Lacadaemon
11-02-2007, 07:05
It's simple when you think about it. The reason is quite clear: the nobel prize for literature.
Winston Churchill, the greatest ever living englishman (person-?) won the nobel prize for literature. No american head of state has ever done that. Now, despite the fact that most american heads of state don't grasp the fact that Winston wasn't a head of state - except maybe for Nixon, that guy was smart - they obviously feel that this is one area in which that they are deficient in respect of the old mother country. After all, the US has already proved itself to be far better at being an untrustworthy ally, shitting up the third world, or generally bollixing up things that the old country ever was well before World War II. So how, then, for an ambitious politician to make their mark*?
Clearly if a US President could also win the nobel prize for literature - or indeed any person of import in the executive branch - then the feeling of inferiority when compared to more educated europeans would evaporate; or if not that at least would place their name in the national history books next to Theodore 'hit me with your rhythmn stick' Roosevelt, who is, let's face it, a national icon for opening a slightly sub-par museum of his hunting specimens. So the motivation is clear.
And thus, we turn to how Winston won his Prize. And how that has shitted up the American political process. Churchill's prize for literature was given for his seminal tome on World War II. Now it's not like there is anything particularly praiseworth about it - god knows I've read it. But on the plus side it does exhibit two things that Americans understand: It's exceedingly long - therefore showing dilligence; and, it shows his work - partial credit. In the academic currecy of modern america these two virtues are exulted to the exclusion of all others. After all, anyone can write a really long book, but showing your work; well, that's the real trick isn't it?
So we turn to the main point of my argument. Churchill's so called history was not literature in the sense that it was well written or particularly cogent. (Indeed, his omission of starving two million indians to death - according to some sources - as part of a scorched earth policy could be considered a major defect insofar as winning the prize for the best book of the year is considered. But I do not wish to enter into that contentious argument here). Yet what does stand out is the apparent scrupulous documentation which supports his narrative. At all points he uses personal telegrams and communicaes that he had personally saved to structure and support his version of history. Hence a great deal of showing work. (Partial credit).
This is important because before Churchill a great deal of government depended merely upon word of mouth. Things were not typically recorded because people were gentlemen and their word was their bond. They very idea that every thing that was said would be aborhent to senior Executive Branch officials such as Henry Stimpson. After all, not only do gentlemen not read each other's mail, they do not record everything that is said to score points later either and, as such, there simply aren't these records available. (Indeed, if Woodrow Wilson came back tommorrow he simply wouldn't be able to compete with Winston in the literature stakes even if he decided to write 'America's involvment in Saving the JP Morgan Bank' - also known as the 'great war' - owing to the lack of boring, but yet, tangentially related bits of paper.)
So basically, it becomes an effort to win the nobel prize with partial credit. Save everything and use it later with the intention of publishing the magnum opus which will inscribe the name of the author upon history. After all, that's really how Churchill won, his primary sources, so if one were to use them onself, a nobel prize would be guaranteed no doubt. But it is exactly also this effort that has stifled government. Viewed through this lense we can understand why Nixon taped everything - for future accolades let's say - or why LBJ recorded himself saying 'n****r'. Yet it is clear to all involved in any level that everything is being recorded in a churchillian manner for future reference. And this stifles all forms of free form debate. Who, as an advisor, would wish to be recorded as making the obviously incorrect suggestion? Yet everyone knows that everything they said is recorded, marked down, and weighed in the future balance; making dissent difficult, if not impossible.
So I say it is time to cast off the aspirations of winning the nobel prize for literature. We as Americans should poo on it, freeing our leaders to stop making notes at every possible juncture. This obsession with documeting everything has paralyzed the decision making process, and taken the voice away from those the president appoints to counsel caution. (And yes, they all tape themselves, ever since Nixon, god knows why).
*Except clinton. He wanted to get into the history books for porking fat chicks. Which he did. So I guess he's smart too.
Winston Churchill, the greatest ever living englishman (person-?) won the nobel prize for literature. No american head of state has ever done that. Now, despite the fact that most american heads of state don't grasp the fact that Winston wasn't a head of state - except maybe for Nixon, that guy was smart - they obviously feel that this is one area in which that they are deficient in respect of the old mother country. After all, the US has already proved itself to be far better at being an untrustworthy ally, shitting up the third world, or generally bollixing up things that the old country ever was well before World War II. So how, then, for an ambitious politician to make their mark*?
Clearly if a US President could also win the nobel prize for literature - or indeed any person of import in the executive branch - then the feeling of inferiority when compared to more educated europeans would evaporate; or if not that at least would place their name in the national history books next to Theodore 'hit me with your rhythmn stick' Roosevelt, who is, let's face it, a national icon for opening a slightly sub-par museum of his hunting specimens. So the motivation is clear.
And thus, we turn to how Winston won his Prize. And how that has shitted up the American political process. Churchill's prize for literature was given for his seminal tome on World War II. Now it's not like there is anything particularly praiseworth about it - god knows I've read it. But on the plus side it does exhibit two things that Americans understand: It's exceedingly long - therefore showing dilligence; and, it shows his work - partial credit. In the academic currecy of modern america these two virtues are exulted to the exclusion of all others. After all, anyone can write a really long book, but showing your work; well, that's the real trick isn't it?
So we turn to the main point of my argument. Churchill's so called history was not literature in the sense that it was well written or particularly cogent. (Indeed, his omission of starving two million indians to death - according to some sources - as part of a scorched earth policy could be considered a major defect insofar as winning the prize for the best book of the year is considered. But I do not wish to enter into that contentious argument here). Yet what does stand out is the apparent scrupulous documentation which supports his narrative. At all points he uses personal telegrams and communicaes that he had personally saved to structure and support his version of history. Hence a great deal of showing work. (Partial credit).
This is important because before Churchill a great deal of government depended merely upon word of mouth. Things were not typically recorded because people were gentlemen and their word was their bond. They very idea that every thing that was said would be aborhent to senior Executive Branch officials such as Henry Stimpson. After all, not only do gentlemen not read each other's mail, they do not record everything that is said to score points later either and, as such, there simply aren't these records available. (Indeed, if Woodrow Wilson came back tommorrow he simply wouldn't be able to compete with Winston in the literature stakes even if he decided to write 'America's involvment in Saving the JP Morgan Bank' - also known as the 'great war' - owing to the lack of boring, but yet, tangentially related bits of paper.)
So basically, it becomes an effort to win the nobel prize with partial credit. Save everything and use it later with the intention of publishing the magnum opus which will inscribe the name of the author upon history. After all, that's really how Churchill won, his primary sources, so if one were to use them onself, a nobel prize would be guaranteed no doubt. But it is exactly also this effort that has stifled government. Viewed through this lense we can understand why Nixon taped everything - for future accolades let's say - or why LBJ recorded himself saying 'n****r'. Yet it is clear to all involved in any level that everything is being recorded in a churchillian manner for future reference. And this stifles all forms of free form debate. Who, as an advisor, would wish to be recorded as making the obviously incorrect suggestion? Yet everyone knows that everything they said is recorded, marked down, and weighed in the future balance; making dissent difficult, if not impossible.
So I say it is time to cast off the aspirations of winning the nobel prize for literature. We as Americans should poo on it, freeing our leaders to stop making notes at every possible juncture. This obsession with documeting everything has paralyzed the decision making process, and taken the voice away from those the president appoints to counsel caution. (And yes, they all tape themselves, ever since Nixon, god knows why).
*Except clinton. He wanted to get into the history books for porking fat chicks. Which he did. So I guess he's smart too.