Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Aha! I KNOW What I Am! (And it doesn't contain an S, an O, or a B.)

Most curmudgeons squint one eye and snarl, I'll tell you one damn thing! I know now what I am. A curmudgeon! I loved W. C. Fields' encounter with Ray Bradbury. If this be (fair & balanced) self-revelation, so be it!

[x AARP Magazine]
A Few Good Grumps
Cranky, rude, indispensable. Our group of grumpy know-it-alls
By Jon Winokur

Curmudgeons keep the rest of us cockeyed optimists honest. That's why we need them more than ever. (If you don't like it, lump it.)

When author Ray Bradbury was 13, he saw W. C. Fields standing on a Hollywood street corner. Excitedly, the boy approached Fields with a sheet of paper for an autograph.

Fields signed his name, handed back the paper, and said, "There you are, you little son of a bitch."

Fields was something of a twisted patron saint of curmudgeonry. He didn't like children, and he made no pretense otherwise. Like all good curmudgeons, Fields attacked false sentiment—because it devalues the real thing.

We call curmudgeons "irascible," "grouchy," "grumpy"—even "mean." But the world needs curmudgeons. They refuse to see life through the filter of wishful thinking and are outspoken in their devotion to the harsh realities of life. They protect the rest of us, stumbling about blindly behind our rose-colored glasses, from ourselves.

Still, these are tough times for curmudgeons. In an age of fast-food intellect, when crudity is mistaken for cleverness, the articulate, witty curmudgeon seems out of place. Try imagining such saber-tongued cynics as Mark Twain, James Thurber, and H. L. Mencken grousing about America in 2003. Can you imagine Mencken, a man who once called the American people the most "sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages," adapting to an era of Freedom Fries? (When Mencken was asked why he chose to live in the U.S. if he thought it was so horrible, he snapped back, "Why do men go to zoos?")

Slowly, almost imperceptibly, our nation is becoming curmudgeon intolerant. It's as though our American ears, like our American bellies, have gone soft. Look around and you'll see the triumph of the mindless happy. It began, perhaps, with the publication of I'm OK—You're OK and has culminated in more recent bookstore offerings such as You Can Be Happy No Matter What. On TV, upbeat Oprah rules, and, in their less-than-stellar 60 Minutes debates, Bill Clinton rejected one of Bob Dole's topics because it was too, well, cranky.

It's only in recent years that curmudgeons have gotten a bad rep, says author P. J. O'Rourke, the resident curmudgeon at Rolling Stone. "In Mencken's era, curmudgeons were role models," he says. "Robert Benchley, S. J. Perelman … even Will Rogers, for all his supposed friendliness, had a barbed tongue. The curmudgeon was above it all. He was a major player until the world was overwhelmed by the baby boom, and suddenly everyone had to be young forever."

Comedian Richard Lewis agrees that the domination of youth culture is at the heart of what's wrong with the world: "It's pathetic that people are trying to almost 'Frankenstein' themselves to stay young. I tell people my body is deteriorating as I'm standing there performing. And it's okay. Like the night I banged my knee slightly on the edge of a hotel bed, and the next morning it looked like I had Gorbachev's birthmark on my thigh."

O'Rourke and Lewis are unlikely curmudgeons. They're both barely old enough to have outgrown the label of "angry young man"—a temporary condition often confused with true curmudgeonhood. While curmudgeonry is not an inevitable part of aging (like wisdom, it doesn't automatically arrive at one's fifth decade, or even the seventh), a lifetime of experience does help nurture it. As Homer Simpson's father, Abe, says, "The good Lord lets us grow old for a reason: to gain the wisdom to find fault with everything he's made."

Curmudgeons aren't just funny or just mean. Part of what makes a curmudgeon is an almost allergic reaction to injustice. When confronted with it, he responds with two powerful weapons: disgust and sarcasm. In the early 1930s, after the success of the movie The Cocoanuts, Groucho Marx attempted to join a restricted swimming club near his new home in suburban Long Island. The manager told him that his application couldn't be accepted because the club didn't accept Jews. Groucho pondered this for a moment and asked, "Well, then, how about my son? He's only half Jewish. Can he go in the water up to his waist?"

