... and the values of New Albany's city council reactionaries.
Epochal journalist H.L. Mencken penned the following consideration of William Jennings Bryan for publication in the July 27, 1925 edition of the Baltimore Evening Sun. Bryan had died suddenly the day before, less than a week after the conclusion of the Scopes Monkey Trial, during which he had somewhat infamously assisted the prosecution.
Later that same year, Mencken had this to say about Clarence Darrow, one of a team of lawyers defending teacher John T. Scopes:
When (Darrow) confronted Bryan at last, the whole combat came to its climax. On the one side was bigotry, ignorance, hatred, superstition, every sort of blackness that the human mind is capable of. On the other side was sense. And sense achieved a great victory.
As you read the Sage of Baltimore’s masterful polemics, consider the potential repercussions of 1st District councilman Dan Coffey’s and 3rd District councilman Steve Price's crazed and malevolent attacks on the Scribner Place development project, and their incessantly stated, utterly transparent collective disdain for the very ideas, strategies and people best placed to assist in the revitalization of New Albany.
There’s simply no need to conjecture Mencken’s reaction to the Siamese Councilmen and their latest in a series of anti-intellectual assaults on decency, modernity and progress.
If the writer somehow were to return to us, to sit in the overheated third-floor conference room, and to observe the pathetic bi-monthly spectacle, he’d certainly shrug. Mencken had seen it all before.
And he’d be thinking of Bryan, in Tennessee – as we are at NA Confidential. Enjoy.
----
Bryan
By H.L. Mencken (The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 27, 1925).
I
It was plain to everyone, when Bryan came to Dayton, that his great days were behind him -- that he was now definitely an old man, and headed at last for silence. There was a vague, unpleasant manginess about his appearance; he somehow seemed dirty, though a close glance showed him carefully shaved, and clad in immaculate linen. All the hair was gone from the dome of his head, and it had begun to fall out, too, behind his ears, like that of the late Samuel Gompers. The old resonance had departed from his voice: what was once a bugle blast had become reedy and quavering. Who knows that, like Demosthenes, he had a lisp? In his prime, under the magic of his eloquence, no one noticed it. But when he spoke at Dayton it was always audible.
When I first encountered him, on the sidewalk in front of the Hicks brothers law office, the trial was yet to begin, and so he was still expansive and amiable. I had printed in the Nation, a week or so before, an article arguing that the anti-evolution law, whatever its unwisdom, was at least constitutional -- that policing school teachers was certainly not putting down free speech. The old boy professed to be delighted with the argument, and gave the gaping bystanders to understand that I was a talented publicist. In turn I admired the curious shirt he wore -- sleeveless and with the neck cut very low. We parted in the manner of two Spanish ambassadors.
But that was the last touch of affability that I was destined to see in Bryan. The next day the battle joined and his face became hard. By the end of the first week he was simply a walking malignancy. Hour by hour he grew more bitter. What the Christian Scientists call malicious animal magnetism seemed to radiate from him like heat from a stove. From my place in the court-room, standing upon a table, I looked directly down upon him, sweating horribly and pumping his palm-leaf fan. His eyes fascinated me: I watched them all day long. They were blazing points of hatred. They glittered like occult and sinister gems. Now and then they wandered to me, and I got my share. It was like coming under fire.
II
What was behind that consuming hatred? At first I thought that it was mere evangelical passion. Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love. But even evangelical Christians occasionally loose their belts and belch amicably; I have known some who, off duty, were very benignant. In that very courtroom, indeed, were some of them -- for example, old Ben McKenzie, Nestor of the Dayton bar, who sat beside Bryan. Ben was full of good humor. He made jokes with Darrow. But Bryan only glared.
One day it dawned on me that Bryan, after all, was an evangelical Christian only by sort of afterthought -- that his career in this world, and the glories thereof, had actually come to an end before he ever began whooping for Genesis. So I came to this conclusion: that what really moved him was a lust for revenge. The men of the cities had destroyed him and made a mock of him; now he would lead the yokels against them. Various facts clicked into the theory, and I hold it still. The hatred in the old man's burning eyes was not for the enemies of God; it was for the enemies of Bryan.
Thus he fought his last fight, eager only for blood. It quickly became frenzied and preposterous, and after that pathetic. All sense departed from him. He bit right and left, like a dog with rabies. He descended to demagogy so dreadful that his very associates blushed. His one yearning was to keep his yokels heated up -- to lead his forlorn mob against the foe. That foe, alas, refused to be alarmed. It insisted upon seeing the battle as a comedy. Even Darrow, who knew better, occasionally yielded to the prevailing spirit. Finally, he lured poor Bryan into a folly almost incredible.
I allude to his astounding argument against the notion that man is a mammal. I am glad I heard it, for otherwise I'd never believe it. There stood the man who had been thrice a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic -- and once, I believe, elected -- there he stood in the glare of the world, uttering stuff that a boy of eight would laugh at! The artful Darrow led him on: he repeated it, ranted for it, bellowed it in his cracked voice. A tragedy, indeed! He came into life a hero, a Galahad, in bright and shining armor. Now he was passing out a pathetic fool.
III
Worse, I believe that he somehow sensed the fact -- that he realized his personal failure, whatever the success of the grotesque cause he spoke for. I had left Dayton before Darrow's cross-examination brought him to his final absurdity, but I heard his long speech against the admission of expert testimony, and I saw how it fell flat and how Bryan himself was conscious of the fact. When he sat down he was done for, and he knew it. The old magic had failed to work; there was applause but there was no exultant shouts. When, half an hour later, Dudley Field Malone delivered his terrific philippic, the very yokels gave him five times the clapper-clawing that they had given to Bryan.
