Sunday, August 24, 2003

A note on Eric Hobsbawm
People who imagine themselves as adventurous often feel frustrated around those whom they perceive as being static or unimaginative. The rise of liberalism is seen by many as the rise of freedom for the curious, and libertarianism is the most extreme version of this romance. Among the only groups who have seen it as their goal to defend the 'less imaginative,' to defend the people who want nothing more than to be left alone to their small lives, and who made this defense without defending reaction - among the only ones who have promoted the active involvement of such people themselves in their defense- have been those associated with some aspect or another of communism.

It takes a certain kind of intellect to defend the notion that the world is not the playground of intellectuals. My impatience with the hypocrisies of liberalism stems from the sense liberals seem to have that what's good for them is good for the country; but this, as my old neighbors in Brooklyn will tell you, is simply not the case. I have as much contempt for the hierarchy that once existed in the communist party as I do for the hierarchy that still exists in the far older conspiracy that is the Catholic Church. But I have the same respect for the minor, the unobservant, or the casually faithful in both parties.
And of the rest, my kinsmen, I prefer the company of honest machiavels to earnest liars. 

I was on the phone to my mother yesterday, and we got into a discussion of Move On and Dean. She's sent money to both, but felt a little awkward about the latter. She'd heard Kucinich and was not impressed. If anything she's more to the left than he is, but she found him shrill, and I agreed. I said it was interesting that for all the DLC attacks on Dean as too far to the left, he's never denied his conservatism. It's a strange and pathetic disconnect.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is enabled.