tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post3807398673914318216..comments2023-11-05T22:35:31.766+00:00Comments on Neil Clark: Shock and (Auberon) WaughNeil Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10479041156190090119noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-16194129459468612682011-01-11T18:48:55.438+00:002011-01-11T18:48:55.438+00:00Thanks for the comments & kind words.
Will get...Thanks for the comments & kind words.<br />Will get back to reply to some of the points raised shortly.Neil Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10479041156190090119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-59992750132412163522011-01-06T21:47:05.304+00:002011-01-06T21:47:05.304+00:00I doubt whether I'll have a convincing answer ...I doubt whether I'll have a convincing answer here (I didn't before), but I often wonder *how* Neil would restructure society as he wishes. A case in point is the Net Book Agreement, which collapsed in the mid-90s before online retailing took off, and which he would presumably wish to restore, symptomatic as it was of the old regulated economy. But even if the political and economic changes had not happened, it would almost certainly have been rendered unworkable by *technological* change - i.e. the growth of the internet and the near-certainty that Amazon et al would have based themselves abroad to bypass UK legislation, rendering the Agreement an irrelevant farce which would have had to be abandoned most embarrassingly.<br /><br />It should be noted here that Neil describes societies in which internet use is heavily monitored and restricted by the state, with "unhealthy", "foreign" sites often censored, as "happier and healthier" than Western societies. Can I put two and two together and suggest that, in Neil's ideal society, internet use would indeed be fairly tightly controlled so as to maintain the planned economy?<br /><br />The thing with Waugh is that, entertaining and skilled though he was, there's really no difference between his position ("keep those foreigners out with their hamburgers and rock'n'roll and smoking bans") and the Littlejohn position ("keep those foreigners out with their comparative social democracy and metrication and garlic"). Obviously, Waugh stood out in his last years at the Telegraph because the paper was by then dominated by the latter position, and the former had been marginalised, but it's still the same thing - insularity and xenophobia. Just because it's directed against the originators of the invasion of Iraq doesn't make it any better. Also, I'm against *Anglo-Saxon* imperialism, not simply the American kind (a crucial difference), and Waugh clearly wasn't seeing how he defended the Suez adventure, which was as stupid and ill-planned as the invasion of Iraq 47 years later.Robin Carmodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825645880870474801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-37681095277383047352011-01-06T21:46:09.037+00:002011-01-06T21:46:09.037+00:00I doubt whether I'll have a convincing answer ...I doubt whether I'll have a convincing answer here (I didn't before), but I often wonder *how* Neil would restructure society as he wishes. A case in point is the Net Book Agreement, which collapsed in the mid-90s before online retailing took off, and which he would presumably wish to restore, symptomatic as it was of the old regulated economy. But even if the political and economic changes had not happened, it would almost certainly have been rendered unworkable by *technological* change - i.e. the growth of the internet and the near-certainty that Amazon et al would have based themselves abroad to bypass UK legislation, rendering the Agreement an irrelevant farce which would have had to be abandoned most embarrassingly.<br /><br />It should be noted here that Neil describes societies in which internet use is heavily monitored and restricted by the state, with "unhealthy", "foreign" sites often censored, as "happier and healthier" than Western societies. Can I put two and two together and suggest that, in Neil's ideal society, internet use would indeed be fairly tightly controlled so as to maintain the planned economy? It is a reasonable assumption; I myself would oppose internet censorship with my life, whatever the justification was.<br /><br />The thing with Bron Waugh is that, entertaining and skilled though he was as a writer, there's really no difference between his position ("keep those foreigners out with their hamburgers and rock'n'roll and smoking bans") and the Richard Littlejohn position ("keep those foreigners out with their comparative social democracy and metrication and garlic"). Obviously, Waugh stood out in his last years at the Telegraph because the paper was by then dominated by the latter position, and the former had been marginalised, but it's still the same thing - insularity and xenophobia. Just because it's directed against the originators of the invasion of Iraq doesn't make it any better. Also, I'm against *Anglo-Saxon* imperialism, not simply the American kind (a crucial difference), and Waugh clearly wasn't seeing how he defended the Suez adventure, which was as stupid and ill-planned as the invasion of Iraq 47 years later.Robin Carmodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825645880870474801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-54311395870001340152011-01-06T21:26:05.979+00:002011-01-06T21:26:05.979+00:00Thanks for that, Neil. That really revised my opi...Thanks for that, Neil. That really revised my opinion of Waugh. I subscribed to the Literary Review, which he edited, for a while (till I switched to the LRB), and liked it and his foosty tweediness, but I'd only encountered the more reactionary side of his political opinions, and thought he was basically an arsehole. I may well get hold of his collected writings, and give him another chance.