Political Animal
Blog
“If you can’t say something good about someone, sit right here by me.”
— Alice Roosevelt Longworth
This year has seen the deaths of four prominent men — Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Breitbart, Andrew Cockburn, and, most recently, Gore Vidal — who all had wildly diverging political views, but one salient characteristic in common: their scathing, take-no-prisoners political commentary. None of those guys exactly treated politics like a tea party. They didn’t wring their hands about whether they were hurting anybody’s feelings. or lose any sleep about whether they were being fair. On the contrary, all four were combative and sharp-tongued; each one of them clearly took pleasure in being, at least on occasion, extraordinarily vicious.
Which is why I found the wanly polite reactions to their deaths, at least in some quarters, to be puzzling. Some examples: on a listserv I’m on, some writers made it clear that they had sharply negative opinions about Alexander Cockburn, but were oddly reluctant to commit them to paper (and these were extremely voluble folks who are rarely shy about weighing in on anything else). When Gore Vidal passed away, sunny obituaries like this one seriously downplayed the man’s bigotry (and I say that as someone who holds mixed, but more positive than not, opinions of Vidal’s work. David Greenberg provides a useful corrective here). Heck, when Andrew Breitbart ascended to that choir invisible even I, who possess unmitigated loathing for the man, held back. I was afraid if I unloaded on Facebook or a listserv with my uncensored opinions of him, I’d be castigated as a prime example of the Indecent Left.
Suffice it to say, I’ve come to rethink all of that. Why go soft on a public figure all of a sudden, just because that person happens to be dead?
Now, I perfectly understand that when a private citizen dies, you don’t want to be the kind of prize idiot who’s badmouthing him at the funeral in front of the grieving widow. But when a public figure dies, it is entirely appropriate to examine that person’s entire legacy, and not hold back. Holding yourself up to that kind of public scrutiny is basically part of the job description, if you are a public figure. If you don’t like it, you need to seek some other line of work.
One of my email correspondents explained that he didn’t want to write anything negative about a recently deceased public figure because he wanted to spare the grieving family’s feelings. In reply, one wit chimed in, “The time to feel sorry for the family was when the person was alive,” but that doesn’t quite get at it, either.
The fact is, a public person’s public life and legacy do not belong to her family, it belongs to the world at large. To censor oneself and deprive the general public of a full and frank discussion out of consideration of the private feelings of a few individuals reflects distorted priorities. It would be selfish and narrow in the extreme if the loved ones of a public figure believed that that person belonged to them and only to them, and should be immune from criticism. If we took that attitude to its logical conclusion, all intellectual life in this country would stop dead in its tracks.
Okay, so I think we can agree that the “sparing the feelings of the family” justification for avoiding honest discussions about the merits, or lack thereof, of dead people, is a load of bunkum. Are there any better arguments out there?
One might be, “I don’t speak ill of the dead because I hope when I’m gone, I’m repaid in kind.” My response to that is, good luck with that one, buddy, especially if you’re on the left and you don’t want conservatives to attack you when you shuffle off this mortal coil. It’s human nature for people to say mean things, and it’s probably more likely that they will say them when you’re gone than when you’re still here to defend yourself. And for whatever reason, many conservatives seem less constrained than many liberals are by these middle class niceties
Yuppie careerism, in the form of wanting to advance oneself by protecting the reputations of powerful people, even when they’re dead, and even when those reputations are totally undeserved — well, that definitely is sometimes a reason why people abide by this convention, but it’s hardly a creditable one.
Finally, there’s one more reason I can think of for whitewashing the dead: sheer wimpiness. And that, to be honest, is what got a hold of me when Breitbart took his dirt nap.
The prissy delicacy with which so many commentators treated the passings of Messrs. Hitchens, Breitbart, Cockburn, and Vidal was all the more annoying because, though each one of them had, in their time, written some fairly venomous obituaries themselves, they were also tough-minded enough to understand that turnabout is fair play. Take, for example, Cockburn on Irving Howe; Breitbart on Ted Kennedy; Vidal, who described Truman Capote’s death as “a good career move,” and Christopher Hitchens, who when Mother Teresa died, gleefully seized upon it as an opportunity to start energetically making the rounds to promote his vicious book about her (which I actually think is kind of awesome).
