Print

Print


Kate--
I'm not sure I can agree Eliot would've voted for Bush. Of course, Bush is Christian, but then so is Kerry, and Bush's anti-intellectual approach to both policy and religion is deeply antithetical to Eliot's desire for an aristocratic intelligentsia at the front of society. This is not to mention Bush's primary appeal at the level of personality (and Edwards as well), which I think Eliot would've loathed. On the other hand, Kerry's "Boston Brahmanism" and concern with policy above personality doesn't seem so far from what Eliot had in mind.
At a more historical level, I'd argue that Eliot's conservatism (and indeed British conservatism in the early 20th c.) was a reaction against Victorian liberalism, which freed capitalists to practice vicious enterprise at the expense of social controls. Nowadays, the cause of liberal, laisser-faire capitalism is actually championed by so-called conservatives, like Bush. It's difficult to transport a thinker to another time, but it seems to me that Eliot would have preffered the social protection and even paternalism from the government of the current Democrats rather than the intense cutting of social programs at the expense of the military that republicans support.
Cheers,
Adam

Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
There's a chance, maybe better than some people believe, that Edwards can get the nomination.  If he doesn't, I really don't know if I can vote for Kerry. I thought I could, but after listening to him today, I don't think that I can. Eliot would have no dilemma. He wouldn't be voting in the Democratic primary at all.  And, in the general election, he would vote for Bush.

Regards,

Kate


Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now