BOOKS
291
and the movies, both of which he sees as forms of hedonistic voyeur–
ism . On the whole, there is a kind of high-minded justice in his ap–
praisals of American history, so that the criticism, while not sparing,
at the same time does not diminish his admiration for American
democracy .
Also interesting, though not entirely new, is Paz's analysis of
the special combination of religion, morality, and politics that deter–
mines most American attitudes and politics, though I think he is not
sufficiently aware that religion in America tends to be evangelical.
More original and quite striking is his observation that pacifism is
the reverse side of terrorism, as both, says Paz, are expressions of
nihilism. Interspersed throughout the book are such penetrating re–
marks as that detente with Russia does not change anything, and
that intellectuals do not have better political records than politicians.
Indeed, says Paz, liberals today are mouthing the stale simplifications
about Central America that they have proclaimed in every situation
in the past when communists led revolts against authoritarian or
democratic regimes. But these insights are only the sophisticated
foundation, lacking in so many writers, for the historical insight that
permeates the essays in this book.
One reservation I have about Paz's views is that they do not
recognize sufficiently that by criticizing both the communists' role in
Central America and the American effort to combat it , he in effect
leaves us in a state of political paralysis. Perhaps this is due naturally
to his looking at these problems from a Latin American perspective,
which involves a certain amount of ambivalence. But, as we have
come to recognize, writers must have roots as well as an interna–
tional vision .
Paz also is often abstract in his discussion of political problems
and rarely offers any concrete solutions. On the other hand, it is to
his credit that he is not a member of that part of the liberal commu–
nity that is ever ready with instant - and knee-jerk - panaceas. Ob–
viously he does not conceive
it
as his intellectual role to provide im–
mediate answers to our complex - and often insoluble - problems.
And perhaps in a time when we are bombarded by simple and facile
answers, we should welcome a more philosophical and speculative
effort - one that at least clears the ground of false assumptions and
chic ideological stands.
WILLIAM PHILLIPS