<br /><br />I noticed Oliver Kamm on the comments thread at American Conservative. He follows you everywhere. He really loves you, you know. LOL (as they say these days).jock mctrousersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-53493782075890442332011-01-06T13:44:42.807+00:002011-01-06T13:44:42.807+00:00You hear it often, (indeed, you can read it right ...You hear it often, (indeed, you can read it right here) that over the economy Ed Milliband would be considered to the "right" of Ted Heath, who was very much the post-war <i>dirigiste</i>. What you hear somewhat less, is that James Callaghan, with his Baptist upbringing, was probably more conservative on social issues than David Cameron, certainly far more so than Nick Clegg. With all major parties right now crowding around a fairly tight liberal consensus, their more traditional followers a left feeling rather bereft.<br /><br />Will their shared advocacy of non-interventionism, capital punishment and nationalized railways be enough to unite the likes of Neil Clark and Peter Hitchens? <br /><br />Who knows.....Pat Davershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12501168893663194131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-45195599427364099542011-01-06T00:08:54.557+00:002011-01-06T00:08:54.557+00:00Great article. I especially liked the part about W...Great article. I especially liked the part about Waugh's encounter with '80s yuppies. The same is still true today. I personally think yuppies must be the most boring people alive, even if they happen to be nice enough otherwise. But then again, the whole culture is becoming increasingly boring. This is what happens when you live under the tyranny of materialism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-55108178301427195882011-01-05T21:35:58.395+00:002011-01-05T21:35:58.395+00:00Excellent article. I suppose I'd take the rath...Excellent article. I suppose I'd take the rather gloomy view that old left and right can only really bond over the utter stupidity of neo-cons. Still, whilst the neo-cons are still very influential here, maybe for now that will be enough.Gregorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14729641571904025752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-38381390759987949142011-01-05T20:41:08.065+00:002011-01-05T20:41:08.065+00:00Indeed, the legacy of the Cold War is still overwh...Indeed, the legacy of the Cold War is still overwhelmingly divisive. Without it, a paper like the Daily Mail might well feel able to support socialism, which would be the only means of reducing the cultural tendencies it claims (hypocritically, because it supports the barely-regulated market) to deplore.<br /><br />The thing about Bron Waugh's criticism of Bush I's Gulf War and Clinton's bombing of the rump Yugoslavia is that it was not really a serious political analysis of imperialism, it was simply a reflexive reaction against "vulgar, burger-munching jumped-up colonials". If Britain had still had the power to do such things under its own steam, he would probably have approved of them, seeing how he defended the 1956 Suez adventure. Of course it would have been good to see Bush II criticised from the right, especially in a paper as neocon as the Telegraph in 2002/3, but don't confuse Waugh's post-imperial melancholia with serious politics. Also, there is still a profound difference between Waugh's philosophy and mine; for all the sporadic common ground, I believe that the state has a role in both culture and economy, he didn't. His (and also Peregrine Worsthorne's, and to some extent Peter Hitchens's) mythical *pre-capitalist* utopia is no more progressive than neo-Thatcherism.Robin Carmodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825645880870474801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-68018125002957503752011-01-05T16:28:42.938+00:002011-01-05T16:28:42.938+00:00Indeed. It's funny, but the "Old Right&qu...Indeed. It's funny, but the "Old Right" and the "Old Left" were sworn enemies during the 70's, (with the former even contemplating some sort of military coup against the latter, if they ever got too big for their boots). However, at the end of a 30 years period, during which the "right" has come to stand for economic liberalism and the "left" for social liberalism, resulting in an increasingly fractured and atomised culture, there seems to be some sort of movement attempt establish some kind of common ground, based around a more cohesive conception of society. I sincerely wish them luck with this, although I fear that that the issues that so divided them in the past may be too great to be overcome.Pat Davershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12501168893663194131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17766817.post-59378118081155146762011-01-05T11:22:13.083+00:002011-01-05T11:22:13.083+00:00The best writer I ever fundamentally disagreed wit...The best writer I ever fundamentally disagreed with. It is interesting indeed to think of how he became an ally of convenience for the old Left because that would have been utterly unimaginable in the 70s; if you've ever read his anthologised Private Eye & Spectator columns from that era, it's fascinating how genuinely convinced he is that capitalism was dead in Britain, and that a drift towards permanent socialist control was irreversible. A week before the planned 1978 election was delayed, he commented in the Spectator that British capitalism was "in ruins", but a mere six weeks later he observed that, partially due to Callaghan's poor sense of timing, Britain's public services were instead in for a long, slow death - yet another sign of what a crucial time that was.<br /><br />I do think it is necessary to say, though, that Iran is not a particularly happy or healthy society for those who do not conform to its norms. You can believe that without believing it should be bombed tomorrow. Bron seemed to see non-western societies as a model because they resembled how he wished the West could still be, in a world without pop culture; I sympathise with that sometimes, but it's not really practical politics.Robin Carmodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825645880870474801noreply@blogger.com