Quote of the Day (John Buchan, on Poetry and ‘A Time of National Crisis’)

“A time of national crisis is the very time to turn to poetry. A poet writes, not for the common round only, but for the great moments of life. The greatest poets, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Dante, have written not in times of peace but amid war and unsettlement. There is something in such epochs of crisis which quickens the imagination and the mind, and brings the spiritual world of the poet closer to our common life.”—Scottish novelist, memoirist, soldier, and Canadian Governor-General John Buchan (1875-1940), “The Immoral Memory” (address to the London Burns Club, Jan. 25, 1918), The John Buchan Journal, Spring 2004, Issue 30

Quote of the Day (Edmund Burke, on How One Private Citizen Can Avert a Public Crisis)

“How often has public calamity been arrested on the very brink of ruin by the seasonable energy of a single man! Have we no such man amongst us? I am as sure as I am of my being, that one vigorous mind, without office, without situation, without public functions of any kind (at a time when the want of such a thing is felt, as I am sure it is), I say, one such man, confiding in the aid of God, and full of just reliance in his own fortitude, vigor, enterprise, and perseverance, would first draw to him some few like himself, and then that multitudes, hardly thought to be in existence, would appear and troop about him.”—Anglo-Irish statesman and father of conservatism Edmund Burke (1729-1797), “Letter to William Elliot,” May 28, 1795, in The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. V. (of 12) (1887)

The kind of person envisioned by Burke possesses not just “seasonable energy” but moral stature to influence followers. In our cynical age, who wields such authority?

If there is such a person, I hope he or she will step forward quickly.

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Prime Minister,’ As a Financial Crisis Convulses the British Cabinet)

[James Hacker asks Sir Humphrey Appleby about a financial crisis.]

Hacker [played by Paul Eddington]: “Why the sudden crisis? The Treasury must've seen it coming.”

Sir Humphrey [played by Nigel Hawthorne]: “Prime Minister, I'm not the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. You must ask Sir Frank.”

Hacker: “What would Sir Frank say?”

Sir Humphrey: “It is not for a humble mortal such as I to speculate on the complex and elevated deliberations of the mighty. But in general, I think Sir Frank believes that if the Treasury knows something has to be done, the Cabinet shouldn't have too much time to think about it.”

Hacker: “But that's an outrageous view!”

Sir Humphrey: “Yes, indeed. It's known as Treasury policy.”

Hacker: “Suppose the Cabinet has questions?”

Sir Humphrey: “Well, I think Sir Frank's view is that on the rare occasions when the Treasury understands the questions, the Cabinet doesn't understand the answers.”— Yes, Prime Minister, Season 1, Episode 5, “A Real Partnership,” original air date Feb 6, 1986, screenplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby

Surely at this point, the above dialogue makes for uncomfortable listening for the Conservative Party grandees in charge—sort of—at Downing Street these last few years—particularly now that the Bank of England, setting its biggest rate hike in 33 years, warns that the UK could experience its longest recession in 100 years.

And we Yanks think we have it bad..

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Prime Minister,’ on the Standard Diplomatic ‘Four-Stage Strategy’ for Crisis Responses)

Bernard Woolley [played by Derek Fowlds]: “What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?”

Sir Humphrey Appleby [played by Nigel Hawthorne, pictured]: “Then we follow the four-stage strategy.”

Woolley: “What's that?”

Sir Richard Wharton [played by Donald Pickering]: “Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. In stage one, we say nothing is going to happen.”

Sir Humphrey: “Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.”

Sir Richard: “In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.”

Sir Humphrey: “Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.” — Yes, Prime Minister, Season 1, Episode 6, “A Victory for Democracy,” original air date Feb. 13, 1986, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby

Over the past several months, whenever I’ve been able to do so, I’ve tried to carve out a half hour on Friday nights on a local PBS station to catch reruns of the 1980s British comedy Yes, Minister and its sequel, Yes, Prime Minister. Think of it as a transatlantic, male-oriented, less potty-mouthed predecessor of Veep.

The brilliance of the show, seen in the above lines, is its sharp, hilarious dissection of bureaucracy. Though some of its situations are unique to UK politics and government, it’s a delightful surprise to see how much of it translates stateside.

It can be enjoyed by conservatives or liberals alike, because though the policies of government officials may change, their behavior—protecting their turf, covering their rear ends—remains remarkably bipartisan, consistent with how people act in all large organizations.

The show’s co-creator, Antony Jay, described the inspiration for the series: “What I was told by a senior civil servant was that, in their heart of hearts, ministers really respect and admire civil servants and, in their heart of hearts, civil servants really despise ministers.”

His creative partner, Jonathan Lynn, later crossed the Atlantic to direct another political satire, Eddie Murphy’s underrated The Distinguished Gentleman, and the considerably more popular The Whole Nine Yards and My Cousin Vinny.

