The battlefield of books
Politicians are often asked, particularly during election campaigns, to name their favourite book. Their answers are then picked over for clues to their personalities -- and their obsessions. You can imagine election stategists debating which book they should claim is the favoured choice of their candidate. Then there's the danger that a reporter might ask the candidate what he or she particularly likes about the book that apparently set them off on a journey of public service. To avoid the fumblingly incomprehensible answer candidates may have to give at this moment, a good strategist will have given them talking points that read like a GCSE English cheat-sheet. The bigger danger, of course, is to allow the candidate to busk both answers.
This appears to be what happened in the case of the former Massachusetts Governor now running for the Republican presidential nomination. Asked to name his favourite book, Mr Romney answered, "", the science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. Quite apart from the literary qualities of this book -- it makes The Da Vinci Code read like a previously unpublished novel by Dickens -- this choice has clearly unnerved some of the electorate who are already slightly nervous about Mr Romney's membership of the Mormon church. The candidate quickly backpeddled with a clarification to the effect that L. Ron Hubbard's book is actually merely one of his many favourite books, but his Number One Favourite Book is, obviously, the Bible. He may think this has saved the day, but we can now predict follow-up questions on which version of the Bible he prefers and whether the is, as it claims, "another testament".
Predictably, it's all become a bit of a debacle, with media pundits now reading the episode as typical of the former governor's serial flip-flopping. If he can't decide what his favourite book is, how can he decide foreign policy?
I'm currently making the next series of The Book Programme. One of the regular items on that programme is called "Speaking Volumes". This is where I make a house call to a well-known local personality to find out which books they keep on their shelves.
I've visited artists, musicians, writers, and TV stars in my quest to read them all like a book. I dropped in on the artist on Friday morning. Over coffee we talked about her love of impressionism and the art of the middle and far east as she flicked through some of her favourite art catalogues and history books.
Nicola's political subjects include (Favourite Book: ) and Mo Mowlam. She also painted Bill Sillery, former headmaster of Belfast Royal Academy, who, while interviewing me for a place at the school many moons ago, asked me to name my favourite book.
Comments
I was at BRA too while bill sillery was head. What a character! Great post Will.
Nothing I'll bet on Louis Lord when he was 'vice' principal under Darbyshire!
The old Capitol cinema on the Antrim Road nearly had to be closed down because some of our sex and some of the other sex took it over on Saturday afternoons for something other than watching the movie once the lights went down.
Miss Savage lived up to her name when she became involved with the female side of the investigation.
Regards,
Michael
Can you remember William, what was your answer to Bill Sillery, as I remember taking my daughter to be interviewed by Billy Young a few years back and her answer being anything by Jacqueline Wilson.
Asked to name his favourite book, Mr Romney answered, "Battlefield Earth", the science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.
There will be another 鈥榖attlefield earth鈥 over the republican candidates views on Darwinism.
In the May 5, 2007 NY Times in an article entitled A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin it is stated:
Begin partial quote:
Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?
The argument exposes tensions within the Republicans鈥 鈥渂ig tent,鈥 as could be seen Thursday night when the party鈥檚 10 candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three 鈥 Senator Brownback of Kansas; Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado 鈥 indicated they did not.
For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor.
鈥淚 believe conservatives need Charles Darwin,鈥 said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. 鈥淭he intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.鈥 鈥淭here are plenty of people glad to call themselves conservatives,鈥 he said, 鈥渨ho don鈥檛 see any reason not to support stem cell research.鈥
The reference to stem cells suggests just how wide the split is. 鈥淭he current debate is not primarily about religious fundamentalism,鈥 Mr. West, the author of 鈥淒arwin鈥檚 Conservatives: The Misguided Quest鈥 (2006), said at Thursday鈥檚 conference. 鈥淣or is it simply an irrelevant rehashing of certain esoteric points of biology and philosophy. Darwinian reductionism has become culturally pervasive and inextricably intertwined with contemporary conflicts over traditional morality, personal responsibility, sex and family, and bioethics.鈥
The technocrats, he charged, wanted to grab control from 鈥渙rdinary citizens and their elected representatives鈥 so that they alone could make decisions over 鈥渃ontroversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming.鈥
Advances in biotechnology 鈥 and pressure on elected Republicans to curb them 鈥 are partly responsible for the surge of interest in linking evolutionary and political theory, said those in the thick of the debate.
To many people, asking whether evolution is good for conservatism is like asking if gravity is good for liberalism; nature is morally neutral. Andrew Ferguson in The Weekly Standard and Carson Holloway in his 2006 book, 鈥淭he Right Darwin? Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy,鈥 for example, have written that jumping from evolutionary science to moral conclusions and policy proposals is absurd.
