A profound Christian influence in small things still lingers despite these brutal and atheistic times. Those who defend tradition must fight tooth and nail to defend what is still Christian in the present culture, wherever it is found—even in fonts.
As the Culture War rages, no field is exempt from its reach. Much has been printed about this intense battle for the American soul. Now, even the fonts used for printing have become a battlefield. It is no longer what you read, but how it appears, that is contested.
A font war has erupted between Times New Roman and Calibri, representing right and left, respectively.
Some people think such issues are unimportant or at least culturally neutral. Nothing could be further from the truth. Culture encompasses everything that constitutes the daily life of people. Embedded inside things are principles, impressions, and historical context. Everything, no matter how small, can have an impact on the soul.
The Left’s Font Offensive
The left often recognizes this fact more than the right. It pushes its agenda through fashion, art, and styles.
Indeed, the left triggered the font war during the Biden Administration when in 2023, the State Department abruptly changed the font of its documents from the stately Times New Roman to the more austere Calibri, sans adornments or serifs.
This simple font change took on woke overtones when officials claimed that “some research” suggests that people with dyslexia or visual impairments have difficulty reading the oppressive Times New Roman font on screens. In the name of universal accessibility, leftists demanded the font shift so that information could be made inclusive. They further claimed the font looked outdated.
An Ideological Aversion
It must be said that many different font styles exist and each serves a purpose and conveys a message. Not everything should be Times New Roman.
However, Times New Roman is is appropriate. The issue goes much deeper than just preferences. The left always promotes an egalitarian outlook that races toward the lowest common denominator in its culture.
Thus, the formality of Times New Roman and its professional look clashed with the left’s proletarian ideals. Leftists naturally prefer the informality and severity of unadorned letters, which is consistent with their materialistic thinking.
The left certainly knows the value of these slight cultural modifications. It is always ready to implement them because it recognizes that all culture is important.
A Counter-Offensive
The Trump Administration recently restored Times New Roman to State Department documents. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the change would “restore decorum” and aesthetics to official communications.
Indeed, Times New Roman is perceived as a serious and formal font. It gives an air of professionalism and authority to texts. This impression is precisely what government documents need to be effective.
The left’s egalitarian metaphysics, however, sees traditional authority as oppressive. Professionalism presupposes a superiority in some field that makes others feel less able. Thus, the left welcomes any effort to break down inequality in social structures in favor of the “people.”
It is no surprise that the left would go after Times New Roman as yet one more symbol of oppression—and clearly state their ideological opposition.
A Wildly Popular Default Font
Curiously, leftists always claim to represent the interests of the marginalized when engaged in their fights against hierarchy. However, such policies often harm society as a whole, particularly the most vulnerable members, such as the poor.
In the case of the Times New Roman font, the typeface actually favors the overwhelming majority of readers or the “people.” The claim of less accessibility is false. Times New Roman is not an oppressive but a benevolent font. In fact, it is a wildly popular default font that makes reading more, not less, accessible for everyone.
The Role of the Serif
It is a serif font, which means that it has small “feet” at the ends of its letter strokes. These extensions help guide the reader’s eye through the text, enhancing readability and reducing fatigue, particularly in lengthy texts. The high contrast and distinct letter shapes help readers distinguish between similar characters, which might otherwise be confusing.
Originally commissioned by The Times of London in 1931, the font was also designed to be practical by condensing text to accommodate more content without sacrificing legibility or beauty. It succeeded fabulously and soon became the printing industry’s standard font. Even Windows and macOS adopted it as a default font.
Moreover, the font is beautiful. The serifs are pleasing to the eye. They adorn the text with unity and variety that do not tire the reader. The font lacks the crass utilitarian aspect that its sans-serif counterparts possess.
Indeed, the font does not oppress by its formality. It reassures the reader by offering something familiar yet uplifting, accessible yet distinctive, and functional yet attractive.
The Fruit of Christian Civilization
Christian civilization was full of small details (like fonts) that added beauty to life and uplifted the soul toward God.
The Roman family of fonts originated in the eighth and ninth centuries, when Charlemagne mandated a standardized lettering style to promote literacy across the medieval Holy Roman Empire. It introduced many lowercase letterforms still in use today. This serifed “Roman” typeface influenced the structure of today’s Times New Roman.
A profound Christian influence in small things still lingers despite these brutal and atheistic times. Those who defend tradition must fight tooth and nail to defend what is still Christian in the present culture, wherever it is found—even in fonts.
