Archive for the ‘Intervju’ Category

EKONOMI | President Barack Obama har varit bättre för USA:s ekonomin än vad företagen vill erkänna.

bloomberg-businessweek-27 June-July 3 2016

När Obama intervjuades av ett team från tidskriften Bloomberg Businessweek lyckades han även få in en giftig kommentar om att Donald Trump inte uppfattas som speciellt framgångsrik bland många affärsmän.

The stock market has tripled. Profits are very high. And yet you still have this label of being an anti-business figure. How do you look at that?

Well, first of all, toward the end of my second term, I think among the business community, there’s maybe a greater acknowledgment, a less grudging acknowledgment, that we steered through the worst financial and economic crisis in our lifetimes successfully—certainly more successfully than many of our peers. We’re now 10 percent above the GDP pre-crisis. In Europe, for example, they’re just now getting back to even.

As you mentioned, the stock market, obviously, has come roaring back. But I think more relevant for ordinary folks, we’ve cut the unemployment rate in half. We’ve been able to have the longest [stretch of] consecutive months of private-sector job growth in our history. Biggest job growth since the ’90s in manufacturing. The auto industry has come roaring back and is selling more cars than ever. We’ve doubled the production of clean energy. Our production of traditional fossil fuels has exceeded all expectations. We’ve been able to grow the economy, reduce unemployment, and cut the deficit by around three-quarters, measured as a percent of GDP. So it’s hard to argue with the facts.

I think where the business community has traditionally voiced complaints about my administration is in the regulatory sector. And yet, if you look at the results—Dodd-Frank being a good example—it is indisputable that our banking system and our financial sector are safer and more stable than when I came into office. Now, what’s also true is that banking profits are not as outsized as they were, but I don’t consider that a bad thing, and I think most Americans don’t either. They’re still making a profit, it’s just that there is a froth that’s been eliminated, and that’s good over the long term for the financial sector.


We’re going to have a global entrepreneurship summit—the last one of a series that we began when I first came into office. And the enthusiasm from around the world about these summits speaks to the advantage that we continue to have here in the United States. It’s this notion that if you get a good idea, and you organize some people to support you, and you learn from your mistakes, you can create something entirely new.

You can become Bill Gates.

You can become Bill Gates. Or, in some cases, you can electrify a village. You can save water in a desert. That’s the thing about the U.S. economy that continues to be unique. And it’s tied to capitalism and markets, but it’s also tied to a faith in science and reason and a mindset that says there’s always something new to discover, and we don’t know everything, and we’re going to try new things, and we’re pragmatic. And if we ever lose that, then we will have lost what has made us an incredible force for good in the world. If we sustain it, then we can maintain the kind of progress that has been made. I always tell interns and young people who I talk to that as tough as things seem right now, do not believe people when they tell you they wish they could go back to the good old days. Because the good old days aren’t—I’m now old enough where I remember some of those good old days.

Does it annoy you, then, that the guy who wants to go back and is America’s most successful businessman, at least by his own reckoning, is Donald Trump?

Well, I—there’s no successful businessman in America who actually thinks the most successful businessman in the country is Donald Trump. I know those guys, and so do you, and I guarantee you, that’s not their view.

Tidskriftsomslag: Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 juni-3 july 2016.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Var finns de framgångsrika demokratiska och socialistiska politiska konsulterna i amerikansk politik?

Bernie Sanders

Den retoriska frågan ställde Bernie Sanders när han intervjuades i Rolling Stone av Tim Dickinson.

Frågan var intressant med tanke på att Sanders valkampanj har ett överskott av entusiasm, inte minst från sina unga gräsrötter men ett underskott av professionella medarbetare.

Team Sanders har varit duktiga på att två saker: samla in stora mängder pengar från vanligt folk och locka stora folkmassor till sina valmöten.

Mindre framgångsrika har man varit när det gäller att stå emot attackerna från Hillary Clintons professionella medarbetare med stor erfarenhet från tidigare valrörelser.

Men en annan förklaring till att Sanders hamnat på efterkälken är att han säkerligen inte förväntade sig få en sådan positiv respons bland de demokratiska väljarna.

Även Sanders trodde nog att det skulle bli en promenadseger för Clinton. Sanders hoppades nog bara på att kunna påverka Clinton och partiets valplattform i en mer positiv riktning.

