printArticle II, Section 3 of the Constitution required that the president “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of Union.” Like everything in the Constitution, a modest thing has morphed into a monstrosity.
A “Stalinesque extravaganza” that ought to offend “anyone of a republican (small ‘r’ …) sensibility,” is how National Review’s John Derbyshire describes the State of the Union speech. “American politics frequently throws up disgusting spectacles. It throws up one most years in January: the State of the Union speech,” writes Derb in “We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism,” a book I discussed in “Derb Is Right: ‘We Are Doomed'” (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=580).
John goes on to furnish the quotidian details of how “the great man” is announced, how he makes an entrance; the way “the legislators jostle to catch his eye” and receive his favor. “On the podium at last, the president offers up preposterously grandiose assurances of protection, provision, and moral guidance from his government, these declarations of benevolent omnipotence punctuated by standing ovations and cheers from legislators” (p. 45).
Then there is the display of “Lenny Skutniks” in the audience, “model citizens chosen in order to represent some quality the president will call on us to admire and emulate” (this year it’ll be the family of the little girl who was murdered by the Tucson shooter).
Derb analyzes this monarchical, contrived tradition against the backdrop of the steady inflation of the presidential office, and a trend “away from ‘prose’ to ‘poetry’; away from substantive argument to “hot air.”
The president of the USA is now “pontiff, in touch with Divinity, to be addressed like the Almighty.”
Prepare to puke. The antidote is “WE ARE DOOMED.”
UPDATE I (Jan 25.): Robert, have you even read “WE ARE DOOMED”? Derb is a paleo-libertarian and a bloody good writer at that.
UPDATE II (Jan. 26): Derb: Defeatist or Realist? Van Wijk: I did not know you were among the happy faced, cheery conservatives who eschew reality and insist that the band of fools plays on, as the Titanic goes down.
Almost all of Derb’s misery making factual survey of America, in We Are Doomed, is correct (bar his biological determinism, which is supposed to sunder free will, but is not convincing). In fact, it mirrors a lot of what I’ve said and written (why, I’m cited in the book vis-a-vis Robert Putnum). There is no getting out from under:
1) Crippling government debt
2) The layers of crap culture and cultural products (literally: did you know that the MOMA, or its British equivalent, stores bodily waste in hundreds of vials produced as art?)
3) Perverted intellectual and moral standards
4) Crops of affirmatively appointed leaders, in all fields of endeavor, which will be with us for decades, if not longer, because of (1) and (2), among other reasons.
What’s your problem with that (Derb’s) rational, reality based conclusion—an analysis effected over the years in these (my own) pixelated pages?
Isn’t it clear that freedom and mass society—unfettered democracy, mass immigration mainly of voracious tax consumers with a visceral hatred for the history and historical majority of this country, on and on—cannot coexist?
It does not mean that one doesn’t continue to fight (I do), but it’s a losing proposition. Talented, industrious, taxpayers—doing highly skilled work—will become less numerous and more burdened with the years. This shrinking tax-base will be working to keep the voracious racial Idiocracy, represented faithfully by the political and intellectual class, in the style to which they have become accustomed.
(As aside: My source in one of America’s most lauded corporations, brilliant in his performance and intellectual leadership, is forever being told to develop his sorry “emotional intelligence”—even given books about this crap—as he solves the most complex of technical and logical problems. Why? because the manly, forceful, algorithmic iteration of facts, without dissolving into tears and embracing the intellectually halt and lame and dysfunctional around you: that is BAD. Men like that are not dismissed, because few can replace them. But they are cornered and cowed. Wanna tell me that a society that disempowers and subdues talent will survive?)
Isn’t it idiotic to attack the messenger, Derb? In any case, I’m glad you don’t attack me for advancing a similar message for years.
UPDATE III: To the letter about his alleged taste in poetry, Derb has provided some references in the Comments sections below. What about Louis MacNeice? I’m a poetry primitive, but I quite liked MacNeice.
Jefferson had stopped the whole SOTU obscenity only to be taken up again by Woodrow Wilson. Ronald Reagan started the whole Lenny Skutnik who’s in the Audience charade. Both political parties are in on the charade. Any Congressman with integrity should stay home and read the speech on line which is how it was (effectively – in writing) from 1801 – 1914.
Unless one’s objective is to get positively plastered. Imagine a SOTU drinking game that involves shots for every mention of “jobs,” “investments, “growth,” or “bi-partisanship”! The participants would be threatened with alcohol poisoning within 15 minutes.
