OPEN UNIVERSITY DECEMBER 28, 2006
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I just read an exceptionally shallow and foolish piece by a writer many of whose essays I greatly admire, Joseph Epstein (who, as Myron J. Epstein, was a mediocre student of mine more than four decades go). It talks of George W. Bush as "a believer" and then assesses Truman and the presidents who followed him as believers or non-believers. No factual, psychological or analysis other than the assessor's assertive chutzpah is in the piece. Epstein asserts that all really great presidents were "believers," although belief does not suffice to make a president great. The "greatest" president of all, Lincoln, of course, was of course a believer--in the American union. One could challenge each of Epstein's assessments, and on this day after Gerald Ford's death, one is tempted to offer arguments for his dismissal of Ford as a decent, dull unbeliever, but "belief," is so much more a complicated matter than his essay makes out, that it would be the equivalent of wrestling a scarecrow. As to Ford, my very intelligent late friend, Edward Levi, who was his Attorney General, told me that he was astonished by Ford's knowledge of every cabinet member's business and his remarkable awareness of what the cabinet member was going to say about it. Until I read Ford's marvelous eulogy of Levi (one that only the eulogist himself could have...
7 comments
He is trying to fit facts into his thesis,and reach the conclusion he wants, rather then use facts to develop his thesis.
- dopper0189
December 28, 2006 at 9:56pm
Using military force to supress public dissent, is immoral. SC have the right to leave the union even if we disagree with the reasoning. Nothing in the constitution saids that the union is sacrosanct and states did not sign away their internal sovereignty to the Federal government. No wonder Conservatives see Lincoln as hero. He used violence to impose his views on people who disagreed with him
- Yminale
December 29, 2006 at 12:27pm
"Using military force to supress public dissent, is immoral. SC have the right to leave the union even if we disagree with the reasoning. Nothing in the constitution saids that the union is sacrosanct and states did not sign away their internal sovereignty to the Federal government." The error you are making is pretty common. States have the right to challenge the authority of the government on certain issues but they can do so only as member States of the Union. They have no right to secede. We fought a civil in order to prove that States have no right to secede from the Union. Lincoln wasn't the only one who believed this. Secession is not the same as dissent.
- jacksondyer
December 29, 2006 at 7:36pm
The problem I have with Joseph Epstein's essay is that he never defines the term "believer." He also misuses the term true believer which was originally introduced by Eric Hoffer and was defined by him as someone who hold steadfast to his or her beliefs in spite of their being contradicted by science, logic, or common sense. I don't see how the term "true believer" applies to any of our Presidents. The distinction he wants to draw is that between those who upheld certain principles and those had no principles. I don't see how Epstein can see Kennedy as an example of a man without principles or "beliefs," to use his term. Had he had none the stand off with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crises would have ended very different. My other problem with his essay is that its synaptical nature doesn't do justice to its subject matter. I too admire Epstein's writings, but only when he discusses personal matters and draws from them larger meanings. Too often when discussing socio-politcal issues his own personal political philsophy get in the way of the meanings he should be drawing from the facts he presents. Hence the many silly judgements about some of our Presidents.
- jacksondyer
December 29, 2006 at 7:50pm
Are you really bringing up Joseph Epstein's grades from 4 decades ago in your class as evidence in a present argument? My respect for you wanes with every passing moment that I think about that. It bespeaks a self-importance that presumes that grade meant anything, that what it meant at the time carries on till today, unchanging in its ability to peg, accurate with the omniscience of a prig.
- Whisperer
December 29, 2006 at 11:53pm
It was meant to be impressionistic, casual and breezy, provocative too, which it all was. And meaningful too: it is meaningful to compare Bush as a believer--for good or ill--and Clinton (Bill or Hillary) as not, or not so much. It's the kind of topic that you might chat about in any easy going way with friends over a beer. And for a what it was, it covered a lot of ground. Also it is a misconception to talk about the *right* of social/political entities to secede. That is a decision that belies the fundamental consensus necessary to constitute any particular civil society and it not answered by recourse to positive law.
- basman
December 30, 2006 at 12:50pm
"No wonder Conservatives see Lincoln as hero. He used violence to impose his views on people who disagreed with him." Are you sure that conservatives think so? My own impression is that the more passionate the conservative, the more he/she generally hates Lincoln because he represents the historical moment when the federal government acted to suppress the dismantling of the Union. Lincoln is the embodiment of federal authority acting in an American crisis.
- ironyroad
December 31, 2006 at 7:38pm