in Syria and Egypt, the rebels in Libya united around nothing except anti-authoritarianism, and the hapless NEETs lately making a scene in Spain's M-15 protests, are the harbinger of an attempt to actually govern by Blackberry. Revolution: It's the only NEET thing to do! (In other news, NEETs aren't all that bad; a new anime, Kamisama no Memo-chou, features a colorful agency of NEET detectives). As I see it, Professor Mahoney does have a noble vision, and one likely to appeal to conservatives, if not unhardened liberals. However, what he desires amounts to, to negate the usual saying, A Revolution That Does Not Devour Its Own Children. No, I do not believe that is likely, or desirable, or, for those who appreciate the goods of the soul and have a sense of distance, or who simply want the peace and loveliness of Christian order,* intellectually coherent.

There are also excellent sections presenting what I thought the most balanced and fair treatment of neoconservative foreign policy I have seen, as well as a great chapter on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, on whom Mahoney is an expert. The only thing I take issue with is one passage he takes right from Solzhenitsyn, so I must disagree with the pair of them.

Let us go back to the 1920s and 1930s. The best minds of Europe were full of admiration for communist totalitarianism. (133-134)

Sorry to be picayune, but this is, as they say, throwing a bone to the Left. Despite their prestige, it is doubtful whether it is possible for any Marxist to qualify as a "best mind," especially when actual great minds--I name Charles Maurras, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, G. K. Chesterton, Anthony Ludovici, and my personal favorite Julius Evola were as far as far can be from the ideology of the USSR, when they were not active in the other totalitarianism.

Buy the book. In the folkways of my native Northampton's street artists, I appeal, "Help starving conservative professors at occasionally hostile Catholic colleges!" For the self-interested and the money watchers, conservatives will appreciate Mahoney's great expression of the ideals of mainstream but genuine conservatism, liberals will bow in shame before his exposition of the vacuity of their lofty but actually quite base ideals, and traditionalists will learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of the conservative liberalism from which they partially dissent.

*Mahoney, whom everyone agrees bears a remarkable resemblance to Patrick Cox of Tax Masters, is a Catholic gentleman, who may be seen to cross himself in class once or so a semester, and who is wont to lambaste unnamed, residual communist professors in certain departments at the College, for their anti-Christ obsessions and many other errors.

Oh, the proper uses of an iPad! I shall explain why below.

I recognize quality. For that reason, the wholly serious, political paragraphs of this post needn't be too long. While I would have to answer the misleading question asked of Republicans on television, "Are you satisfied with the Republican field of presidential candidates?", with a yes, that is because Ron Paul, gray about the brow but fresh as ever, is running again. Should Paul outrage me further (as when he voted to eliminate Don't Ask Don't Tell), Rick Santorum, hardly less an intellect with that thoughtful, ISI-published volume It Takes a Family in his resume, and his political foresight, is a ready neoconservative alternate (though his hawkish attitude toward Libya turns me off). The problem, of course, is the man leading the field: Mitt Romney. While he may have the best chance of defeating President Obama, his refusal to sign a pro-life pledge from the Susan B. Anthony list (Paul and Santorum signed), his lousy record on natural marriage and other social issues (see especially here), and, of course, Romney Care, my expectations for a President Romney are rather unspectacular.

Indeed! The G.O.P., other than being united against Obama, have little more under their banner this year than being, as one liberal whom I cannot recall put it, an anti-tax Taliban--hence, unless there should be a Ron Paul miracle, I find that the unofficial 2012 Republican theme song is--what else?--Ray Stevens's If 10% Is Good Enough For Jesus, a tune which did so much for the advertising aesthetic of Glenn Beck's much-missed-by-me program. Dr. No, on the other hand, earns the hip HOME MADE Kazoku's FREEDOM (full version), the 17th ending theme of Naruto Shippuden, featuring such lyrics as "Tell Me Tell Me Who's The Ruler", "Stand Up!! Wake Up!! Reach Out For Liberty," "Oh Yes We Are The Dreamer," and "Fight For Your FREEDOM!!" well befitting the libertarian die-hard. Last time around, Obama's unofficial theme song was this; now that Beck so helpfully informed us about all his commie friends, associates, and diverse "czars"--for a change, how about this?

With the way I always end up snidely sidewinding those ideas and people anointed with the Will of the People, one might get the impression that I do what I do simply for the sake of contrarianism and, like many politicians, follow the polls, but so that I might enjoy opposing the vox populi rather than flow with it. Nay, I suspect the same myself some times! Except, every once in a while, something like this happens.

