The Mall-i-fication of America

by Brad Nelson1/30/17

Here’s a story on the ungodly amounts of money spent on amenities for the Snowflakes at university. George Leef sums it up when he writes:

Mere functionality isn’t good enough these days, however.

We talk about the battle between right and left, between conservatives and Communists (in all their guises), and even between the ruling class and the people in flyover country. All of these elements are there and true.

But I can’t help thinking that the battle lines are blurred and muddled because, right or left, we hold quite a few very active and shaping influences, assumptions, and desires, including the idea that things will always get better and better. Due to science, the market, and even government, we have the expectation of more and better choices and an always-increasing level of comfort.

Frankly, I think this has created Snowflakes of us all to some extent. But you see this factor in its purest form at the modern university where no expense is spared to attract the precious little Snowflakes and their parents’ money.


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (402 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Mall-i-fication of America

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I see this spending as being less about amenities for Snowflakes and more about crony-capitalism for the government’s special friends.

    I grew up in North Dallas and due to the rapid population growth, new schools were being built fairly regularly. But many old schools were still being used and there was little building in smaller towns.

    Upon returning to the area after an absence of over twenty years, I spent a fair amount of time traveling around smaller towns in North and East Texas. I was amazed at the number of new schools which I encountered. Towns with populations of 1,500 people had beautiful new elementary, middle and high school buildings. And many had new football facilities.

    It quickly became apparent that there was some type of deal between State/local officials and architectural and construction companies. There is little which government cannot corrupt.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I see this spending as being less about amenities for Snowflakes and more about crony-capitalism for the government’s special friends.

      I suppose no element is ever about just one thing. You could certainly throw that in the mix.

      But I still see the predominance of the “Progressive” vision whereby style dominates substance. And I would posit that with this aesthetic (such as it is) being the dominant lens, it smooths the way for such things as crony-capitalism. Surely there has never been a want of private businesses looking for juicy government contracts. But there hasn’t always been an ethic whereby mere style superseded functionality. You’ll rarely hear these days “If it was good enough for me or my father, it’s good enough for my son.”

      Onward and upward, the Progressive vision of expanding comforts is the vision that predominates. And, yes, this spendthrift ethic can corrupt a whole lot of things.

  2. Tim Jones says:

    From IntellectualTakeout.org: “We’re All ‘Snowflakes’ Now”
    http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/were-all-snowflakes-now

    A different perspective on your take, but both you and author of this piece are right on the money:

    “… what’s more dangerous to a free society: insults… or the unnaturally strong aversion to them that we seem to have today?”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One might say that this is the difference today from the leftist and conservative points of view. The leftist is chiefly (but very selectively) concerned about the insult, whereas the conservative realizes that banning “insults” or “hate speech” or any other such vague circumlocution is invitation to the end of free speech and a free press. (For Inner Party leftists, that’s a feature, not a bug.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I like the point about the inherent aggressiveness of the so-called “Snowflakes.” That doesn’t look like a bad site, Tim. But it’s interesting watching “intellectuals” try to re-learn what had always been common sense: Children are capable of enormous destructiveness and petulance if not reined in by wiser and more disciplined adult minds.

      I would also say that the issue isn’t insults, per se. It’s the willingness to hurl them back. Too often “compassionate” RINO-Establishment conservatism has meant being the piñata, never engaging the opponent. There are certainly many reasons (especially Hillary) that Trump is president. But other than Hillary being even more dislikable, I think it was Trump’s seeming willingness to engage in battle that thrust him to the front. That he won’t likely be fighting many of the real and substantial battles that are needed seems to be an unimportant factor in the minds of his supporters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *