August 16, 2002

The Wish for Kings, Lewis Lapham

Lapham is a strangely Establishment anti-establishment pundit. He speaks from a comfortable seat on a pile of old money - the editorship of Harper's Magazine - and that gives him access to the oligarchy he scorns, and a length of experience that is credible when he criticizes stupidities each administration gets into for lack of an institutional memory (despite the perks of video producers, hairstylists, etc.). He could lose the editorship, though; maybe he can't afford the go-to-hell air that rebellious members of inherited aristocracies have carried into various exiles, rebellions, and meetings with the axe. Maybe it's a conscious belief that a emollient, name-dropping style, somewhat more intellectual than Condé Nast would allow, will infiltrate his damning arguments more deeply than unseemly agression could.

Still, since he's accusing our politicians, lawyers, journalists, and wishful-thinking populace of having sold our government for stupid ends and at a low price, a rougher tone would have seemed more consistent to me. So wrote clew in History (21st c.).

And thus wrote others:
TrackBacks turned off...