Thus, the font war rages. The left highlights how vital these small things are in the fight for the culture. Leftists take them seriously, and conservatives should side with Charlemagne.
__________
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image, uploaded by Myrabella, is a photograph, “Equestrian statue of Charlemagne, by Agostino Cornacchini (1725) — St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican.” This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
How ironic that this site uses sans-serif type for its articles, both headline and body text.
I do agree with Mr. Horvat about the readability of Times New Roman and use it almost all of the time.
John
As our disclaimer below every essay says: “Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.”
Which just reinforces the irony!
In any case, I am glad this was published and thank you for that.
John
Thank you, though I am not sure how the disclaimer “reinforces the irony.” Also, could it be the case that the type of media is a factor in the choice of font? Perhaps, then, Times New Roman may not be the best choice for online writing. Or for a billboard, etc.
I’ve always been a Garamond man myself.
And Goudy Old Style – all those beautiful 80’s-90’s cookbooks!
Even more interesting? Calibri was “invented” or copyrighted in 2002, because many of the 1997-2002 computer monitors … didn’t have the resolution to show TNR very well.
It’s a dumbed down font – for poor resolution monitors.
(U.S. Patents maintained the TNR through Biden, which is surprising.)
Very good piece. I always enjoy John Horvat’s perspectives. And I too stand with Charlemagne!
Here at Pangaeus Press, we stand with Garamond.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Horvat that Times New Roman possesses an undeniable elegance and authority that has served readers magnificently for nearly a century. Its serifs do indeed guide the eye with grace, and its balanced proportions reflect the careful craftsmanship of a font designed to serve both beauty and function. The historical connection to Charlemagne’s educational reforms reminds us that the pursuit of literacy and learning has deep roots in Christian civilization, and there is much to appreciate in preserving what works well. However, I would gently suggest that we might consider whether our enthusiasm for this excellent typeface need come at the expense of characterizing alternatives as expressions of “egalitarian metaphysics” or instruments of cultural decline.
The virtues Mr. Horvat rightly celebrates in Times New Roman need not require us to diminish Calibri and its sans-serif companions, which embody their own form of Christian humility. Christ Himself taught that “whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12), and we might see in the unadorned simplicity of sans-serif fonts a reflection of self-effacement rather than ideological warfare. The early Desert Fathers praised plainness in all things, understanding that excessive ornamentation could become a stumbling block to authentic devotion. Saint Francis stripped himself of fine clothing to follow Christ in poverty, and the Protestant Reformers, as Mr. Horvat might recall, specifically rejected elaborate church decoration precisely because they saw in such adornment the sin of pride and the distraction from God’s pure word. When we frame typographic choices as battles between Christian civilization and atheistic materialism, we risk the very division that Scripture warns against: “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). The Apostle Paul reminds us that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1), and we must ask ourselves whether treating font preferences as theological litmus tests builds up the Body of Christ or fragments it further.
Perhaps the deepest concern is that by transforming aesthetic preferences into cosmic struggles between good and evil, we inadvertently cultivate the pride that Christianity teaches us to renounce. C.S. Lewis warned in “Mere Christianity” that pride is the complete anti-God state of mind, and that it delights in looking down on others. Saint Augustine wrote that it was pride that changed angels into devils, and humility that makes men as angels. When we declare our cultural choices inherently Christian while dismissing others’ preferences as manifestations of leftist ideology, we position ourselves as judges rather than servants, contradicting Christ’s instruction that “whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26). The flat, undemonstrative quality of fonts like Calibri might actually cultivate the unity and humility that Paul describes when he writes, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3). Both Times New Roman and Calibri serve readers faithfully, and both can be used to glorify God. The true threat to Christian culture may not be sans-serif fonts at all, but rather the transformation of prudential matters into tribal markers that separate us from our neighbors, undermining the love and unity that Christ prayed we would share so that “the world may believe” (John 17:21).
J’adore.
Its only been 10 years, as a dyed in the wool liberal, I knew eventually the Trump administration and I would find common ground. San serif is perfectly adequate for casual texting but formal documents cannot help but be more effective dressed properly in Times New Roman. The powdered perriwig of the font world.
I’m partial to Doves Type myself—a frivolous purchase, I’ll admit, but a great story, the long and short of it involving a falling out between two partners who developed it, one of them consigning the font’s matrices to the bottom of the River Thames, and someone finding not too long ago and resurrecting it. It’s wonderfully retro, but that history alone made it worth what I paid to have it.