4 ms·

This is such a fabulous retelling. I don't know much about Auden other than a general sense that he is very well respected. What is hard about these days is tha

This is such a fabulous retelling. I don't know much about Auden other than a general sense that he is very well respected. What is hard about these days is that most of the visible voices arguing for the same POV as Auden's appear to have more in common with Pound than Auden (if my impression of Auden is correct). Are there any visible examples of people well-respected by progressives that would be on Auden's side of the argument? The other thing that struck me is that the letter exchange between Cerf and Auden came pretty close to wrestling with the paradox of tolerance. Like, if one's work can be separated from their belief, then why would Auden refuse to work with Cerf? I'm sure Auden would have had a distinction to bring up on that matter, though. I guess Auden wasn't arguing that Random House should be shut down. Was the most recent US conviction for treason really in 1952 (wikipedia)? That's really something.

tstc 6y ago
> What is hard about these days is that most of the visible voices arguing for the same POV as Auden's appear to have more in common with Pound than Auden They exist, just like liberals existed post-9/11, they're just not quite as comfortable speaking up as the ones who speak up out of agreement, rather than on principle.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  That's a wonderful way of putting it.
StavrosK 6y ago
> if one's work can be separated from their belief, then why would Auden refuse to work with Cerf? Because it was Cerf's work that was intolerant, not his belief.
labster 6y ago
Treason is defined in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The United States has not been in a state of war since 1945, so very few people alive could have possibly committed treason, unless they did so as a child. No person under the age of 75 could have committed treason.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > The United States has not been in a state of war since 1945 There has not been a formal declaration of war by Congress since WWII, but I believe there are plenty of court decisions holding that conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, the first and second Gulf wars, and what the US has been doing in Afghanistan since 2001 are wars in the sense that matters for treason, since Congress passed resolutions authorizing the use of US military force, even though they weren't called declarations of war. Also, a person can "levy war" against the United States even if the United States does not formally recognize what is going on as a war. "Levying" war is broader than "fighting against in a formally declared war". And, finally, the other clause in the definition can apply at any time, even if there is no US military action going on at all.
- wolco 6y ago
  You can get treason charges for spying on the US.
  - ggm 6y ago
    Without needing to be a citizen or resident, or having conducted the activity inside the USA. I find treason extraordinarily widely defined.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  I think your definition implies that the only way to be an Enemy of the United States is if the United States is in a state of war (which we can stipulate we haven't been stated as an official declaration of war since 1945). Is that reading backed up anywhere legally, that the definition of an Enemy only applies during a state of war from an official declaration of war?
  - labster 6y ago
    Well, if we prosecuted treason against a person for acting on behalf of a foreign power -- naming them as an Enemy of the United States -- it would be trivial for that power to interpret the prosecution itself as declaration of war. So be careful what you wish for. Here, here's a related article by a law professor at my alma mater: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-tre...

tstc 6y ago

> What is hard about these days is that most of the visible voices arguing for the same POV as Auden's appear to have more in common with Pound than Auden They exist, just like liberals existed post-9/11, they're just not quite as comfortable speaking up as the ones who speak up out of agreement, rather than on principle.

tunesmith 6y ago
That's a wonderful way of putting it.

StavrosK 6y ago

> if one's work can be separated from their belief, then why would Auden refuse to work with Cerf? Because it was Cerf's work that was intolerant, not his belief.

labster 6y ago

Treason is defined in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The United States has not been in a state of war since 1945, so very few people alive could have possibly committed treason, unless they did so as a child. No person under the age of 75 could have committed treason.

pdonis 6y ago
> The United States has not been in a state of war since 1945 There has not been a formal declaration of war by Congress since WWII, but I believe there are plenty of court decisions holding that conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, the first and second Gulf wars, and what the US has been doing in Afghanistan since 2001 are wars in the sense that matters for treason, since Congress passed resolutions authorizing the use of US military force, even though they weren't called declarations of war. Also, a person can "levy war" against the United States even if the United States does not formally recognize what is going on as a war. "Levying" war is broader than "fighting against in a formally declared war". And, finally, the other clause in the definition can apply at any time, even if there is no US military action going on at all.
wolco 6y ago
You can get treason charges for spying on the US.
- ggm 6y ago
  Without needing to be a citizen or resident, or having conducted the activity inside the USA. I find treason extraordinarily widely defined.
tunesmith 6y ago
I think your definition implies that the only way to be an Enemy of the United States is if the United States is in a state of war (which we can stipulate we haven't been stated as an official declaration of war since 1945). Is that reading backed up anywhere legally, that the definition of an Enemy only applies during a state of war from an official declaration of war?
- labster 6y ago
  Well, if we prosecuted treason against a person for acting on behalf of a foreign power -- naming them as an Enemy of the United States -- it would be trivial for that power to interpret the prosecution itself as declaration of war. So be careful what you wish for. Here, here's a related article by a law professor at my alma mater: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-tre...