Dr. Johnson famously contributed several couplets to Oliver Goldsmith’s “The Traveller; or, a Prospect of Society” (1764), including:
“How small of all that
human hearts endure
That part which laws or
kings can cause or cure!
Still to ourselves in
every place consign’d,
Our own felicity we make
or find.”
Five years later Johnson
told Boswell in conversation: “Why, Sir, most schemes of political improvement
are very laughable things.” We can safely nod our heads in agreement. In the
eighteenth century in Great Britain, such sentiments could prove seditious and
be punished accordingly. History has substantiated Johnson’s observations. Governments and their enthusiastic or coerced citizens created the abattoir that was the twentieth century and have continued the tradition
into the twenty-first.
A reader complains about
the absence of politics at Anecdotal Evidence and I thank him for noticing. It’s
not a compelling subject. Busybodies with big ideas, unafraid to impose them on
others, are dangerous. In Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000), Robert Conquest -- poet and historian, Jeremiah of Communism and its
evils – writes:
“[I]t is no part of its
culture that a government elected by a bare majority, or even by a fairly large
majority, is thereby empowered to totally reconstruct the social and political
order by sacrificing the minority. That great political philosopher Michael
Oakeshott notes that for some people government is ‘an instrument of passion;
the art of politics
is to inflame and direct
desire.’ For others, which is to say, in general, for those who have a
traditional regard for the unity and continuity of a culture, the business of
government is something different: ‘to restrain, to deflate, to pacify, and to
reconcile; not to stoke the fires of desire, but to damp them down,’ on the
grounds that, as Oakeshott puts it, ‘the conjunction of dreaming and ruling
generates tyranny.’”
Conquest is quoting
Oakeshott’s Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (1962; rev. 1991).
Elsewhere in his book Conquest writes:
“The revolutionary
believed it to be in the nature of things that dictatorship and terror are
needed if the good of humanity is to be served, just as the Aztec priests
believed themselves to be entirely justified in ripping the hearts out of
thousands of victims, since had they not done so, the sun would have gone out,
a far worse catastrophe for mankind. In either case, the means are acceptable,
being inevitable. . .”
"The only sign by which I found my writings ever did any good or had any weight has been that they raised the anger of bad men. And my greatest comfort and encouragement to proceed has been to see that those who have no shame, and no fear, of anything else, have appeared touched by my satires." - Letter: Alexander Pope to Dr. Arbuthnot (July, 1734)
ReplyDeleteHuman nature doesn't change from century to century, but data shows that in many ways lots of progress was made in various matters: eradication of many diseases, for example.
ReplyDeleteComplaining about the lack of politics here seems to me to be like griping about the fact that no one is playing pickleball in the library.
ReplyDelete