My feelings about this issue explain why, all too frequently, I find the obituaries in American newspapers — genteel, respectful, and often bleached of any hint of color, with all pertinent conflicts and controversies either sentimentalized or all but erased — to be maddening. I much prefer the warts-and-all style obituaries that British newspapers such as The Independent have longed specialized in.
That said, America has not been without its lively obituaries. In the 90s and early 00s, there was an excellent obituary zine called Goodbye!; it is still online, and you can find the back issues here. Its motto was “Because the dead can’t sue for libel,” and it contained many fine essays on the recently departed, famous, infamous, and obscure. On this slow news and blogging day, I strongly encourage you to browse its archives. I think my favorite Miller piece has got to be this one, on the death of Harvey Ball, surely one of history’s greatest monsters, because he created the Smiley Face. The obit contains this classic line: “Hey Smiley - your old man just died! Still smiling?”
You may wonder why Goodbye! stopped publishing, and whether Mr. Miller succumbed to the unfortunate, if inevitable, fate of all the subjects he so faithfully chronicled. Fear not! In a rare instance of virtue being rewarded (didn’t Oscar Wilde say something to the effect of that’s why they call it fiction?), Mr. Miller now does this sort of thing for a living, at the Wall Street Journal. I miss the punk rock edge of Goodbye! but I can hardly fault Mr. Miller for forsaking his zine for a steady paycheck.
Steve was actually a friend of mine back in my NYC days, though unfortunately we’ve lost touch over the years. A fascinating fact about him is that he is a survivor of the WTC attacks — he was on one of the upper floors of the towers on September 11th. Interestingly, he doesn’t think — or at least, did not think at the time — that the experience changed his approach to writing obituaries very much. He still appears to enthusiastically favor speaking ill of the dead. As do I!
Facebook
Twitter
Steve P on August 04, 2012 7:48 PM:
Forget who told the story about his editor, who insisted on a warts-and-all obit of showman Mike Todd: "He was a bastard when he got on that plane, and he was a bastard when he didn't get off it."
To be honest, none of the deceased is enough of a heavyweight to merit that much of an obit. I don't see any of Vidal's novels gaining the reputation of sparring partner Norman Mailer's "The Naked And The Dead". As for his essays, (or Hitchens')to paraphrase Mike Ehrmentraut, "Writing about Henry Adams (or Orwell)doesn't make you Henry Adams."
Quaker in a Basement on August 04, 2012 8:01 PM:
This year has seen the deaths of four prominent men — Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Breitbart, Andrew Cockburn, and, most recently, Gore Vidal...
And don't forget George "Goober" Lindsey!
TCinLA on August 04, 2012 8:11 PM:
As one who has long practiced the art of politics as a blood sport, I agree.
As to Dimbart, he didn't "ascend" anywhere. He's still in freefall, and if there is a god, he will be falling for a couple of eternities before he hits a bottom as low as he was.
And just to show how good others can be at these things, here are several I have saved:
"At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice"
- Gore Vidal
"Persuading the people to vote against their own best interests has been the awesome genius of the
American political elite from the beginning."
- Gore Vidal
“The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself.”
- Richard Burton (the actor)
"There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting
throats."
- H.L. Mencken
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice
that I am not a Republican."
- H. L. Mencken
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
- Winston Churchill
A modest little person, with much to be modest about.
- Winston Churchill (speaking of Lady Astor)
"I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial."
- Irvin S. Cobb
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure"
- Clarence Darrow
"He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others."
- Samuel Johnson
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
- Thomas Brackett Reed
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."
- Mark Twain
"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
- Oscar Wilde
"He has Van Gogh's ear for music."
- Billy Wilder
And the one I thought of immediately upon hearing that Dimbart had finally become a "good wingnut":
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go."
- Oscar Wilde
Andrew J. Lazarus on August 04, 2012 8:16 PM:
You mean Alexander Cockburn. As far as I know, Andrew (his brother?) is alive.
Captain Dan on August 04, 2012 8:24 PM:
I still relish the moment when Gore Vidal told William F. Buckley to his face that he, Buckley, was a crypto-Nazi! Most public figures were afraid of Buckley because of the rag that he published and the lies that Buckley would print. Vidal had the audacity to call Buckley out on national TV. Buckley was aghast and speechless, as the craven ass that he was.
William F. Buckley on August 04, 2012 8:39 PM:
Now listen, you stop saying I was left speechless by that queer Gore Vidal or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered.
G. Woolsey on August 04, 2012 8:59 PM:
Wasn't it Alexander Cockburn who died and not Andrew?
