The latest New Yorker has a fine article by Lizzie Widdicombe about the "Assassin of Secrets" plagiarism case. It seems a fitting subject for mid-February, a time of year marked by stories about rare honest politicians/statesmen, confessing about cherry trees or showing the world their warts or whatever.
"Assassin of Secrets" was the name of a book written by Quentin Rowan under the penname Q.R. Markham, a thriller in James Bond style, published by Little Brown last year and recalled (all 6500 copies) only five days after publication.
The extraordinary thing about this plagiarism was its range. Rowan just didn't steal from one or two selected sources. One authority on the subject, Edward Champion, found more than 34 acts of theft within the book's first 35 pages.
Rowan stole, unsurprisingly, from Ian Fleming. He also stole from the writer who was authorized to continue the Bond series, John Gardner. He stole from other spy novelists, such as Charles McCarry and Robert Ludlum. And, just to prove his range as a thief I suppose, he stole from works well outside the genre, such as a nonfiction history of the National Security Agency.
Widdicombe has interviewed Rowan, who is remorseful, and she has found some fascinating material about the making of a plagiarist. What sticks to me, though, is a matter of lineage. Rowan is the great-grandson, on his mother;'s side, of the renowned theologian Walter Rauschenbusch.
Rauschenbusch was a key figure in popularizing the notion of the "Social Gospel" in the early 20th century. His books included Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) which contains a dire-sounding warning to conservatives. "Whoever sets any bounds for the reconstructive power of the religious life over the social relations and institutions of men, to that extent denies the faith of the Master."
If I try to hold the ideas of Rauschenbusch and the actions of Rowan in my mind at the same time, what happens? Do I explode?
No, but the phrase "regression to the mean" acquires a certain prominence.
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
19 February 2012
28 August 2011
Rothbard on Bryan
Murray Rothbard on the rise of William Jennings Bryan and Bryanism in the Democratic Party.
"Poor Grover Cleveland, a hard-money laissez-faire Democrat, was blamed for the panic of 1893, and many leading Cleveland Democrats lost their gubernatorial and senatorial posts in the 1894 elections. The Cleveland Democrats were temporarily weak, and the Southern-Mountain coalition was ready to hand. Seeing this opportunity, William Jennings Bryan and his pietist coalition seized control of the Democratic Party at the momentous convention of 1896. The Democratic Party was never to be the same again."
That may require some explanation. The notion of a "pietist coalition" is key to Rothbard's understanding of US political history. The pietists were and are a certain subset of Protestant groups -- generally from those denominations that see themselves as most fiercely anti-papist, anti-hierarchal, etc. -- and they believe Christians must prepare the way for the coming of the Lord by creating just social conditions first, i.e. Jesus' return shall be "postmillennial." Thus, the state (as Rothbard conveys the pietists' view of it) must be controlled by pious folks and so organized as to hasten that glorious day.
The era of Andrew Jackson -- the President that Rothbard sees as most embodying his own laissez-faire ideas -- was also the era of the Second Great Awakening -- the revivalist movement that brought pietism in this form to the US in a big way. Pietists wanted to control both people's personal lives (through the prohibition of alcohol and Sunday closing laws for example) and the counrtry's economic life, through control of the money supply and tariffs on foreign trade. The great political divide was then, between the Democrats, who were laissez-faire on both personal and economic matters, and the Whigs or later Republicans, who were statist on both sets of matters.
Cleveland is the last figure in US political history to whom Rothbard extends any sympathy. The rise of Bryan meant the pietists had taken over both parties, and everything has been pretty steadily downhill ever since.
"Poor Grover Cleveland, a hard-money laissez-faire Democrat, was blamed for the panic of 1893, and many leading Cleveland Democrats lost their gubernatorial and senatorial posts in the 1894 elections. The Cleveland Democrats were temporarily weak, and the Southern-Mountain coalition was ready to hand. Seeing this opportunity, William Jennings Bryan and his pietist coalition seized control of the Democratic Party at the momentous convention of 1896. The Democratic Party was never to be the same again."
That may require some explanation. The notion of a "pietist coalition" is key to Rothbard's understanding of US political history. The pietists were and are a certain subset of Protestant groups -- generally from those denominations that see themselves as most fiercely anti-papist, anti-hierarchal, etc. -- and they believe Christians must prepare the way for the coming of the Lord by creating just social conditions first, i.e. Jesus' return shall be "postmillennial." Thus, the state (as Rothbard conveys the pietists' view of it) must be controlled by pious folks and so organized as to hasten that glorious day.
The era of Andrew Jackson -- the President that Rothbard sees as most embodying his own laissez-faire ideas -- was also the era of the Second Great Awakening -- the revivalist movement that brought pietism in this form to the US in a big way. Pietists wanted to control both people's personal lives (through the prohibition of alcohol and Sunday closing laws for example) and the counrtry's economic life, through control of the money supply and tariffs on foreign trade. The great political divide was then, between the Democrats, who were laissez-faire on both personal and economic matters, and the Whigs or later Republicans, who were statist on both sets of matters.
Cleveland is the last figure in US political history to whom Rothbard extends any sympathy. The rise of Bryan meant the pietists had taken over both parties, and everything has been pretty steadily downhill ever since.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
