I think Churchill was used to swimming in a world where Arendt's characterization of the "banality of evil" underlies a lot of the discourse as a given. If he'd referenced Arendt without specifically calling the people in those buildings "little Eichmanns", he'd have made the exact same point without giving the right wing pundits such an easy target. I do believe that's exactly the point he was making, that the stockbrokers and power lunchers were participating in evil in a very banal way.
That said, I think one could make the case that it's somewhat disingenuous to characterize the power lunchers that way and not characterize the janitors and such in a similar manner. I guess that depends on where you draw the line (if you do) between being complicit in U.S. corporate capitalism and being a victim of it if you're employed by it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-03 03:23 pm (UTC)That said, I think one could make the case that it's somewhat disingenuous to characterize the power lunchers that way and not characterize the janitors and such in a similar manner. I guess that depends on where you draw the line (if you do) between being complicit in U.S. corporate capitalism and being a victim of it if you're employed by it.