Mencken Society

[Recusant]

The current presidential race seems to me a classic dichotomy of streams in American culture which were lacerated thoroughly by the great man. On the one hand we have the Patriot McCain, with all the usual war-mongering rhetoric. On the other, the likely candidate is the Populist Obama, beating the tired old drum of "Change!" He seems to me to verge on demagogery, in the tradition of Bryan, and the Democrats seem all too willing to jump on his bandwagon. I think Mencken would have had a grand time observing the antics of both sides. I just wonder, after holding his nose, which side he would have chosen. I know that the accusations of racism which smeared his memory in the last decade were patently false, so that would not have been an issue. Still, I think he would have found Obama's self-righteous attitude odious. And yet, I have trouble believing he would have gladly accepted McCain as a leader of this country, willing to occupy Iraq for "one hundred years." So I wonder, WWMD? (What Would Mencken Do?) Edit: I do not intend for this to be unduly provocative, yet it seems that it might be. If so, my apology in advance. All I can say in my defense is that I am not a partisan of either side here, and wonder if Mencken could have been... Political life in this country was never far from his thoughts, I believe, and I think this is a legitimate question.

[jpaisie]

A provacative question is indeed what you posed.

I think Mencken would have enjoyed the primary campaign much more than the impending election. On the Republican side, the prospect of a subset of legitimate candidates proudly proclaiming that they did not believe in evolution would have confirmed his belief that one day a downright moron would inhabit the White House, notwithstanding the current occupant. On the Democratic side, I think he would have praised Hillary to the heavens. The idea of a female president would put to the test his long held belief (?) in the superior intelligence of women.

As to the impending general election, I think he would have looked at the candidates from the perspective of which one provides better theater. McCain the "uber patriot" or Obama "the elitist". After 8 years of an Administration which combines the worst aspects of Wilson (militant moralism, disregard for civil rights, sunshine patriotism etc.) with the rhetorical and verbal abominations of Harding and the economic foolishness of Coolidge and Hoover, the notion of a "pale" Bush would not attract him. Even Mencken voted for FDR the first time he ran. I do not think he would necessarily care who wins since he was convinced that the American people are nitwits and democracy, American or any other form, is essentially an idiotic form of government. I think he would enjoy Obama's impending descent into populism. Since he will need to portray himself as a "man of the people", Mencken would be waiting for the oncoming show and its attendant hypocrisy. I also think he would have fun with Obama's struggles with what to say about his wife, pastor and cigarettes.

Further thoughts?

[Recusant]

First, thank you for taking the time to register here and reply to this topic! I appreciate the depth of your understanding of how Mencken would likely have viewed the current political scene, especially his probable response to Clinton's candidacy. I agree, and as a matter of fact I myself happen to regret the fact that she will not be the Democratic nominee.

The historical examples you used to describe the current administration were delightful, and apposite. I think you've hit the nail on the head by describing McCain as a "pale Bush." The clown shoes he would have to fill seem waay too big!

It's interesting that you maintain the 'elitist' tag which Obama has managed to get for his efforts so far. One can take it as read that any viable candidate for the top office in this country is so much a product of the system that elitism is an inextricable part of them, whatever pose they may adopt. It's the platitudes they mouth in portraying their political character which define it, not their actual nature. It is possible my understanding of these labels (elitist, populist) is flawed, but they don't seem to be mutually exclusive to me. Obama has made plenty of mis-steps, (he does indeed fit the 'elitist' bill after all; see above) and he has a certain air of 'superior moral tone' yet his rhetoric is that of one who wants to be seen as a champion of the common man. It has been said that those who have insisted he is an elitist may simply be implying that he's uppity. I don't mean that you are implying that, but that it is an intriguing explanation of the popularity of this word to describe him. You mention FDR: There is no better example of one who was both unquestionably elitist, (just look at those he chose to surround him in the Cabinet, not to mention his personal background) and at the same time a populist.

Finally, I agree that since Mencken maintained that the government of this country has it's primary value as a source of entertainment, he would likely opt for Obama as the better prospect to provide a good show.
Thanks again for your reply, and welcome to these forums.

[jpaisie]

First, I would like to thank you for your reply. I always enjoy a good discussion, regardless of the point of view.

