Nov 7, 2017 11:19 PM
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_a...onfederacy
EXCERPT: [...] [Brad] Snyder doesn’t see much incongruity either, and prefers to portray [Gutzon] Borglum as a maverick among the liberal elite: “one of the oddest yet most compelling figures in American history.” More implicitly than explicitly, then, Snyder shows how the upper echelons of American liberalism have long been able to accommodate and even celebrate nationalists who pal around with white supremacists.
As The House of Truth proceeds and its dinner parties mount, it becomes clearer and clearer that Borglum thrived in an environment that rewarded brash male sociability and defiant pronouncements about the political scene. “He had the eloquence and the attractiveness of not qualifying his speech,” reminisced Frankfurter, “none of the whereases, aforesaids, and howevers—no buts in his speech. It was all clear, black and white, passionate, uncompromising.” Borglum could raise eyebrows, and Frankfurter spoke of “his—what shall I say—exciting imagination.” But he occasioned little opposition at the House of Truth. The liberals knew he was a bit of a fraud, but few in Washington were innocent of self-promotion, and, in the end, they thought he was fun. They liked Borglum, liked to gossip about him, and liked to advance his career.
The House of Truth thus raises a question: are the foundations of American liberalism defined by white cultural nationalism, or were these liberals simply susceptible to Borglum’s charismatic narcissism? Snyder’s emphasis on group biography suggests the latter, and his evasion of more substantive intellectual history makes the former hard to assess here. But the answer is surely some combination of both....
MORE: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_a...onfederacy
EXCERPT: [...] [Brad] Snyder doesn’t see much incongruity either, and prefers to portray [Gutzon] Borglum as a maverick among the liberal elite: “one of the oddest yet most compelling figures in American history.” More implicitly than explicitly, then, Snyder shows how the upper echelons of American liberalism have long been able to accommodate and even celebrate nationalists who pal around with white supremacists.
As The House of Truth proceeds and its dinner parties mount, it becomes clearer and clearer that Borglum thrived in an environment that rewarded brash male sociability and defiant pronouncements about the political scene. “He had the eloquence and the attractiveness of not qualifying his speech,” reminisced Frankfurter, “none of the whereases, aforesaids, and howevers—no buts in his speech. It was all clear, black and white, passionate, uncompromising.” Borglum could raise eyebrows, and Frankfurter spoke of “his—what shall I say—exciting imagination.” But he occasioned little opposition at the House of Truth. The liberals knew he was a bit of a fraud, but few in Washington were innocent of self-promotion, and, in the end, they thought he was fun. They liked Borglum, liked to gossip about him, and liked to advance his career.
The House of Truth thus raises a question: are the foundations of American liberalism defined by white cultural nationalism, or were these liberals simply susceptible to Borglum’s charismatic narcissism? Snyder’s emphasis on group biography suggests the latter, and his evasion of more substantive intellectual history makes the former hard to assess here. But the answer is surely some combination of both....
MORE: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_a...onfederacy