I spoke of quality. Since anime series are seasonal, my senses have been keened for quality as I've inspected the crop of summer 2011 animes. For the first few days, there were some fun new series I shall watch to the end--the chatty, silly high school girls' anime YuruYuri, the pastel-haired
little girls' basketball team of Ro-Kyu-Bu!, the serious-themed God-in-their-names animes Kamisama Dolls and Kamisama no Memo-chu (meaning "God('s) Dolls" and "God's Note Pad"), and even the adorable Ikoku Meiro no Croisee, featuring a young Japanese hirl who lives as a servant to an iron signmaker in late 19th Century France--but nothing that said eureka. Then, yesterday, I found it:

Kaitō Tenshi Twin Angel - Kyun Kyun Tokimeki Paradise!!

In English, the series is entered as Twin Angel: Twinkle Paradise, an accurate rendering of the cotton candy warm feeling of this anime. Just check out the opening! Or the ending, endearingly named Shining☆Star (featuring chibis)! What can I say?! I'll leave that up to Anime44, where you can watch the first episode, and all the rest when they come out!

Haruka Minazuki and Aoi Kannazuki are freshman high school students and best friends. During the day they help with school activities but at night they thwart enemies like Black Auction and other villains as Red Angel and Blue Angel, the Twin Angel team.

Best friends is an understatement. Unlike the heroines of every other girls' school or moe anime I have ever seen, Haruka and Aoi are not poured into antagonistic molds, simply for the sake of playing jokes off each other. Rather, the writers permit their pure, wholesome friendship to blossom into a paragon of sisterly affection, without amusing but distracting yuri jokes. To but watch them smile and hold hands! The villains are good too, targeting seven treasures that are part of the "Holy Grail", and which, if they are stolen, will cause unhappiness. That is essentially what the sub I saw said. Not the usual world hanging in the balance, but why else, in real life, is it ever bad if a treasure is stolen, other than that it will cause unhappiness? And oh, I just loved Misty Knight, Twin Angel's shameless and undisguised copy of Sailor Moon's Tuxedo Mask! He even throws white roses! For parents and others concerned about appropriateness, there is the usual tearing of clothes in the henshins (transformation sequences, a staple of magical girl animes), and Aoi's chest is sometimes shown to bounce, but for anime standards the show is rather tame and lacks sexual jokes.

The moe era of anime having reached its acme, I wondered how Twin Angel came to be. Unlike most animes, so I found, Twin Angel, which was preceded by an OVA of the same name, was not based on a manga, or a light novel. Nor is it an original anime: it is based on a pachinko machine! Must have been one good arcade game! See more pictures, a video, and some of the following merchandise here. Perfectly kawaii, and lacking any bewildering plot line, this Japanese gambling device inspired an anime true to moe in every way, and free of the cynical emphasis on genre satire found in so many entertaining but lesser programs.

I thought critics would jump on Twin Angel's magnificence like I had, but it was not to be. ALL of the cretin reviewers on staff at the Anime News Network panned Twin Angel, the best giving it a 2/5, the worst of the bunch giving it a zero. The dilettantes complained of its unoriginality, whenever they weren't merely whining that it wasn't to their tastes. But as I read the infamous 0/5, the critic gave, as from God, the reason for its moe excellence into my hands; I'll also lift her review image for looks.

You know that show that non-anime fans vaguely imagine anime as being? The one always parodied by fictional anime-within-anime...? High-pitched, overly colorful, and usually mind-numbingly stupid? This is that show.

Well, of course not mind-numbingly stupid, but you know those pretenders to an intelligensia of the animated arts, who never let themselves have any fun? You get my drift. Every art form, every genre needs an archetype, and this is where the anime under discussion comes in. Looking forward to eleven more episodes (unless the naysayers succeed in cutting it short), I am proud to add Twin Angel Twinkle Paradise to my interests as listed on this blog!

*************

Correction: Despite the wording used by all the commentators I'd seen so far, Twin Angel is a slot machine, as in the image; perhaps it is often found in pachinko parlors. But just read this too-cute passage on the origin of the Twin Angels, from the English version of the anime's website!

In 2006 the Twin Angel girls Haruka and Aoi were created as slot machine characters - back then cute slot machine characters were not all that popular, but in no time the girls became popular with both slot machine fans and anime fans alike, redefining the genre of 'moe slot machines'.

Moe slot machines? Who knew?

Also: See my spirited praise for the show on this Crunchyroll thread (apparently, my enthusiasm makes me a troll).