• Home
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Date/Time
  • Login
  • Subscribe

logo

  • Home
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
Home
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Jonathan Derbyshire
  • Temptations of empire: a conversation with David Bromwich

Jonathan Derbyshire

The world of ideas

Temptations of empire: a conversation with David Bromwich

by Jonathan Derbyshire / May 22, 2014 / Leave a comment
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

David Bromwich is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. Over the past decade or so, Bromwich has carved out a second career as a social critic, writing regularly in publications such as the New York Review of Books and the London Review of Books. Much of his writing there on the depredations of American power since 9/11 has been collected in a new book, “Moral Imagination“, which also contains essays on the history of American exceptionalism and the nature of cultural identity. The book establishes, too, a sort of pantheon of Bromwich’s moral and political heroes—notably Edmund Burke, Abraham Lincoln and Dr Martin Luther King.

I spoke to Bromwich on the phone recently and began by asking him whether there are any models he consciously tries to emulate when writing in the journalistic, rather than the academic, mode.

DB: The models for it come mostly from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Hazlitt is one. Edmund Wilson and Lionel Trilling are also writers I’ve learned from. Also Dwight Macdonald and Harold Rosenberg. And more than any of them, Orwell. Not, I would add, for the standard reasons—which I take to be because he told the truth about communism. Re-reading Orwell, I’ve found him to be quite an eccentric and disturbing writer, sometimes in ways I don’t find easy to admire. There’s a streak of cruelty in him. I think that was something he recognised in himself. And there’s maybe a streak of cruelty in the desire to tell the trut…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time







Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

16842004285c6816ee84aee8.36688600

Go to comments

Related articles

Share with friends
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Comments

  1. me
    May 23, 2014 at 18:50
    He teaches at Yale for crying out loud, he is really brave! Gosh
  2. StephenKMackSD
    May 23, 2014 at 19:45
    While I find myself in agreement and sympathize with Mr. Bromwich on the question of Liberals, I too find myself as a Democratic Socialist ,going to Conservative thinkers and writers, that don't follow the Neo-Liberal Party Line. I find a great many conservatives who articulate an anti-imperial politics more congenial than the Liberals, who cannot emancipate themselves from Obama worship, to do something resembling independent thinking. As much as I admire Mr. Bromwich as observer and political moralist, for me the question of Mr. Bromwich's credibility will hinge on the question of Ukraine. Where he used to publish regularly, The New York Review of Books, has become the publishing outlet for Mr. Timothy Snyder's regular essays, that in sum represent simply an extended apologetics and rationalizations for the coup. (Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff and his R2P zealots have colonized that publication?) While ignoring the subversion of a duly elected but corrupt regime by Victoria Nuland, her five billion dollars, and The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and other NGO's. Not to speak of the Svoboda and Right Sector's involvement in the coup, and the present regime ruled by American front man 'Yats'. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, MintPress, The Nation and Stephen F. Cohen are the voices I listen too, besides reading the avalanche of hysterical propaganda. Mr. Bromwich represents what used to be revelatory and indispensable at the NYRB, in fact I would say that he is the natural inheritor of the mantle of Murray Kempton, who managed to meld exquisite style with a commitment to the cultivation of civic republican virtue. On the question of Niebuhr I will vigorously dissent! As Mr Fox's biography illustrates, Mr. N. was a moral , political conformist, not to speak of a compulsive proselytizer and careerist. The formation of the ADA with his 'Cold War Liberal' twin Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. was a monument to the 'Liberalism' Mr. Bromwich so eloquently eviscerates. StephenKMackSD
  3. PED
    May 24, 2014 at 03:23
    I prefer to think that Obama's increasingly frequent references to the United States as "the unique, exceptional and indispensable nation" are a concession to politics and public opinion rather than a sincere belief. The real disgrace is that the American people will not allow their leaders to think in any other way.
  4. DMS
    May 24, 2014 at 07:45
    Whew! I can't possibly compete with StephenKMackSD (above) as to dropping personalities so I'll just stop in admiration.
  5. Fran Macadam
    May 24, 2014 at 15:11
    Derbyshire sympathetically interviewing Bromwich? Now that really does offer hope for reconciliation and redemption.
  6. philadelphialawyer
    May 25, 2014 at 18:15
    Excellent interview. "Some of the political commentators you find in The American Conservative—for example, Daniel Larison. Some of the sharpest critiques of American imperialism under Bush-Cheney and now under Obama have come from Patrick Buchanan. In some ways he’s a very bad man, but he’s a consistent anti-imperialist. When I say this to liberal friends, they say, 'How dare you read this man!'" And the same might be said of the Pauls. Indeed, my liberal friends are also quite quick to cut off the notion that anyone on "the right," be they libertarians or paleo conservatives, might have something useful to say about imperialism, the war on drugs, the criminal justice system generally, the spying issues, and so on. There is a sense among the "Coastals" (DC to Boston, LA to Seattle), that anyone not of the "in group," ie anyone from the South, the Mountains, the Great Plains, and maybe even the Midwest too, must be an idiot. And, even on the Coasts, that only those folks from a certain environment: urban, liberal Jewish or Protestant, at least college educated, count, in any meaningful way. For all the talk about the Right being annihilationist and "you're with us or you're against us" and eliminationist and denying legitimacy to the left, the left does much the same thing, but only more sotto voce and less in your face. Romney and McCain represent, to them, the very outer limit of what can be talked about in polite society, and not even them during their election bids. The notion that a Paul might have a good idea is hulled down immediately. Why, he opposed the Civil Rights laws! And so he does. But he also opposed the Iraq War and the entire GD national security State, and that should count for something too. Hillary and Obama too (for all his pretense to the contrary) supported the Iraq War and continue to support the national security State, even as they also support the CR laws. Why is that OK? Why the one and not the other? Indeed, why is the one the preferred, the "only" option, while the other is unspeakable? I think Obama is nicely summed up as well. He's smart. He's well educated. He is clearly in another league altogether, intellectually and in terms of policy, when compared to his predecessor. And yet there is a mediocrity to the man. A sense of, "well, I am to the left of Bush and his insane followers and to the right of the DFH's, and so, I must be right." And not only does he manifest this moral laziness, but he does so in a way that oozes arrogance. Here we have a man who rose to prominence based on his ability to write and give a speech. And he is quite good at it. And yet it seems he can't be bothered to do much of it, or any other "politicking," in favor of his policies, nominations, budgets, and proposed legislation. Its as if he seems to think that, because he is "clearly" right, everyone, including the die hard oppositional/obstructionist GOP, will just HAVE to go along with him, because they will look stupid otherwise. As if he doesn't recognize (1) that there actually can be legitimate, non stupid opposing views, (2) that there are ways of presenting opposing views so that they don't look stupid, even if and when they are, and (3) that many folks really either don't mind stupidity (or actually revel in it, a la the fans of Rush Limbaugh) or else don't consider it nearly as important as tribal loyalties, racism, etc. And, of course, nobody in national American politics (ie Presidents, would be presidents, ex presidents, secretaries of state, and so on) can or will admit even the slightest doubt about the entirely false notion of a benign, "exceptional" America. As the man says, Vietnam has been written right out of the story. As has, I would add, Central America, southern Africa, Iran, and many other places as well. Virtually no one in American politics at any level comes even close to recognizing the two simple points that Chomsky, and some on the libertarian/paleo conservative right, have made over and over again in the most convincing fashion......(1) that the US, for all of its talk about exceptionalism and being a shiny city on a hill and so on, actually SHOULD be judged on how will it follows the rules of International Law and basic reciprocal fairness that we use to judge other countries (and, indeed, when it comes to fairness, all other entities and persons) and (2) that by actually looking at the real evidence and engaging in a real evaluation, the US has fallen short in those regards repeatedly, and repeatedly in the same ways, and to devastating effect on other polities, countries and peoples.

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month's Magazine

Perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.

Prospect is the leading magazine of ideas. Each month it is packed with the finest writing on politics, culture, economics and ideas. Subscribe today and join the debate.

Subscribe

Most Popular

  • Read
  • Commented

The invigorating strangeness of Friedrich Nietzsche

The naïve optimism of Liam Fox

Why I bet £1000 that a no-deal Brexit will trigger recession

The backstop debate goes round and round but there is no waking from this Brexit nightmare

Labour's Remainers could be a ticking time bomb for the party

Ruling out no deal is the wrong sort of red line

6 Comments

The Conservative Party has a problem—it’s no longer conservative

5 Comments

The overlooked dynamic at the heart of the Brexit “culture war”

2 Comments

Arlene Foster’s DUP still holds the balance of power in Westminster—so what’s their next move?

2 Comments

The impact of Brexit on services has not received nearly enough attention

2 Comments

About this author

Jonathan Derbyshire
Jonathan Derbyshire is Executive Comment Editor at the Financial Times, and former managing editor of Prospect
  • Follow Jonathan on:
  • Twitter
More by this author

More by Jonathan Derbyshire

Ian Kershaw—the fall and rise of modern Europe
December 26, 2015
How to beat Marine Le Pen
December 11, 2015
The big ideas of 2016: bipolar Britain
December 10, 2015

Next Prospect events

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Diarmaid MacCulloch

    London, 2019-05-20

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Sue Prideaux

    2019-04-15

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Andrew Roberts

    2019-03-14

See more events

Sponsored features

  • Reforming the pension system to work for the many

  • Putting savers in the driving seat: getting the pensions dashboard right

  • To fix the housing crisis we need fresh thinking

  • Tata Steel UK: Driving innovation for the future of mobility

  • The road to zero

PrimeTime

The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities.

Follow us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • RSS

Editorial

Editor: Tom Clark
Deputy Editor: Steve Bloomfield
Managing Editor (Arts & Books): Sameer Rahim
Head of Digital: Stephanie Boland
Deputy Digital Editor (Political Correspondent): Alex Dean
Creative Director: Mike Turner
Production Editor & Designer: Chris Tilbury
US Writer-at-Large: Sam Tanenhaus

Commercial

Commercial Director: Alex Stevenson
Head of Marketing: Paul Mortimer
Marketing and Circulations Executive: James Hawkins
Programme Coordinator: Oliver James Ward
Head of Advertising Sales: Adam Kinlan 020 3372 2934
Senior Account Manager: Dominic Slonecki 0203 372 2972

  • Home
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Acceptable Use Policy
© Prospect Publishing Limited
×
Login
Login with your subscriber account:
You need a valid subscription to login.
I am
Remember Me


Forgotten password?

Or enter with social networking:
Login to post comments using social media accounts.
  • With Twitter
  • Connect
  • With Google +
×
Register Now

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’s website for FREE in the next 30 days..
PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Not Now, Thanks

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

×
You’ve got full access!

It looks like you are a Prospect subscriber.

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.