On a campaign, a candidate gets so much advice. Who’s been the lodestar – the person or people that you return to for guidance?

The difficulty that we have had in this campaign is that if you have the politics of somebody like a Hillary Clinton, you can bring together a team with a whole lot of political experience, people who have been part of Bill Clinton’s campaigns or administration, or Al Gore’s efforts, pollsters or media people or great surrogates. That is what the establishment Democratic Party has – hundreds of very knowledgeable people. Sophisticated people. I know many of them. I’ve been in the rooms during Obama’s campaigns. I have looked at the chart of literally the 39 different ways Obama can win. ”If you lose Wisconsin but you win New Je rsey and bup, bup, bup…”

But there aren’t a whole lot of people who understand the day-to-day mechanics of running a presidential campaign, who have history running a campaign for a candidate like myself. You tell me: Where are the democratic-socialist political consultants who have been involved in successful campaigns in recent history? There aren’t any. So we’ve had to put together our own campaign by the seat of our pants. And that’s been hard. We started this campaign with a handful of people from Vermont, people I’ve known for 20 or 30 years. And it’s grown. We’ve used people who have experience in the Democratic Party – the best that we can find. And we have political activists involved. We’ve met some great people over the campaign. A lot of great surrogates, from Nina Turner to Chuy Garcia to Killer Mike to Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon – great people from different walks of life who gravitated into the campaign.

Bild: Talking Union.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Det är inte var dag Bernie Sanders blir intervjuad av en anhängare och hamnar på omslaget till en rikstäckande tidskrift.


När regissören Spike Lee träffade senatorn för The Hollywood Reporter blev det inga hårdslående frågor. Sanders gick knappast därifrån svettig.

Det bästa man kan säga är att samtalet möjligtvis gav en lite tydligare bild av den självutnämnde ”demokratiska socialisten” Sanders åsikter i en rad ganska förutsägbara frågor.

Do you think that Mrs. Hillary Clinton has an advantage with her relationship with President Obama? I mean, what is your relationship with the president?

It’s a good relationship. But let me be very straight about this: This president will go down in history as one of the smartest presidents. Brilliant guy. And especially the more people hear from the Republicans, the smarter they think he is. (Laughter.) But he is also incredibly disciplined and focused. You’re around the media every single day, and you have the opportunity to say dumb things — he does it very, very rarely. He is very focused. He came to Vermont to campaign for me way back in 2006. I worked on his elections in 2008 and 2012 and just was in the Oval Office a couple of months ago. So we have a very positive and, I think, friendly relationship. Is he closer to Hillary Clinton? I suspect. She was his secretary of state for four years.

When did it hit you — I’m going to run for the United States of America? When did this happen?

I got to tell you there’s a funny story that every day 100 people brush their teeth and they look in the mirror and every one of them says, ”There is the next president of the United States.” That’s the definition of the U.S. Senate. Honestly, honestly, I was not one of those people.

It wasn’t you, huh?

It wasn’t me. I love my state, very happy to be the senator. But this is what I concluded, Spike: With all due respect to Secretary Clinton and everybody else, it is too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. The problems facing this country now are so serious, are so deep, that the same-old, same-old ain’t going to do it. And what we need to do is create a political movement — what I call a political revolution — where millions of people come together.

A coalition, right?

Absolutely a coalition, based on the trade union movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay community movement and bringing people together to tell the billionaire class that they cannot have it all. People don’t appreciate how much power Wall Street has, corporate America, the corporate media. And we got to take ‘em on.


Trump. Have you seen the film A Face in the Crowd, directed by Elia Kazan? Do you see a correlation between Lonesome Rhodes [a character who rises to fame in the early days of TV], played by Andy Griffith, and Donald Trump?

He is an entertainer by and large. He did very well on television; he knows the media very, very well. Don’t underestimate him. And God knows who he is really, but we see what he personifies on TV every night. He knows how to manipulate the media very effectively, he knows how to do what he does with people. But let me just reassure you: Donald Trump is not going to become president of the United States. That I can say.

Would you agree that he is possibly the Frankenstein that the GOP has created? They got a monster on their hands and don’t know what to do with it.

There’s no question. The estab­lishment Republicans are going nuts. And this could lead to a real dissolution of the Republican Party as we know it.

