| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Harry Kreisler Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Page 3 of 4
As a political scientist, when you hear somebody is going to public service, don't you also think that's maybe a euphemism for power?
Oh sure.
"Public service" -- !
Well, I think everything is more complicated. They may have been drawn there for power, but there can also be idealism. The power is always there, and it corrupts ...
How can idealists operate in the political world?
Because they're motivated, because they think they have an idea about how to change the world.
I think that basically, most people think they're good. So they feel that they are doing good. Of course, then they have power, and power can become an end in itself, in the same way that making money can become an end in itself.
I assume in my interviews that the people believe in what they're saying ... which is not to say they're not totally misrepresenting what they've said and what they've done, but I think that they're well-intentioned. Part of the challenge is to get them to tell their story, and maybe reveal something about them in the process.
And that road to hell? We were told what it was paved with!
Well, that's right. But that's part of being human. So I don't think that denying the existence of power will solve anything.
I don't think there's much merit in thinking you're doing good.
Oh, I think that in most cases there is merit, because in thinking you're doing good, if you didn't think that, then you would absolutely be corrupted by power. Whereas now, I think people are pretty much corrupted by power, and there's a qualitative difference.
Take the people who conducted the Cold War. It would be nice to believe that it was just a group of capitalists who were defending finance capital of New York, but I think it gets more complicated. There's a very good movie which you haven't seen called Three Kings out right now. It's about three greedy Americans who go after the Kuwaiti gold. But as they try to find the gold that Saddam has stolen, to take it for themselves, they meet real people, real situations, and they're directed to a different agenda.
I think that's what happens in foreign policy, which is one area that I've looked at where men assume important roles of power.
You're saying this just a few days after the revelations about the American soldiers stealing the wealth of Hungarian Jews being shipped off by the Nazis, as they were being shipped off to the furnaces?
I'm not defending them. The point is that if on the American side people weren't using power, then the Third Reich would've succeeded in Hungary and in other places.
Every situation is relative. I do believe that power can become different things in the hands of different men and women. If what you're saying is true, then why should we care if we elect women political leaders? Presumably they're not going to bring anything [new]. Once they undertake the reins of power, they're in a duel to preserve their integrity, to preserve their intentions, to preserve their values. It's a struggle, and they may lose out.
But we have a government of lawyers, they work for their clients, who paid for their elections.
We have a government which is complicated.
Lawyers defend anybody who will pay them, or will work for anybody that will pay them.
Right, but with power in a democracy, when you get too many lawyers, at a certain point, hopefully, the pendulum will swing.
I think what is really interesting is that you do have in our society a lot of voluntary groups, nongovernmental organizations, people organizing around issues, and that has impact. They don't [necessarily] win, but they do make a difference. On issues like the environment, the tobacco industry, on human rights now, this wonderful thing going on in the world where it's very clear that with the lessons of Vietnam, with unhappiness with aspects of the Cold War, and the kind of regimes we've supported, people drew lessons and they're acting on it, and they're acting on it by manipulating CNN, by making people see at the breakfast table and the newspaper, images of what a man like Milosevic is trying to do, or what has happened in Rwanda.
You're absolutely right that the politicians are hypocrites, that Clinton and the West did nothing in Rwanda in a timely manner.
Or East Timor.
Right.
After the big show in Yugoslavia ...
The answer to what you're saying is if we just depended on the political leaders, [your perspective] would be more right than wrong. But in a relatively open society, with especially these new communications, people are made aware of things, and over time, you do get some sort of a reaction. I think in the long run it's hopeful.
Next page: Movies and the Imagination
© Copyright 2005, Regents of the University of California