Mr Worsthorne's memory
Sir: Anthony Lewis's suave letter is another example of what I was complaining about. He argues that I was obviously an unsuitable author of a profile of Enoch Powell for the New York Times because of my 'total admiration' of the man. But 1 am not a 'total ad- mirer', and have never written any- thing that could possibly carry this interpretation. What I have done is to argue about immigration along roughly similar lines to those of Mr Powell. I have also sought to explain his political attitudes rather than condemn them.
That my non-condemnatory at- titude should seem to Mr Lewis to be one of 'total admiration' is not surprising, because Mr Lewis re- gards Mr Powell as a grave menace —a monster comparable to Gover- nor Wallace in the United States. Anyone, therefore, who does not condemn him—condemnation, in his eyes, being the respectable, nor- mal, reasonable, responsible reac- tion—becomes automatically tain- ted. To attack Mr Powell—that is liberal objectivity; to defend him is reactionary prejudice.
Let me ask Mr Lewis a question. If L who agree with quite a lot of what Mr Powell says, am unsuit- able to write about him for the New York Times, how is it that he, who abominates the man—and I have often heard him admit as much and more—continues to re- port on him for the New York Times without any noticeable qualms of prore...sional conscience? The answer, as I say, is very clear. In Mr Lewis's eyes it is profes- sionally respectable to attack Mr Powell, but professionally disrepu- table to defend him.
Why cannot he admit-this? Why cannot he admit that my refusal to condemn Mr Powell is, in his eyes, a serious fault of political judg-1 meat, rendering me unsuitable to write objectively about British poli- tics for his newspaper. I used to write frequently for the New York Times. and be regarded as an objec- tive observer of the scene. This I am no longer, and the fact that Mr Lewis feels I am only suitable now to write a viewy piece for a con- troversial column of idiosyncratic comment confirms my point rather than contradicting it.
Finally, who is objective about Mr Powell? Mr Lewis claims that be was looking for a journalist who was neither intellectually nor emo- tionally committed for or against him. Where did he find this trea- sure? Unless he opted for someone who knew nothing about the sub- ject—not, surely, the ideal tricr contributor—I simply do not be- lieve that such a being exists. Why cannot Mr Lewis come clean? What he was looking for was a person who would reflect his own prejudices, without, of course, dis- playing them too brazenly—a liberal progressive chap of his own ak. That is what he regards as `uncommitted'. And he is so deeply embedded in a tradition which takes this attitude for granted that he is even unaware of what he is doing.
Peregrine Worsthorne 14 Airlie Gardens, London w8 - Sir: It is difficult to know where to begin in demolishing the loony construction erected by Mr Pere- grine Worsthorne in your columns last week under the title of 'The snobberies of the expense-account Left', and I will anyway confine myself to the bits that concern me; but Mr Worsthome's merry garb- ling of facts and guise must, I suppose, have some kind of reply.
Mr Worsthorne writes: "That other liberal luminary, Bernard Levin, waxed equally indignant, publicly insulting the mayor [of Blackpool) in his parlour by de- scribing the town as "an elephant's anus": I have never, at any time, in any form or medium, publicly or privately, described Blackpool, or any other place, thing or person, as 'an elephant's anus' or anything in any way similar or synonymous. I have never met, spoken to, cor- responded with or had any contact, direct or indirect, with the present or any previous mayor of Black- pool. I have never been in, near, or at the parlour of the mayor of Blackpool, nor do I know where that place is. If it had occurred to me to describe Blackpool as an elephant's anus, I would in no circumstances have so told the mayor in his parlour, because I hold that such behaviour would be most discourteous; unlike Mr Worsthorne, who went to a Prime Minister's party, had a whale of a time swigging the champagne and enjoying himself immensely, and then ran off to the Bac to denounce his host and his host's hospitality.
The attribution to me of the phrase about Blackpool_ and the elephant was made by Mr Peter Jenkins (who can look after him- self) in the Guardian, and repeated without acknowledgement by Mr Worsthome. There is a word for this kind of secondhand journ- alism, and there is another, separ- ate word for the kind which not only repeats other journalists' inaccuracies, but embellishes them with pure invention, as in Mr Worsthorne's addition of the bit about the mayor having been hurt by my remark.
The substance of Mr Worst- home's article is, if anything, even less impressive than his facts. He paints me as a kind of sleek-living aristocrat (I have never in- cidentally, had an expense account) looking down contemptuously on the people's pleasures. But it is Mr Worsthorne who believes, and constantly says in a dozen ways, that the poor should know their place and should humbly look up to the grand folk. I believe that Blackpool is a horrible place, but not just, or even mainly, because I find its standards of accommoda- tion, food and entertainment as abysmal as Mr Worsthome does (neither he nor I would ever go there for pleasure), for J can put up with discomfort for a week or two without much difficulty. I detest Blackpool because it is a swindle, not of me but of the people who do go there for pleasure; because it implicitly promises them that it contains the best, in the way of holiday fare, that life affords, and lies in its teeth as it does so. Unlike Mr Worsthorne, I believe that the poor should not be content with the worst, or even the indifferent; I believe that the only thing good enough for the poor is the thing that is good enough for Mr Worst- borne and for me, namely the best.
Bernard Levin 10 Devonshire Place, London wl Mr Levin may never have had 'an expense account' but I cannot be- lieve that he has never claimed expenses in a manner accept- able to accountants.—Editor, the SPECTATOR.
Previous page