The curmudgeon's excruciating sensitivity to life's countless insults—even those that may not be intentional—is both a curse and sustenance for his muse. A woman at a party once told James Thurber that she'd read a French translation of his My Life and Hard Times, adding, "You know, the book is even better in French!" To which Thurber replied, "Yes—my work tends to lose something in the original."

Curmudgeons are classic outsiders—they instinctively distrust conventional wisdom and challenge authority. They are proudly and aggressively out of touch with the pop culture. Curmudgeons don't read "relationship" books, they don't carry pagers, and they don't have TiVo. They don't do pilates, feng shui, or aromatherapy. Curmudgeons never watch "Must See TV"—and they know the very term is a contradiction.

"Popular culture has always been moronic," says O'Rourke. "It has to be, by mathematics. I mean, one-half of the population is by definition below median intelligence."

Curmudgeons are disillusioned, but only in the strictest sense of the word. That is, they harbor no illusions—something that allows them to think clearly. They howl against clichés because they prize originality. Take Dorothy Parker's response when a woman informed her, "I really can't come to your party. I can't bear fools." Answered Parker: "That's strange, your mother could."

Parker played a leading role in the golden age of curmudgeonry, the 1920s and '30s. At New York's Algonquin Hotel, she held court at the famous "Round Table" along with such acerbic wits as George S. Kaufman, Ring Lardner, Noel Coward, and Benchley. Groucho Marx described the scene as "an intellectual slaughterhouse."

If curmudgeons are occasionally testy, it's partly because they bear a terrific burden. Curmudgeons don't hate sinners, just sins. They don't hate humankind, just humankind's excesses—and they hold out secret hope for the improvement of the species.

"Curmudgeons are idealists at heart," insists 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney, who may qualify as America's Curmudgeon Laureate. "They're trying to straighten out the whole world. I think criticism is the best source of change." Rooney says of Mencken, his hero, "He was willing to inspect our whole world, using his brain without any sentiment—which most Americans are not willing to do.

"Still, I do have a very low boiling point, and I tend to get annoyed with a lot of things happening in the world. I can't stand how consistently people refuse to face the facts about issues. You know, they'll do anything to turn their head, hoping for something better, praying to win the lottery." (An issue echoed by famously testy writer Fran Lebowitz, who questioned the intelligence of those who played the lottery: "You have the same chance of winning whether you play or not.")

Most curmudgeons would probably insist that it's the world at large that brings out their delightfully dark side. But when pressed, many will fess up to—gasp!—a buried sentimental core.

"My guess is that curmudgeons have the same sensibility as comics," says Phyllis Diller, whose sardonic observations on married life made her a star. "They're both hypersensitive. We turn our emotional wounds into humor, and if we weren't laughing, we'd be crying. We're sad for the world."

Lewis confesses that his outlook is a result of parents who were so emotionally damaging. "I was my own baby, had to raise myself and become an adult."

"A curmudgeon tries desperately to have a sense of hope," he says, "but is surrounded by people who are trying to take the wind out of his sails."

While some are born curmudgeons, others have curmudgeonry thrust upon them. According to take-no-prisoners New York magazine critic John Simon, "In me it evolved gradually as a response to seeing so many bad plays and movies. It's not something that I profess with pride or joy, it's just an attitude that becomes less and less resistible under the circumstances."

Lifelong exposure to the hypocrisies of politics leaves curmudgeons united in their disdain for politicians of all stripes, as reflected in Ambrose Bierce's definition of a conservative: "a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."

Curmudgeons thrive at both ends of the political spectrum. At the far left lurks Gore Vidal, who bears scorched-earth disdain for those who disagree with his views. "It is not enough to succeed," he wrote, "others must fail." At the far right is conservative columnist Ann Coulter, author of Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. Steamed liberal critics—labeled in one recent Coulter column as "fanatical liars" and "traitorous"—have counter-labeled her "inflammatory," "sub-rational," and "snarky." But does she mind being called a curmudgeon?

