The middle decades of the twentieth century saw Malcolm Muggeridge move into much more lucrative endeavours, television among them. All the same, his story seems to chug along at this point, as if all of the most interesting things that will have have already happened to him. Or, maybe it's just that as he gets older it becomes more and more difficult for a twenty-something reader such as myself to relate to him.
Nonetheless, I can admire his constant desire to break with the common consensus. In particular, the idealization of political figures who, if viewed from a non mainstream angle, are as flawed as anyone else. Having heroes is fine, and maybe even necessary, but the sort of "can-do-no-evil" attitude toward figures like Churchill and Kennedy is troubling.
Giving so much power (in the form of attention and devotion) to one figure seems like an intractable part of human nature, though. It's as if, despite an inclination towards fairness and truth as moral standards, we still struggle with a drive for personal power and influence.
But, even if they're elected, there can only be one alpha human per group, yet with a proliferation of groups in our nearly truly interconnected world does that even matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment