Alone, the second volume of William Manchester’s biography of Churchill, The Last Lion. If I were to sum up Manchester’s view of the 1932-1940 period in British history in two paragraphs, they would be:
1. The British ruling class was rotten. The British Prime Ministers of that era were dull-witted and feckless. Traumatized by the first World War and frightened of Bolshevism, they came up with an endless list of excuses not to confront Hitler. The role played by the media during this period was dreadful–covering for Hitler and suppressing the views of Churchill until very late in the game.
2. Churchill was, in many ways, more out of touch with the twentieth century than were other members of the ruling class. However, he had the strength and intelligence that the leading politicians lacked. And unlike most others of his class, he saw Hitler with clarity.
It is very tempting to draw parallels between the highly-educated classes in this country today and the upper-class twits of Britain in the 1930’s. Indeed, at one point I suggested such a parallel during the discussion of the future of democracy, prosperity, and freedom.
So, as usual, I wrote the foregoing and scheduled it ahead. Meanwhile, there was the Islamist’s attack that killed four marines in Tennessee.
A casual reader of the Washington Post could be forgiven for blaming the attack on conservatives and the National Rifle Association. The lead Post story said that this was “the latest eruption of gun violence in the United States.” The print newspaper also provides a second front-page story, headlined “Shooter grew up in conservative family.” [The online version says “middle-class Muslim family.”]
I read every word of the second story, looking for the basis for terming the family “conservative.” Did they have a Romney bumper sticker on their car? A subscription to National Review? Perhaps they flew a Confederate flag? Were active in the Tea Party?
Instead, there are only two references to the attacker’s parents. One says that his father was briefly put on the terrorism watch list but was later removed from that list. The other quotes someone familiar with one of the daughters of the family:
“I got the sense [her parents] were very religious,” Harper added. “I got the sense they wanted to pick who she would marry.”
I would love to know how the Post determined on the basis of the content of the story that the best adjective to describe the family was “conservative.” Getting back to the 1930s comparisons, I do not want to equate Muslim radicals with Nazis, because I think that there are important differences. What I am getting at here are the similarities between the British media in the 1930s and what we find in the U.S. today.
As for the American educated in class in general, consider Harry Painter’s analysis of summer reading lists for college students.
Upon browsing the list, one might conclude that all of humanity’s best books are about minorities fighting and ultimately overcoming the oppressive constrictions of Western, male-dominated society.
My guess is that no college is going to suggest that students read Alone.
” I do not want to equate Muslim radicals with Nazis, because I think that there are important differences. ”
Actually, I regard the jihadis as being more or less the exact equivalent, within Islam, of the Nazis. Modernising (in methods) revolt against modernity which exults the authenticity of violence and a warrior ethic political movement that is misogynist, queer-hating, Jew-hating that, while trying to resurrect a glorious past, show themselves adept as using modern technologies of mass communication and mobilisation.
I legitimately don’t understand what the comparison is. A feckless British ruling class ignored the existential threat of the Nazis. A feckless American ruling class… Repeatedly went to war with Muslim states? While investing heavily to combat the near non-threat of Islamic terrorism?
Or are you saying that the problem with Britain’s interwar ruling class was that they are too nice to minorities?
I thought you were going to say the feckless American ruling class was ignoring debt.
I don’t think it is what Arnold means, but I think exactly by meddling and giving the Islamic State their bogeyman and benefactor our ‘leaders’ are plenty feckless.
Arnold says: “I would love to know how the Post determined on the basis of the content of the story that the best adjective to describe the family was ‘conservative.’ ”
Based upon my limited experience with newspaper production let me guess that the person who wrote that front-page headline using “conservative” was perhaps the Front Page Editor. This editor has the job of laying out the front page. The principal raw material with which the editor works is a number of candidate stories submitted by reporters.
Probably most of these submitted stories are longer than will be used. In the writing style of news reporting, each succeeding paragraph gives information which is more particular and therefore less general and newsy. Toward the end of the full-length story as submitted by a reporter there will be details which would be of interest to only a few readers. Thus, when the page-layout editor selects a story for coverage but runs out of room, she can cut off the end of the story while doing the least damage to the whole story.
The Front Page Editor writes the headlines for the stories, not the reporter who wrote the story. In writing headlines the Front Page Editor has a special skill: Attracting prototypical readers to a story while summarizing the whole story for the reader in those few words.
Perhaps there were details supporting use of the word “conservative” in the ending sentences of the story, sentences which were read by the Front Page Editor but which did not find room on the page.
Or perhaps “conservative” is one of the words which Washington Post editors use to characterize others outside the left-leaning prototype of Washington Post readers. So “conservative” may be a sufficient word for the communication between the editor and the prototypical reader. It is not you, Arnold, for whom the editor is trying to summarize the story.