Who are the people who are voting for him? When a guy says I can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody — even saying that, knowing that 99 Americans die every day — and you’re going to shoot somebody and no one’s going to not vote for you? That’s insane to me.

Well, virtually every day he says something that’s crazier than the day before, right? So what can you say? But here is what I think is going on. I think that the establishment has underestimated the contempt and the frustration that the American people have, a segment of the American people have, with politics as usual.

With Washington, D.C., right?

Yeah, yeah. So when he says, ”Look, I’m not them,” they say, ”OK, that’s good enough for me.” You know? ”That’s all that I need.” And there is a lot of anger out there and a lot of reasons for the anger. One of the reasons for these 50-year-old, 60-year-old white guys voting for Trump is in many cases they are working longer hours for lower wages, they are seeing their jobs go to China, they are seeing their jobs go to Mexico. They are scared to death about the future of their kids, and they don’t see anybody doing anything about it. And Trump comes along and says, ”I got the solution, we’re going to scapegoat Mexicans and we’re going to build a wall a mile high.” People are angry, what do you do? You don’t get to the real issues as to why people are hurting, you scapegoat. You scapegoat blacks, Latinos, gays, anybody, Jews, Muslims, any minority out there, that’s what you do. That is nothing new. That’s what demagogues have always done, and that’s what Trump is doing. What we are trying to do in our campaign is bring people together to look at the real problems facing this country, which in my view is the greed of corporate America, of Wall Street, the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality. Let’s attack those issues. Let’s not scapegoat people.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Hollywood Reporter, den 15-22 april 2016.

Read Full Post »

HISTORIA | Dagens politiker låter sig gärna intervjuas av journalister. Intervjuer har blivit ett medvetet sätt för partierna att få ut sitt budskap till allmänheten.

Winston Churchill, 1941 by Yousuf Karsh

Winston Churchill, 1941 by Yousuf Karsh

Därför medietränas politiker hårt för att klara en intervju och undvika journalisternas fällor. Samtidigt ingår intervjuteknik i journalistutbildningen.

Så har det inte alltid varit.

Förr intervjuades inte politiker speciellt ofta. Och eftersom de möttes med större respekt än idag behövde de inte heller förbereda sig lika minutiöst som idag. Skjutjärnsjouranistik är ett förhållandevis nytt fenomen.

Men en fördel med den gamla stilen var att politikern ofta hade möjlighet att formulera sina tankar kring komplexa problem.

Men trots detta är det inte från intervjuer vi fått vår bild av politikern Winston Churchill. När vi tänker på politisk kommunikation i förhållande till Churchill handlar det oftare om hans tal och retoriska förmåga.

Dessutom är det mer bilden av talaren än själva innehållet vi känner igen. (Hur många vet t.ex. att han talade om ”blood, toil, tears and sweat” och inte ”blood, sweat and tears”?)

Även ikonen Churchill – t.ex. hans bulldogsliknande framtoning – är tydligare för eftervärlden än hans politiska åsikter. Än idag står han som den stora symbolen för motståndet mot Adolf Hitler under andra världskriget.

Det är därför inte direkt den nyanserade politikern vi minns. Men läser man Kingsley Martins intervju med Churchill i New Statesman, åtta månader innan världskrigets utbrott, är det just den bild som framträder.

Han är både principfast och klartänkt. Han är en övertygad demokrat och långt ifrån den reaktionära konservativa politiker nidbild som så många revisionister har velat framhålla efter hans död.

Han talar initierat om de demokratiska och fascistiska staternas väsen. Och han är väl medveten om att de demokratiska rättigheterna riskerar urholkas om Storbritannien överreagerar för att skydda samhället mot i kampen mot ett totalitärt hot.

När han svarar på intervjufrågorna handlar det inte om några utslätade politiska ”talking-points” eller klyschor.

Kingsley Martin The country has learnt to associate you with the view that we must all get together as quickly as possible to rearm in defence of democracy. In view of the strength and character of the totalitarian states, is it possible to combine the reality of democratic freedom with efficient military organisation?

Mr Winston Churchill The essential aspects of democracy are the freedom of the individual, within the framework of laws passed by Parliament, to order his life as he pleases, and the uniform enforcement of tribunals independent of the executive. The laws are based on Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the Petition of Right and others. Without this foundation there can be no freedom or civilisation, anyone being at the mercy of officials and liable to be spied upon and betrayed even in his own home. As long as these rights are defended, the foundations of freedom are secure.

