Meet H. L. Mencken

In my previous post I asked, "Are we adults, or are we children?" One of the most famous writers and journalists in America in the early 20th Century, H. L. Mencken, had an interesting answer to that question. He said the vast majority of people never progress mentally beyond adolescence, and that the disastrous but infinitely entertaining spectacle of democracy proves it.

I first heard of Mencken in a LewRockwell.com podcast interview from June 8, 2008, entitled "The Old Right." When Murray Rothbard, one of the most influential and well-known Austro-Libertarian theorists after Ludwig von Mises, was once asked how to learn to write well, he responded, "Read H. L. Mencken." So I read Mencken's 1926 book, Notes on Democracy.

Wow. The Mises Institute's warning that Notes on Democracy is not for the faint of heart is accurate. If you think Rothbard doesn't sugar-coat his writing, wait till you read Mencken. The man is incredibly blunt. Basically, Notes is a comedic roast of democracy that is as far from political correctness as east is from west.

As I mentioned above, Mencken held a dim view of the common man, Homo vulgaris. In fact, he is openly elitist in Notes. He contends that the concept of democracy was a step backward, not forward, for mankind since it gave inferior men a means by which to elevate themselves to the level of truly superior men. He explains that the bulk of men, who are inferior, do not want freedom; they want safety and security. More than that, they are genetically incapable even of understanding such abstract concepts as freedom, honor, and courage. Civilization advances in spite of, not because of, the bulk of these inferior men. It is in fact the small minority of truly superior men, history's towering geniuses, who alone have shaped and guided humanity's progress in all areas. Although he does not use these exact words, what Mencken implies is that Homo vulgaris serves simply to provide fertilizer from which the flower of true superiority, Nietzsche's übermensch, can grow.

Now, I can't say I completely agree with Mencken's thoroughly dim view of the common man, but I find it difficult to argue with much of what he says in Notes. Specifically, I cannot disagree with him that some men are intrinsically superior to others in various ways, sometimes as a result of genetics. This is one of the most controversial ideas today, and merely suggesting it will typically get one skewered by the press or crucified by the academic orthodoxy. Most people have a vehement, deep-seated, but completely unexamined (and therefore inherently religious) belief that all men are created with equal ability and potential in every way. But if all men are created equal in all ways, why do they not all look alike? Why do they not all sound alike? Why do they not all think and act alike? Why can some men master a dozen languages, while others never get a firm grip on even one? Why can some men compose majestic symphonies, while others cannot even memorize the melody to "Yankee Doodle"? Why are some men geniuses in five different areas, while most others are not geniuses in even one? Anyone who does not have a reasonable answer to those questions, yet maintains with fiery conviction that all men are equal in every way, is simply clinging to a religious belief that contradicts the plain facts.

Mencken's point is that democracy is a Utopian theory, but in practice it amounts to mob rule -- and the mob is not very bright. The Founding Fathers agreed with this idea, which is why they put various checks in place to hold back the mob and its fickle passions. Unfortunately, their checks did not work very well. The system we have today may not officially be a direct democracy, but history indicates that it has nevertheless devolved by the political pressures of mob rule.

Perhaps Mencken's most surprising claim is that one of democracy's most profound failures is that it eliminates the aristocracy (heredity/superiority-based class distinction) and replaces it with a plutocracy (wealth-based class distinction). Mencken is actually in favor of aristocracy since it is insulated from the degrading and corrupting pressures of the mob. For it is only in isolation from the mob that geniuses can develop and protect virtues like honor, courage, and freedom that ultimately direct the evolution, rather than devolution, of humanity.

After immersing myself in Austro-Libertarian ideas for months, reading Mencken forced me to confront an aspect of liberty I had not yet fully considered: Does the "invisible hand" work because of, or in spite of, freedom for the ignorant masses? Is the history of economic progress a history of collective prosperity emerging from the ignorant masses who had increasing levels of freedom, or is it actually the history of a relatively small number of industrial and financial geniuses who were able to harness the mob's unfocused energy for the purpose of their focused and enlightened goals?

Far from being a spontaneous uprising of the masses, the American Revolution was directed from beginning to end by a small minority of highly intelligent and educated men. As some of the Founding Fathers pointed out in their writings, freedom cannot long survive in the hands of those who lack the knowledge and will to defend it. That means most people. If Mencken is correct that the masses are truly ignorant and have never mentally progressed beyond adolescence, then maybe the waxing and waning of freedom throughout history has had far more to do with the struggles and conflicts of geniuses than with the superstitions and myopic passions of Homo vulgaris.