Liz Suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

The Spectator's Notes

Charles Moore

Thursday, 13th March 2008

Charles Moore's reflections on the week

It may be that the government’s plan for oaths of allegiance for 18-year-olds in schools won’t work, but I am suspicious of the argument that it is ‘unBritish’ to make a song and dance about Britishness. In fact, a song and dance could be literally, and exactly, what are needed. Being essentially a political rather than an ethnic idea, Britishness is an artificial creation (and I mean that as a compliment). It was the careful work of leaders, thinkers, writers and artists for about 200 years. The concept helped forge a nation out of several once-warring components. It was so successful that it was taken for granted and then, partly out of left-wing ideology and partly by mistake, began to decline. Now that indigenous pupils know almost nothing about our history and our hundreds of thousands of immigrants have a very weak idea of the country of which they are becoming a part, it is complacent to say that special ceremonies are vulgar and unnecessary. We do desperately need to invent rites which help us understand who we are. It is a secular form of confirmation.

The trouble with the government’s obsession with ‘access’ to all public collections and cultural events is that it seems to trump concern for the collections/events themselves. Surely there are many works of art, objects of scholarly interest and even forms of public performance which will not attract widespread public interest but are still of great importance. Their curators and directors owe a duty to them and to posterity as well as to today’s crowds. But if access is the only criterion, let the government apply it to itself. One of the best collections of English portraits, for example, is to be found at Chevening, an official residence, usually of the Foreign Secretary. It includes Gainsborough’s portrait of Lord Chesterfield, Batoni’s portrait of Louisa Grenville (currently in the show at the National Gallery), and a group of Ramsays. At present, the Chevening collection is not open to the public, and I gather that the government pleads the impossibility of opening, because of security. But Buckingham Palace manages: it is hard to see why the Foreign Secretary needs more protection than the Queen.

Mrs Clinton keeps saying that she wants Barack Obama to be her running-mate. Mr Obama points out that he is ahead of her in the popular vote and number of delegates, so her offer is rather cheeky. The only time I ever met Mr John McCain, about three years ago, he told me at length what an admirable person and wonderful politician Mrs Clinton was. If Mr Obama pulls through and beats Mrs Clinton for the Democratic nomination, he presumably would not offer her what she offered him and, even if he did, she couldn’t accept it. But perhaps Mr McCain should ask her to be his running-mate. Wouldn’t theirs be an unbeatable combination? Or would it enrage the Republican base so much that the whole thing would fall apart?

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Charles Moore | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Subscribe Now 12 issues for £12 in the UK : Gift subscriptions : Overseas subscriptions

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

DougS

March 13th, 2008 4:01pm

Charles Moore is usually among the most astute commentators going; maybe because I've only read him on British politics, because his suggestion about Mrs. Clinton is absolutely absurd. As a practical matter (and I'm sure he knows this) it just doesn't work that way in terms of picking your VP from your party opponents. But whatever McCain thinks of Mrs. Clinton personally and as a member of the loyal opposition, their view of the world, politically, is completely different. Not a shred of logic: Yes, it would infuriate the Republican base (and his advisors would prevent it), but it wouldn't get any additional votes. No one votes because of a VP. And, too, McCain esp. at 71 has obligations to posterity with his running mate . . . and anyway there are tons of excellent Republican candidates for VP. As we "Yanks" say, Mr. Moore is coming out of left field with that one. Stick to British politics, Chuck, where there are few better (looking forward to the Maggie book(s)!).