KM One point people are especially afraid of is that free criticism in Parliament and in the press may be sacrificed. The totalitarian states, it is said, are regimented, organised and unhampered, as the Prime Minister suggested the other day, by critics of the Government “who foul their own nest”.

WC Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop.

KM Do you attribute the slowness in preparation of which you complain to any inherent defect in democratic institutions?

WC I am convinced that with adequate leadership, democracy can be a more efficient form of government than Fascism. In this country at any rate the people can readily be convinced that it is necessary to make sacrifices, and they will willingly undertake them if the situation is put clearly and fairly before them . . . It may be that greater efficiency in secret military preparations can be achieved in a country with autocratic institutions than by the democratic system. But this advantage is not necessarily great, and it is far outweighed by the strength of a democratic country in a long war. In an autocracy, when the pinch comes, the blame is thrown upon the leader and the system breaks up. In a democratic country the people feel that they are respon­sible, and if they believe in their cause will hold out much longer than the population of Dictator States . . .


KM People who are not necessarily pacifist are horrified at the idea that we may go into another war with the same kind of generals who were responsible for Passchendaele and other horrors in the last war. They say that they might be prepared to fight for democracy if they were democratically led; but that they are damned if they will be sacrificed again for the Camberley clique that was so horribly inefficient and wasteful in the last war. Do you think it is possible to democratise the army?

WC It is quite true, I know, that many people consider that the cadre of officers is selected from too narrow a class. I have always taken the view that merit should be rewarded by promotion in the army as in any other profession. I support this not only from the point of view of democratising the army, but mainly because I think it leads to efficiency such as no other system can achieve.

KM May I ask one more question of a more general character? Most of us feel that if there is a war it will be so destructive that the very substance of our civilisation, let alone our democracy, is likely to be destroyed. Clearly the great object is to prevent war. Is it possible in your view still to regard these military preparations, not as the acceptance of inevitable war, but merely as a necessary complement of a policy which may keep the peace?

WC I fear that failure to rearm Britain is bound to lead to war. Had we strengthened our defences earlier, the arms race need never have arisen. We should have come to a settlement with Germany while she was still disarmed. I think it is still possible, with a strong Britain and France, to preserve the peace of Europe.

KM Is it not true historically that an armaments race leads to war?

WC To say that an arms race always leads to war seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. A government resolved to attain ends detrimental to its neighbours, which does not shrink from the possibility of war, makes preparations for war, its neighbours take defensive action, and you say an arms race is beginning. But this is the symptom of the intention of one government to challenge or destroy its neighbours, not the cause of the conflict. The pace is set by the potential aggressor, and, failing collective action by the rest of the world to resist him, the alternatives are an arms race or surrender. War is very terrible, but stirs a proud people. There have been periods in our history when we have given way for a long time, but a new and formidable mood arises . . .

Läs mer: En intervju med Churchill i The New York Herald den 2 februari 1915 när han var First Lord of the Admirality.

Read Full Post »

VETENSKAP | Alla har en liten ”nerd” inom sig. President Barack Obama samlar t.ex. serietidningar med Spindelmannen och Conan.

Popular Science mars-april 2016

Detta åtminstone enligt en lista som Jon Swaine på The Telegraph samanställde 2008 över mindre kända fakta och kuriositeter kring Obama.

I en stor intervju i Popular Science om Obama-administrationens politik kring vetenskaps- och forskningsfrågor under dessa två mandatperioder kunde Cliff Ransom inte låta bli att också ställa en fråga om presidentens nördighet.

PS: Do you consider yourself a nerd and, if so, what’s your nerdiest pastime?

BO: Well, my administration did write a pretty detailed response to a petition, explaining why we wouldn’t build a real-life Death Star, so I’d like to think I have at least a little nerd credibility built up.

What’s remarkable is the way ”nerd” is such a badge of honor now. Growing up, I’m sure I wasn’t the only kid who read Spider-Man comics and learned how to do the Vulcan salute, but it wasn’t like it is today. I get the sense that today’s young people are proud to be smart and curious, to design new things, and tackle big problems in unexpected ways. I think America’s a nerdier country than it was when I was a kid—and that’s a good thing!

Tidskriftsomslag: Popular Science, mars-april 2016.

