P.J. O’Rourke (1947-2022)

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

52 Responses

  1. Jennifer Worrel says:

    What a wonderful tribute; I was saddened to learn of his passing as well.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    Yeah, I got into PJ O’Rourke primarily because he was a “humorist” more than anything else. I read a bunch of Dave Barry columns and laughed a lot and they had PJ O’Rourke right next to him and I figured that I’d laugh a lot and, goodness yes, I did.

    I think it was Parliament of Whores that was my first one of his and I cracked up multiple times in the first few dozen pages. Republican Party Reptile was my next one (I was originally put off by the title because why would I want to read a book about Republicans?) but I enjoyed Parliament so much I figured what the heck. And I laughed even more! And then I got my hands on Holidays in Hell and found myself not laughing as much but alternating a chuckle with a horrified furrowed brow.

    Eat the Rich was the first of his books I bought new instead of used and I remember being vaguely irritated that it wasn’t “funny” as much as “educational” but, whatever, I plowed through it anyway and… huh. It was pretty good. Somewhat insightful.

    CEO of the Sofa was the last of his books I purchased, I think. It was funny. I don’t remember much about it beyond the introduction.

    Huh. He wrote a book called “How the Hell did this Happen? The Election of 2016”

    I think I should go back and read it.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

      I mentioned here, some time ago, that he kinda got less funny when he stopped doing coke and started being a dad. He turned into a sort of Republican Dave Barry (to the point where they were interchangeable, I recall an announcement by some organization that O’Rourke was not able to attend their latest meeting but never fear, Dave Barry would be replacing him…)Report

      • Pinky in reply to DensityDuck says:

        I remember having the same thought every time I read one of his books, that he was getting more philosophical and less funny. Then I’d remember some of my favorite lines, and realize that it was all in my head. He was so funny that when I think back on him I remember the humorous parts, but then when I’m reading him I’m thinking “he’s really deep”. We’ve all mentioned how funny Parliament of Whores was, but as this article notes, that section on “sudden acceleration incidents” is a series of ever-deeper insights into how government works, and how we expect it to work.

        It’s also worth noting how humble he was in his thinking. The “sudden acceleration incidents” was a story about the dumb government, until it was about how everyone else was as smart and more perceptive than he was. The final punch line in the book stands everything you’ve read on its head, by being willing to accept blame. Best final line of a book I’ve ever read.Report

  3. Glyph says:

    Nice writeup. When people used to say there were no conservatives who understood comedy, I’d point at P.J. O’Rourke.

    But as of yesterday, there are no conservatives who understand comedy. RIP.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Glyph says:

      Well, there are plenty of conservatives who understand comedy. There just aren’t many who were the Editor of National Lampoon and could get away with being both “conservative” and “in comedy”.

      Like he said in the book, “I published these stories because I was the editor and nobody could stop me.”Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Glyph says:

      I think the overstatements:

      The Bulwark:
      Why Writers Loved P.J. O’Rourke
      His greatness, his goodness.

      National Review:
      My generation’s funniest, most incisive and irreverent writer

      are because they realize that O’Rourke was the last of his kind. From now on, it’s all Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro.Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    I liked him back in the 90s, when I was still at least nominally conservative.
    I liked his worldview of being the sarcastic outsider, mocking the earnest Tracy Chapmans with a curled lip and the self righteous Jesse Jacksons with a sneer.

    What stands out for me was when I read one of his travelogues where he went around the world chuckling and guffawing at the silly foreigners demanding his “pisspot” at each border and had a wonderful essay on “commie concrete” where everything from buildings to lampshades seemed to be built out of the stuff.

    Then he ventured into a small nation where there was some insurrection brewing, and there was this scene where the were investigating a massacre, and a crowd was digging up the remains of a young woman.

    You could see his tone shift, and the adolescent swagger and contempt fall away as he described the gruesome partially decomposed body of a young woman, who was killed senselessly, in some random injustice where it didn’t even matter whose politics she supported or why.

    There was no mocking tone, no curled lip, just a writer fumbling for a way to express the guy who saw politics as a silly game played by ridiculous people, suddenly slammed headfirst into a world where things really mattered and there was no “outside” to stand in safety. Where “politics” was a battle for survival against injustice and atrocity.

    This isn’t a criticism of O’Rourke, any more than it is a criticism of myself. He like a lot of Americans, was born and raised in a world where politics was a parlor game without stakes, where someone could stand outside of it knowing that their personal safety and comfort and liberty was always going to win, no matter how the votes turned out.Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    “freedom of speech, property rights and rule of law, for example — that were the critical differences between functional and dysfunctional economies.”

    This is a nice thought and it might be true enough but I am not sure it is actually true.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I guess that depends on whether you think the PRC is a functional economy. There is kind of a regime of laws that kind of supports property rights, excepting that the state reserves interposing a veto at its own fiat and for its own reasons. But it seems like China’s economy is thriving.

