Spoken by a man after my own heart:
“You must grant me a
dispensation for saying any thing, whether it be sense or nonsense, upon the
subject of politics. It is truly a matter in which I am so little interested,
that, were it not that it sometimes serves me for a theme when I can find no other,
I should never mention it.”
I’ve come to think of
politics as no more than a pretext people use for getting angry. They enjoy the
illusion of self-righteous power it gives them. It’s a handy stand-in for
religion, sports, musical tastes, anything enabling that rush of disapproving
emotion and self-aggrandizement. A reader asks—neutrally, I think—for my
assessment of President Trump’s second administration thus far. Because I don’t
pay much attention to such things, my judgment is worthless, a waste of time. I’ve
never defined myself with such categories and I don’t think my opinions are of
any importance simply because they are mine. The author of the credo above is
the English poet William Cowper, writing to his friend the Rev. John Newton on
July 5, 1784. He continues:
“I would forfeit a large
sum, if, after advertising a month in the Gazette, the minister of the day,
whoever he may be, could discover a man who cares about him or his measures so
little as I do. When I say that I would forfeit a large sum, I mean to have it
understood that I would forfeit such a sum if I had it.”
Cowper is the poet of spectatorship, of diffidence expressed as a willingness to observe the world, not plunge into its swelter. He was a high-strung man, affectionate and loyal to his friends but haunted by depression and suicidal thoughts. His sense of humor was subtle and often heavily disguised. He barely recognized civic affairs and remained blithely immune to politics. His passions were poetry and religion, not meddling. Like me, I think he understood the role of government to be filling potholes and arresting bad guys, or the comparable obligations of his day. I’m reminded of Dorothy Day, cofounder of the Catholic Workers. Asked by a reporter why she didn’t vote, Day is supposed to have answered: “Because it only encourages them”
5 comments:
Couldn't disagree more.
"You must grant me a dispensation for saying any thing ... upon the subject of politics. It is truly a matter in which I am so little interested ..."
"I am not so devoid of all talents as to occupy myself with politics." -Anatole France, courtesy John Simon
I have my opinions on politics like anyone else, but anyone who is interested in my views on that subject automatically drops a notch in my esteem.
I never initiate political discussions (I just consider it good manners not to do so) and political views and sexual practices are the two things that I find the least interesting about people.
You couldn't get more out of step with the times, could you?
I understand your avoidance of “politics.” But you have written eloquently, as did Robert Conquest and others, about the horrors of the Twentieth Century. Weren’t those brought about by “politics” devolving into existential threats to traditions and ideals that we honor and hold sacred? More than a few of us see that happening now. Perhaps it’s time not to diminish those threats by calling them mere “politics.”
"I’ve come to think of politics as no more than a pretext people use for getting angry. They enjoy the illusion of self-righteous power it gives them."
I became interested in politics and a regular voter following a tour of duty in the Vietnam War, an ill-begotten politicians' war waged by "Lyin'" Lyndon and "Tricky" Dick and their advisors. Perhaps that makes me a member of the Virtucratic Party. So be it. Trump is a threat to democracy. He is the antithesis of Lincoln. Am I enjoying an illusion of self-righteous power in writing that? You be the judge.
Post a Comment