My favorite O’Rourke book isModern Manners. It’s laugh out loud funny.
I enjoyed P. J. O’Rourke in the past. I agree that Parliament of Whores is one of the best satirical books ever written on American politics. I’d argue that it’s great because P. J. has no qualms about pointing out hypocrisy on either side–some of his greatest shots in the book are against his political allies.
Unfortunately in the past ten years it seems as if P. J. has succumbed to a kind of post-9/11 disease. No more can he even appear to be attacking his own side, because politics is just too polarized to do that now. He can’t call Republicans wimpy as he did with GHWB, or Democrats conservative as he famously did with Lloyd Bentsen (“two hundred fifty years old and a little to the right of Albert Speer”). Republicans are always conservative and Right, Democrats are always liberal and Wrong. Granted, P. J. is far from the only political writer to fall to post-9/11 disease (come to think of it, it’s hard to think of one on either side who hasn’t been affected in some way), but it seems to have hit him harder, and in a worse way.
He skewered Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly in his 2004 essay “I Agree with Me”:
That’s not exactly skewering them, Cap. And frankly, if P. J. can find even ‘poetic truth’ in Coulter’s batshit crazy ravings, he may not have his hinges as firmly attached as he had in his heyday.
I used to be a huge fan, despite the fact that O’Rourke’s politics are a long way from my own. Parliament of Whores is outstanding, as are Holidays in Hell and Republican Party Reptile.
He began to lose me somewhere in the mid-90s, around the time that he published Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut. That book, and the ones that followed, seemed to sacrifice humor for the sake of a more committed political position, and as the balance shifted i found that the (decreasing number of) laughs i got from his writing were not worth the amount of conservative ideology i had to put up with to get them. And in the post-9/11 period, as Qadgop notes, he made some comments that made it impossible for me to see him as anything but a partisan political writer, rather than a humorist.
For a while i wasn’t sure whether it was me or him who had changed. It occurred to me that he might be as funny as ever, but that i had just become less tolerant of his politics. Maybe there’s some truth to that, but the fact is that i still find those earlier works extremely entertaining. I reread Parliament of Whores just a little while back, and found myself laughing again at his chapter on agriculture policy.
Did you read the next sentence in O’Rourke’s quote? He said “it’s the kind of poetic truth best conveyed late in the evening after six or eight drinks while pounding the bar.” Basically, he’s saying Coulter’s comments sound like they’re coming from someone who’s certifiably crocked. Politically, I’m nowhere near where O’Rourke is but I can’t disagree with his assessment about Coulter.
I did read the full excerpt, NDP. Sure, O’Rourke is comparing Coulter to a drunk, but he’s also using the phrase “poetic truth” non-ironically. He’s saying there’s a valid perception inside the rant he quotes. He’s essentially agreeing that liberal dissent looks unAmerican.
And he used to know better than that, which is why I agreed with Duke regarding O’Rourke’s post 9/11 slide.
I’m fairly well aligned with O’Rourke’s politics, but I agree that his later works aren’t the same as his earlier stuff. It’s a subtle change and hard to put your finger on, but I think the difference is that when he was younger he had a better ear for the culture. His writing had a real bite to it, but was still very funny.
Now, he comes across as a little more bitter, and a little less in tune with the zeitgeist. So his barbs often miss their target by a little bit. And he’s developed a bit of a cranky, “you kids get off my lawn” old man vibe. For example, he’s always ranting about technology and how he hates it and how most of the internet is stupid, and you’re an idiot if you’re on Facebook, and that sort of thing. He may think that’s the kind of edgy, biting commentary that he wrote as a younger man, but instead it just makes him sound out of touch.
I still love the guy and enjoy his writing, but it’s kind of like watching a 50-something golfer who was once great. You can still see the greatness, and you know he could still kick your ass with no problem, but he’s hitting a little shorter than he used to, and missing one too many average putts.
“Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.”
Some very good one-liners.
I went to one of his readings once, probably about 13-14 years ago. I can’t remember which book it was, but there was a line that stuck with me. It was something like this:
I’d love to find the exact quote and context again. Does that ring a bell with anyone?
The latest (?) book about Cars was very disappointing for me. More anger, less humor in the political observations.
.
I read something recent of his about driving in India that made me giggle like an idiot. Was that from the cars book?
But I generally agree with the other posters. He’s not as good as he once was.
Hope the book is more original than the title.
True, but he’s never exactly shown a fondness for fellow political pundits. Especially, sad to say, if they’re more popular than him.
PJ Lore:
In the “National Lampoon Yearbook Parody”, PJ appears in at least one of the photos as a female teacher.
He was Dwight Mannsburden and (I think) Marilyn Armbruster.
Well, after you’ve had 6 or 8 beers, it kind of does., you know, with those ANSWER marches sort of stuff. I’m not saying it is, but it’s one of those things you mutter when you’re drunk enough. Besides, he’s a conservative, which means he’s not the best person to fairly present liberal ideas, and he’s a humorist, which means he’s not the best person to fairly present any ideas.
US Air Representative: Actually, Mr. Seinfeld, we feel that peanuts are a healthy snack.
No… it kinda doesn’t unless you’re predisposed towards an authoritarian and very limited understanding of civic action. Which I guess is my point about O’Rourke’s decreased perspective over time.
While I don’t actually read conservative commentary for its fair presentation of liberal ideas, thanks for the tip.
But let’s talk about representation of ideas in humor, and how this applies to P. J.'s post War on Terr’r® writings. Political humorists of all stripes, in my observation, do take behaviors and beliefs out of their overall context in order to more closely examine inconsistencies, irrationalities and inanities to humorous effect. I have no beef with O’Rourke on that account.
When this type of gadflyism is done in a way that deals with the essential aspects of a particular worldview as presented by its own adherents, it’s not only funny but thoughtful and instructive. It can even be quite helpful to proponents of a particular flawed idea to see that idea skewered by a good comic breakdown. It allows those “aha!” moments that can improve one’s political thinking.
On the other hand, political pastiche can often take as a starting point an already caricaturized or even slanderously false representation of an idea, and address the foolish aspects of that strawman instead of the thing itself. When that happens, the joke loses any insightful and instructive aspects and just becomes a kind of taunt. This can still be quite funny, if done by someone as skilled as P. J., but it’s really aimed at a smaller audience which has already bought the caricature, and it doesn’t offer anything original.
So I’m not looking for advocacy or even a “fair hearing” from O’Rourke, I’m just disappointed that he’s no longer a great humorist with conservative political beliefs, he’s become just an unusually clever right wing comedian.
(Bolding mine)
Well said. This is exactly how I felt about the Cars book.
.
Holidays in Hell is one of my favorite books.