Read Full Post »

BOK David Axelrod, tidigare politisk rådgivare, har intervjuats av NPR:s Fresh Air med anledning av hans bok Believer: My Forty Years in Politcs.

Believer-My forty Years in Politics by David Axelrod

Förutom frågor om Axelrods tid som Barack Obamas kommunikationsstrateg och rådgivare ställde reportern Dave Davies naturligtvis också en obligatorisk fråga om vem han tror blir demokraternas respektive republikanernas presidentkandidat.

Davies: All right. I’ll give you a chance to predict who will be the party nominees, who will win the election.

Axelrod: I appreciate that opportunity. Look, I think anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. I think she’s the strongest open-seat contender for a party nomination that I’ve see it in my lifetime. And, you know, I look at these polls, and Democrats are – despite all the stuff you hear, Democrats are very solidly behind her.

On the Republican side, I think that’s a very open question. Jeb Bush is a talented guy, and I think if he got through the process and didn’t compromise on his positions on things like immigration reform and education reform, he would be a formidable candidate for president. But the history of the Republican party for the last several cycles is that they’ve nominated center-right Republicans, but they’ve forced them to make Faustian bargains with the right wing in order to be the nominee, thus rendering them unelectable. And the question is whether Bush can get through the primary process with his positions and to the general election. If he doesn’t, Scott Walker’s the flavor of the month now – the governor of Wisconsin.

På NPR:s hemsida kan man antingen lyssna på radiointervjun eller läsa hela avskriften från intervjun.

Bild: David Axelrod, Believer: My Forty Years in Politcs, Penguin Press (2015)

Read Full Post »

STRATEGI | Alla politiker föredrar enkla frågor. Det bästa stället för detta är i tidskrifter vars huvudsyfte bara är att smeka läsaren medhårs.

Psychologies Magazine UK edition october 2014

När Lena Corner intervjuar Hillary Clinton för Psychologies Magazine känns det som om intervjuaren har fått möta sitt livs stora idol. Det blir nästan lite pinsamt.

Så här kan det t.ex. låta i artikeln:

In person, she is much more fun than you’d ever expect her to be. Making someone laugh, putting them at ease – that’s powerful. But Hillary Clinton is also the embodiment of empathy itself.


Clinton has huge blue eyes and she maintains eye contact. There’s  a sense from her that you can ask her anything. She seems relaxed, sparkling, fluid.

Synd att Corner aldrig tog sig själv på orden och passade på att ställde några riktiga frågor. Artikeln är så banal att den lika väl kunde ha skrivits av Clintons egen stab.

När det gäller den utomäktenskapliga relationen som Bill Clinton hade med Monica Lewinsky låter det så här.

Many religions talk about forgiveness as a liberation, suggesting that the person who can’t forgive is their own jailer. I’d not thought about that much until I met Clinton. ‘I’m inspired by the example of Nelson Mandela who led a country to a new future through forgiveness and reconciliation,’ she says. ‘It doesn’t mean that you forget – it’s truth and reconciliation. You have to be honest. You have to face the truth about whatever your situation, personally or nationally might be. But he has often made the point that if you carried bitterness and anger with you for whatever reason, you would remain in prison. You would, in fact, be imprisoning yourself and be unfair to yourself because you can’t get beyond what happened to you.

Kanske det.

Men detta är inte den bild politiska motståndare har av vare sig Hillary eller Bill Clinton. Båda deras staber är kända för sin lojalitet och sina hårda metoder.

Både när Bill Clinton var president och under Hillary Clintons egna valrörelser var det aldrig frågan om några silkesvantar. När man bekämpade politiska motståndare eller personer man ansåg hotade deras intressen – inklusive Lewinsky – drog man sig aldrig för verbal smutskastning.

Att förlåta eller visa hänsyn har aldrig varit prioriterade verktyg i kampen om makt och inflytande. Och det kommer inte heller vara det om Hillary Clinton ställer upp i presidentvalet.

Läs mer: ”Shame and Survival” av Monica Lewinsky i Vanity Fair.

Tidskriftsomslag: Psychologies Magazine (engelska utgåvan), oktober 2014.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2014 |  Vem hade kunnat tro att justitieminister Beatrice Ask kan vara rolig? Här några nedslag från en intervju i Nöjesguiden.

Nöjesguiden nr 7 2014

Vilken politiker, historisk eller nutida, ser du mest upp till?

