Yesterday evening I read an article entitled “The Privilege Paradox”, http://quillette.com/2018/03/27/the-privilege-paradox/ . The article reminded me of my own short poem “Privilege” which runs thus:
“I stand opposed to all privilege,
To the bitter end.
Yet, if it be mine own
I do, as a dog with a bone
My privilege defend,
Gainst foe and friend”.
(https://newauthoronline.com/2017/09/20/privilege/).
I find it strange when those who have more than me
Defend Marx’s ideology,
While I, who am admittedly possessed of a sufficiency
Argue for a free society
Several days ago, I did something which I have never done before.
I closed comments on this post, https://newauthoronline.com/2018/02/15/should-only-black-teachers-teach-black-children-about-slavery/.
I welcome comments on newauthoronline.com and did not take the above action lightly. My reasons for closing comments are as follows:
1. The post had attracted many comments (the majority of which emanated from one individual. I had, I believe engaged with the commenter extensively and answered their comments. We disagreed (which is absolutely fine), however I felt that the conversation was going around in ever decreasing circles and, it being obvious that we where engaged in a dialogue of the deaf I determined to close the post to comments.
2. My blog is, overwhelmingly concerned with my poetry. In contrast, the above post pertains to politics. Now I read history and politics at University College Swansea and remain fascinated by political issues. However it became apparent to me that continuing to engage in dialogue was distracting me from my writing. I always try to answer comments fully and a detailed comment deserves a substantive response – but not at the expense of my writing.
Will I write about matters of controversy in the future or confine myself purely to writing poetry? I will not shy away from tackling controversial issues here, however the main purpose of this site is to share my work and (hopefully) in the course of so doing to sell a few books. I will not allow other topics (however interesting) to distract me from my goal of composing poetry.
Kevin
I am a great lover of quotations. I recently came across the below quotation by Arthur Balfour, which struck a chord with me:
“Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all”.
In his work “The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill”, the late Lord Robert Blake writes of Balfour in the following terms:
“The new Prime Minister was a person of immense charm, great intellectual power, and much political sagacity. Like his uncle, he took it for granted that parliamentary democracy would only work—if it could work at all—as long as “the masses” continued to elect their leaders from “the classes”. Not that he was himself, any more than Salisbury, a typical member of the order to which he belonged. He was too clever, too cool and too detached to be thus categorised …”.
(“The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill”, by Lord Robert Blake. Eyre and Spottiswoode (publishers) LTD. Chapter 5, Tory Democracy and the rule of Lord Salisbury 1881-1902).
For anyone interested in finding out more about the enigmatic Balfour, the following article may be of interest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour.
On 9 May 2017, I wrote “Echo”, https://newauthoronline.com/2017/05/09/echo/. There is a pronounced tendency for we humans to consort with like-minded people and to seek out media which affirms those views we already hold.
Many live in “echo chambers” where their own views are reassuringly echoed back to them. It’s not always easy to stand back and (so far as is humanly possible) to view the whole picture.
Yet we must do so if we are to be wise and avoid the “echo chamber”.
A little while back I came across a post entitled “Are Writers Allowed To Express Political Opinions”, https://ryanlanz.com/2017/12/01/are-writers-allowed-to-express-political-opinions/. Before proceeding further, I would like to make it clear that in a free society writers (along with the rest of the population) have an absolute right to voice their views. I have always voted and will continue to do so as to complain and not to vote is, in my view at best risible and at worst smacks of hypocrisy. However the point of this post is to examine whether it is wise for writers to express political opinions.
I recall attending a poetry reading, during the course of which one of the performers regaled the audience with a poem lauding the virtues of a former British prime minister. As a point of information, my view of the PM in question is that their period in office saw both positive and negative measures taken by the administrations in question. However the poem’s uncritical lauding of the politician and its blatant political purpose made me squirm. I suspect that I was far from being alone in my feeling of relief when this piece of propaganda was at an end.
Political poetry need not, however have one squirming in one’s seat. Take, for example the 17th-century “Vicar of Bray which begins thus:
“1. In good King Charles’ golden time, when loyalty no harm meant,
A zealous high churchman was I, and so I gained preferment.
To teach my flock, I never missed: Kings are by God appointed
And damned are those who dare resist or touch the Lord’s annointed.
(Chorus):
And this be law, that I’ll maintain until my dying day, sir
That whatsoever king may reign, Still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, sir. …”. (http://www.britainexpress.com/attraction-articles.htm?article=29).
In the above poem, we are treated to a wonderful description of a vicar who will change his principles in whatever way will advance his survival in the living of Bray. The man has no loyalty whatsoever other than to himself. The poem manages to be both bitingly funny and to attack political opportunism at the same time.
