Moderator: This reply to Martin Wolf is part of a debate the whole of which can be seen here. It started with a comment by Martin to an article in openDemocracy Anthony wrote on Gordon Brown, the intellectual. His Part II is here.
Anthony Barnett (London, OK): My reply to Martin Wolf will be in two posts. Here I answer his main question. In my next post I’ll say why Gordon Brown needs an intelligentsia to succeed.
Martin wrote:
“I have a challenge for Anthony. He describes the intelligentsia he desires. Where is such a group of philosopher kings to be found… I want some concrete examples… Then I might know what he is talking about or, indeed, whether he is talking about anything”.
Leave aside the sarcasm, as it is clear that it is a democratic and republican (in the best sense) influence not a kingly role that I’m discussing. I’ll give one example. Tony Curzon Price has already made the important point about intelligentsias of the right as well as the necessity for more than a technocratic politics.
Germany saw a radical, patriotic post-1968 intelligentsia, which in party terms divided between the Greens and the SDP, which helped the country become the relatively civilised and successful one we know today. This intelligentsia had an intellectual and moral project, a point I’ll return to in my post on Brown, which was to remake Germany as a normal society that faced up to itself, neither denying nor being crippled by its history. A shift away from defining German citizenship in terms of blood was achieved, as was a capacity to use force if necessary (Afghanistan) but not when not (Iraq). Speaking personally I knew well Reinhard Hesse, author, journalist, and Chancellor Schroeder’s speechwriter (he died young, I spoke at his memorial), and Michael Naumann, editor of Die Zeit and Minister of Culture. Both openDemocracy contributors. Joska Fischer, who I have not met, is perhaps the outstanding example of this intensely committed intelligentsia, which included literary writers who Martin scorns. They were practical and cosmopolitan. One small story Reinhard told me stands as an example of the benefit in depth of such an intelligentsia - and how it can provide the practical influence Wolf looks for.
Before he sent German troops to Afghanistan Schroeder had a private meeting with a group of writers, I think Gunter Grass was one, to win their support. In the course of the discussion he was persuaded to say he did not think Germany should do the same in Iraq. Schroeder came under great pressure, of course, from Washington and London. He had put three questions to President Bush about overthrowing Saddam: would it be legal, were there really weapons of mass destruction, and if they went in how would they get out? Blair came to Berlin and said such concerns were fully understood etc. Then, in August 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney gave a speech which insisted Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, spoke of regime change in Iraq and how the streets of Basra and Baghdad would "be sure to erupt in joy". But no one in the administration had answered Schroeder’s questions. This was not just personally undiplomatic it was also an insult to the care and intelligence of his country. It was then, in his re-election campaign, that he came out publicly against German military involvement. At the time the pressure and isolation involved in this breach with the US was huge. To become a healthy country, his generation had needed to learn from American democracy and the American spirit (see my post on Mark Morris). But their project was for Germany to be itself, not beholden to others. To make good, hard decisions against the balance of power, leaders need to be rooted in a culture of support. Germany’s loose but distinct progressive, post-68 intelligentsia provided this.