"What an inane question," she answers. "Why, I ought to box your ears, you little urchin. Now get away from me before I sic the dogs on you. And stay off my lawn or I'll call the police—see if I don't!"

Political correctness—denying or softening obvious truths in the interest of good will and harmony—is an elephant-size target for any good curmudgeon. "I do not think everyone is created equal," writes Lebowitz. "In fact, I know they're not. [The Constitution] means that everyone should have the same laws as everyone else. It doesn't mean that everyone's as smart or as cute or as lucky as everyone else."

As they get older, some curmudgeons actually mellow. Ed Asner is a curmudgeon, and he also played one on TV, as Lou Grant, Mary Richards' boss at WJM-TV on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Reminded of his famous line to Mary in the series pilot, "You've got spunk… I hate spunk!" he confesses to having second thoughts about it: "No one could hate spunk, not even a curmudgeon. I should have said, 'You know what? You're pretty goddam perky. I hate perky!' "

Does this mean Asner is losing his edge? "In some ways I think I'm more patient," he says. "I've learned not to shoot my wad, decrying injustice at the first glaring headline I come across. It behooves me to wait before I saddle up."

So go on—find your inner curmudgeon. It can be positively therapeutic, and there are side benefits as well: Actor-writer-raconteur Orson Bean says one of the perks is Not Going. "My wife"—actress Alley Mills—"uses me as an excuse to get out of things," he says. "She tells them, 'Sorry, but you know Orson.'

"But," he adds, "that's only when she doesn't want to go."

The curmudgeon's sensibility is an oyster's pearl produced by the grit of existence. Curmudgeons maintain their balance in a universe gone mad. ("When I was younger I thought it was me, but now I know it's the world that needs fixing," one veteran curmudgeon told me on the eve of her 60th birthday.) The beauty of it is, they expect the worst, but they keep on playing. That's why curmudgeons are the ultimate adults.

Jon Winokur is the author of various books on curmudgeonry, including the bestselling Portable Curmudgeon (Penguin) and the recently published Traveling Curmudgeon (Sasquatch Books). He lives in California. Alone.

Hear the Prime Time Focus radio version of this story at www.aarp.org/radio.




Quiz: Are You a Crank?
Take this quiz to find out. See below for the results
By Ken Budd

1. Things were a lot better:
a. 20 years ago
b. 40 years ago
c. Things have never been very good

2. A grande mocha caffe latte is:
a. Delicious
b. Expensive
c. What the hell is a grande mocha caffe latte?

3. The government is:
a. Too big
b. Too slow
c. Out to get me

4. Some children are playing kickball in the street. As you watch from the window, the ball rolls into your yard. Your best course of action is to:
a. Ignore it
b. Delight in the sweet innocence of children
c. Keep the ball

5. Music today is:
a. Edgy
b. Loud
c. You call that music?

6. Read the following statement: "When I was a kid, you could get a full steak dinner, a slice of pie—with ice cream—and a cup of coffee for 20 cents. Twenty damn cents. And this was good coffee, too—not that crap they serve now." This is:
a. True
b. Odd
c. The smartest thing I've ever read in your lousy magazine

7. The problem with kids today is:
a. Why are you asking me all these questions?
b. I've had enough of this nonsense
c. Leave me alone

Results

If you refused to take this quiz because it's a damn fool waste of time—and then wrote a lengthy, self-righteous letter explaining precisely why it was a damn fool waste of time—congratulations: You are officially a curmudgeon.

Copyright © 2003, AARP

Patriotism Defined

Samuel Johnson said, Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Dr. Johnson was speaking of those in Great Britain who advocated cant: unquestioning adherence to government edicts. When I think of patriotism and scoundrels, Rush Limbaugh comes to mind as a prime example of Johnson's truism. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.

