{"id":1024,"date":"2005-02-22T12:41:59","date_gmt":"2005-02-22T20:41:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp\/2005\/02\/menckenthompson_a_deathdefying\/"},"modified":"2020-11-09T09:23:17","modified_gmt":"2020-11-09T14:23:17","slug":"menckenthompson_a_deathdefying","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/2005\/02\/menckenthompson_a_deathdefying.html","title":{"rendered":"MENCKEN-THOMPSON: A DEATH-DEFYING CONNECTION"},"content":{"rendered":"

As H.L. Mencken wrote, “It is the national custom to sentimentalize\u00a0the dead.” By now you’ve probably seen Tom Wolfe on Hunter S. Thompson<\/span><\/b><\/a>. If you haven’t, you\u00a0should. It’s terrific. It was fast. And it doesn’t sentimentalize him. Wolfe makes the apt literary\u00a0connection between Thompson and Mark Twain. Here’s a connection — my thanks to Roger
\nGroening — he didn’t make: Thompson and Mencken.<\/p>\n

The sage of Baltimore, right, wrote one of the two best, most devastating obituaries of the\u00a020th century, possibly ever. Thompson wrote the other. Mencken’s flayed William Jennings\u00a0Bryan. Thompson’s disposed of Richard M. Nixon. Both obits were merciless, justifiably vicious,\u00a0entertaining and, it goes without saying, brilliant.<\/p>\n

Thompson’s begins:<\/p>\n

Richard Nixon is gone now and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing — a
\npolitical monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand\u00a0and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his\u00a0family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of\u00a0prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told\u00a0more than one of his celebrity golf partners that “I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned\u00a0Richard Nixon.”I have had my own bloody relationship with Nixon for many years, but I am not worried\u00a0about it landing me in hell with him. I have already been there with that bastard, and I am a better\u00a0person for it. Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed
\na keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother\u00a0hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us\u00a0together.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It continues:<\/p>\n

Kissinger was only one of the many historians who suddenly came to see
\nNixon as more than the sum of his many squalid parts. He seemed to be saying that History will\u00a0not have to absolve Nixon, because he has already done it himself in a massive act of will and\u00a0crazed arrogance that already ranks him supreme, along with other Nietzschean supermen like\u00a0Hitler, Jesus, Bismarck and the Emperor Hirohito. These revisionists have catapulted Nixon to the\u00a0status of an American Caesar, claiming that when the definitive history of the 20th century is\u00a0written, no other president will come close to Nixon in stature. “He will dwarf FDR and Truman,”\u00a0according to one scholar from Duke University.
\nIt was all gibberish, of course. Nixon was no more a Saint than he was a Great President. He\u00a0was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war\u00a0criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all\u00a0of World War II, and he denied it to the day of his death. When students at Kent State University,\u00a0in Ohio, protested the bombing, he connived to have them attacked and slain by troops from the\u00a0National Guard.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Go read the whole thing<\/span><\/b><\/a>. It ran in\u00a0Rolling Stone on June 16, 1994, was written as a memo dated May 1, nine days after Nixon died,\u00a0and goes on for nearly 3,000 inimitable words.<\/p>\n

Here’s the way Mencken’s begins, recalling the Scopes trial:<\/p>\n

It was plain to everyone, when Bryan came to Dayton, that his great days\u00a0were behind him — that he was now definitely an old man, and headed at last for silence. There\u00a0was a vague, unpleasant manginess about his appearance; he somehow seemed dirty, though a\u00a0close glance showed him carefully shaved, and clad in immaculate linen. All the hair was gone\u00a0from the dome of his head, and it had begun to fall out, too, behind his ears, like that of the late\u00a0Samuel Gompers. The old resonance had departed from his voice: what was once a bugle blast\u00a0had become reedy and quavering. Who knows that, like Demosthenes, he had a lisp? In his prime,\u00a0under the magic of his eloquence, no one noticed it. But when he spoke at Dayton it was always\u00a0audible.
\nWhen I first encountered him, on the sidewalk in front of the Hicks brothers law office, the\u00a0trial was yet to begin, and so he was still expansive and amiable. I had printed in the Nation, a\u00a0week or so before, an article arguing that the anti-evolution law, whatever its unwisdom, was at\u00a0least constitutional — that policing school teachers was certainly not putting down free speech.\u00a0The old boy professed to be delighted with the argument, and gave the gaping bystanders to\u00a0understand that I was a talented publicist. In turn I admired the curious shirt he wore — sleeveless
\nand with the neck cut very low. We parted in the manner of two Spanish ambassadors.<\/p>\n

But that was the last touch of affability that I was destined to see in Bryan. The next day the\u00a0battle joined and his face became hard. By the end of the first week he was simply a walking\u00a0malignancy. Hour by hour he grew more bitter. What the Christian Scientists call malicious animal\u00a0magnetism seemed to radiate from him like heat from a stove. From my place in the court-room,\u00a0standing upon a table, I looked directly down upon him, sweating horribly and pumping his\u00a0palm-leaf fan. His eyes fascinated me: I watched them all day long. They were blazing points of\u00a0hatred. They glittered like occult and sinister gems. Now and then they wandered to me, and I got\u00a0my share. It was like coming under fire.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And here’s the way it ends:<\/p>\n

Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant,
\nbigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him in contact with the first men\u00a0of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe, watching him\u00a0at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a\u00a0high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish\u00a0theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine\u00a0and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you
\nhave imagined everything that he was not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Go read the whole thing<\/span><\/b><\/a>. It ran in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July
\n27, 1925, the day after Bryan died, and goes on for roughly 1,600 gorgeous words.<\/p>\n

Mencken and Thompson: So different from each other in personality, yet so close in spirit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As H.L. Mencken wrote, “It is the national custom to sentimentalize\u00a0the dead.” By now you’ve probably seen Tom Wolfe on Hunter S. Thompson. If you haven’t, you\u00a0should. It’s terrific. It was fast. And it doesn’t sentimentalize him. Wolfe makes the apt literary\u00a0connection between Thompson and Mark Twain. Here’s a connection — my thanks to Roger […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1024","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbvgEs-gw","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1024"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42771,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1024\/revisions\/42771"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}