P. J. O'Rourke, 1947-2022

https://mattlabash.substack.com/p/p-j-orourke-1947-2022

by jseliger • 4 years ago

251 161 4 years ago

mattlabash.substack.com

alphabetting• 4 years ago

One incredible writer doing a sendoff for another. RIP Mr O'Rourke

anigbrowl2• 4 years ago

Such an incredible writer.

JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?

Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually.

Source: Journalismjobs.com interview from 2005, archived at https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Weekly_Standard_M...

tom-thistime• 4 years ago

I thought 'Parliament of Whores,' 'Give War a Chance,' and 'Holidays in Hell' were hilarious. EDIT: I read these books around 1990.

brodouevencode• 4 years ago

The funniest things are often the most true things.

barrkel• 4 years ago

I bought Holidays in Hell on the strength of mentions since his death, and it is tough going and dated to start with - it's just a series of national stereotypes played for cheap laughs that made me wince rather than smile.

Hopefully it'll get better.

nineplay3• 4 years ago

I loved the book but the humor may have gotten stale in the last 30 years. I hope it picks up for you!

buescher• 4 years ago

You probably wouldn't enjoy his "Foreigners Around The World" in National Lampoon from 1976 either.

tiahura• 4 years ago

Although it's from a different time, Parliament of Whores should be required reading in High School government class. Some of its lessons about sausage making and log rolling would greatly behoove developing minds of all political persuasions.

rodgerd2• 4 years ago

For me, "Give War a Chance" was where I started finding him less and less interesting, as he seemed to move closer and closer to Republican orthodoxy; "CEO of the Sofa" consolidated that for me.

The most memorable chapter for me in "Parliament of Whores" was Moscow on the Mississippi which, much like Whiffle Ball Life from "Holidays" was a great example of his willingness to turn his guns at the people who shared his party but not his ideals.

zeruch5• 4 years ago

PJ was part of my holy trinity of American political satirists when I was in high school/college (PJ, Hunter S Thompson, Molly Ivins)* and to this day I have yet to encounter any current satirists who CONSISTENTLY come close. Part of it I suspect is that our political terrain is such a goat rodeo, and that the kind of caustic humor these folks espoused (often thumbing their noses at any number of conventions) that today would get them promptly dragged, but their insights into the zeitgeist was at the time, intensely engrossing.

* I also revered Twain and Mencken, but PJ/HST/MI were contemporaries and in my time, which carried a more visceral stamp to them.

B1FF_PSUVM• 4 years ago

Add a topping of Gore Vidal.

twiddling• 4 years ago

I have been delving into Vidal recently. The documentary on Buckley and Vidal from the '68 conventions is also a great watch.

nineplay3• 4 years ago

the kind of caustic humor these folks espoused (often thumbing their noses at any number of conventions) that today would get them promptly dragged

I think it's the opposite actually. I think 'satirists' now are expected to be so extreme that the only think people think is funny is "the other side is composed of dribbling morons". Humor that suggests that the people with different political views may have feelings and brains is completely unacceptable.

zeruch5• 4 years ago

I mean their style of humor often touched on tropes and used verbage that would now be considered...problematic. Case in point, I once got into an argument with someone over Hunter S Thompsons use of the word "queer"...I couldn't get the person to understand that 1) HST wrote and came from a different era, and even for that era, that 2) his use of the word was itself peculiar and intentionally used towards the outsized persona he broadcast through "gonzo journalism" and you had to read it in context to remotely follow along.

They simply wouldn't buy into the idea that people from "the past" would have different views and that you can't try to understand them absent that context. Otherwise everything since before 2005 is likely "wrong" somehow (I'm being horribly simplistic, but you get the idea).

It's like when I hear a lot of views right now about the CIS region, from people who have no recollection of the Cold War, or think the Cold War "was stupid". As someone who lived through the Cold War, I might even agree it was stupid, but I also understand that when I was 10-15 I was living IN it realtime, not pondering it decades after the fact.

patrec2• 4 years ago

I think it's the opposite actually.

