An American Odyssey
Reflecting on the Odyssey and America at 250
This July marks the semiquincentennial of American independence and the release of Christopher Nolan’s highly controversial adaptation of The Odyssey. Accordingly, I am simultaneously America-maxxing and Homer-maxxing (and so should you).
Musing on the Odyssey in Christianity Today
CT very kindly published my thoughts on Homer’s proto-gospel and flash review of past film adaptations and where they fell short. While there are some teethgnashers who are convinced that Christopher Nolan is going to flop with this movie, the real mob that is going to come for me over this are the devotees of the Coen Brothers’ O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), which I enjoyed and have rewatched many times but think only succeeds by subverting Homer at key points.
Is it fair of me to say that OBWAT rejects the epic mode by turning Ulysses into an anti-hero who is constantly yapping about the “tight spot” they’re in?
Or is it fairer to say that the Dapper Dan Man is constantly being pulled back into the epic mode against his will (including by the Devil himself)?
I also did a longer Twitter/X thread on Basil of Caesarea’s writings on Homer and Greek literature. That might get turned into an extensive reflection on Basil’s love of Homer and Augustine’s deep ambivalence towards Virgil later this fall.
Finally, whoever sent me a copy of Pat Deneen’s forthcoming book, American Odyssey: thank you! I was excited to read it, but left disappointed that it wasn’t more focused on Homer. I’m far from his most sympathetic reader, but maybe I would like his earlier Odyssey book better?
“If All Men Are Created Equal, That Is Final”
One of the best things you could read for America’s 250th is what Calvin Coolidge wrote for America’s 150th:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.
If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
While nothing I write could compare to that, if you want to read some more from me, I’ve got two recent pieces on America writ large that might be of interest.
The Great Cradle of Liberty — America 250 Reflection (Mere Orthodoxy)
If the apostle Paul could command the first Christians to honor Rome under the reign of Nero—the mad emperor who lit Christians on fire for candlelight in his courtyard and fed them to wild beasts—how much easier should it be for American Christians, who live in a nation built on unalienable rights, to sing “God bless America, land that I love… my home sweet home”?
Russell Kirk: Patron Saint of Populism’s Golden Age? (Civitas Outlook)
While Adams and his son John Quincy Adams stand near the zenith of American public virtue, Kirk reminds us that this was no guarantee of the moral and religious character of their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Henry and Brooks Adams may have been “the end-product of four generations of exceptional probity and remarkable intelligence,” but the family’s religious reputation had clearly withered on the vine; “losing their great-grandfather’s piety,” Kirk writes, “Henry and Brooks Adams lost all taste for life.”
Michael Lucchese’s excellent collection of Kirk, which I was reviewing for Civitas, is available from Lord Bezos’s website here.
The Tea Party Past and the Post-Trump Future
If you have made it this far, you are some kind of nut, and only a nut would be so brash as to attempt to read a 4,000 word essay on “how we got here” as conservatives and “where we’re going.”
So, recognizing you as someone who belongs in a certifiable institution, I offer you…
Contract with Conservatism (Civitas Outlook):
Republican voters did not abandon fusionism in 2016. On the contrary, they chose a champion who would finally implement it, even if it meant disregarding the GOP’s traditional deference to the media, legislative etiquette, and personnel rituals. As Palin declared in her January 2016 endorsement speech, Trump was “beholden to no one but we the people… perfectly positioned to let you make America great again” and to put an end to the “GOP majorities handing Obama a blank check to fund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood and illegal immigration.”
It was a wager on Trump that would come to be sealed with a contract.
If it makes you feel better, AEI’s Michael Strain is also a nut (albeit a very generous one).
Strain read the whole essay and even wrote an appreciative follow-up at National Review: “The reason their essay stood out to me is their focus on the importance of any conservative policy agenda delivering actual, tangible results in the lives of the American people.”
If you read it too, send me your thoughts, even if you disagreed, or I may never write a longform essay again… (and sorry, no, that is not a promise).
This Substack is just an intermittent update on things that involve me in some fashion; if you want to see some more of what the rest of my organization is up to, be sure to follow AAF Policy.
E.g., did you know that the Supreme Court cited my colleagues in four different instances this term? You might if you read the AAF Policy Substack!