Gregory Djerejian's politics, needless to say, are not my own, but I respect a man who'll stand foursquare against the gale of his past errors and say not only, "I was wrong," but, "Here is how," and, "Here is why." He's written an excellent post on a subject much favored by the ol' Preacher of Ecclesiastes: Vanity.
Still, though I consider it an excellent summation, I take issue with an error at the heart of it, because it's a self-begetting error which, unless recognized, will show a straight road to be a loop:
But I digress, as we were speaking of vanity, meaning really a decadent self-satisfaction, an arrogant refusal to admit mistakes, a bloated sense of American exceptionalism. The irony is, what other country can assume a responsible mantle of world leadership at this turbulent time, if not us? Certainly not China, or the EU, or Russia, or anyone else.Perhaps the world doesn't need a leader.
Perhaps seeking after such title is itself the source of our doom, eh?
Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
-Ecc. 7:16
3 comments:
"Perhaps the world doesn't need a leader."
Is this a prescription for Yeatsian "Mere anarchy"? Whether it is or not, it seems his "blood-dimmed tide" is upon us.
I'm intrigued by the verse you quote from Ecclesiates. While I understand (and applaud) the warning against over-righteousness, I've long assumed that wisdom is something of which one cannot have too much. (Not that I've ever been in danger of pushing that enevelope.)
Scrolling down through the comments on Djerejian's piece, I found this by Zathras, presumably the same of fond Fray memory.
I'm more of a fan of anarchy than I care to admit, but that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is: It is one thing to say that men nead governance, that societies need leaders. It is quite another to presume that one nation should direct the development, the diplomacy, the wars, and aspirations of all other nations. I am not a globalist; cultural differences and social differences are real. The idea of a nation, US or otherwise, "assuming the mantle" of world leadership strikes me not just as crass exceptionalism, but also as the dangerous delusion that nations are basically the same as people. (You'll recognize in that an argument often made about corporations: that treating collective entities as anomic is individuals is deeply perverting.)
I love Ecclesiastes because I think it a sort of satire. There's poetry there, and (despite the preacher's protestations) a lot of wisdom, but it is also sharp, and the despair is a kind of affectation. It is rhetoric. Anyway, is the preacher really talking about wisdom? Or is he mocking those who think themselves wise? Is he mocking himself? Is he saying that to seek out wisdom is vanity, and in seeking, you never find? A thought . . .
A thought, indeed. I was caught up in my reflexive anti-anti-intellectualism (and, yes, I recognize the vein of irony running through that statement).
I'm a "globalist" insofar as I want to see barriers to all manner of intercourse between people reduced. I don't think this will, or could, erase all cultural and social differences, and certainly don't think such an erasure would be desirable, even if it were possible. I feel a tension here between my desire to see all individuals free to pursue their happiness as they see fit, and my perhaps equally libertarian wish not to see them subjected to coercion, even if it is coercion intended to make them free.
Perhaps the answer is that, instead of pursuing the maximalist goal of acheiving the greatest good, we should seek the modest result of doing the least harm.
Post a Comment