Preview: NS interview with Jonathan Franzen

The US author says the Tea Party movement "rejects the notion of a common good".

J P O'Malley has interviewed the US author Jonathan Franzen in this week's issue of the New Statesman. Here's what Franzen has to say on why he chose Freedom as the title of his new novel:

There is a vulgar notion of American freedom, according to which people wish to be left alone and they almost say: "Keep out." There's this deeply anti-communitarian streak among my fellow countrymen. You see this now with the Tea Party movement, which rejects the notion of a common good.

I was interested in the shocking rage I saw in the past ten years, on both the left and the right in America, the so-called freest and richest country on earth. It was interesting to explore that in the book and to discover reservoirs of misanthropy on both left and right.

Franzen is asked if he felt obliged to write a political novel, given America's current climate::

I don't feel any particular duty as a writer to address political concerns, but it's hard not to be affected by all the things that have happened in my country; hard not to imagine that a character akin to myself, living at the same time, would not also be affected by these things. So what was happening politically, socially, technologically, culturally, did lend itself to the construction of interesting characters.

Elsewhere, the author has praise for Oprah Winfrey and her television book club. In 2001 Franzen expressed unease at the selection of his previous novel, The Corrections, by Oprah. Here, however, his attitude appears to have changed:

Something Oprah Winfrey has been doing, and I hope will continue to do when her show goes off the air, is to inject writers like Toni Morrison, Jane Hamilton and Cormac McCarthy into the larger consciousness. I think that as long as we can keep alive the idea of the American novelist, the experience of getting lost in a novel will become increasingly attractive and become an alternative amid all the electronic noise.

Daniel Trilling is the Editor of New Humanist magazine. He was formerly an Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.