My advice: stay away from the boob-tube for the duration. Whatever is said will be forgotten soon enough.
The credence given to interviews following sporting events would probably vie for any award for irrelevancy that the State of the Union speech was nominated for. (“You know, you know….)
Steve: Some people dispose of toxic waste for a living. Ilana, by commenting on our times, has to expose herself to toxic garbage like SOTU, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Lady Gaga, Meghan McCain, Lady Michelle Obama, Karl Rove, and other cultural icons of the modern era. I consider that worthy of combat pay!
They are closing half of downtown Pigtown (DC) tonight for the Messianic Speech. One could settle instead for a book on the whole subject (or read the essay as a synopsis):
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9396
The annual conclave of panjandrums gathered together to publicly renew their vows to bilk, pander, and pledge. I would consider keeping and televising the spectacle only on condition the groundlings be allowed to toss produce.
Please Note: Those who seek to avoid watching this farce tonight should tune-in to TCM (Turner Classic Movies)and enjoy “SONS OF THE DESERT”, 1933, starring STAN LAUREL & OLIVER HARDY. There is no hidden agenda in their work!
I suppose the drafters of the constitution could not have anticipated “the infomercial”. Seriously, someone should do a parody of the SOTU using that exact format.
Politicos using any situation to be over dramatic bloviators….I am shocked LOLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Derb analyzes this monarchical, contrived tradition against the backdrop of the steady inflation of the presidential office, and a trend “away from ‘prose’ to ‘poetry’; away from substantive argument to “hot air.”
Oh, if only this were true. It shows what sissy poetry men like John Derbyshire are acquainted when they confuse Clintonian cant, the word bumblings of the Bush family or the theatrics of new Obama-Man with poetry and then choose poetry over prose.
Yes, the State of the Union has become a platform for style over substance but evidently, so have the writers over at National Review.
Ilana,
Sure I have read Mr. Derbyshire. His comments about poetry and prose demonstrate his depth of the paleo portion of his libertine-ism. From time immemorial, poetry has been part and parcel of people’s lives. It has immortalized civilizations through epics such as Gilgamesh, the Illiad, the Aneid, Beowulf, and for him, probably even James Joyce’s Ulysses. [It doesn’t sound as if you’ve read his comments on poetry in the book “We Are Doomed.”]
We haven’t had anything close to poetry from any President in decades (unless Chris Mathews leg-meter is taken as the standard in which case I guess JFK’s often repeated remark “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your …” could be considered poetic.)
No I am quite content that his comments demonstrate “what sissy poetry men like John Derbyshire are acquainted when they confuse Clintonian cant, word bumbling of the Bush family or the theatrics of Obama-Man with poetry, and then choose prose.” [I don’t understand this sentence.]
Hell, who wouldn’t? I will stay with the observations of Shakespeare:
“The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music. (5.1.91-7)”
Derbyshire’s problem is that quantity reigns within him and he wouldn’t recognize the qualities of good music if he heard them. But I must say his DOOMED book reads better than most of his rot-gut conservatism.
[Hard to know where to start. I doubt you’ve read his book. The point he made vis-a-vis the state of the union was not that presidents are poets—it had nothing to do with poetry—but that they talk crap.]
Derb is a paleo-libertarian and a bloody good writer at that.
He’s also a bloody good defeatist.
Auster’s flourish makes me laugh every time I read it:
As a carcass rotting in the sun is to a living (and struggling) organism, so Derbyshire is to conservatism and America.
With one exception. The rotting carcass doesn’t congratulate itself on its sad, superior wisdom.
Ilana,
You wrote,”Derb analyzes this monarchical, contrived tradition against the backdrop of the steady inflation of the presidential office, and a trend “away from ‘prose’ to ‘poetry’; away from substantive argument to “hot air.”
I suggested that this comment is because he and others of his camp do not understand what the real difference between poetry and prose is. (Let alone the difference between epic, lyric, comedy or tragedy)
You say, “The point he made vis-a-vis the state of the union was not that presidents are poets—it had nothing to do with poetry—but that they talk crap.
Then the sentence, ” a trend “away from ‘prose’ to ‘poetry’;” should read “a trend away from the noble voice to the prosaic emotional promises of demagoguery.”
