WHY MENCKEN MATTERS: NOTES ON A SKEPTIC
[Part II of III]
Mencken's public posture shows how one could have been a libertarian and a Democrat before the coming of the New Deal and the rise of the welfare state. By this theory, the apotheosis would be the Al Smith campaign of 1928. At that point, there was to Mencken no fundamental difference between political parties on the size of government. Both parties resorted to corruption in the public sector. As a MaxSpeak post on Andrew Mellon showed, there was some dispute about the progressive income tax, but it was substantially muddied by Mellon's own role. So what issues divided the parties in Mencken's mind?
The two biggies were prohibition and liberal military interventionism. Prohibition represented a socially-intrusive state; Mencken also fought against censorship, and on behalf of literary modernism. He embodied what today is described as cultural elitism and social liberalism. I would argue that his assorted, partially submerged prejudices against Jews and African-Americans, among others, played little role in his public, live-and-let-live philosophy. In his private writings, I should add, HLM displays a bouquet of ugly slurs towards various groups, but he does not translate them into any mechanism for state repression of said groups.
I would classify the Anti-Saloon League as a precursor of the modern Christian Coalition. From HLM's standpoint, the perverse ally of the League was the Ku Klux Klan, then an awesome and murderous political force. The modern counterpart is of course the much-pacified, ex-Dixiecrats, whose president is busily destroying enforcement of civil rights laws, among other enterprises, by "working within the system."
The other biggie was Mencken's opposition to World War I and the associated oppressions of Woodrow Wilson's vile Attorney-General, Mitchell Palmer. This naturally extended to rejection of the League of Nations, Wilsonian internationalism, and what passed for the administration of homeland security. Mencken was vociferous about the imprisonment of Eugene Debs, whose prison term evidently destroyed his health and hastened his demise. He supported the civil liberties of radical left movements, while at the same time having utter contempt for their ideas.
The Mencken anti-war/anti-repression posture also stands in sharp contrast to the jingoists of his day, and of the present time. Naturally, this was a different matter in the first world war than the second, less so to HLM than to most who consider the matter.
By and large Mencken looks like a real libertarian. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt leaned against prohibition and campaigned as a budget balancer. There was no war, so HLM could support FDR against Herbert Hoover. As the New Deal and WWII became leading issues, HLM came to oppose Roosevelt.
Squaring HLM's libertarianism with his elitist social Darwinism raises some questions. Mencken harbored hallucinations about the merits of a vaguely-described self-appointed elite running everything. This found expression in his enthusiasm for the German state before WWI. He saw democratic man as incompetent. Since the best and brightest would never be elected by a population of dullards, Mencken devolved to minimalism in public policy. The less the state set out to do, the less money it would waste and thieve and the better off everyone would be. In this light, one might qualify his Darwinism as a kind of self-conscious utopianism, not to be taken too seriously in the real world of political affairs.
When you read him, Mencken's influence on contemporary discourse stands out. Purely in the realm of rhetoric, two examples that come to mind are Hunter Thompson and P.J. O'Rourke. Neither of these could hold a candle to HLM as far as learning is concerned. More important, in his time HLM performed some courageous acts. Nothing comparable comes to mind with the modern counterparts. Finally, they don't write nearly as well.
Better examples might be Gore Vidal and Christopher Hitchens. Both are far ahead of HLM on most fronts, including the delusion of their own expertise in affairs of public policy. HLM might write more clearly, but he had less to say. Vidal of course has stayed true to his contrarian chemistry. Hitchens has fermented into something unlike his younger self.
I caught a glimpse of a debate on capital punishment with Hitchens and Jesse Jackson on one side, and two National Review partisans whom I had never heard of before (or since) on the other. Hitchens eloquently conflated the U.S. tradition of "human sacrifice" with U.S.-instigated repression in Central America. Unfortunately, the debate took place in 1997. Ah, good times.
[Big finish tomorrow.]
I'm sorry, but I don't get this series of posts at all and what it's doing on TPM. One can certainly argue that a libertarian is preferable to some other versions of conservative lunacy, although I'd hate a country run by one, I lose no sleep over not reading William Safire or John Tierney any longer online, and I hope the other threads here have spoken out sufficiently against flat taxes, the privization of social security, and countless other policies in deference to the market and the rich. One can argue that one who hated both FDR and America's role in WWII at least anticipates some flaws in this temporary aberration we've called liberal interventionism, but then so would predictions of the end of the world in 1900. One could argue that this social Darwinism and anti-Semitism don't matter, as long as one has the integrity to oppose them vehemently and to consider why they are part of this man one is defending.