How I Define Patriotism
by
Peter Kirstein

The following is excerpted from a talk Mr. Kirstein gave on October 13, 2003. The talk was sponsored by the Center for Educational Practice.

I would like to honor four religious women. Sister Ardeth Platte (41 months in prison), Sister Carol Gilbert (33 months in prison), Sister Jackie Marie Hudson (30 months in prison). They were incarcerated for crossing the line at a Minuteman III nuclear-missile field and drawing crosses with their blood on an ICBM silo. Sister Moira Kenny, a Sister of Mercy, also crossed the line when she trespassed at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, and received a six-month sentence in federal prison. I crossed the line, through an e-mail, when I also protested against a military institution that trains its students to kill other human beings with high-tech, invulnerable flying machines.

I ask you to consider peacefully crossing the line. If enough people cross the line, I guarantee you, they will have to remove the line. Dr. King did it; four African-American students at a Greensboro, NC Woolworth's did it; Medgar Evars did it; the Seattle dockworkers did it; Gandhi did it; Henry David Thoreau did it; millions of antiwar students, throughout the world, did it last winter and spring, and I can assure you crossing the line is a mean's of achieving both personal liberation, and a reaffirmation of one's commitment to radical, societal change.

Is what I just said patriotic? Patriotism can be a highly emotional feeling and also a reflective one. In this country, the former frequently dominates the latter. To a significant extent, as Geoffrey Nunberg has noted, patriotism is intended to put people on the defensive. To Nunberg patriotism connotes "a word for devotion to one's country exists…[and] impl[ies] a contrast with those who lack that feeling." If patriotism requires an affirmation of government policy, then patriotism is a threat to democracy.

I would argue there is a moral imperative to reject actively patriotism, if it is defined as having to support a nation-state's wars, regardless of one's ethical and moral aversion to actions that are violative of peace and justice. I publicly reject being patriotic if it is construed in such a narrow manner. In January, I published a full-page response in the Weekly Standard to an article about me by President George H. W. Bush's former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Jed Babbin. I stated: "I assure you no one defines for me what patriotism is and whether it is even always desirable, as those of us on the pacifist, antiwar left strive for a more peaceful, integrated global environment that eschews nationalism and undiminished state sovereignty."

Take The Pledge of Allegiance. Why on earth do we need to have laws requiring public school students, from grammar school through high school, pledge allegiance to a flag? Isn't the purpose of education to develop critical thinking and insight instead of mind-numbing patriotism? Do we really want our teachers to be agents of the state to foster blind patriotism with very impressionable young people who have not had the time to reflect on the meaning of America? Let patriotism emanate in a reflective manner from what our country does and how it behaves, and not through mindless daily iteration.

As H. L. Mencken wrote in, the American Mercury in April 1924:

[The aim of public education is not] to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence....Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim…is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States…and that is its aim everywhere.

On July 4, I was on a Symposium sponsored by David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com on "Bush's Decision to Go to War." Opposing the war were Stanley Aronowitz, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the City University of New York and myself. Professor Aronowitz was also the New York Green Party gubernatorial candidate in 2002. Prowar panelists were Victor Davis Hanson, from the Hoover Institution and Naval Academy, and Cliff May, president, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Jamie Glazov, managing editor of FrontPageMag.com, was the moderator who directed this comment to Professor Aronowitz and me.

Sorry gentlemen, let me jump in here for a moment…The bottom line is that, even if WMDs were found, and the al-Qaeda connection were proven, the Left wouldn't give a damn because it doesn't give a damn. The bottom line is that, in the eyes of the Left, the Bush administration, and the capitalist America that it prevails over, is evil and must be destroyed. This isn't about missing WMDs; it is about anti-Americanism. There is nothing that Bush and America can do to get the Left's support except to engage in an act of self-destruction.

So Peter and Stanley, please acknowledge this fact: that, in essence, you are not really interested in missing WMDs (as if their discovery would lead you to praise Bush's decision to go to war); you are interested - and long for - the destruction of America and capitalism. That is what this is all really about isn't it?