– De flesta, eftersom jag är så kort.


Vad skulle du avslöja i ditt Sommarprogram?

– Förmodligen rätt dålig musiksmak enligt musikkritikerna. Samt att jag kan vara rolig, vilket sällan passar med det uppdrag jag har.


Vilka vinner valet? Ärligt nu.

– Om folk håller sig vakna hela valrörelsen – Alliansen. Absolut.

Bild: Framsidan är Nöjesguiden nr 7, 2014.

Read Full Post »

INTERVJU | Engelska Total Politics har intervjuat USA:s trettionionde president. Han är inte speciellt imponerad av politiken i Washington D.C.

Total Politics issue 66 feb 2014

Simon Burns, parlamentsledamot, intervjuade Jimmie Carter:

As we three sit down, I ask Carter if he ever misses the White House. Without a flicker of hesitation he shoots back, “Not these days. The White House is totally different from what it was when I was there. I had a very harmonious relationship with the Congress, with the Democrats and the Republicans. There was a spirit of camaraderie there and there was co-operation. It seemed everyone was trying to work for the better of the country. Those days are gone now, and it’s not the pleasant environment, personally and politically, it was. In these modern days, I don’t miss it.”

Tidskriftsomslag: Total Politics, nr 66, februari 2014.

Read Full Post »

KULTUR | Författaren Bengt Ohlsson väckte ramaskri när han 2012 ifrågasatte den slentrianvänster som präglar svensk kultur.

Irakli Toidze - Moderlandet kallar!

Går det överhuvudtaget att vara kulturutövare i Sverige och samtidigt ifrågasätta vänstern?

”Som konstnärligt verksam får du inte vara höger. Så är det bara. Eller, egentligen räcker det med att inte vara vänster. Det möts av förvåning och förvirring; men vänta … jaha … så du bryr dig inte om människor?”, skrev Ohlsson i Dagens Nyheter.

Vad som var mest förvånade med debattinlägget var att det inte innehöll några större överraskningar. För den som något så när objektivt försöker avläsa strömningarna på exempelvis våra kultursidor var Ohlssons resonemang ganska självklara.

Trots detta blev det ett fruktansvärt liv efter publiceringen.

Nu, nästan exakt två år senare, är Ohlsson aktuell med romanen Swing. Och med anledning av detta har Filip Yifter Svensson passat på att också fråga författaren hur han idag ser på debatten om kulturvänsterns dominans.

Det har nu gått ganska exakt två år sedan du väckte stor debatt med din DN-artikel som ställde frågan om kulturen måste vara vänster. Hur ser du på det idag?

– Jag råkade läsa om den där artikeln i höstas. Och jag tyckte att den var klockren. Det fanns inte ett kommatecken jag skulle vilja ändra på. Jag tycker att det är fascinerande att en så beskedlig fråga – måste kulturen vara vänster? – kan väcka så mycket upprördhet. Det är klart den inte måste.

– Man baxnar lite när man ser hur folk missförstår en avsiktligt, eller väljer att inte förstå överhuvudtaget. Och det där rullar ju bara vidare i debatt efter debatt. Eller ja, debatt, inom citationstecken då. Det finns mekanismer som bara verkar sitta där. Men herregud, det enda man kan göra är att inte gå in i den där världen mer än nödvändigt.

Du trivs inte i rollen som debattör?

– Jag står fullt ut för den där artikeln. Jag tycker att det var viktiga frågor som jag ställde. Men sedan får man ju släppa det. Mitt jobb är inte att hålla på med sådant där. Mitt jobb är att skriva böcker och pjäser. Det är en helt annan verksamhet.

– Som romanförfattare kan man frossa i motsägelser och motsättningar, utan att ha dåligt samvete för det. Till skillnad från en debattör måste jag inte leda något i bevisning eller kräva lagändringar. Jag kan bara, ur så många aspekter jag orkar, visa på det svåra och motsägelsefulla med att vara människa.

– I en debatt förväntas man snäva av människor, medan man i en roman nästan ska göra människor större än vad de är. Att se hela människan och sträva efter att förstå alla som man skriver om. Det är ett helt annat temperament, som jag tycker är mycket trevligare.

Bild: ”Moderlandet kallar!” – sovjetisk propagandaaffisch av Irakli Toidze. 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »