03 November 2008

Post 163

This comes from an essay written by H. L. Mencken in 1936. It's called "The New Deal Mentality," and it really is very timely (also, I really love the language used; why don't people write like this anymore? Nevermind--it's because people wouldn't give the effort to read it). The moral of the story is beware the quick fix! (And if you can't take time to read the whole thing, at least take a gander at the second to last paragraph--though it'll make a good deal more sense in context, so I'd like you to read the whole excerpt--especially since I'm taking the time to type it by hand!) This was originally published in The American Mercury (whatever the crap that was); I am copying it from a book called the Anxious Years, edited by Louis Filler:

At every time of stress and storm in history one notes the appearance of wizards with sure cures for all the sorrows of humanity. They flourished, you may be certain, in Sumer and Akkad, in the Egypt of all the long dynasties, and in the lands of the Hittites and Scythians. They swarmed in Greece, and in Rome some of them actually became Emperors. For always the great majority of human beings sweat and fume under the social system prevailing in the world they live in--always they are convinced that they are carrying an undue share of its burdens, and getting too little of its milk and honey. And always it is easy to convince them that by some facile device, invented by its vendor and offered freely out of the bigness of his heart, all these injustices may be forced to cease and desist, and a Golden Age brought in that will give every man whatever he wants, and charge him nothing for it.

There is thus no actual newness in the so-called New Deal. Its fundamental pretension goes back to the dark abysm of time, and even its most lunatic details are not novel to students of world-saving. If it differs from the other current panaceas--for instance, Communism, Fascism, and Nazi-ism--it is only in its greater looseness and catholicity, its more reckless hospitality to miscellaneous nonsense. It is a grand and gaudy synthesis of all the political, economic, social, socio-political, and politico-economic quackeries recorded in the books, from the days of Wat Tyler to those of Bryan, the La Follettes, Lloyd George, Borah, Norris, and Debs. Indeed, it goes far beyond Wat to the Republic of Plato, and on the way down the ages it sucks in the discordant perunas of Augustine, Martin Luther, J. J. Rousseau, Robert Owen, Claude Henri Saint-Simon, Karl Marx, Sockless Jerry Simpson, Thorstein Veblen, and Henry George. This mess, boiling violently in a red-hot pot, is now ladled out to the confiding in horse-doctor's doses, to the music of a jazz band. Let them swallow enough of it, so they are assured, and all their sorrows will vanish. Let them trust the wizards manning the spoons, and they will presently enter upon fields of asphodel, where every yen that is native to the human breast will be realized automatically, and all the immemorial pains of doing-without will be no more, and what goes up need never come down again, and two and two will make five, five and a half, six, ten, a hundred, a million, [sic]

It is hardly necessary to rehearse the constituent imbecilities of this grandiose evangel--its proposal to ease the privations of the poor by destroying food and raising the cost of living, its proposal to dispose of the burden of debt by laying on more and more debt, its proposal to restore the impaired common capital by outlawing and demolishing what is left, and so on and so on. The details are of no more significance that they were when an oldtime doctor sat down to write a shotgun prescription. It is, in fact, only by accident that this or that crazy device gets out in front. Each wizard roots with undeviating devotion for his own, and a large part of the money wasted so far has gone into helping Wallace to prevail against Hopkins, and Hopkins to upset and flabbergast Ickes. Whenever one of the brethren gets a new hunch, there is a sharpening of activity, and the taxpayer goes on the block for another squeeze. And whenever one of them comes to grief, which is almost every day, the others rush into the gap with something worse.

That under all this furious medication there lies a sub-stratum of veritable pathology may be accepted without argument. Even the dumbest yokel does not succumb to even the most eloquent hawker of snake-oil on days when his liver and lights are ideally quiescent. It takes a flicker of pain along the midrifff [sic] to bring him up to the booth, and something more than a flicker to make him buy. In the present case there are qualms and tremors all over the communal carcass, for the whole world was lately mauled by a long, wasteful, and fruitless war, and the end of that war saw many millions of people reduced to poverty, terror, and despair. Immeasurable values had been destroyed, and the standard of living had declined everywhere. There was, of course, only one way to restore what had been lost, and that was for all hands to return to work, and earn it over again by patient industry. But in the post-war years any such scheme seemed too slow and painful, especially to romantic Americans, so resort was had to what appeared to be quicker contrivances. One of them, as everybody knows, was the anticipation of income by credit buying, and another was the accumulation of bogus values by gambling. These contrivances appeared to work for a while, and we were assured by high academic authority that a New Economy had come in; but suddenly they ceased to work, and there ensued a great bust, with the losses of the war multiplied two or three times, and every participant in the joy-ride rubbing his pocket, his occiput, and his shins. Nor did the spectators fare much better. Indeed, some of them were hurt even worse than the joy-riders.

What to do? The old prescription was still indicated--patience, industry, frugality. A few austere souls began to preach it, albeit somewhat timorously, and some even ventured to take it, but for the majority it was far too unpalatable to be endured. They craved a master elixir taht would cure them instantly and without burning their gullets, a single magical dose whose essences would run up and down their legs like electricity, and purge them of all their malaises at one lick, and waft them whole and happy to the topmost towers of Utopia. In brief, what they craved was quackery, and that is precisely what they got. Fro all points of the compass "the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers" came galloping--some from near and some from far, some from college classrooms and some from chicken-farms, some from the voluptuous dens of Rotary and Kiwanis and some from the chill crypts of the Y.M.C.A., some in glittering military uniforms and some in the flapping chemises of prophets and martyrs--but all busting with enlightened self-interest, all eager to grab favorable spots and loose their spiels.

