I just caught the last couple of minutes of a cable-TV documentary about Playboy magazine, which featured a clip of Hugh Hefner opining about the huge cultural impact the magazine has had in its 50-plus years of existence. And it struck me as an illustration that, even in the realm of culture and ideas, it’s the supply side that makes the greatest difference. Two young men in the mid-1950s had vastly different ideas of what the American audience really wanted and needed, and ventured forth to create magazines that reflected these views. Hugh Hefner, convinced that America was too sexually conservative and really needed to let its hair down, founded Playboy in 1953. Bill Buckley, convinced that America was too politically liberal and needed to restore its older, small-r republican virtues that had been eroded in the Progressive and New Deal eras, founded National Review in 1955.
Now, think about how these ventures must have appeared at the time. Playboy was an outrage to conventional pieties about sexuality. National Review was an outrage to conventional pieties about politics. How much money would you have bet, at the time, that either one would survive for very long? “A dirty magazine? Won’t people be embarrassed to buy it?” “A magazine that’s to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon? Are there that many real fringies out there?” But the supply side takes a chance. And, quite amazingly, both ventures succeeded beyond imagining. Playboy bore fruit in the Sexual Revolution, which may already have reached its high point but shows little sign of receding. And from National Review emerged Reaganism, and conservatism as the broadly dominant system of political thought in recent years.
An extraordinarily prescient person, writing in the mid-1950s, might have predicted one of these triumphs. But anyone who predicted that both of the magazines, simultaneously, would have a massive, culturally transformative impact on our country, would have been dismissed as, at best, an extremely confused thinker.
But the truth is, we are a confusing country. We contain, in Walt Whitman’s sense, multitudes. Even as we prize national unity, we resist homogeneity; even as we embrace populist fads, we remain suspicious of conformism. It makes me wonder: Which two implausible — and apparently mutually contradictory — cultural ventures of our time will end up shaping the American life of the next half century?
This is a really nice piece of writing. I hope you will consider doing something a bit longer and more in depth on this subject, as its implications are worth further exploration!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy head tells me I'm glad Bill Buckley has had such an enormous influence on conservative thought. The... errrrr.......rest of me...wishes more women were listening to Hefner back then, when it would have done me some good.
(Except for the Rampant Moral Depravity part, which I of course would have been the first to deplore)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are even a few who enjoy both Playboy and National Review.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho ever would have thought Playboy would be a success?
Maybe anybody who realized that it is a part of the oldest, most successful profession on Earth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere, here, Mr. Joe!
A few thoughts:
Firstly, who 50+ years ago would have predicted that the main way I'd read *both* Playboy and National Review is via my own personal computer in the comfort of my home?
Secondly, who 50+ years ago would have predicted that I'd read both *for free*? ;-). [Don't worry, I'm a subscriber... to NR].
Thirdly... predictions, hmmmm.
I think an easy one is that gay "rights" are going to cease being a social conservative vs. libertarians + liberals issue and simply remain a deeply religious/ less-or-non-religious issue. Within a couple of generations, I don't see anyone outside of the most fundamentalist religious communities (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) making a big deal about it at all, and being a "gay conservative" will be far less stigmatized than it is today (sadly, I'm sure that being a *black* or *female* conservative will still be seen as a betrayal by many).
Now, *my* opinion of the desirability of such a cultural shift is still undecided; I can believe in reserving the "sanctity of marriage" for heterosexual couples, but dang if I have many good arguments FOR reserving such a thing, or more accurately, excluding homosexuals from forming unions of their own (or NOT forming unions of their own-- 50 years ago, a divorced conservative would have been scandalous; yesterday, Newt Gingrich, a man on his THIRD wife, became a viable threat for the GOP nomination).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know why you're shocked that Playboy succeeded. There will always be a market for man's baser instincts. Once you give those instincts legitimacy, that market will only grow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suspect that this would be one of the few times that I'd agree with theliberalreader, but it would be great if you'd explore this topic in some greater depth.
One of the things to consider is the standing of both magazines within the movements that they helped launch. Playboy is considered tame nowadays, what, with the explosion of raunchier magazines like Hustler, and even more so with the easy availability of hard core pornography on the Web.
As for National Review, while there has been an explosion of other conservative magazines, institutions, and other media, NR remains one of the most influential journals of conservative opinion. Sure some might think it has gone "soft" in its own right (including yours truly, at least on occasion), but it is still no doubt more influential within its own sphere than Playboy is nowadays.
What that says about our society, and where it is trending, is perhaps more troublesome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy was National Review an outrage to conventional pieties about politics?
Because it announced back then that the White race, at least "for the time being," was the more "advanced race"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Which two implausible — and apparently mutually contradictory — cultural ventures of our time will end up shaping the American life of the next half century?"
The Constant Society - ubiquitous penetration of technology, interconnectedness, and social visibility into personal lives, and the implications thereof.
The Private Life - the desire to carve out private spaces away from the Internet Eye, and identify human rights to protect those spaces.
---
50 years from now, we will wonder why no one destroyed Watson and obliterated the code developed to run it, while we still could.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat does the word "advancement" have to do with the NAACP? They must believe "colored persons" need to be "advanced". The bigots.
Good to know WFB disavowed segregation 45 years ago.
When did Jimmy Carter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding the supply side and markets, it's the entrepreneur, not the politician, that really believes in hope and change. Besides marriage or parenthood, starting a business is about the most hopeful thing you can do. Some friends and I recently started a new venture, a car enthusiast web site that features 3D photos and video. We all know that we're going to be working hard without any revenue for a while but we think that the idea is so good that we have hope that the site will be a success.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRonnie Schreiber
CarsInDepth.com
So both men smoked pipes. What does that mean?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Lawdawg: didja look up that stuff about solemnization?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis IS a very worthwhile cultural insight. I'd like to read about at length if Potemra can come up with a longer analysis on the implications.
But apart from that, are those authentic period photos of Buckley and Hefner on the homepage? If the Hef one is a period photo and not a movie still, has Jennifer Love Hewitt invented time travel?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Mike:
Isn't that a non sequitur?
I assume you are referring to marriage licenses? What's your beef?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Lawdawg:
I make a comment about the sordid past of one of the two magazines constituting the subject matter of the piece, and you comment on the NAACP and Jimmy Carter. THAT is a non sequitur!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMike:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, they are all related.
Only in your mind, Lawdawg. Only in your mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll propose that the answer turns on how women finally decide culturally the answer to the question, "What is the desired outcome of the feminist revolution?" Will sexual liberation, material things, the permissive hook-up culture and the resulting chaos (illegitimacy, abortion, cohabitation, government is your daddy) remain the norm? Or will women acknowledge that you can't have a stable marriage culture with children unless you go the classical virtue/personal responsibility route? Call it Carrie Bradshaw versus Sarah Palin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMike,
You quote WFB from 1957, and then don't take the time to read his his explanation of that phrase
External Link
or his general rejection of those opinions
External Link
If you were inclined to educate yourself, you'd know by the late 60's WFB made a point of publicly disavowing segregation by opposing George Wallace (Wallace being to segregation what Obama is to hope and change).
And if you know anything about Wallace, you'd know he stumped (along with Lester Maddox) for Jimmy Carter in the 70's. Jimmy Carter being the current elder statesmen and hero of the left.
If you're going to impugn the dead for a statement from the 50's, it's worth remembering the crudeness of a hypocrite like James Earl Carter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse