[A-List] London Review of Books

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Dunno who this pompous ass is, but it tells us something about our old
friend David Marquand, whom regular A-listers will know to be far less
critical of and "outside" the "Third Way" than portrayed by this Ronald
Radosh-type windbag. Indeed, Marquand most recently has been involved in
yet another "network" organisation within the New Labour nexus, "The
Hub":

see http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2002-March/004725.html


Stephen Pollard: The editor who prefers to hear only her own views
'It's never difficult to find examples of how insufferably
self-righteous the left is at its worst'
The Independent, 12 March 2002

An American intellectual, who has moved from radical leftism in the
1960s to being a staunch neo-Conservative today, once told me that life
is so much easier on the right. "You don't have to think about what your
correct response to anything should be. You just go with your first
thoughts." I sort of know what he meant, except that my first thought
after his observation was that he had got it the wrong way round. It's
much easier being on the left, because then you know, you just know,
that whatever you think about an issue simply has to be the only decent
way of approaching it.

After all, you're on the left. And that means that, by definition, you
have the moral high ground.

It's never difficult to find examples of how insufferably, and blindly,
self-righteous the left is at its worst. I had my own experience when,
as the research director of the Fabian Society in 1995, I sought to
write a paper arguing in favour of selective schools. My proposal was
rejected not on grounds of intellectual merit but, quite explicitly,
because such a view was said to be incompatible with being on the left.

But you'd be hard pushed to find a more repellent example than the spat
between the editor of the London Review of Books, Mary-Kay Wilmers, and
David Marquand. After 11 September, the LRB established itself as the
focus for left-liberal anti-Americanism and opposition to the campaign
against terrorism. As one contributor, Mary Beard, put it: "America had
it coming." Nauseating as such a view is, it reflects a large body of
opinion among the LRB's readership, and there should be a space for such
views. The New Statesman has taken a similar line, and its circulation
has risen by almost a quarter.

Three days after the attack, Marquand, one of the LRB's regular
contributors, was asked to review The Rivals , James Naughtie's book
about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Marquand is, by quite a long way, the
finest writer on the left today. He has written a number of classics,
all characterised not just by the strength of their argument but also by
the clarity of their prose. And he is far from being a Blairite, let
alone a lackey. Most of his pieces have been critical of "The Project".

In his LRB review, however, he turned to Blair's response to 11
September, which he summarised thus: "Blair's handling of the post-11
September crisis was impeccable." He filed his piece on 17 January. The
next day, he received the following response from Ms Wilmers: "There's a
problem... I can't square it with my conscience to praise so
wholeheartedly Blair's conduct since 11 September... I feel quite
strongly that the US response, and ipso facto ours, has been at the very
least questionable... I hope you won't think I'm being doctrinaire - or
incomprehensibly convoluted." She was, in other words, refusing to print
his piece because she didn't agree with it.

As Marquand put it in reply to Ms Wilmers: "Frankly, I find your message
outrageous... I have never before had a piece rejected on the grounds
that it departed from the party line of the publication. I'm utterly
shocked that the LRB should apply what amounts to censorship to its
contributors... You wouldn't have been praising Blair; the praise would
have come from me. If you feel really strongly that my opinions are
shocking or wrong-headed, you could perfectly well publish them with an
appropriate editorial disclaimer. What you are really saying,
camouflaged by this talk of conscience, is that the contents of your
paper have to conform to your personal prejudices, and that dissident
voices need not apply. For a journal that purports to be one of opinion
and debate, that is monstrous."

So what, you might think. Ms Wilmers has shown herself to be a pretty
reprehensible editor who is now unlikely ever again to be able to call
on the services of open-minded people. But then if that's how she wants
to run her journal, that's her business.

Well, no. The London Review of Books is not her journal. It's ours. The
LRB is Arts Council-funded, to the tune of £14,050 a year. Ms Wilmers
is perfectly entitled to edit a journal which promotes only her own
prejudices. But not with our money. The purpose of tax funding is to
allow a variety of views to be aired. I disagree with the LRB's stance
on 11 September, but I fully accept its right to hold such views - and
to air them.

The likes of Ms Wilmer were the first to protest when, following a
state-supported exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe photographs in the
United States, there were moves to stop the National Endowment for the
Arts from funding similarly "pornographic" events.

The sheer supercilious, pious hypocrisy fair takes the breath away. Then
again, why should we be taken by surprise? Ms Wilmers says that the
sentence about Blair's impeccability "just got to me". As a left
intellectual, she knows, she just knows, that her reaction is the real
test of an argument's worth. To hell with debate.

Full article at:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=273465

Michael Keaney
Mercuria Business School
Martinlaaksontie 36
01620 Vantaa
Finland

michael.keaney@xxxxxx