One does not, in my view need to agree with the sentiments being expressed to find poetry that expresses political views interesting and/or amusing. Take, for example Hilaire Belloc’s “On A Great Election”:
“The accursed power which stands on privilege
(And goes with women, and champagne, and bridge)
Broke—and democracy resumed her reign
(Which goes with bridge, and women, and champagne)”.
Although I think that Belloc’s view is overly cynical, his poem does, none the less strike a chord with me and brings a smile to my face, which is a key factor in any good poem (that it resonates with the reader).
As for my own work, anyone who reads my poetry will, I believe gain a view as regards my political outlook. Be wary though my dear reader for my tongue is sometimes firmly implanted in my cheek!
In conclusion, writers do, of course have a perfect right to express political views. However few people like a didact and much of the best political poetry contains an element of satire. Orwell’s “Animal Farm, Animal Farm, never through me shall you come to harm” causes the reader to wince and is intended to do so, for Orwell is satirising the sloganeering of the Communist left. Orwell’s quote is, in my opinion far superior to the poem regarding a former British Prime Minister, which I was forced to sit through during a poetry reading some time ago.
Kevin
There was a young man named Sleary
Who advocated Marx’s theory.
When his ideas failed to come to fruition
He said “the people require more tuition,
For there is nothing wrong with the theory!”.
In a Guardian comment piece entitled “The truth about Capitalism is out as Marx’s magic cap starts to slip”, Giles Fraser, an inner city priest in London launches a frontal attack on capitalism and, in essence argues that Karl Marx’s analysis of Capitalism is correct, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/oct/05/the-truth-about-capitalism-is-out-as-marxs-magic-cap-starts-to-slip.
The article contains many weaknesses:
1. Fraser fails to mention the many crimes committed by Communist states (E.G. Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China). Of course it will be objected by some that true Communism/Marxism has never been tried and that the states styling themselves Marxist where nothing of the kind.
My response is, how many people need to die before Marxism is laid to rest along with Marx in Highgate cemetery?
2. Fraser details the problems associated with Capitalism but there is no such analysis of the profound difficulties flowing from attempts to implement Marx’s ideas.
3. Apart from a few extreme anarcho-capitalists, very few supporters of market economics advocate completely unrestrained capitalism. In the early 19th-century the Conservative social reformer, Lord Shaftsbury was instrumental in bringing in “The Climbing Boys Act” which banned the use of children as chimney sweeps.
Long before the first Socialist government was elected in the UK measures to curb the worst excesses of unrestrained Capitalism where on the statute books.
Again anti-discrimination legislation is not merely a preserve of the left.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was introduced by the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan while the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act (now the Equalities Act) was brought in by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher).
Both pieces of legislation place limits on what employers can do by prohibiting discrimination against disabled people (I.E. by placing restraints on Capitalism red in tooth and claw).
Fraser fails to acknowledge this.
4. For all its faults a mixed economy (containing a good dose of Capitalism) is more efficient than any alternative yet discovered.
Again Fraser fails to acknowledge this.
In conclusion, there are many faults with Capitalism. The mixed economy (containing a good dose of market economics) does, however ensure political and economic freedom and its excesses are capable of being reformed.
Researchers claim that in future artificial intelligence will be able, with a high degree of accuracy, to determine an individual’s political opinions, their level of intelligence and their propensity to criminal behaviour.
The researchers acknowledge that such software could be misused (for example to target people on the grounds of propensity to criminal behaviour even when they had committed no criminal act. They acknowledge that many people with criminal tendencies never, in fact commit crimes).
As regards political leanings, the researchers acknowledge that software will be most accurate in pinpointing those on the far-right or left rather than the majority of the population who occupy the middle-ground of the political spectrum.
While I am not a scientist (my degrees are in history and politics), it strikes me that the decline of religious faith has led to a growth in (sometimes) uncritical belief in the claims of scientists. Science is, perhaps in danger of becoming a secular religion where claims are taken as gospel (pun intended)!
Of course scientists will object that their research is peer reviewed and subject to rigorous examination. In contrast, they will contend religion is based purely on faith and it’s claims are, therefore unverifiable. Good science is certainly subject to rigorous peer review and a combination of peer review and the passage of time will prove (or disprove) the claims of the researchers.
I am, as I say above no scientist. However, on the face of it the claims made by the researchers appear to me to be reductionist in nature and overly simplistic.
For the article please visit, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/12/artificial-intelligence-face-recognition-michal-kosinski
I expressed a view, contrary to your own.
Now I am alone
Thinking on the old adage that one ought
Not to talk,
About religion, politics and sport.
K Morris - Poet 