George F. Will, Donald Trump, Barry Goldwater

George F. Will has come back onto the radar of the chattering classes, no longer as one of them, but as a sort of elder sage, a chattering fellow whose chattering has been elevated.

In that capacity he seems to be interested in enunciating a "conservative sensibility" that will be able to survive the coming wreckage of the Republican Party after Trump passes from the scene one way or another.

I liked this bit in a recent interview in his book tour. The interviewer said, "You refer to Barry Goldwater as an important intellectual failure, electorally but then setting the stage for Reagan."

"George Will: It would be a stretch to refer to Barry as an intellectual precursor. But, to me, Barry was an amiable--as someone described, as a 'cheerful malcontent.' But, what he wanted to do was to revive the vocabulary of wide-open spaces, Southwestern individualism; and the Founders. Which he did. He famously did not write but presumably read The Conscience of a Conservative."

It is intriguing to see a self-identified conservative dis Goldwater this way. Yes, Karl Hess ghostwrote that book. I don't know that the fact is "famous" but it is well enough known so that I'll let that pass. Hess also became one of the founders of the Libertarian Party a few years later, after the crash of the Goldwater Presidential campaign had made things ready for the return of Richard Nixon to dominance in the GOP.

I had always thought that, in intra-Republican quarrels, Will was more Nixonian (in a refined and baseball-loving sort of way) than Goldwater/Hess/Libertarian.

Still: The real dis-ing here involves the word "presumably." Will won't concede that Goldwater did as a matter of course read the book that went out with his name attached. He is merely making what seems like a polite "presumption."

Like Art of the Deal, one has to say. The named author may have read that one, too. Or at least leafed through it at some point.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog