John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
A few months ago, Claire suggested that we talk to reasonable people who disagree with us. At the time, she wrote, "I think we can talk to the Left, don't you? I hereby invite you to prove that we can--and can do so with civility and respect."
I was reminded of her post yesterday evening when I came across a previously unpublished interview from 2006 with novelist and short story writer John Updike, a democrat, who died about a year ago.
The interviewer mostly asks Updike about literary issues--particularly, Updike's love of Vladimir Nabokov's "ecstatic" prose--but at a certain point, their discussion turns to politics. For some context, the interview took place shortly after the midterm elections, which resulted in major victories for the Democrats.
Updike doesn't seem too interested in talking about politics, but the interviewer presses him on about it, and here is how their conversation goes:
Lila Azam Zanganeh: I’m curious to know how you feel about the elections. Do you feel something has changed? Has it changed your moods, your endeavors, your writing schedule in any way?
John Updike: The election hasn’t changed my life, which is still bound up with the petty details of living, living and trying to write—are not always easy. But yeah, as a Democrat all my life, I’m happy to see the Democrats regain power in Washington. I don’t know quite what they’ll do with it. Nevertheless, yeah, I feel it’s good that a corrective has been achieved against the domination of the Bush administration, and yeah, I’m kind of more cheerful and hopeful. But I was never one, you know, I wasn’t a Bush Basher, really. And I find him, you know, somewhat persuasive, when he... certain programs of his… But in general, in general, I’d be happy to see the Democrats take over and be happy to see a Democrat president in two years.
Lila Azam Zanganeh: [Laughs] Which ones, may I ask? You said some of his programs were persuasive. Are you talking about foreign policy, or economic programs?
John Updike: His economic programs don’t make much sense to me, really. The rolling back of taxes on the rich doesn’t seem to me likely to produce good results. Although he and others claim it does. But no, I guess I don’t like the feeling that the Supreme Court might be packed enough to reverse Roe v. Wade and take away the right to abortion which has been part of the American scene for three decades now. Also, Iraq. I don’t know. It would be nice if it weren’t happening. A lot of things would be nice. I can certainly see how it was to get to the invasion, the second—his invasion instead of his father’s invasion—was a potentially brilliant idea. But it hasn’t worked out to be brilliant. It’s turned out to be very messy and painfully bloody. And so I can’t give him an A+ for that.
I'm really struck by Updike's sincere and thoughtful even-handedness. Unlike many literary intellectuals--including the one interviewing him--he doesn't come across as an ideologue. Rather, his political ideas seem rooted in reality, like his admission that the Iraq War was a "potentially brilliant idea," but "turned out to be very messy and painfully bloody."
He's also humble and willing to entertain opinions that don't jive with his: "The rolling back of taxes on the rich doesn’t seem to me likely to produce good results. Although he [Bush] and others claim it does." He even says that he found some of Bush's policies and programs to be persuasive (which elicits laughter from the interviewer).
If only more of our public intellectuals--pundits, novelists, and the like--could speak about politics as gracefully and reasonably as Updike does. What interesting discussions they would have with each other, rather than those they have now, where they talk past each other.
The entire interview, by the way, is worth a read.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
The telling quote:
"The election hasn’t changed my life, which is still bound up with the petty details of living, living and trying to write—are not always easy."
How many tea partiers could have said that prior to November, 2008?
The reasonable, graceful people are, under normal circumstances, not the ones floating to the top of the national debate. Their positions make poor news copy. And the energy to move the argument is not there. Their energy is devoted to living their life, raising their families and honing their craft. Being happy, in other words.
Energy in a national debate comes either from a few people with a whole lot of passion, or from a lot of people with a small amount of passion. The blogosphere and national stage have been dominated by the former for some time. The rise of the Tea Party illustrates the latter.
One pundit is not making an argument in order to convince another pundit of the error of his ways. He's making the argument in order to move all those low passion, reasonable people out there in the audience. The system is not set up for civility in public.
May '10
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
Anyone but me struck by this revelation? Emily finds reasonable Democrat. He's dead.
If that's a criteria I can find a lot of reasonable Democrats. Let's try, Scoop Jackson, he's both reasonable and dead. Patrick Moynihan? Harry Truman? Dead and Deader.
Seems a stretch to rely on the Zombie vote, though...
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
EJHill: Anyone but me struck by this revelation? Emily finds reasonable Democrat. He's dead.
If that's a criteria I can find a lot of reasonable Democrats. Let's try, Scoop Jackson, he's both reasonable and dead. Patrick Moynihan? Harry Truman? Dead and Deader.
Seems a stretch to rely on the Zombie vote, though... · Dec 1 at 7:48am
Maybe it's old age, and the wisdom that comes with it, that makes people more reasonable. By that logic, there is no one wiser than a dead person!
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
Keep in mind that John Updike was a firm supporter of the Vietnam War.
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
Good point--and he didn't think government funding of the arts was a good idea.
Jun '10
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
Joe Lieberman is a liberal on economic issues (maybe moderate by today's standards), but on national security issues, he's certainly a Democrat with whom Republicans can talk. He also seems like a genuine human being.
May '10
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
Could someone please recommend some of Updike's novels that I should read? I've never picked him up, and I know his last novel Terrorist was a disaster.
Jul '10
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
By the way, what ever happened to our original "reasonable person who disagrees with us" - Major Progressive? Did Claire revoke his membership, or did he just go skulking off after the pummeling he suffered?
May '10
Re: John Updike, A Reasonable Person Who Disagrees With Us
Start with the Rabbit novels. Rabbit Run, Rabbit Redux, Rabbit at Rest...