[The above were my words describing a section of his book that has nothing to do with poetry. Moreover, what I know about poetry is dangerous; Derb’s book sections, however, about poetry evince considerable knowledge of the topic. Finally, anyone who knows Derb’s work, knows he would never credit a recent president of the US with poetry. I was right: you had not read his book We Are Doomed.]
I agree with many of his conclusions but not the destructive means he often uses to arrive at them.
Thanks, Ilana. Anyone curious about my actual taste in poetry can find it pretty well illustrated here.
It’s telling that after several years of commenting on this blog, during which you have quoted me approvingly and even described my positions as “very skeptical,” I am immediately cast into the doldrums of those happy faced, cheery conservatives who eschew reality and insist that the band of fools plays on, as the Titanic goes down for disagreeing with your take on a single commentator. Perhaps you have some investment in said commentator and are letting your passions get the better of you. Whatever the cause, this insult will not be forgotten. [This sounds like a threat. Because you’ve posted here to good avail, I’ve been charitable in letting this stand, making an example of this rough missive. Please re-read posting policy. Threatening language toward your host or any other poster will not be tolerated. For example, when one odious poster recently called you a racist, his missive was cleaned up by your host, who generously still posted his “argument,” such that it was.]
Here are the salient points of the article I indirectly linked in my previous comment:
With separationism not an option this side of some great politico-cultural upheaval, presumably we are stuck with having Muslims among us in quantity. Is this so bad?
If attitudes among conservatives get any worse, in fact, hostility to Islam might become the new uniting force of American conservatism. Those fathers of the movement were, after all, united by anti-Communism.
What simple times they were! “Unassimilable” is indeed a word that comes up a lot in connection with Islam, but “penalize and curtail”? Unthinkable!
Do date I do not recall ever having read at this blog that we are permanently stuck with a sizable Moslem underclass, and we’d better get used to it. If that is your position, say so. If not, you and “Derb” are at odds and your insults are unwarranted. [Settle down. You were not insulted. Your host writes colorfully. Don’t like it? There are millions of tedious tracts on the Internet that you can follow instead. I have no idea in what context this Derb quote was made—and we were not discussing Islam in this post of mine. Still, here is my take on the absolutely stupid posturing at Ground Zero. Have you even read the Derb book to which I’ve been referring in this post? He’s good on immigration in the book.]
Curiously, you have also been quoting Lawrence Auster in glowing terms for the past several months, and it was his words that I quoted. One wonders why you don’t castigate him in similar terms. [The other of your tribal requirements is that if I quoted Auster approvingly on this blog, it must mean I agree with him on everything. Grow up. Learn to deal with disagreement and colorful language on this blog. You used to be a good sport. I hope you go back to being one again.]
This sounds like a threat.
Call it “colorful language.” You will never have reason to concern yourself about me, on my word of honor, but neither will I forget such a haughty response to a perfectly legitimate point. That’s all.
I have no idea in what context this Derb quote was made.
So, after upbraiding a few people with “have you actually read X?” you yourself didn’t actually read the linked article.
[ENOUGH OF THIS PERSONAL, PATHETIC WASTE OF MY TIME! Look at your letter below, posted in its insulting entirety. Where is THE ALLEGED hyperlink I ignored and you provided? Is it invisible? Posters get a great deal of personal attention on this blog. Your quotes in the last letter were without a link. It is not the host’s job to search all other missives for a possible valid reference. Quotes should come with links. Yours did not.]
and we were not discussing Islam in this post of mine.
No, but you were praising “Derb” in glowing terms, and I posted a link to an article which showed another side of “Derb” that you obviously weren’t aware of. Rather than reading the link and becoming aware, you reverted to more “colorful language.”
Have you even read the Derb book to which I’ve been referring in this post? He’s good on immigration in the book.
According to Amazon, the book came out last October. The article at Taki’s was a mere month older. If “Derb” is good on immigration in his book, then he is simply incoherent. [I have been addressing Derb’s book, and have been clear about that fact. You expect me to have mined his entire oeuvre for incongruities. Unlike yourself, I was very clear about which text and topics I was addressing. No blog post can be expected to be exhaustive.]
The other of your tribal requirements is that if I quoted Auster approvingly on this blog, it must mean I agree with him on everything.
[This unfortunate thread is now over. I resent having my time wasted on personal fits of pique. I answered you because I’ve always enjoyed your posts, until today. The little nobody who called you a racist did not get a reply, never will. Settle down, take a break, and then come back the old Van Wijk. Over and out.]
Yes, that was a mistake, but the rest of my points stand.