      At least, it will until it doesn’t anymore. Then, Gods help us all.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

        I was mainly thinking of Singapore. More free speech than it used to have but still not the robust free speech of the United States. There is private property but it is much more controlled and Singapore’s government would not allow something like the Ballard/Seattle spite house to exist. They would say “tough luck, you are selling.” I was also questioning how functioning our economy is considering that things continue to get more and more unaffordable for a good chunk of the under 45 set.Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    I think of P.J. O’Rourke inadvertently and possibly against his desires and will representing the kind of wailing we see now over young people and the “woke.” As Chip notes, he started off as a brash young writer in the 1970s when the tone was supposed to be sarcastic, detatched, irreverent, etc. After all, as the Times noted, one of his earliest pieces was titled: “How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink.”

    There is an irreverence and disrespect for authority here but it is also done in a kind of WASPy-supremacist way even though O’Rourke was presumably Catholic. You can argue that this kind of humor continued on through South Park and possibly a bit beyond. At some point in the past few years though, it became passe and now a lot of people find it cruel, arrogant, elitist, and too much of a parlor game. But there are lots of guys who remember it from their youth when it made them cool to like this stuff and now it is not cool and they hate it. So they bang against it.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      You’re not wrong that his style of humor was a absolutely perfect fit for the 1990s.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      That is such a weirdly bigoted little take.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Yeah, the Simpsons, South Park, SNL, and the National Lampoon movies like Animal house always exposed that same limitation, that when it came time for them to express a serious thought, they choked and were entirely befuddled.

      Like, I remember SNL had a skit called “Ask Elvis” where a medium would pass along questions from fans to the ghost of Elvis, and of course his every answer was something about overeating and taking drugs, haw haw.
      Elvis was of course played by John Belushi, who would die of a drug overdose only a year or two later.

      Strangely enough, SNL never did a “Ask John” skit.
      Naw, I don’t fault them too much because its always easy to mock other people’s icons and sacred things and earnestly held beliefs.

      But of course we all have our frailties and foibles and silliness and it hurts when they are mocked by sneering young men who believe they are bulletproof.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I think the ability of the formerly marginalized to speak out more and be part of society caused the shift. The demographics have changed. Being edgy is easy when the people at the receiving end are either hide-bound normies or invisible marginalized people. Jokes about LGBT people are much less funny when they are your neighbors and co-workers.

      Comedy always has an element of meanness behind it. This goes back to Aristophanes. Somebody or something had to be the butt of the joke. Usually the butt of the joke we’re people that couldn’t defend themselves and had to silently laugh along. Many people see toys as deeply immoral now. Comedy is looking at a way to be funny in the new cosmology. It’s tough.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      “How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink” was one of the funniest essays I ever read. We can grouse that the entire thing is written from a perspective of seriously-abused privilege, which was a big part of the point — while he didn’t belabor it, it was evident from the first read that O’Rourke wrote the essay from the perspective that excepting if he actually hurt himself crashing into something while Driving Fast* on Drugs While Getting his Wing-Wang Squeezed† and Not Spilling His Drink, nothing seriously bad would have happened to him.

      * in a rental car! after buying the deductible waiver! thus converting it into the fastest, most versatile car on Earth!

      † by a teenage girl under the age of consent! which would seriously not fly today, with basically anyone.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

        I am sure that there are parts of it that are really funny but you have hit the hail on the head about why it might or will grate today. “Nothing seriously bad would have happened to him.” It presents a world where there are no ramifications for the preppy white dudes and that is still very true in a lot of ways except there are now fewer white guys around and people are stating wait a minute.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Saul.

          That was the entire goddamn JOKE.

          You really are that guy who says “I don’t care what you try to pass off as humor, suggesting that people ought to eat babies is just wrong…”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Burt Likko says:

        I went to college with a guy from Venezuela, a privileged young scion of the oligarchs who smirked to me about how in his country if a cop pulled you over you just had to slip him some money and tell him who your family was.

        This right after he was complaining bitterly about the growing Communist movement.Report

  7. Marchmaine says:

    He never coded as conservative to me, but he had great wit at his command.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Oh, thanks for that. I’m tearing up laughing.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      When I was a kid in 1st grade? 2nd grade? John Lennon got shot. Mark David Chapman. A couple of my classmates asked the teacher about it and she told us that John Lennon lived a sinful lifestyle and she wasn’t surprised that he ended up getting shot.

      Anyway, your comment reminded me of that.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

        If you’re wondering how long people are to be held accountable for their jokes, the answer is at least 46 years.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

          Honest question- does anyone know what P.J. himself thought of his earlier writings?

          Like did he feel embarrassed by this stuff and wish that we would all forget it?
          Or would he proudly hold this up as an example of how he should be remembered?

          I know that, like the picture of me wearing a white linen blazer with the sleeves pushed up, over a pastel tee shirt and moussed hair, things I did at 28 are happily flushed down the memory hole.Report

          • IIRC on a few occasions he expressed sentiments roughly similar to what you describe in finding evidence of your mid-20’s attempts to look like an actor on Miami Vice. I do not remember if he ever disavowed the specific and obviously indefensible attempt at humor cited in Saul’s link, but this was not the first time I’d seen it.

