On clothing, my anatomical judgment exceeds my sartorial because I really don’t see why not beige cargo pants every day. But I know human beings have been roughly the same size and shape since the invention of the fig leaf, so I cannot understand how, after at least 10,000 years of human ingenuity and vanity meeting on the clothing rack, there can be anything left to try.
Individuals, of course, have plenty of scope to determine what among the various looks created over the centuries works best for them personally. And garments can be made well or badly, and fit well or badly, and there are innovations in material. But if a butter-yellow toga looked good on Cleopatra it probably still does, and if a puffy orange sack uglifies a gorgeous model, don’t wear it.
As for elections, on public policy I am not looking for what’s trendy, or some garish, misshapen, novel hybrid that makes you long for the natural simplicity of Frankenstein’s Monster. As with footwear, I want something classic that works and doesn’t pinch.
Theoretically I’m not alone here. The current Canadian election is happening against the widely proclaimed backdrop of a sudden realization that if we want to protect our sovereignty, we should drop exotic preoccupations and build a productive, dynamic economy that is able to sustain a functioning military.
Gosh. Really? Next, fashion designers will be saying a dress should have two armholes and pants need to accommodate a pair of legs, and foodies that meals should be nutritious and taste nice. Can you imagine?
Actually, resisting the lure of novelty is harder than you’d think. Witness various European politicians and commentators, also concerned about the re-emergence of an America First mentality in the United States of a novel and displeasing flavour, saying the continent must be able to defend itself. So back to basics?
Ah but nay. At least some of them apparently think that, unlike say Tiberius or Winston Churchill, they can do it without troops or weapons. And others claim solvency is not a necessary ingredient in cooking up national independence. History begs to differ.
As for domestic Canadian policy, there’s a category of economics I deride as “airport paperback” because of volumes acquired decades ago in transit that purported to be the next big thing in the field. But they were always the same trendy statism without tears and didn’t work. Haven’t we been indulging them long enough to know you can’t live on such stuff?
It’s not just economics. The long assault on the traditional family has surely taught us that there aren’t that many ways to structure a society and raise kids, and most trendy ones turn out badly.
So never mind that it was 2015 and is now 2025. Ask yourself what has worked down through the ages. It still will. And what has failed, well, you can count on it too.