For a while it was very confusing, but gradually something resembling order began to emerge from chaos. Upon the troubled face of the waters there appeared the shine of a serene and benignant Smile, the calming influence of a Master Mind. Why should inspired men fight like cats and dogs? Why should the Uplift be pulled to pieces on the very day of Armageddon, with an unparalleled chance for Service in front of it? Why not gang the suckers, and take them en masse? Why not, in Hopkins' immortal words to his stooge Williams, "give everyone a job"? To see the way was to consummate the dizzy deed. There and then the New Deal was born.

10 comments:

  1. .

    I have a couple collections from the American Mercury.

    Haven't read 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It is hardly necessary to rehearse the constituent imbecilities of this grandiose evangel" >.O Yeah... Why don't we talk like that anymore?... lol, but yeah, I understand what you mean. They had such beautiful ways of expressing themselves. Whereas today our vocabulary consists of descriptive words like "cool" and "wow, neat!"

    Anyway, wow! Go you! That's a lot to copy down.
    Heh... Yeah, all that's very true. People are lazy, and they want a quick fix. >.< We don't want to have to work for it. It's more rewarding when we do, but we don't want that. We want the magic snake oil that'll "purge them of all their malaises at one lick, and waft them whole and happy to the topmost towers of Utopia."
    *sigh*... ^.^; It's a beautiful world we live in, ain't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, we don't talk like that anymore because we value conciseness far more than we value vocabulary.

    And I admit it: I skipped part of the passage. (Didn't you write that note about skipping down for me? ;))

    Perhaps I'll come back and read the whole thing later. Or perhaps not. It's all a matter of attention span.

    Besides, this blog post didn't magically fix anything . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Theric: maybe you should. Or you could bequeath them to me--especially if they're all like this!

    F-C: I'm glad you understand me. Which brings us to:

    CONFUZZLED! BEHOLD MY WRATH:

    "Actually, we don't talk like that anymore because we value conciseness far more than we value vocabulary."

    Very droll. This is where you and I differ, I think: I appreciate the beauty and intricacies of the language we speak; you merely want things said as quickly as possible. Heaven forbid a thing should take effort to read (heaven even more strongly forbid that it not have plot!). My short attention span drives me to seek for density; yours, efficiency. I'm linguistic; you're literary.

    In short, I appreciate the grandeur of reality, but you seek for happiness in pretty little lies--TAKE THAT!

    However, I forgive you because, what you lack in lexical appreciation, you make up for with simple wit (your last line being particularly well played).

    ReplyDelete
  5. That wasn't a royal "we." I'm talking about our society as a whole. We appreciate conciseness over vocabulary. It's just the way it is. And while I can appreciate a well-executed sentence, far too extensive use of vocabulary only serves to alienate a rather large cross-section of most audiences.

    Also, let it be duly noted that I don't think everything need have a plot. (That's actually a characteristic I'd ascribe to the "linguistic" in the false dichotomy you're creating between "linguistic" and "literary.")

    There's grandeur to reality? (Or are you sure you aren't suffering from delusions of grandeur?)

    And to end, my wit is hardly simple: that particular execution was just far too easy . . . makes it seem simple . . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps you don't fully understand what it is that we linguists do: we study the language. We don't care what a person is saying, merely how they say it. We would never trouble ourselves with piddly little matters like plot. We like words. You literary types are all about meaning and social impact and suchlike. That's why I left the English gang in favor of linguistics: English Majors are frickin' weirdos! (We ELANG kids are an odd group ourselves, finding humor in the construction of relative clauses and suchlike, but at least we're grounded in what's really happening).

    And, yes, there is grandeur in reality--far more than fiction can ever have. Language, like flowers and mountains and birds and trees, was a gift from God; fiction is a mere misappropriation of that fine resource.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm suggesting there is far more overlap between the linguists and the literary than you care to admit.

    Some of us, too, are all about words. We just don't tend to get down to that down and dirty micro-level the linguists do.

    And just to note: we're not entirely about social impact. Though we do like our discussions of meaning. (Because come on, they're fun! Especially the ones where we argue about the point of finding meaning at all . . .)

    Anyway, to reiterate: many of us like words. Words are our playthings. We like to mess around with them, use them in funky ways, make them act in ways anomalous to their fundamental structures (like all those dang poets who like to verb nouns . . .)

    Y'all just don't seem to be having as much fun with them . . . or rather, I guess y'all have a different, scary type of fun . . .

    ReplyDelete
  8. .

    Actually, I started both and they have good stuff in them but if you'ld like them, I'm willing to share: they were Grandpa's.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Grandpa had good taste in books. Kinda wish I had known him....

    Naw, you can keep 'em: I'm honestly not sure I'd get around to reading much of them. I'm mostly a dabbler, don't get around to reading collections clear through.

    ReplyDelete
  10. .

    Which is exaclty why I've read so little.

    If you change your mind when you're graduated and housed, let me know.

    ReplyDelete