scrypt
Head-Fi's Sybil
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2002
- Posts
- 2,382
- Likes
- 125
While I'm neither a fan of Grossman's fiction nor a supporter of the positions he sometimes advocates, I was amazed to read the speech he gave in the presence of, and sometimes to, Prime Minister Elhud Olmer. The occasion: to commemorate the passing of Prime Minister Itzak Rabin, who, before he was shot, attempted to further the Middle East peace process. (Since Grossman's own son was killed during Israel's recent invasion of Lebanon, I find it difficult not to see parallels between his ordeal and that of certain of our American activists.)
My point is not to spark a political debate, nor to discuss matters that clearly have no place on these boards. Rather, it is to praise Grossman's taste and courage -- since he chose to address controversial matters intelligently and empirically -- and to lament the current state of things.
Impassioned candor is common enough in foont-on-the-street opinion polls, but rare at the level at which thought bestows power, public occasion, dignity. American news has, for the most part, become a centaur of sleaze: one-sided partisanship of whatever description leading the upper torso, puerile tabloid gossip and entertainment advertisements weakening the lower. Our only hope of hearing a speech at Grossman’s level is to abandon our lives, monitor C-Span hour by hour and descend into Warholian tedium. We deserve better, I think: we deserve news that pays attention to candor and eloquence. Public debate should rise to an art form more often; intelligent discourse ought to be informed by ethics, pragmatism and empathy, not ad hominem, character assassination, vendettas and blockbuster slogans.
What matters is not the particular position taken but, rather, the intelligence of the inquiry:-- the speaker should manage no less than a serious attempt to be fair. In that spirit, Grossman seems not to be arguing the case of any particular party. Instead, he merely offers hard-won insights.
Not to initiate a religious discussion, but I find it fascinating that Grossman is a believer in the State of Israel (though he endorses the surrender of a good deal of land to the Palestinians) but a non-believer in the Jewish religion, and that he would say so publicly at a high-level event taking place in Israel. Consider what would happen to a public figure here or in the UK if s/he were similarly candid: Stark differences that ought to lead to serious debate, but would wither habitually to a moratorium on opponents' mutual respect.
We live in a time in which nearly everyone of public importance is either afraid to tell the truth or incapable of doing so intelligibly. Didn’t we emerge from the mid-twentieth century defeat of fascism with the idea that free speech is supposed to mean something more than permission to be nasty? The idea was that eloquent candor leads to the refinement of thought and the betterment of society. It should remain so still -- not for political reasons, but to ennoble and deepen our interaction at every level.
My point is not to spark a political debate, nor to discuss matters that clearly have no place on these boards. Rather, it is to praise Grossman's taste and courage -- since he chose to address controversial matters intelligently and empirically -- and to lament the current state of things.
Impassioned candor is common enough in foont-on-the-street opinion polls, but rare at the level at which thought bestows power, public occasion, dignity. American news has, for the most part, become a centaur of sleaze: one-sided partisanship of whatever description leading the upper torso, puerile tabloid gossip and entertainment advertisements weakening the lower. Our only hope of hearing a speech at Grossman’s level is to abandon our lives, monitor C-Span hour by hour and descend into Warholian tedium. We deserve better, I think: we deserve news that pays attention to candor and eloquence. Public debate should rise to an art form more often; intelligent discourse ought to be informed by ethics, pragmatism and empathy, not ad hominem, character assassination, vendettas and blockbuster slogans.
What matters is not the particular position taken but, rather, the intelligence of the inquiry:-- the speaker should manage no less than a serious attempt to be fair. In that spirit, Grossman seems not to be arguing the case of any particular party. Instead, he merely offers hard-won insights.
Not to initiate a religious discussion, but I find it fascinating that Grossman is a believer in the State of Israel (though he endorses the surrender of a good deal of land to the Palestinians) but a non-believer in the Jewish religion, and that he would say so publicly at a high-level event taking place in Israel. Consider what would happen to a public figure here or in the UK if s/he were similarly candid: Stark differences that ought to lead to serious debate, but would wither habitually to a moratorium on opponents' mutual respect.
We live in a time in which nearly everyone of public importance is either afraid to tell the truth or incapable of doing so intelligibly. Didn’t we emerge from the mid-twentieth century defeat of fascism with the idea that free speech is supposed to mean something more than permission to be nasty? The idea was that eloquent candor leads to the refinement of thought and the betterment of society. It should remain so still -- not for political reasons, but to ennoble and deepen our interaction at every level.
