Government ain't easy: Democracy (Lapham's Quarterly XIII/4)

 

 Lapham’s Quarterly XIII/3 Democracy (2020) Though most of recorded history, “democracy” was a word and concept that struck terror into the hearts and minds of the rulers. Forgive the cliche, but when it comes to politics, it’s all cliche. Such as the equation of democracy with mob rule, which will destroy peace, order, and good government as certainly as the most heinous of tyrannies. And despite the example of Athens, that’s what democracy tends toward.
     Athenian political theory is quite clear: Oligarchy will give way to democracy, which will morph into mob rule, which will attract a tyrant or king to restore order. The king may found a dynasty, but the next phase will be an oligarchy, and so the whirligig of politics will bring in its revenges. History doesn’t suggest easy way to escape this cycle.
     This collection does have a few surprises, however. For example, the Haudenosaunee or Five Nations Confederacy, which pre-dated European contact, operated on consensus. (It comprised the Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga and Mohawk.) No decision was made until a consensus had been reached, even if it took days of talk. There is documentary evidence that democracy in the modern sense owes much to this model, for the American Revolution contained two strands, the one urging democracy, the other frankly oligarchic. Oligarchy won, and ever since the USA has been attempting to create the democracy that the Declaration of Independence aspires to describe, and which justified the Revolution.
     I think the inference from the evidence is that democracy is possible, but it requires constant effort, and constant re-invention.
     I’m puzzled that this collection omits what I think is the best comment on the whole business of government, Thoreau’s first two sentences of Civil Disobedience:
 

I heartily accept the motto,— “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,— “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
     

In the meantime, we must make do with whatever governance we are able to tolerate. As usual, an excellent collection of word and image. ****

A Family Holiday: Summer's Lease (John Mortimer)

 

 John Mortimer. Summer’s Lease (1988) Molly Pargeter, who carries the burdens of family life, arranges a Tuscan holiday in a rented villa for a her family. Her husband Hugh will of course take credit for the idea and the planning. Her randy father, a writer of occasional pieces for local newspaper, tags along. What follows is an apparently casual but carefully plotted ramble of a story, in which Molly’s obsessive search for the truth causes a calamity of which she is blissfully unaware. Some rifts are mended, some ambitions frustrated, nostalgia gets its due. Well done. ***

Unintended consequences: Noninterference (Harry Turtledove)

 

Harry Turtledove. Noninterference (19881). The Federation Survey Service is surveying Bilbeis IV. The local ruler, a woman of remarkable character, is dying of cancer. The Terrans decide to give her “immune system amplifiers”. The Bilbeis biology is close enough to human for the drug to work, but different enough to have unforeseen consequences. Those consequences and their effects provide the bones of the plot. Turtledove adds convincing characters and sociological insights to make a well-constructed entertainment that also asks serious questions about governance, polity, bureaucracy, historical hinge points, and of course the effects of individual quirks on other people’s plans.
     Turtledove is also known for alternate histories and historical fiction. His Wiki bibliography lists an enormous number of books. This one I  rate well above average for the genre: ***

Two for the Price of One: Robinson's Piece of My Heart

 Peter Robinson. Piece of My Heart (2006) Two linked crimes, separated by forty years. A rock band that figures in both. Two cops, Inspector Chadwick, the damaged army vet who investigates the first one, and DCI Alan Banks, who investigates the second one and establishes the links. Justice of a sort is achieved, but moral and legal guilt and innocence are not the same. Banks and Annie continue their adjustment to each other as friends and colleagues. A new, careerist Superintendent causes grief. Family dysfunction slows and complicates both investigations. Robinson plots and writes competently, as usual, with fewer of the puppet strings visible. Still, he could have done with a sterner editor, who would have pruned the lists of pop-music trivia. Or maybe not. **½

 

Early Bloomers

 Early bloomers (in our garden today).

 Violets, Primulas, Bloodroot (sanguinaria canadensis) and Berginia  (sp. cordifolia.)

 

 

The Great Dictator (1940) [D: Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard) An overrated film. The satire works very well, especially since Chaplin has sussed that Hynkel-Hitler was the empty puppet of his impulses. But Chaplin can’t resist inserting slapstick and farce, which interferes with the developing terror. The Brown Shirts may have been buffoons, but their buffoonery killed people. Chaplin shies away from following the logic of his plot to its dark conclusion. The final scene, obviously meant to be a stirring call to arms against tyranny, turns the plot into sentimental farce. Satire is allied to tragedy, and doesn’t need a happy ending to make its point. But perhaps the American audiences of 1940 preferred to laugh at slapdash tyrant instead of considering the moral imperative laid on them by recognising evil.
    I watched this movie because of its reputation. It’s become a curio, important for its historical significance. It did help mobilise American opinion against Hitler. But it's also an example of the muddled mess that Chaplin was capable of producing when not restrained by a strong director. A mixture of inspired satire, slapstick, and comedy, but that’s all, a mixture. The movie doesn’t have the structure that I expected. It’s a series of set pieces loosely strung on an underdeveloped plot line. Too often, I got the impression that Chaplin was showing off, or relying on his audience recognising a shtick he’d used many, many times before. **

Dr. no? Yes, it's the first 007 movie

    Dr. No (1962) [D: Terence Young. Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman, Jack Lord] Well, I’ve finally watched this historically significant curio, almost 50 years after it was made. The very first James Bond film.
    It’s tedious, badly acted, poorly scripted, with uneven photography and far too much ominous music. It begins with three blind men wandering into the parking lot of a posh Jamaican hotel, where they murder an MI6 operative. The same crew then murder an MI6 radio operator. Bond is enjoying baccarat at a casino (what is it with casinos, that they’re supposed to signal sophistication and world-weary elegance?) when the call comes to report for a new mission, which ends with the death of Dr. No when his island retreat blows up.
     The production values are merely average, nowhere near the carefully imagined and designed sets we associate with 007. But then, nobody thought this movie would launch one of the longest running super-hero franchises ever. For James Bond is a super-hero, even if he bleeds occasionally. Connery is especially bad, I suspect the director didn’t think it worth the bother of providing actual direction.
     I can’t recall how many of the series I’ve seen. The first one was To Russia, With Love, and then Goldfinger. Looking at the Wiki list, I ecognise Thunderball, and Moonraker. Maybe I saw Casino Royale. In any case, Connery became a much better actor, well aware of his limited range, and collaborating with his directors in exploiting it expertly. I think Indiana Jones’ father was his best role. I think Roger Moore was the best of the other Bonds, none of whom I think measured up to what Connery eventually made of the role.
    You can find out all you want to know, and more, on Wikipedia. If you’ve never seen Dr. No, I think it’s worth a look merely because it’s such an awful introduction to the franchise. By the way, I tried to read one of Fleming’s novels once, couldn’t get past the first dozen pages or so. On that evidence, even this movie is better than anything Fleming produced. *½