Do a web search for O'Rourke's "Foreigners around the world" and report back.

Humor that suggests that the people with different political views may have feelings and brains is completely unacceptable.

I think this may be a case of politically polarization widening as the range of allowable humor narrows. What would be an example of a joke that would have been career ending for an edgy American comedian or satirist 40 years ago, but not now?

dogman144• 4 years ago

You might enjoy Joan Didion per this >but their insights into the zeitgeist was at the time, intensely engrossing

tclancy• 4 years ago

_Parliament of Whores_ was assigned reading in my high school polisci class and I was a fan from then on though our politics diverged along the way. There's a terrific doc about Molly Ivins on HBOMax currently!

specialist• 4 years ago

Somehow, satire has degenerated into snark. It's lazy. It's mean. It poisons the well (of public discourse).

Two quick examples are thestranger.com (under the leadership of editor Dan Savage) and Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Whatever point, perhaps even meritorious, they're trying make, it's buried under sarcasm and insults.

Absolutely exhausting.

Maybe this cycle started with TV. All the slapfights. Gore Vidal v William F. Buckley Jr. Shows like Crossfire.

ncmncm5• 4 years ago

O'Rourke led the way into snark. Remember he was contemporary with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, both consistently, actually funny. He was just mean-spirited.

pklausler2• 4 years ago

Charlie Pierce (now writing for Esquire) may fit the bill for you.

mabub242• 4 years ago

Pierce can get some good ones off, but I find his writing often lacks the laconic elegance or sheer surrealism of some of PJ or Thompson's writing. Sometimes he veers into old-man-yells-at-cloud territory, and too be fair it feels like most political commentary from a certain generation has succumbed to that amidst and post Trump.

timoth3y• 4 years ago

Stephen Colbert in his Colbert Report days was certainly in the same league.

Enjoyed by both liberals and conservatives who managed to take away very different messages.

mzvkxlcvd• 4 years ago

it's pretty wild comparing Strangers with Candy/Colbert Report Stephen Colbert to today's Late Show Stephen Colbert, I wonder what happened.

adlorger• 4 years ago

PJ O'Rourke was my first into to a feeling that I've become more familiar with over the years - "liberal cringe"

I still count myself as a liberal (more classical than modern) these days but I can't help but view a lot of standard progressive empty promises through an O'Rourke-ian lens.

aklemm4• 4 years ago

I'm curious what you mean by "empty promises"? If it's what I hope it means, those are things I experience as thwarted dreams instead.

rpmisms9• 4 years ago

Promises that sound nice, but have huge economic consequences and therefore wouldn't be passed by a sane government. An example: Medicare for All combined with amnesty for illegal immigrants. It sounds nice, until you think about the obvious result.

munificent3• 4 years ago

One of the defining properties of liberals and, even more, progressives is idealism. The idea that you set your sights on a destination that is unattainable due to the vagaries of reality rather settle for status quo and incrementalism.

There is an adaptive and maladaptive side to that psychology.

The adaptive side is that all plans tend to work out at less than 100%. If you aspire to something just past your destination, you may actually reach where you originally wanted to go. If you aim right for it, you'll fall short. Also, reality doesn't always make it clear where the real boundaries are. Often you can accomplish more than is apparently possible if you have the courage to try.

The maladaptive side is considering any policy too coupled to reality as stinking of compromise and defeatism, or as a designed-to-fail Trojan horse from the other side. Any idea that might actually be feasible instead becomes suspect by virtue of its feasibility. The only goals you feel comfortable holding in your heart are ones that never risk getting sullied by any actual incremental progress.

I think progressives in the past used to be better at keeping their eyes on the future while getting their hands dirty with today's work. But, perhaps because of decades of horror shows like the War in Iraq, climate change, rising inequality, corporate take-over of culture, and political polarization, I see less of the latter. There's a sort of fatalism of prefering to die a martyr with hands unstained by sin than possibly staving off death by consorting with the enemy.