One could argue for any source of good one-liners, although I've always found his relevance as a stylist not that much higher than others who lean that way, such as O'Rourke and Dowd, which may explain why American literature anthologies avoid him and why others here have noted the resemblence to wingnut rhetoric like George Will's today. One could argue that apologizing for elitism among liberals has gone too far, although a supposed elitist like Mencken who didn't get modern art and literature at the time sounds more like a boob to me.
So Mencken matters? Maybe he'd matter more over at Commentary, although probably on the letters page.
December 14, 2005 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Mencken matters? Maybe he'd matter more over at Commentary, although probably on the letters page.
I'm findiing this series quite interesting. The only thing I knew about Mencken prior to this was all his witty quotations and that he was part of the muckracking movement. That he was a bigot and partial to fascism is news to me, and his ability to mask these things while carefully presenting a genial face to his public is certainly relevant to the world, and the journalists who populate it, today. It's also interesting that Mencken could have held so many unpopular positions and opinions, yet remain a popular icon. It's as if you're seeing the country, both its good points and its underbelly, embodied in one man. He clearly understood, and appealed to, something in America's psyche, much as modern conservatives are doing. What exactly was it? I hope Part III has an answer.
December 14, 2005 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, the Big Finish is tomorrow.
I spend most of my time inveighing against libertarian economics, but the specter of additional wars of choice I find alarming in the extreme. I do not think liberal interventionism is a "temporary aberration." Just take a visit to the "America Abroad" section of this site, and you can find it in all its glory.
My post does not provide more examples, but HLM's public political rhetoric is much more than one-liners.
I'm not a professional arts and letters person, but if anthologies omit HLM, I think that's a mistake. Quite a few of his books are still available. Somebody's reading them, besides assorted contemporary conservative plagiarists.
December 14, 2005 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I don't get this series of posts at all and what it's doing on TPM.
How about a discussion about an HBO show on ancient Rome? Does that strike you as being inappropriate, too?
Have you noticed that the powers that be have set the site up with a section for contributors called "Arts and Letters" and a Discussion Section labeled "Culture"? If you come here only for discourse and ideas on contemporary political news, I would suggest you skip over those posts concerning 2 of the 3 areas mentioned in the link labeled "About TPMCafe":
The description does not specify "current events." BTW, the founder of this site has a P.H.D. in American history; unless that was a particularly loathsome experience for him that he would like to forget, I presume discussions about historical American figures might be of interest here.
I myself am quite pleased that a contributor has decided to share the results of his research on this here.
As to the past's relationship to current events, one really can't know if something relates to the present age unless one studies it first.
December 14, 2005 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about a discussion of HBO on ancient Rome? Actually, I'd missed that one, and perhaps I would not call it central to TPMC, but I'm glad, too, to see any opportunity for readers to discuss cultural matters that grab their attention.
But how about a three-part post that the relevance today of the Roman empire, its doing away with the Roman republic, its borderline insane emperors, and its, shall we say, foreign policy have been unfairly maligned and neglected? If that sounds like a twisted version of a noted recent neocon title about America's living up to its responsibility as heir to the grand and glorious British empire, it might indeed belong on a neocon site. I'm arguing that this Mencken thread is closer to that than to a plug for one's favorite HBO special.
December 14, 2005 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He saw democratic man as incompetent. Since the best and brightest would never be elected by a population of dullards,
I see this in a lot of comments here and on other left of center blogs. It's a minority, but it's very common. Don't believe me, here's one recent example:
It especially comes across in the expression of hatred of pop culture; very commom: how TV news panders to interests of the audience, the most recent example on the popularity of the Aruba murder mystery story.
What's different from Mencken is that they're often not honest about being elitist; liberals of this type seem to still be for "democracy," and a big role for government. "Dumb" as they may all be, "the American people" can sense this about some liberals from such comments, that liberals think they are better than them, hence the "latte liberal" slur really sticks like glue, and "the people" continue to enjoy liberal bashing, and fear an intrusive nanny state regulating culture should they get power. (I think Kerry suffered from acquiring that image somehow....the wind surfing thing et. al.)