Kathryn on August 04, 2012 9:28 PM:
@TCinLA.....Greatly enjoyed the quotes....thanks for your post. After a long but rewarding day of voter registration activities in N. Virginia, fun reading.
cwolf on August 04, 2012 9:35 PM:
Welcome to earth Kathleen,,,
I vividly recall the pleasure of dancing on J Edgar Hoover's (figurative) grave.
brian t. raven on August 04, 2012 10:58 PM:
Great post. They say "nostalgia ain't what it used to be"; but that doesn't apply to obits - because they're all about "what used to be".
Rich on August 04, 2012 11:10 PM:
A ridiculous comparison. Hitchens was a gasbag. Cockburn was an even bigger gasbag. They and Breitbart were more provocateur than anything else, with breitbart being the crudest of the three. Vidal was erratic, but often perceptive, although this was less true in the last decade or so than earlier in his life.
POed Lib on August 04, 2012 11:40 PM:
I don't know about the rest of them. Hitchens was a decent guy from what I can tell, although conservative.
But Breitbart? Man, there are few deaths I can remember feeling more glee about. What a piece of crap he was. It was so satisfying to read that the sack of shit died. My only regret is that his children are little, and probably still regard him as a good guy. If he had died when they were older, they too would realize what a singularly disgusting and totally baleful he was as a living breathing sack of crap.
jrosen on August 05, 2012 12:00 AM:
I am an atheist but the day Falwell died I found myself fervently hoping that there was indeed an afterlife.
TerryS on August 05, 2012 12:10 AM:
One more reason not to speak ill of the dead is that
you end up looking like an asshat.
Also, not speaking ill of the dead does have an end point,
after a certain amount of time has passed (and emotions
have quieted) speaking ill become a-ok again.
berick on August 05, 2012 5:11 AM:
Speak out and speak truth about public figures. It is a shame the family might suffer from reading, but the public good is more important. I was horrified by the hagiography of Reagan when he passed. His cronies, and those who didn't agree with him but used him as a handy figurehead, had all the airtime, making hay of another chance to promote their rewriting of history and lunatic plans for the future. His opponents, even those who lived through his terrible presidency, generally kept quiet out of "respect", so the anti-environment, anti-middle-class, anti-woman, AIDS-ignoring, terrorist-dealing (Iran), terrorist-funding (Nicaragua), anti-Medicare, ... well, the real Reagan, disappeared in a fog of nonsense.
mr.peabody on August 05, 2012 8:21 AM:
To paraphrase Paul Simon, "People believe what they want to believe, and disregard the rest."
All the men listed were highly intelligent(with the possible exception of Breitbart)and each had their vices and virtues, as do we all. I think to whitewash their legacies upon their deaths does a disservice to them, as well as to the general public.
Anonymous on August 05, 2012 9:06 AM:
the day Falwell died I found myself fervently hoping that there was indeed an afterlife.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Dave Wales on August 05, 2012 11:19 AM:
A quote I love from R F Delderfield goes to the effect that "To hear some people speak of the dead you would think only the sainted few were allowed to die".
Old Uncle Dave on August 05, 2012 12:12 PM:
Some people probably won't speak ill of the dead out of fear the spirit of the dead can somehow get back at them.
MBunge on August 05, 2012 12:42 PM:
If people can't speak the truth when someone is alive, why bother to do it when they're dead? When was the last time Vidal could have been called a serious thinker? 10 years ago? 15? Hitchens was an unrepentent cheerleader for the Iraq War. What condemnations did he suffer as the years went by and his stance became more and more the clear product of unreasoning, hateful hysteria?
Mike
skippy on August 05, 2012 2:16 PM:
it's the thurmond munsen rule, something i learned early on in my improv career at the holy city zoo in san francisco, ca, during the halcyon days of comedy of the late 70's.
to wit: audiences won't laugh at a joke about a famous person on the day he/she has died; to be safe, wait three days before making a joke. by then the sting of death (and more often than not, it's the audience's own death they dislike being reminded about) will have subsided, and you can pretty well say whatever you want about them.
skippy on August 05, 2012 2:19 PM:
sorry, spelling: it's the thurman munson rule...
Ed on August 05, 2012 9:47 PM:
Hunter S. Thompson takes the prize with his obituary of Richard Nixon. I read it about once a year to remind myself how awesome it is. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/8699/