One of the ways to discredit the antiwar movement is to cast the debate in highly emotional terms, in which wartime dissent is characterized as an equivalent threat to those the national-security elites have defined as the "enemy." If "love of country," is measured only in terms of supporting American foreign policy, then anything short of blind patriotism is construed as disloyalty and even desiring "the destruction of America."

In my opinion as patriotism increases, the capacity to analyze critically a nation's actions decreases. If there is a presumption that acts of war, for example, are fought for state preservation and self-defense, then the likelihood of a robust debate over policy and holding accountable a state's actions, in its decision to go to war or its conduct of war, are significantly attenuated. A smothering patriotism that construes dissent as disloyalty is literally a blank check for governmental misconduct and excess-not to mention the undermining of academic freedom through the coercion and the suspension of antiwar professors who contravened mainstream public opinion, and the ethos of university administrations or governing boards.

Another concern I have with patriotic correctness during war, is the inverse relationship between the demand for patriotism and the capacity to care and think about others. During war patriotism frequently becomes oppressive, as the emotions associated with killing and the defining of enemies, are exacerbated by government propaganda and disinformation. It is ironic that war--which most assuredly precipitates the greatest demand for patriotism--is a threat to those very values that the patriot claims to be defending. The militarization of American society and its incessant military crusades pose a greater threat to our freedoms, than the putative enemies that we slaughter on the battlefield or even worse in their homes or hospitals in distant lands.

I think of the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 as a response to growing tensions with France and the rise of war-induced nativism; I think of Lincoln and martial law; I think of Lincoln and the arrests of newspaper editors; I think of both the Espionage Act of (1917) and the oppressive clear and present danger stifling of speech during World War I as seen in the Schenck, Debs and (despite Holmes's and Brandeis's dissent), the Abrams cases of 1919; I think of American concentration camps during WW II; I think of Muhammad Ali who was stripped of his heavyweight boxing title for several years for refusing induction in a genocidal-immoral war in Southeast Asia; I think of the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention police riot; I think of Kent State protestors murdered by the Ohio National Guard in 1970. I think of the egregious Patriot Act where "sneak and peek" violations of American privacy rights are common, and non-citizens are arrested, detained and imprisoned without rights to counsel or even a legal hearing.

Also beware of patriotism and its tendency to close the American mind, to usurp sardonically Alan Bloom's, The Closing of the American Mind. Patriotism is frequently ethnocentric and contemptuous of other nations and peoples with whom we share a common destiny in a global village. It's our Manifest Destiny to create an American empire; it's defeating them; it's Henry R. Luce proclaiming the "American Century" in Life magazine in 1941; it's the canard of the United States as protector of the "Free World"; it's the narcissism of American exceptionalism.

For me, patriotism is collaboration; it's the United Nations; it's stopping American capitalism from exploiting developing nations through anti-union, anti-worker globalization; it's radical dissent and challenging America to live up to its ideals, and desist from becoming a terrorist democracy that has become the unilateralist-preemptive threat to international peace and security; it's denouncing, to revisit my e-mail that was circulated throughout the world last year, the "aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage"; it's refusing to admire "top guns [who] rain death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world"; it's criticizing "cowards who bomb countries without AAA, without possibility of retaliation"; it's exposing "imperialists who are turning the whole…world against us"; it's withholding support or endorsement of my country's policies as I choose, regardless of the price or the sacrifice.

John Rawls, one of the great political theorists of the twentieth century, wrote in A Theory of Justice, "Given the often predatory aims of state power, and the tendency of men [and women] to defer to their government's decision to wage war, a general willingness to resist the state's claims is all the more necessary."

Mr. Kirstein, professor of history at Saint Xavier University, recently published Terrorism from the Sky: The Destruction of Nagasaki, New Ground (July-August 2003), a publication of the Democratic Socialists of America (Chicago).

Copyright © 2003 Peter Kirstein