Skip to main content

An Allen Drury quote


In the final book of the famous series of political novels that began with ADVISE AND CONSENT, we get a (relatively) happy ending called THE PROMISE OF JOY, in which Drury's idealized hero, Orrin Knox, finally becomes President. His inaugural speech is recorded in some detail. This one paragraph -- which does not really arise out of anything else in the plot, jumps out at me.

"Agriculture will continue to receive the same close attention from my administration that it has received from others. The price gap between producer and consumer is still too low for the producer, too high for the consumer, too close to profiteering for the middleman. We will seek ways to close that gap."  

What on earth does that mean? As I say, it is from Drury's hero. We should not lightly write it off as meaningless political blather. 

The gap between producer and consumer? Presumably this refers to the gap between what the farmer gets selling wheat and what the consumers put out buying the bread, in between those middlemen.  But that amounts to the rather silly claim that, on the imagined time-line, farmers were complaining that the price gap was "too low." Not that the prices they could get were too low but that the price GAP was too low.  Why the heck would they make that complaint? There wasn't profiteering enough going on for them? 

Presumably what Knox meant, and what Drury meant to have him say, was that "The price gap between producer and consumer is still too large for both, so that the price is too low for the former and too high for the latter, a circumstance that looks to the public too much like profiteering by the middleman."

I could go on here for some time about the fact that the various sorts of middlemen have their uses [would the consumers prefer the unprocessed wheat?] -- but I will just say that even the financial middlemen have their uses, and responsible leadership might say from time to time that the appearance of "profiteering" -- gain without any addition of value -- is often merely an appearance, and one ought to be wary of administrations that take office promising to "close the gap." I am also reminded of the phrase "mind the gap" at London's underground stations, but I'm not sure that helps here.  

Knox is one of those mouthpiece-for-the-novelist characters and the statement suggests that Drury himself had incoherent views on farm prices and naturally attributes them to his character. Though the more generous interpretation is also possible: that Drury wanted his character to have such views, showing us that the new President's heart really isn't into agriculture policy.

On an unrelated point: the title of the book, "the promise of joy," is a quote from an Edwardian journalist, Harold Begby. I haven't been able to contextualize the quote, but it may have been made on the outbreak of war in 1914. 

"Let us wear on our sleeve the crepe of mourning for a civilization that held the promise of joy." 


 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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