Skeptics of Darwinism like William F. Buckley, Mr. West and Mr. Gilder also object. The notion that 鈥渢he whole universe contains no intelligence,鈥 Mr. Gilder said at Thursday鈥檚 conference, is perpetuated by 鈥淒arwinian storm troopers.鈥 鈥淏oth Nazism and communism were inspired by Darwinism,鈥 he continued. 鈥淲hy conservatives should toady to these storm troopers is beyond me.鈥
At the American Enterprise Institute鈥檚 conference, the tension between the proponents of intelligent design and of evolution was occasionally on display. When Mr. Derbyshire described himself as a 鈥渓apsed Anglican,鈥 which he compared to 鈥渇alling out of a first-floor window,鈥 Mr. Gilder piped up, 鈥淒id you fall on your head?鈥
What both sides do agree on is that conservatives who have shied away from these debates should speak up. Mr. Arnhart said that having been so badly burned by social Darwinism, many conservatives today did not want 鈥渢o get involved in these moral and political debates, and I think that鈥檚 evasive.鈥 Yet getting involved is more important than ever, after 鈥渢he disaster鈥 of 鈥淧resident Bush鈥檚 compassionate conservatism,鈥 he said, because the only hope for Republicans is a 鈥渇usion of libertarianism and traditionalism, and Darwinian nature supports that conservative fusion.鈥
Mr. West agreed that 鈥渃onservatives who are discomfited by the continuing debate over Darwin鈥檚 theory need to understand that it is not about to go away鈥; that it 鈥渇undamentally challenges the traditional Western understanding of human nature and the universe.鈥 鈥淚f conservatives want to address root causes rather than just symptoms,鈥 he said, 鈥渢hey need to join the debate over Darwinism, not scorn it or ignore it.鈥
End partial quote:
And N. Ireland thinks it has a problem with Paisley and McGuinness trying to figure out when to shake hands?
Regards,
Michael
You have to give Mormon men credit for being quite strong and capable of managing difficult situations. Mormons still believe in polygamy and many of us believe that in their homeland of Utah some of them still practice it able to cope with several wives simultaneously while most other mortal men can barely handle one at a time.
I think Romney's enfatuation with L. Ron Hubbard has nothing to do with science fiction, it has to do with Scientology and Hubbard's masterful skill for perpetrating a most fantastic and lucrative scam. It must be around 40 years since Life Magazine published its complete expose' of Scientology. This is a religion if you can call it that which makes increasing sums of money from its "adherents" by teaching them bio feedback techniques to mentally control the electrical resistance of their skin. I'm not making this up. At each stage of skill, the training for the next stage costs substantially more usually adding up to many thousands of dollars (back in the sixties.) The adherent knows he's arrived at the closest thing to state of nirvana on earth when he "goes clear."
Mitt Romney is the son of Governor Geroge Romney of Michigan who said famously during the Viet Nam war about having been convinced to initially support the war "I've been duped." This killed his chances as a presidential candidate.
I guess his son feels it is better to be the dupor than the dupee.
鈥淏oth Nazism and communism were inspired by Darwinism,鈥
It is very sad that science has become a political football, with somehow depending on your political view you either support evolution or not and as the writer of the article points out it is only on this issue-not on the theory of gravity for example(I remember the Onion did a great skit on this awhile back).
Incidentally the communist manifesto was published before Darwin and soviet Russia rejected evolution a situation from which that Russian science has still not recovered from to this day. The Nazis used a perverted form of natural selection that had nowt to do with science.
Typical willfully ignorant creationist twaddle.
Here's a good book worth reading; The River Where America Began: A Journey Along The James
Bob Deans
But even if you don't read it, it's worth seeing the author's talk bout it on CSpan. Here's a link which allows you to see the video clip.
This is much more than the story about the colony at Jamestown. You can learn much about America from it. Queen Elizabeth visited Jamestown and the recently discovered archeological diggings of the original settlement yesterday and was formally greeted and given a tour of the Virgina State Capitol in Richmond where much American history was made. She also got to see a native American greeting ceremony and meet the descendants presumably from the same Algonquin tribe which John Smith and the settlers had to deal with. I think she's being hosted in a formal State dinner at the White House today. Nobody here has the slightest qualms about meeting her. I was watching a little of it yesterday and thinking what a horrible life she must lead, this poor old lady having to sit interminably through a lifetime of boring ceremonies and being dragged all over the world on these tours and all for what? I'm just glad it's not me.
I keep getting comment submission error messages, sorry if this is a multiple submission.