Category Archives: Mencken’s Conservatism

A doctor might say that someone is fat, incurably sick or brain-dead; but this, of itself, neither means the doctor is a nihilist, nor that he is incompetent to discuss what he can’t cure. As Mencken said … Continue reading →

Mencken believed that most of the debates about politics, religion, science, philosophy, aesthetics and other issues rests on false premises that make all their squabbles merely petty infighting. Here is a brief tour of his commentary on this:

Mencken claimed that universal imbibing would have biblical results, “My proposal would restore Christianity to the world.” This reference to Christianity has much weight to it, including absence of pride, equality under G-d, and, most obviously, the immortal words of the Apostle Paul, which Mencken often referenced, “Drink no water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities” (I. Timothy 5:23, see also I. Corinthians 11:25). There is also Christianity’s generally pessimistic – that is, accurate – treatment of man. Continue reading →

In perhaps the best distillation of Mencken’s conservatism, he suggested everyone live not quite sober and not quite drunk, but “gently stewed.” He explained what this solution entails:

In this essay, I quote many passages from Mencken’s writings, not despite their similarities, but because of them. Where I find different eloquent passages where he makes the same point, I include them all, because that itself makes many a point. Specifically, it provides evidence for these controversial and unpopular beliefs: (1) that a critical, cynical and pessimistic person can sincerely enjoy holding and expressing critical, cynical and pessimistic beliefs; (2) that such beliefs need be no disincentive to productivity or obstacle to satisfaction; (3) that a low opinion is justified of the reading public, including attempts to educate them; and (4) that a low opinion is also justified of the government the reading public is part of and supports.

Mencken was published prolifically in popular places, yet most of his beliefs were still misunderstood. Even if his aim was not primarily to educate the masses, critics will have a tough time finding where his low opinion of the masses is wrong and what he could have done better to educate them – for example, could his prose have had more appeal, bite, clarity, directness or eloquence, and could he have repeated his viewpoint more? Continue reading →

This essay emphasises Mencken’s conservatism above his other characteristics, as it is his primary distinguishing feature and the main reason he is misunderstood. His libertarianism – which overlaps with his conservatism – is also misunderstood, but plenty of literature is available defending libertarianism, whereas there is comparatively little intentionally defending conservatism.

Rarely is conservatism even acknowledged as having anything to do with reason, as something that could be right or wrong, justified or unjustified, probable or improbable. Usually it is uncritically dismissed as skeptical, iconoclastic, irreverent, curmudgeonly, eccentric, outspoken, opinionated, independent, sardonic, pessimistic, cynical, bitter and dated. Mencken is described in those terms – which are more comparative and superficial than descriptive and explanatory – far more often than he is described as correct and critical, or, for that matter, as incorrect and uncritical.

Mencken is not just different. He does not merely have a valid point of view. His conservatism is not a blind faith in pessimism; it was not of immaculate conception. His viewpoint can be analysed, not only to compare his conclusions with your own, but to compare his reasoning too. Continue reading →

Why did H.L. Mencken, the most eloquent and popular of libertarians, have the lowest of expectations for libertarian reform? Continue reading →