I do not think that Obama is "uppity". After living in the South for the last 18 years, following sojourns in Illinois (12 years) and Baltimore-Washington (15 years), I have a reasonable notion of what "uppity" means. He is a Harvard educated lawyer. His wife teaches at the University of Chicago. Talk about "wine and cheese" types!! I think he is a very intelligent individual who happens to be bi-racial. I'm not sure what old H.L. would make of this situation. Mencken was a believer in the notion that government should be in the hands of the civilized minority. I think this would tickle his funny bone to no end. The idea that in this case, the civilized minority is a minority is too ironic to contemplate.

As to McCain, he will descend into the "tin pot" patriotism that H.L. abhorred. Fear will be his greatest friend. Americans have a pathological fear of strangers, foreign or domestic. He will stoke those fires in an attempt to cash in on the votes that come with this sort of lunacy. I would not rule him out as a possible winner in the upcoming contest. I can not wait to see what sort of ass kissing he will employ. If he can go to Liberty College and kiss the late Jerry Falwell's ring, nothing is beneath him. I guess this is a way of saying that when all is said and done, he is nothing but a lousy politician.

Is there no one else out there with a point of view on this matter? While H.L. might not have approved of a society devoted to him, he would certainly have looked forward to an exchange of ideas and invective!! Come on.

[sarahcolin2]

This is really good post. Thank you for sharing it with us!

Chapel Hill Homes

[jpaisie]

My goodness, it has certainly been a long time since anyone had something to say on this post. Thank you for your comment.

Since the election is now history, I think we can reflect on subsequent events. I'm sure H.L. would be appalled by the health care decision. He was a violent opponent of any sort of social program. On the other hand, he was a great supporter of Johns Hopkins and the advancement of medicine. He may have been torn by this program since it makes modern medicine more available. At the same time, since this spawned the Tea Party movement, I'm sure he would have disliked this cabal of mental midgets. Their collective ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is truly stupendous. Anyone with a brain in their head knows that the Bill of Rights is stronger than it was at any time during H. L.'s life. Freedom of speech, one of his favorite causes, is certainly stronger than it was during the "Hatrack" case. I still think he would have enjoyed the show. The Republicans are a collection of nitwits. The Democrats have no courage. His candidate might be Ron Paul with his libertarian bent. By the way, Mencken made a bushel of money after the 1929 crash by buying up bonds for a fraction of face value. He was one frugal kraut.

[Recusant]

Hello, and welcome to Mencken Society forum, sarahcolin2.

[jpaisie]

Thank you for your reply. I am guilty of not doing my research before suggesting that H. L. might favor Ron Paul. Certainly, some of maestro Paul's positions would meet H. L. standards regarding the role of government in people's lives. However, the religious aspects would disqualify him as H. L.'s candidate. It seems that the role of religion in politics has expanded during my lifetime. My first experience with this was the election of John Kennedy and the notion that he would somehow be a puppet of the Pope. It subsided during Johnson and Nixon only to come back during Jimmy Carter's campaign of 1976 when he made a big deal of being a "born again" Christian. (Being born once is more than enough for me!) Since that election, politicians have used religion as a tool to manipulate the mob.

I'm sure H. L. would have had fun with all this foolishness. The rampant hypocrisy is just too juicy to pass up.

[drakeskin]

for politicans, definitely!! even cheap essay thinks that way

[jpaisie]

Given recent events (Glenn Beck, the Mosque in Manhattan, and other assorted religious controversies), I am firmly convinced that H. L. was right. Americans are nitwits. I am truly sick of a public dialogue dominated by religion. Given our economic situation and our involvement in questionable wars, I fail to see how religion has any place on the list of issues we are confronting. This isn't the 12th century and we should have no interest in recreating the Crusades.

H.L. was a severe critic of the press, even though he was a jounalist. I wonder what he would have to say about the state of the fourth estate. I am reasonably sure that he would castigate his collegues for their lack of courage and willingness to "kiss ass" to obtain favor from the high and mighty. Journalists as celebrities would provide H. L. with an endless supply of essays. I guess H. L.'s aphorism that freedom of the press is restricted to those who own one is truer today than it was in his time. Thoughts?