Other examples of this kind of elitism as I see it on TPMCafein lots of the comments on this thread here and on "conspicuous consumption" as a moral issue by Nathan Newman here.
For a current liberal minority, there is, if not a full blown hatred, an active dislike of actual American culture, and a wish to reform it. I think this is one of the main reasons why a poor state like West Virginia used to be Democratic, now is Republican. (Ironically, I think such elitists could benefit from watching a few episodes of Fox Network's King of The Hill, since it appears that they might have missed the whole "The Simpsons" phenomenon. American pop culture often has a heavy injection of irony. The people are really not so "dumb.")
December 14, 2005 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take Mencken over the....yaaaaawn....weekly football posts anyday.
December 14, 2005 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I would classify the Anti-Saloon League as a precursor of the modern Christian Coalition."
is this necessarily so? My understanding was that at the time, the temperance movement came under the larger rubric of the progressive reform movements of the day, and that hatchet wielders like Carrie Nation were more kindred in spirit to the Women's Suffrage movement and other 'liberal' causes. That is not to say it wasn't using Christian rhetoric (and obviously from the standpoint of 2005 the notion of forbidding alcohol sounds marm-ish and thus "conservative" to many), but Christian ethos during the Progessive era did not translate into the same politics as the Christian Coalition any more than William Jennings Bryant's 'Cross of Gold' speech would presage the gay marriage amendment. Remember, much of the anti-saloon rhetoric was being justified as a means of reducing domestic violence back then.
Also, while being admittedly ignorant of H.L. Menken beyond what's being discussed here, a sympathetic attitude towards pre-WWI Germany wouldn't at that time have meant he was sympathetic towards fascism- the Great War was a clash of empires, a breakdown of diplomacy, an industrial-age horror- but it wasn't an ideological conflict. In America, favoring the Kaiser over the British Empire usually had more to do with your ancestry. Even believing Hitler was merely a 'goon' would not have been that different from what George Orwell thought in the 30's and 40's, which was that Nazism was oppressive, intrusive, belligerent, and what happened when you got a bunch of uneducated street thugs in charge. The full-scale, genocidal dimensions of Nazism that cause us to rightly label Hitler a monster, and not just a goon, were not appreciated until the details of the Holocaust became known, which most people considered to be unprecedented.
Anyway, I have no particular opinion of Menken without having read him, I'm just curious to what extent he's being assessed by projecting the politics of today on him, rather than what the politics of the time he was writing.
December 14, 2005 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two points of agreement with Artappraiser. books, art, theater are interesting in themselves. They help shape are perceptions of the world. They also say a lot about our country and what is important to Americas.
A couple of times I have mentioned that it is probably meaningful that two of "our" movie heros John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood often play characters who are loners who have a sense of morality and carry a gun.
Mencken help set the tone of this time and for what followed. It enrichs our understanding of todays culture and politics to know more about his, Sinclair Lewis and a host of other literary figures.
December 14, 2005 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't intend to weigh in on elitism, other than to question Mencken's form of it, but ArtAppraiser does raise elitism as a criticism of much liberalism that disturbs me.
Now, I don't mind at all considering myself elitist. I'll do anything to fight for a challenging education available to all, even if honors classes don't apparently serve the masses. I'd like funding generally for education, including at the graduate level. I am frightened by fundamentalism and appalled that most of my fellow Americans don't believe in evolution. I think some books, artists, and movies really are better than others, regardless of what sells the most. (Indeed, hard to know otherwise why ArtAppraiser no doubt does what his handle suggests he does otherwise and indeed why we're in a discussion of Mencken's merits in the first place.) I think that, while many Americans sincerely disagree with my preferences and all suffered from various kinds of disinformation in forming their own preferences, that still many bear responsibility for falling for it and for their preferences.
So does that make me undemocratic? Nonsense. A liberal believes in democracy, including an open government that represents the people rather than the economic upper crust. It's not hypocritical to hold that belief while disagreeing with the people much of the time. It's even essential: a democracy can't function without the kinds of protections for the minority enshrined in the Bill of Rights (or in legislation against torture). Democracy is not populism or mob rule, and neither is liberalism.