Quote of the Day (John Dos Passos, on History’s Use in ‘Times of Change and Danger’)

“In times of change and danger when there is a quicksand of fear under men’s reasoning, a sense of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline across the scary present and get us past that idiot delusion of the exceptional Now that blocks good thinking.”—American novelist John Dos Passos (1896-1970), “The Use of the Past” (1941), reprinted in The Theme Is Freedom (1956)

Quote of the Day (Irving Howe, on Being ‘Disabled Politically’ During Crises)

“In moments of crisis those who try to speak with some awareness of complexity are likely to be disabled politically.” —American editor and social and literary critic Irving Howe (1920-1993), A Margin of Hope: An Intellectual Autobiography (1982)

Last month, I missed the opportunity to comment on the centennial of the birth of Irving Howe, the founding editor of Dissent Magazine. a public intellectual whose entire adult life was spent offering passionate—but informed and civilized—commentary on the issues of the day. 

But events have conspired to make the perspective offered in today’s “Quote of the Day” unexpectedly relevant.

In our age of polarization, those at the extreme edge of political action and intellectual debate are imposing their norms on the rest of their movements. That is occurring not only in the Republican Party—now, for all intents and purposes, a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump—but also the left.

That latter recognition was highlighted this week in a “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” posted on the Web site of Harper’s Magazine. The statement, signed by more than 150 artists and intellectuals, including Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie, John McWhorter, and Noam Chomsky, warns against “cancel culture,” or withdrawing support from an individual or organization deemed to have spoken or acted questionably.

This form of boycotting may be seen most dramatically in the current trend of removing or vandalizing statues of controversial figures. But in the wake of the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, this has become a form of constricting dissent. As noted in the “Letter”:

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.”

The last point was highlighted most dramatically in the recent firing of editors at The New York Times and The New York Review of Books for articles deemed outside mainstream progressive opinion.

Under normal circumstances, such actions might be deemed a form of “inside baseball” not particularly interesting to non-intellectuals. But the last several weeks have confirmed that such debates have a way of suddenly becoming matters of wide public commentary.

Progressive intolerance of dissent—an oxymoron if there ever was one—does more than ape the worst instincts of the far right. It also closes off any opportunity to engage in the kind of dialogue that can help understand the psychology of believers in reactionary movements, to persuade them—and ultimately, as Howe dreaded after watching the results of the fratricidal conflicts on the left in the 1930's and 1960's, “disabled politically.”

In the meantime, the signers of the open letter at Harper’s are right to warn that “The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation….We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.”

Quote of the Day (Hubert Butler, on Crises)

“Timid or stupid people often enjoy times of crisis. They can suspend, for the country or the cause, those careful discriminations, which tire the brain and do no good to the career. ‘Now,’ they cry, ‘is not time for academic straw-splitting and parlour theorizing. Close the ranks! He that is not with me is against me!’ And so there is always a drift towards crisis, a gentle, persistent pressure towards some simple alignment of Good and Evil, Friend and Enemy. Even the churches are drifting slothfully towards a crude Manichaeism of Darkness and Light and away from Christ, who said so inscrutably that we should love our enemies.”—Anglo-Irish historian, translator, and essayist Hubert Butler (1900-1991), “Crossing the Border,” in Independent Spirit: Essays (1996)

When Butler wrote these lines in 1955, he was talking about the border between the Republic of Ireland and Ulster. (Little did he know that the issue would become considerably more fraught and violent within a generation—or that, by 2020, unrest might raise its head again in this area.)

But he could just as easily have been talking about the post-9/11 atmosphere, or even now in the United States. People who should know better are falling in the social media for fake memes that appeal to their prejudices. It is precisely because an item strikes a chord with you that it should be investigated.

In bewailing “timid” people, Butler was not criticizing people who took reasonably precautions about their physical safety, but those who fell victim to a herd mentality, who followed a party line without thinking.

You would think that a public health crisis would be the one time that partisanship would be put aside. Instead, it has only exacerbated everything that has made these last two decades such rancid ones.

Avoid labels and embrace “careful distinctions.” Those actions have never been more necessary to the survival of this republic, or even the world.

Quote of the Day (Sir Edward Grey, on the Consequences of a Foreign Crisis)

“The consequences of…a foreign crisis do not end with it. They seem to end, but they go underground and reappear later on.”—English statesman Sir Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon (1862-1933), on the prelude to WWI, in Twenty-Five Years: 1892-1916 (1925)

Sir Edward Grey was Britain’s Foreign Secretary in early August 1914, when Germany’s declaration of war on France and invasion of neutral Belgium ensured that the U.K. would join the conflict. As the twilight gathered outside, this normally reticent, even unpoetic diplomat remarked, "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our time."

But the quote that leads off this particular post of mine, though less memorable, is equally valid. The 2007-2009 recession was not merely a domestic economic setback, but also a “foreign crisis.” Even after economic indicators recovered, many citizens in the West didn’t. Their resentment fueled the rise of far-right elements on both sides of the Atlantic. 

In this new era, many have replaced “Communism” with “globalism” as an all-purpose epithet. But the consequences remain dire. To a large extent, this zenophobia has hampered Western responses to the coronavirus. I am afraid that going forward, as some leaders have looked for convenient scapegoats for their own mishandling of the pandemic, international cooperation will lessen, and matters beginning—but hardly ending with—public health.

Quote of the Day (James Russell Lowell, on Crises and ‘New Duties’)

“New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;

They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;

Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,

Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,

Nor attempt the Future's portal with the Past's blood-rusted key.”—American poet, editor, and diplomat James Russell Lowell (1819-1891), “The Present Crisis” (1844)