“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.”
It is an interesting piece of commentary. Is it really true, though, that conservatism (however defined) is the “broadly dominant system of political thought in recent years”? I suppose it might be to the extent that the rise of Obama is in fact an aberration rather than anything else. But even if that is true, then it would be nice to see this reflected, long term, in the relative decline, not rise, of state power and spending.
Anyway, Hefner and Buckley were indeed very influential figures, no doubt about it. I have always had a lot of time for Hefner – he upsets the sort of people who need to be upset.
Update: Hefner has taken his business private.
Hefner started off in the right direction. His “philosophy” was very much pro freedom in general. But when the 60s New Left began dominating readership the magazine changed direction abruptly into a shill for big government and nanny state-ism. This product revision was very successful from a profit and popularity point of view.
So Hef can be considered a successful entrepreneur who made money out of pushing sexual liberation. No case can be made, IMO, that he is any kind of principled libertarian.
Jonathan: what kind of people does Hefner upset?
Is it the kind of people who can be upset by the very existance of a thing, when they absolutely have a choice of whether they partake in it or not?
That goes without saying wh00ps, but I got the impression that Jonathan had something more specific in mind. Hefner has been supporting the Democrats, so no hope there, I guess.
People like me, Alisa, who believe in (sshh) God.
Again, that view of (God) has more to do with Englishness than reality. (Dirty, smelly bits, etc.)
Sure, one has to separate that which is of heaven and that of earth, but, hey, why do I love Spain?
Because the parts that haven’t been corrupted by Englishness (or their own greed) can still celebrate life, fun and being chic and friendly!
I love it.
Reaganism/Thatcherism/Lech Walesaism came up in the late 1970s but owing to a very successful counter offensive has been substantially trashed.
Will the Tea Partiers hold on to their realisation and awareness, or will they be brainwashed back into collectivist, impoverishing, subjection?
Are they the last, final, gasp of common sense, or will liberty regain ground lost in the last few years to deceit, greed, power lust and short term interest, and be triumphant?
I suspect the secular, socialist, dictatorship will slowly and steadily extend its influence.
Given technology I guess it is inevitable.
Oh my. Just to clarify, my question was about Hefner’s politics, of which I know nothing, other than his support for the Democratic Party as per Wikipedia, and of which I am curious. Anyway, no big deal.
But John, since you commented, and since I often find your comments valuable: I am not sure I understood your last comment.
Alisa, he upset people who believed that sex outside marriage was a sin, that anything other than some sort of squeaky-clean approach was wrong, etc.
I am not saying that he was good in all respects, and no doubt some ideological purists will find grounds to attack him over (as purists tend to do). But generally, what was good about him was his espousal of the idea that liberty applies to what goes on not just in the office, but also the bedroom.
Thanks Jonathan, all clear now:-)
About the supply side…I am sure there is room in the media for a merger of the Samizdata site and the Hustler site. I am sure my girlfriend couldn’t be any more upset than she already is when she sees me on that ‘bloody blue website again’.
On the other hand, Mrs Wh00ps was quite pleased when I demonstrated some things I’d seen on another “blue” website…
Also about the supply side, I was speculating yesterday on my blog about a sort of libertarian version of the Sun. I think probably there is a case for presenting libertarianism in a more populist way.
Could a libertarian magazine do what Hustler and National Review did? How well is Reason magazine doing? Or is print dead now, anyway?
Apologies, again, Alisa.
I was trying to say, the puritanical (in the accepted sense) view of religion, about prohibitions, and judgemental attitudes, has more in common with an attitude that prevails in England/America rather than a realistic view of life and of God.
It has more to do with a reaction against gratuitous bawdiness. Hugh Hefner rejecting that Anglo Saxon sexual prohibitionism.
My point being that the gratuitous bawdiness and the reaction against it, are against reality, which can be essentially beautiful, sexy and nice. If one can get around the archaic language, and somewhat archaic attitudes (fashions change), the Song of Solomon is very sexy.
The rest of my comment was about the possibility that conservatism has become the established political consensus. A very misleading suggestion.
Like saying a dog pound has become a cattery because an employee has a few cats?
Thanks John. I now understand and agree.
But generally, what was good about him was his espousal of the idea that liberty applies to what goes on not just in the office, but also the bedroom.
You give him too much credit. Hefner is your garden-variety American leftist – in his mind the state has a legitimate interest in every aspect of you life except the bedroom.
a) If the American Left believe the State should stay outside the bedroom, then Americans are to be envied. The British Left long ago set up permanent camp there. (“The Personal Is Political”.)
b) It saddens me greatly that there should be, anywhere in the world, a person called “Mrs Wh00ps”.
c) A Libertarian version of The Sun would no doubt have more success than what the ruling Socialists in Ecuador tried to do recently, which is create a Leftie Tabloid. Obviously Page 3 girls are out, so in the end they decided on Page 3 Polar Bears instead. Rumour has it circulation has soared recently to a total of 13 copies a day.
Endivio, surely you could have provided a link to the Page 3 Polar Bears!
“Dirty” magazines were nothing new when Hefner started Playboy. His cleverness was in marrying open smut with arty-lit’ry-stylishness. That is, he took the Esquire package and added bare breasts.
How did he offend people? By advocating (and glorifying) hedonism and promiscuity. One needn’t be “anti-sex” to to have a negative view of casual and indiscriminate fornication.
As to your other magazine founder: National Review certainly filled a niche, but for its long term survival, I’m pretty sure it depended to a significant degree on Buckley familiy money.
NTTAWT…
I can’t think of anyone I know of, even deeply religious and/or conservative who actually opposes sex per se (I know there are such people, but I think they tend to be rare, and even they should be entitled to their view). The issue is rather the social context of sexual relationships, i.e. the acceptability of ‘casual and indiscriminate fornication’ or lack of it. The whole (and personally, the only) point in supporting the likes of Hefner is that this context should be defined as narrowly as practically possible.
Johnathan,
I hadn’t thought much of the dominance of conservative thought, but looking back at the 2008 campaign, Obama essentially hid his past and plans, cloaked with the aid of a compliant media.
That only makes sense if he realised that full and frank disclosure of his plans wasn’t possible if he hoped to win the election. In turn, that analysis is compatible with saying that conservative thought is dominant.
However, I also think you can also take the view that there is a problem with “Liberal”(tm) thought, where there has been a divorce with the reality of economics, and more particularly the reality of incentives and perverse/unforeseen outcomes. The “triumph” of conservative thought is more likely the bankruptcy of liberal thought.
Isn’t that just another way of putting the ‘mugged liberal’ adage?:-)
One can argue all day long about Reagan (I take a fairly positive view of him – at least compared to the view many other libertarians take), but since 1989 things have been an utter mess.
Even the Republican victory in 1994 was not a total success – indeed in return for welfare reform (now being undermined by Obama) the Republicans accepted the “tiny” SCHIP program.
Yes, you guessed it, SCHIP did not stay tiny for long – now various levels of government spend a fortune on “health care for children”.
The moderate roll back of government in the 1980s (if there was one – this is contested) has since been replaced by the onward march towards…..
Well either towards a Francie Bacon “New Atlantis” (or “Star Trek: New Generation”) mega sized government. Or towards de facto bankruptcy and economic breakdown.
It depends which side of the political divide one is on.
But we will see soon.
I believe that 2012 is the last chance for rolling back government (and if American does not reform the West can not stand).
If Comrade Barack wins again it is game over.
It is as simple, and as brutal, as that.
Great list, interesting to find your own comments styling on them ;). But the list is very interesting nevertheless.. and your comment styling great as well.