Come to think of it, this may bring one back to Mencken after all. If he favored fascism, its history recalls exactly the dangers in the kind of criticism of elites that Republicans and now ArtAppraiser raise.
December 14, 2005 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
ooghe -- very good points. I should know more about the Anti-Saloon League than I do. The Carrie Nation-progressive link is well explicated in Mike Kazin's book on populism. Mencken makes out his opposition to be provincial, but of course he also pegged WJ Bryan as provincial. "What's the matter with Kansas" was originally a screed against righteous rural populists that I think are worthy of admiration.
As a good ex-socialist, I also see WWI as utterly different than WWII.
Naturally my purpose in part is exactly to project today's politics onto the past. The current split between principled libertarians and apologists for imperialism, theocracy, and homeland security excess for me points up the relevance of Mencken's political voice.
December 14, 2005 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I'll put it another way. I fight for your rights while opposing your beliefs. Others scream elitism while depriving you of your right, your money, and your safeguards. And I'm the elitist who hates America?
December 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding was that at the time, the temperance movement came under the larger rubric of the progressive reform movements of the day, and that hatchet wielders like Carrie Nation were more kindred in spirit to the Women's Suffrage movement and other 'liberal' causes.
Yes and no.
A good quickie summary:
While Carrie Nation was certainly among their most colorful members, the members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, founded in 1874, left more in their wake than strewn glass. Once the largest women's organization in the country, the WCTU concerned itself with issues ranging from health and hygiene, prison reform, and world peace.
Carrie's activities start around 1900.
The thing is the complexity of the public reaction to all the P.R. Carrie got as opposed to her forbears with her "smashing" P.R. campaign.
Before her, The Women's Christian Temperance Union would be seen by some as women acting out of their place, busying themselves with things none of their business, while to others, in the more bourgeois urban world, they would be seen as women concerned with exactly the type of charity-oriented good Christian things that were appropriate diversions for women outside the home. The latter a good way for the type of Godly women one would marry to busy themselves. (One can always have whores.)
This kind of activity does mix with the women's vote movement simply because it's women getting out and being a force in society. Some suffragettes would have started out in such organizations.
But suffragettes, on the other hand, were seen by many as threatening radicals, including being threatening to the lifestyle where women tended the hearth and matters of the heart and men went out and worked at dirty business and drank in saloons. Suffragettes were threatening to "family values." After you give women the vote and independence, who knows what's next, breakdown of the marriage and family, women drinking and smoking, free lovers.
Carrie was sort of a uniter, not divider of some of those competing coalitions, and brings the hypocrisy of the 19th-century male to the light of day. She's all for Christian family values; she's thinking it's the men with their freedom to drink alcohol and not stay at home that's ruining traditional values. She's supportive of traditional family.
December 14, 2005 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
some quotes I just found bouncing around the net that sort of belie a picture of him as a simple elitist. From "The National Letters" of 1920, it's clear he thinks little of the WASP aristocracy of his day, but wants a new one. It's interesting that I found this, from "National Letters" of 1920, on a blog that's opining on what Kerry should do in the debates
I like this, which the Mencken Society puts at the top of their home page. (Probably, of course, cause it makes him look like such a great guy...and we all know everyone is more complex than being just a great guy.)
The "forgive some sinner" part is definitely the antithesis of "Carrie-Nationism."
December 14, 2005 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, if anyone forgot, urban society did "fall apart" as many feared! Women bobbed their hair, stopped wearing corsets, showed their legs, smoke and drank in public while dancing to wild black music, invested in stocks like virtually everyone else and his uncle, divorced men, abandoned their children to nannies to go out and party, and all kinds of other horrible things. :-)
Good example of this kind of gal, who also traveled in the kind of society that Mencken seemed to dislike (see my quote downthread) would be Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan, the mother of "poor little rich girl" Gloria Vanderbilt. No coincidence, I think, that the custody battle over Gloria was a huge tabloid story that many followed, possibly as big a story as the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. From my reading on that (I ending up doing so because the other party in the custody battle was the avant-garde artist Aunt Gloria Vanderbilt Whitney, who founded the Whitney Museum) I think that the story went beyond the usual fascination with "the rich and famous" to an interest of and fear of the breakdown of "traditional family values," the old ways.
Strange fruit that "poor little rich girl" Gloria's son is now the main new anchorperson on CNN.
December 14, 2005 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink