I don't mean to defend Gordon Brown, of course, and no one seriously considers the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightment (including Adam Smith) significant thinkers anymore, with the exception of course of David Hume, but-- it is true that the two works cited by Brown are complementary, and that if you read Wealth of Nations without Theory of Moral Sentiments you only get half of Smith's thinking. If you only read the Wealth of Nations side of the equation you wind up with cartoon economics based on selfishness. If you read the two together, you realize Smith himself saw that selfishness alone could not build a society. You also realize he was not a particularly deep thinker, and that Wealth of Nations is not really "economics" but psychological philosophy, the kind popularized by the Scottish Enlightement and largely forgotten now, as neither the pscychology nor the philosophy has stood the test of time very well.

Good point. Gordon Brown is no idiot, especially compared with that intellectual lightweight, Tony Blair. But I can so easily imagine his favorite line coming from the mouth of that other Scot, Niall Ferguson.

What's with the Niall Ferguson bashing? A touch of nostalgia for the Empire does not brush away some of the first-rate stuff in "War of the World," particularly the questions he poses early on about the origins of the 20th century's bloodiness. A grand theme like his will have its shortcomings and leave matters unconnected or unexplained. So what? I wish more of our elite types, in and out of academe, would occupy themelveswith his questions.

A TOUCH of nostalgia for the Empire? Sorry, but no. Ferguson is a full-throated cheerleader for the sun never setting on blah blah blah, not just some silly old twit with a slightly rose-colored view of the past.

I think Chazelle's point about Gordon Brown was partly that he's completely robotic and can't avoid repeating himself verbatim.

The least he could do is to cite his source, or if he can't remember it:

"I think a great Scot once said "Coming from Kirkcaldy as Adam Smith did, I have come to understand that his Wealth of Nations was underpinned by his Theory of Moral Sentiments"."

Typical.

Years ago, the then Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Luhan, baffled a scientific conference of urologists with his standard speech on clear waters. "Science" the official organ of the AAAS, had fun with that one, using the headline "By the Still Waters of Urology."

Politicos have standardized speeches that they give over and over again regardless of audience.

Donescobar--

A friend of mine read Ferguson's book on WWI and I'll take his word and yours that it's a good book. I read one of his books on the British Empire a few years ago and it wasn't so good. As I recall, he was willing to admit some of the crimes of the Empire in its early stages, but he barely mentions the massive famines in India that Mike Davies wrote about in "Late Victorian Holocausts". It was like reading a book on the history of Soviet communism that barely mentioned the Ukrainian famine.

you idiots, that is for Brown a mere set expression, one he repeats frequently. you are taking his use of it out of context.

typically dishonest of you.

Donald Johnson

My crack was intended more in the spirit of the Pythons' "The Life of Brian:" "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever donefor you?"

Even former colonials cenould share in the humour.
Then again, maybe not. A review of his Empire book in ZNetcastigates him for teaching (then) at the "aptly named" Stern School of Business.
Oy.

typically dishonest of you.

I have to wonder about someone who spends, at minimum, a half hour a day writing to and reading the opinions of people for whom he has nothing but contempt.

Kind of sad, isn't it?

C'mon Steve, you know his exhortations about the importance of his work are slowly increasing your respect for him.

Not a very catchy catchphrase.