I like that. American rites are rights.

"rite of passage," not "right of passage." PLEASE!

De Toqueville interviewed a great many average Americans for his book. Levy spends three whole pages on Sharon Stone.

Wiggins' conclusion was -- forget Levy, vive de Toqueville.

Why on earth is Oliver Broudy unnerved by Lévy's unbuttoned shirt, and why does he feel he needs to mention that lack of buttoning and his reaction to it?

Who cares? It's inane and distracting.

Dear Editor:

Since Bernard Henri Levy, like many European intellectuals who idealize the United States, fails to understand two essential qualities about American politics and intellectuals at this particular historial juncture, he also fails to understand the true nature of the system here.

Mr. Henri Levy fails to understand that there are no independent intellectual figures here such as his truly. This means that all functions of the intellegensia are functions of different institutions such as the press, the academy, professional writers and the like. This also means that in the end, being an intellectual in this country is a career and not a calling which gives the individual a special status in the society. In other words, it is a job, and one has to keep it so one can continue to live.

The result is figures like William Kristol, who

Mr. Henri Levy would like to understand as a fellow intellectual of his status. Unfortunately, he fails to understand that William Kristol has made a career for himself, and that "career" is to be a journalist who supports the Republican Party and to do this, i.e. to do his job properly, he needs to support all of its positions and echo whatever attacks that institution makes on its enemies. To put it another way, he is a propagandist and therefore, he is willing to tow the line.

The right-wing propaganda machine of the past 25 years has also created a kind of polarization of politics that does not exist in France, or any European country. In the absence of a parliamentry system and in the absence of coalition government, if one supports the main policy tenents of a given party, one is compelled to tacitly support all of that party's positions, otherwise one might be weakening their message and delegitimizing its campaign.

In other words, he just doesn't get it, and that is often the problem foreigners, and sometimes even its own citizens, have when dealing with the United States.

Sincerely,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

I like this guy for all the obvious reasons, but people might believe there are 400 or 500 executions in the US a year, instead of what, 30 or so? And does he believe the figure or was the figure a figure of speech? Not a good way for an "intellectual" (what is that, somebody who reads the Times?) to speak.

Levraphael writes:

Why on earth is Oliver Broudy unnerved by Lévy's unbuttoned shirt, and why does he feel he needs to mention that lack of buttoning and his reaction to it?

Who cares? It's inane and distracting.

I couldn't agree more. I know where this comes from though. The "interview with a prominent person over a meal" is one of the oldest, hoariest clichés they teach writers at Journalism School, and editors insist on it when they assign these kinds of stories in the real world.

The writer is expected to make some observations about the appearance of the person and describe the food that person eats, maybe sprinkled with some of the emotional experiences of the interviewer. If these kinds of observations aren’t there, the editors will assert the ancient legend and make you put them in. If you don’t, the company probably won’t reimburse you for the meal. Ugggh. That’s why you’ll see this formula again and again where we have to read about somebody’s ideas interspersed with what they were stuffing their face with.

Why is it that people who make their career out of original writing continue to hew so closely to this cheesy dogma about interview form. Yes, it is inane and distracting.

Bernard-Henri Levy declares "[t]he reality of the United States means the possibility of Europe." Those realities grow in America because they're impossibilities in Europe. His astonishment at the course of recent politics and intellects proves this.

Even the European Union which BHL supports is inspired more by the United Nations than the United States. In any language the EU constitution is a bureaucratic nightmare, albeit a bureaucrat's dream. The debates over the European Union are stagnant pools of stillwater compared to American discussions on the US Constitution and America in general. Any hint of comparison of the EU with the US constitutions are immediately snuffed out with a dismissive wave of the hand, as if something not to the minister's taste had just been brought from the bureau's kitchen.

If BHL was as open-minded or courageous as he wishes the American left were, he would consider more of his countrymen's anti-American prejudices - or even his own. As much as he likes American culture but despises American politics (and what open-minded European doesn't?), I should like to see him dare to write a book arguing the merits of the American political system over the European.

He wouldn't lack for company if he does. British journalist Jonathan Freedland, himself no Rupert Murdoch or even William Kristol, wrote one called "Bring Home the Revolution." Even French author Regis Debray wrote "Empire 2.0," a modest tongue-in-cheek proposal for a pan-Atlantic political union.

I agree with Mr. Levy that the current Democratic "leadership" is weak and will not be able to win any further nationwide elections. The one thing you can say about the Republicans is, right or wrong, they have a clear message, which they pound out with increasing ferocity. Today, thousands of anti-choice activists will be here in D.C. marching to end women's right to choose. I'm sure a few pro-choice people will be out there, but I question how they will "win" this battle in the face of the right-wing onslaught and an ever increasing right-wing Supreme Court.

I also agree with Mr. Levy that Democrats are often unable to chew gum and walk at the same time and seem to focus on minor ways in which they are different from Republicans. Where are the great Democratic policies? How will they be different from the status quo? Why should we vote for Democrats if they have no fresh ideas?

Too bad we don't have any BHLs running for the Democratic presidential nomination!!