            P.S. In the late 80’s I thought Miami Vice was cool too. I’ll admit it.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

              Everyone looks at photos of themselves in the past and has moments of “ugh I can’t believe I wore that.” If Mr. O’Rourke expressed regret for this or similar pieces, good on him. But the linked to piece was offensive at the time and it is offensive now. He did publish it over a decade from the passing of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

              But some people seem to get really defensive when you point out that this kind of stuff is not funny and it makes me wonder how much the current far-right movement mirrors the one of Reagan. Were there a bunch of equivalent of proudboys back then stating “okay, enough. Back to your place, minority groups X, Y, and Z.” The big change as Chip notes below is the demographics.Report

            • Chris in reply to Burt Likko says:

              [In white jacket with sleeves rolled up, over a pastel blue t-shirt, with white pants] What are you trying to say about Miami Vice?!Report

            • Greg In Ak in reply to Burt Likko says:

              Miami Vice is cool. Gonna coolly, sexily listen to Crockett’s Theme while revving the engine on my Rosa.*

              Which will be simulated by typing on some court forms and tactically ignoring emails.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        Eh, I think it is very different. This is really racist. It is not funny. The stereotypes are privileged and cruel. This is not just having sex and doing lots of drugs. It also perfectly illustrates my point about how people are upset that the times have changed and today’s youth (or in my case, 41-year old middle-aged heterosexual guy) do not find this kind of stuff funny and they take it as an insult to their entire youth themselves.

        I don’t fully agree with woke points but there are plenty of things the “woke” are correct about. There are more options than defending stuff like this and aligning with the woke. It is not a binary. Defending stuff like this is not a hill to die on.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Oh, I’m not (and wouldn’t dream of) defending it.

          Hey. Sinful people die and it’s fair enough to point that out after they’re dead.

          To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth. –Voltaire

          Report

        • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          I found it funny, but not the whole way through. Its central joke is that every human is terrible, particularly the author. I mean, dunking on the Swiss race?

          There’s a line early in the piece: “Good Points [African] – Don’t feel pain the way we do.” You, Chip, and Philip couldn’t write a more cutting mockery of “white” thinking.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          It’s actually a good example of, let’s call it, the National Lampoon frat boy humor circa 1976.
          That is, it is a satire of Archie Bunker bigotry and at the time, would have been regarded as liberal.

          But like everything about National Lampoon it was written from a callow and parochial point of view where other people’s pain and suffering was remote and incomprehensible.

          Bigotry was assumed to be history and writers like O Rourke saw themselves as enlightened victors.
          But they confused style and substance and mistook symbolic acts of piety for actual personal growth.

          Like how the rowdy boys in Animal House thought inviting a black singer to their party and then going to a black nightclub somehow shielded them from being bigots, even as they blithely assumed all the black men wanted to rape their white girlfriends.

          They thought racism could be vanquished by adopting a hip attitude or listening to black music, the way religious people think evil can be banished with bells and incense.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      do we get context for that, or is this one of those times where we don’t need anyone confusing the issue with that sort of thing?

      (maybe the dude should also have posted the clip from the nineties where he talked about fucking a dog)Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

        The context is actually fascinating because of the things in the world that have changed since, and mostly by those that haven’t, and by what it implies about American political attitudes.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to DensityDuck says:

        There is no context in which this is defensible. It was just as offensive at the time of original publication. The big change is demographic. The country was whiter then and a lot of preppy guys enjoyed this har har back to your place kind of “humor.”Report

        • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          The thing I don’t think you’re getting is that O’Rourke didn’t fit the white preppy stereotype you’re trying to fit him into. He was more than anything a Boomer, with all the hippee, preppy, middle-aged, and older phases of his generation. He was just really funny and astute through it all. He was at times brighter and more liberal than you, and brighter and more conservative than me.Report

          • Greg In Ak in reply to Pinky says:

            But what about the sh*tty things he said? Did he disown them or try to explain them or just say “F it, i thought it was funny.” Cause some of the crap he said was way over the edge back then. Lots of slurs and nasty shite was deeply offensive way back when.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak says:

              Comedians didn’t used to get asked this question, and neither did Boomers. I don’t know if he was ever asked to ritually denounce his pieces, but he was too much of a maverick to participate in that kind of thing.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Pinky says:

                So that’s a no. Got it.

                Yes comedians and reguluar citizens got asked about language and slurs for , checks watch, decades. We used to use words like “boy” for black people but that changed due to people questionaing its use. Boomers were at the forefront of questioning language.

                Comedians aren’t some special class of people above us ordinary armature smart asses. One thing comedians usually know is that comedy is often very dated, tied to a specific time and context. Nobody is trying to be Henny frickin Youngman any more.

                “Ritually denounce” Urm, also known as thinking and talking about what he wrote. Writers do that all the time. They even get paid for it.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Greg In Ak says:

                “ritually denounce” is just a dodge. I made a criticsm. Pinky could disagree with it and that would be fair but he or she needs to make it a ritual of political orthodoxy because that is easier to make look bad.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          “There is no context in which this is defensible.”

          you’re right, it’s pretty disgusting to suggest that Australian babies drink beer in such quantityReport

        • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          You know, I really would like to hear more about this anti-Australian racism that Saul seems to have identified, and understand what exactly he thinks is bad about it.Report