This combat was the old leader's last, and it symbolized in more than one way his passing. Two women sat through it, the one old and crippled, the other young and in the full flush of beauty. The first was Mrs. Bryan; the second was Mrs. Malone. When Malone finished his speech the crowd stormed his wife with felicitations, and she glowed as only a woman can who has seen her man fight a hard fight and win gloriously. But no one congratulated Mrs. Bryan. She sat hunched in her chair near the judge, apparently very uneasy. I thought then that she was ill -- she has been making the round of sanitariums for years, and was lately in the hands of a faith-healer -- but now I think that some appalling prescience was upon her, and that she saw in Bryan's eyes a hint of the collapse that was so near.
He sank into his seat a wreck, and was presently forgotten in the blast of Malone's titanic rhetoric. His speech had been maundering feeble and often downright idiotic. Presumably, he was speaking to a point of law, but it was quickly apparent that he knew no more law than the bailiff at the door. So he launched into mere violet garrulity. He dragged in snatches of ancient chautauqua addresses; he wandered up hill and down dale. Finally, Darrow lured him into that fabulous imbecility about man as a mammal. He sat down one of the most tragic asses in American history.
IV
It is the national custom to sentimentalize the dead, as it is to sentimentalize men about to be hanged. Perhaps I fall into that weakness here. The Bryan I shall remember is the Bryan of his last weeks on earth -- broken, furious, and infinitely pathetic. It was impossible to meet his hatred with hatred to match it. He was winning a battle that would make him forever infamous wherever enlightened men remembered it and him. Even his old enemy, Darrow, was gentle with him at the end. That cross-examination might have been ten times as devastating. It was plain to everyone that the old Berseker Bryan was gone -- that all that remained of him was a pair of glaring and horrible eyes.
But what of his life? Did he accomplish any useful thing? Was he, in his day, of any dignity as a man, and of any value to his fellow-men? I doubt it. Bryan, at his best, was simply a magnificent job-seeker. The issues that he bawled about usually meant nothing to him. He was ready to abandon them whenever he could make votes by doing so, and to take up new ones at a moment's notice. For years he evaded Prohibition as dangerous; then he embraced it as profitable. At the Democratic National Convention last year he was on both sides, and distrusted by both. In his last great battle there was only a baleful and ridiculous malignancy. If he was pathetic, he was also disgusting.
Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant, bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him into contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.
The job before democracy is to get rid of such canaille. If it fails, they will devour it.
Are you in a time machine or the middle of the atlantic? I am reading this post two hours before you wrote it. By the way if free pizza and beer is still on the table, "I am Blogtastic".
ReplyDeleteGood catch, Matt.
ReplyDeleteI habitually postdate by an hour or two at night when (a) my eyelids are heavy, and (b) I have to scurry off in the morning sans a chance to make a blog entry.
Not unexpectedly, readership is at a low ebb overnight, but picks back up promptly at 7:00 a.m.
You may be too young to be blogtastic ...
Let's put an end to all the speculation. "I am blogtastic."
ReplyDeleteThe ten-ingredient pizza, please, and a 20 oz. Croupier. If you are out of that, then an Elector!
Look, it is my coming out party this week. I deserve the pizza and beer!!(smile)
ReplyDeleteMark Cassidy
NAC,
ReplyDeleteYou and I certainly disagree on many fronts,(political, social, and from a religious perspective), but I think it extremely biased to post a single viewpoint on someone who has been dead for decades. Fifty years from now, someone could post an article about you or me from one of our many detractors and present a viewpoint that is neither accurate nor complete.
I am sure some of what he writes is true, some is personal, and some is probably just inaccurate, but I doubt is paints a complete portrayal of the man.
As far as Coffey goes, we have the ability to witness for ourselves his intelligence, integrity, and character.
Take for example his comment in this mornings paper:
"Council members "can get the figures from printouts" provided by the controller, Coffey said"
This tells me that the information is available but that he is either too lazy, ignorant, or just incompetant. It appears that he wants someone else to evaluate the available data and then tell him what to do.
I know Kay Garry very well working with her for 4 years and know that she is extremely competent and meticulous about the numbers. I am confident that they have the information they need to make informed decisions.
I am not confident that some of our current leaders have the mental capabilities to make informed decisions.
I respectively found your post today distasteful but understand your beliefs and viewpoint
HB
ReplyDeleteI’m aware that in recent years, rightist revisionism has offered an alternative view of Bryan’s self-destructive performance at Dayton and Mencken’s heroic coverage of it. In my view, such revisionism is merely a branch on the tree of evangelism, but so be it. You and I are destined to disagree on that point, anyway, and my interests lie in revealing the true nature of affairs hereabouts.
Often times I’ve admitted that our musings at NAC are intended for posterity’s judgment. History is going to judge the Siamese Councilmen quite harshly, at least in part because I intend to have a hand in writing that history. As you note, it’s all there, and for all to see; there’s simply no need to resort to Erik-like fiction when the truth is so readily accessible.
It remains that the qualities attributed by Mencken to Bryan are stunningly representative of the lesser local lights (dim auras?) of the political scene, and as such, I’m completely unrepentant in making the obvious analogy.
Disingenuousness seems to be one of the prime manifestations of the New Albany Syndrome, don’t you think? I’ll not be the one guilty of it.
Disingenuousness is absolutely a problem in this city and county and the "good-ol-boy" network has got to go. But this network has primarily been with the democratic party in the city and county as they have had the majority as long as I can remember. They do not represent the views of most citizens, but typically if you want to win elections, your chances are better if you run as a democrat even if your platform is something else.
ReplyDelete