The Lion of Idaho series: Borah the orator

Sen. William E. Borah

     One of the big differences between William Edgar Borah’s heyday and the current times are the speeches – who, popularly, today is renowned for their oratory?   Today, presidents, get that spotlight.  In the early 20^th c. Borah would pack the Senate chambers in scenes currently reserved for the State of the Union Address.  This is the time when radio was still being developed and televisions were a dream of the future.

     In 1911 Arizona was seeking statehood and found one major stumbling block: it was attempting to keep a provision in its constitution that allowed for the recall of judges.  This comes down to allowing the judiciary to be independent and make difficult choices that may be popularly disapproved of – without fearing reprisals through getting recalled.  Borah made a speech on the subject and the New York Sun printed it in its entirety.  The Sun’s editors had this to say:

“We believe that this speech will take high and permanent rank among the great efforts of philosophical statesmen, not only for the dignity of its thought and expression but also for the quality of the patriotism shown by the conspicuous leader of the so-called progressives who dares thus to expose and rebuke the dangerous error of purpose so prevalent among his associates.

 . . . to every person promoting this insidious movement of the overthrow of the established system, to every state wherein the poison is progressively operating, Senator Borah says: ‘We owe it to ourselves and to posterity, to the institutions under which we live, and above all to the common people of this country, to see to it that the judiciary is placed, as nearly as human ingenuity can do so, above the reach of influence or of any of the things which may cloud the mind with passion or dull the conscience to the highest demand of even handed justice.’”

     Today we have different methods of discourse – no need to make a judgment and place one form of media over the others.  But what today would be the equivalent of one of these blockbuster speeches?  What could capture that energy where a leader uses language to convince his opponents of the righteousness of his argument?  The senate chambers packed with auditors clamoring to listen to the orator, the speech to be published in the papers the next day.  Not to make a judgment call, but that is a better world.

(Fiction) reader's block

     It’s been awhile since I’ve picked up a good novel.  Non-fiction has become my area of interest and I’ll be honest why: fiction presents a world – however beautifully wrought – that has the mark of its creator on every page.  The author chooses whichever way, however lyrical, that he wishes to present his story and does so proudly and intentionally.  Plato regarded art as a copy of something that was already a copy, our reality itself just a shoddy version of the true world of the Forms.  Art, novels, are just copies of the already crappy “real” world.

Plato


 May as well enjoy non-fiction, a perhaps unvarnished – okay less-unvarnished – view of reality.

     But the artist is capable of great things.  I can’t forget all those moments I’ve been hooked on a work of literature and I’m talking something here more like Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children than Brown’s The DaVinci code.  Writing has the power to venture into mysterious realms and help us look into ourselves.  This is the domain of the liminal.  As Peter Levenda relates to Jasun Horsley: “I think that writing in itself if a liminal occupation. You’re in world where something is uncreated and yet wants to be created, you’re an interface between an idea and something that appears as a physical artifact.” 

 

Peter Levenda

     Pretty amazing.  Who would criticize the novel, beside Plato?

     Georg Lukacs was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, aesthetician, literary historian, and critic. His work The Theory of the Novel “begins with a comparison of the historical conditions that gave rise to the epic and the novel”: “In the age of the novel the once known unity between man and his world has been lost, and the hero has become an estranged seeker of the meaning of existence.”  Something Lukacs called “transcendental homelessness.” 

     So novels, those wonderful stories, are tools to smooth the edges, to let everyone belong in a world that has been separated from nature – ouch! 

     Lukacs later took it back.  Regardless, though, I admire the perspective that this gives – what are the uses of the novel?  What are the uses of language?  Nothing is simply just what it seems.  Every little thing occurs in an interconnected web and has history.  Dang it but I find Lukacs idea to vindicate my recent disdain of fiction.  It’s complicated but perhaps I will someday overcome my fiction reader’s block.