[Peace-discuss] H.L. Mencken

[John W.]

At 07:06 PM 3/31/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Why is it so important to believe that Bush is a moron?

Truth is always preferable to falsehood, is it not?  Why is it important 
for you to believe that Bush, and neocons like him, are NOT morons, Carl?


>He obviously isn't -- e.g., he went to as good a school as you: were you 
>at school with many morons?

I was at school with quite a few students who were legacies with rich 
daddies like Bush, had partied their way through prep school, and barely 
got passing grades in college while spending most of their time at the 
fraternity.  And there were plenty more who got decent grades, but weren't 
necessarily street-smart or sophisticated at what we might call "moral 
reasoning".

I think what confuses the issue is that, when we debate politics, there's 
always an element of morality involved.  It isn't math or science, which 
can for the most part be proven empirically.  But I will reiterate - 
logically, leaving morality aside to the extent possible - that anyone who 
prioritizes his/her own short-term profit or power over the survival of the 
planet is an idiot.  I don't care where s/he went to school.



>Is it that he seems less threatening that way?

Au contraire.  I think Bush is a monster, as I said.  And doubly so because 
so many ordinary black-and-white-thinking Americans are, even to this day, 
taken in by him.

But so is Cheney a monster.  They're just different types of monsters.


>One thing Mencken ignored in his estimate of the American populace is the 
>one great invention of American society -- public relations.  A greater 
>percentage of US GDP is devoted to forming the American mind -- 
>"marketing," in all its forms -- than in any other country.  The result is 
>a sort of more or less willing control that no 20th-century 
>totalitarianism could achieve.

Yes.  And....???  Does this make the American people more intelligent 
somehow, because they are gulled by "public relations" or "marketing" (just 
other terms for "propaganda", which is not so terribly new) and incapable 
of seeing through it?


>Yes, the FF were elitists, but elitism is wrong,

Well, it is and it isn't.  It's morally wrong for me to think that my life 
is somehow of more value than yours, or vice versa.  (Which YOU DO, 
incidentally, and it can be proven empirically, but we probably don't want 
to go there.)  But don't you want the most competent people running things, 
assuming that they possess a reasonable degree of integrity and understand 
the concept of the "common good"?  Wouldn't you prefer that voters be 
intelligent, knowledgeable, educated, and informed?


>and the Enlightenment contained the seeds of its destruction, perhaps most 
>evident in the conflicted Jefferson -- "all men are created equal..."

There's a seeming paradox there, certainly, but there's also a simple 
resolution of the paradox.

EVERYTHING on this earth carries the seeds of its own destruction, 
anyway.  None of us gets out alive, and I'm sure that includes empires as 
well as individuals.


>(Of course, as the Lukan passage indicates, historically the real enemy of 
>elitism is Christianity, as Jefferson recognized in his bible.)

Christianity rightly interpreted and conscientiously practiced, 
absolutely.  We agree on at least ONE thing...though you'll find some women 
and blacks who will vehemently disagree.  :-)


>In his later years, observing what was happening, Jefferson had rather 
>serious concerns about the fate of the democratic experiment. He feared 
>the rise of a new form of absolutism that was more ominous than what had 
>been overthrown in the American Revolution, in which he was of course a 
>leader. Jefferson distinguished in his later years between what he called 
>"aristocrats" and "democrats." The aristocrats are "those who fear and 
>distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands 
>of the higher classes." The democrats, in contrast, "identify with the 
>people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest 
>and safe depository of the public interest, if not always the most wise."

Yes, you've quoted this many times.  I'll agree with Jefferson and continue 
to side with the democrats, albeit with reservations which are only 
partially addressed by his disclaimer there at the end.


>The aristocrats of his day were the advocates of the rising capitalist 
>state, which Jefferson regarded with much disdain, clearly recognizing the 
>quite obvious contradiction between democracy and capitalism, or more 
>accurately what we might call really existing capitalism, that is, guided 
>and subsidized by powerful developmental states, as it was in England and 
>the U.S. and indeed everywhere else.

You'll get no argument from me here, except to say that there are other 
economic systems besides capitalism where aristocracy/elitism can rear its 
haughty head.  Re-read "Animal Farm".


>Mencken (and the Pharisee) saw himself as such an aristocrat. --CGE

So do a great many people, Carl.  Many, many people.  I'm reminded of 
Oliver Wendell Holmes father, who wrote "The Autocrat at the Breakfast 
Table".  If we narrow down our scope sufficiently, we're ALL aristocrats, 
at least in our own mind.  Your point?

John



>John W. wrote:
>
>>At 01:09 PM 3/31/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>>It's more comforting to think that Bush is a moron -- he isn't --
>>
>>You and I will always disagree on that, I guess.  I'll concede, 
>>reluctantly, that some of Bush's HANDLERS are not morons, although one 
>>could convincingly argue that ANYONE who is more concerned about 
>>short-term profits than about the long-term survival of the planet is a 
>>moron of incalculable dimensions.  But Bush himself is most definitely a 
>>moron by any definition.  He's absolutely incapable of nuanced thought, 
>>as he has demonstrated on any number of occasions.  "Big Business 
>>good....Evildoers bad."  He's a Neanderthal, a Frankenstein monster.
>>
>>
>>
>>>than to admit that we are responsible for the crimes of the American 
>>>government.  Elite interests, contrary to those of most of us, are "most 
>>>peculiarly attended to" (Adam Smith's phrase), and we remain quiet, 
>>>behind a false front of democratic forms without substance.
>>
>>I'll concede that we in America exist behind a false front of democratic 
>>forms without (much) substance, and that most citizens are complicit by 
>>their silence.  Does that complicity not represent "the inner soul of the 
>>people", as Mencken said?  Perhaps the average citizen's ignorance is 
>>willful, arising from fear.  You're still making Mencken's point.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mencken's contempt for the idea of democracy (and perhaps his admiration 
>>>for the "first-rate man" with the "force of his personality" -- what was 
>>>elsewhere called "the leadership principle") was bound up with his 
>>>admiration for German society, in both its imperial and national 
>>>socialist forms.
>>
>>I'll concede, having read the Wikipedia entry, that Mencken was something 
>>of an elitist, and was influenced by certain German philosophers of the 
>>day.  But as an elitist he's in some very good company - Socrates and 
>>Plato, most of our nation's Founding Fathers, and W.E.B. DuBois, to name 
>>just a few political philosophers off the top of my head.  You'll 
>>probably disagree with me about the Founding Fathers.
>>In practice just about everyone is an elitist, and they all think that 
>>THEY occupy a position among the elite.  :-P
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mencken seems to occupy the position of the famous Pharisee of Luke 
>>>18.  --CGE
>>
>>And you don't?  Hahahaha!  (I assume you're referring to verses 10-14.)
>>Thanks for the laugh there at the end, Carl.  :-P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>John W. wrote:
>>>
>>>>In searching for the source of this quote - "No one ever went broke by 
>>>>underestimating the intelligence of the American people" (a nice double 
>>>>negative in its own right) - I came across this gem by Mencken:
>>>>
>>>>     "The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before
>>>>     small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way
>>>>     through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality.
>>>>     But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged
>>>>     chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality
>>>>     cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man
>>>>     who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre ­ the man who
>>>>     can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a
>>>>     virtual vacuum.
>>>>
>>>>     "The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy
>>>>     is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the
>>>>     inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some
>>>>     great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their
>>>>     heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a
>>>>     downright moron." (/Baltimore Evening Sun/, July 26, 1920)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thank goodness we haven't reached that point YET in America, huh?  :-p