[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn] A World Split Apart

NRO ^ | June 8, 1978 | Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[William McKinley]

Ragtime Cowgirl posted a great article about this speech here.

If you enjoy reading classic conservative speeches and writings, or articles about conservative icons, you may find some more of interest in these bookmarks

[Jean S]

This is a long read but it's worth reading. This paragraph stands out.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?

Thanks for the post.

[William McKinley]

My pleasure.

[Freee-dame]

Too bad every high school senior doesn't have to read his short book "One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich." It might help them value the liberty and freedom that they have here in the USA.

[cornelis]

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today

Courage, as in somewhere between "fear" and "make my day."

[happygrl]

Solzhenitsyn addresses several broad issues: the lack of courage and truth in the West's political life, the legalistic form of our society, the limits of the media in providing avenues for expression of ideas, and the materialistic turn that the West has taken since the Enlightenment.

In the years since he gave this speech, I believe that some in the West have turned, in response to the conservative movement in politics, religious life and intellectual outlook.

In addition, the internet has made possible the propagation of messages outside of the stranglehold of the media. This too has spread the ideas of truth and courage. I would like to believe that Solzhenitsyn's warning was heard and produced actions and a turning from the strictly materialistic outlook to which we were propelled a quarter century ago towards a spiritual outlook accountable to God.

A seminal speech still worth a read today.

[KC Burke]

Though I have read this a number of times in the past, One part hit me today:
And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century’s moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

I recall, William, our discussions about Kirk's first principle and how it was worded as more open to all sorts of conservatives in this later phrasing:
Belief in an enduring moral order.
Now what strikes me is the underlying point apparently made in the above address, how all people of the cultural age of our founding documents, with their wording, would have allowed for the limitations of the God of Western Christiandom and Judeaic faith and culture.

I remember Franklin's warning to Thomas Paine over his Rights of Man and Paine's reassurance with words to the effect that despite his "free thinking" he still held with the broad "enduring moral order" of his time.

That commonality accross the broad plain of thought is what the Rationalists of totalitarian democracy can't give us in our current time.

[William McKinley]

Absolutely. And as with Paine, so with Jefferson.

[cornelis]

I believe that some in the West have turned, in response to the conservative movement in politics, religious life and intellectual outlook.

This is optimistic, like the close of the spee --if you look at it that way.

[cornelis]

spee speech, sorry

[headsonpikes]

Thanks for posting.

Always timely.

[Fzob]

read later

[cornelis]

A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove that his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints.

I always wonder who decides to place our stop signs, they keep me from being courteous.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. "

We live in a nation guided by self-esteem and protection from all negative feelings.(The establishment of the nanny-state.) The UN is seen by the liberals as the solution to all the world's problems??

This guy had it 100% right in 1978!! Great article, thanks.

[arasina]

That paragraph caught my eye and mind as well. I also like this one:

"This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man — the master of the world — does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."

[cornelis]

Good stuff. Both Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel recognized the contigency of law on an extra-legal foundation. Actually Strauss (and I believe Hayek, certainly Kendall) argued the same for the Constitution. This foundation he calls a moral order which is not a function of human whims. I read this piece last night and the part that hit me was his observation on legality.

[cornelis]

contingency

[spunkets]

bump

[x]

This was and is an extremely important speech. It's also far more subtle, nuanced, and penetrating than Solzhenitsyn's critics claimed. It's hardly the call to theocracy that it was made out to be at the time. Contrary to what his opponents said, Solzhenitsyn has been able to adapt to representative government in Russia.

I do worry about the rest of us, though. From a balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of our culture, we've moved on to the idea that democracy and free markets will be enough in themselves to secure our survival and flourishing. Solzhenitsyn's emphasis on the moral and spiritual is much missed today.

[William McKinley]

I do worry about the rest of us, though. From a balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of our culture, we've moved on to the idea that democracy and free markets will be enough in themselves to secure our survival and flourishing. Solzhenitsyn's emphasis on the moral and spiritual is much missed today.

I agree with you x.

Cathryn, here is an interesting question for you. Is it possible to persuade those, who normally do not 'speak' the language of spirituality and morality, that society needs spirtuality and morality?

Note, I am not so much asking if you agree with that premise, but rather I am asking if you think it is possible for a person who does agree with that premise to be persuasive to someone who does not? Is there, in some cases, an unbridgeable language gap?