AtlasBarfed• 4 years ago

I'm an environmentalist. Let me tell you about empty promises from the big-Ds...

Edit: to keep it in theme with PJ and the article, where PJ says that politicians always want wars on X because it's the only way to get people to move in a direction and they get to wield a baton... Of course such "wars" are only fought because someone makes money regardless of winner or loser, or they aren't really wars. Global Warming? Now THAT'S a war. You know it is, because it is ignored.

It's not generally what the parent means though, they probably meant essentially the powers of the Ds just virtue signal to get votes or rely on the comically evil other side to scare up votes, but never really work for a better welfare state, healthcare/benefits, equality, or the like.

The Biden administration is already a classic example. They could play hardball to get the votes, rein in Manchin, and other techniques. Instead, those minor hurdles are treated as unsolvable barriers and the status quo is maintained.

Because where is Biden from? Same place Obama was: the corporate arm / Democratic Leadership Council. Obama never prosecuted the mortgage crisis, never pursued breaking up the megabanks and monopolies, setup the internment camps for the refugees at our border, used drone assassinations, didn't get out of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc etc etc.

The only thing Obama did well IMO was spur investment in solar and wind, but that may have been an technological evolutionary inevitability. And maybe Obamacare, the right hated it so much it must have some good stuff in it.

"After I broke the news to him that his embedded Atlantic editor and good friend, Michael Kelly, perished on the charge to Baghdad when his Humvee was fired upon and crashed into a canal, I watched P.J. hunt-and-peck out an appreciation of Kelly on my borrowed laptop, tears in his eyes, scotch by his side, but never losing his cool. He peered in on the TV action – Iraqis looting their country like there was an all-you-can-steal fire sale – as he played the faux optimist, cracking, “This will eventually evolve into shopping.” " Goddamn is that funny.

trts• 4 years ago

Although he was mainly conservative, O'Rourke was a popular iconoclast with respect to both major U.S. political parties. That you could read him in the Washington Post and also find him on an NPR show like Wait, Wait, Don't Tell me points to a time seemingly in the distant past when the U.S. wasn't so politically entrenched and polarized. If you didn't agree with what he said, it was still easy to enjoy his writing and find truth in it.

Not sure there is any comparable figure today that comes to mind.

Last week I enjoyed listening to a rebroadcast of his appearance on James Altucher's podcast: https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/pj-orourke/

tzs• 4 years ago

Here's a transcript from one of his appearances on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" giving his opinion on the 2016 candidates:

I have a little announcement to make. I mean my whole purpose in life basically is to offend everyone who listens to NPR. No matter what position they take on anything like I'm on the other side of it you know.
I'm voting for Hillary.
I am endorsing Hillary and all her lies and all her empty promises. I am endorsing Hillary. The second worse thing that could happen to this country, but it's she's way behind in second place you know.
I mean she's wrong about absolutely everything but she's wrong within normal parameters.

shagie• 4 years ago

From back then...

the news article: https://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477339063/conservative-author...

the episode: https://www.npr.org/2016/05/07/477085149/whos-bill-this-time - its about 3 minutes in.

Forgeties793• 4 years ago

I mean she’s wrong about absolutely everything but she’s wrong within normal parameters.

I don’t know why but I just love that line. It really captures a mood/mentality from that moment.

JasonFruit• 4 years ago

I'd say he also encapsulated the appeal of Trump: he's wrong, sure — they're all wrong — but at least he's a different kind of wrong. People thought they'd give it a shot, because how could it be worse? I'm honestly not sure if it was or not, even yet.

mbg7212• 4 years ago

If your population is NPR listeners in 2016, that isn't exactly an unbiased sample of the US political spectrum.

klysm• 4 years ago

iconoclast

That’s a new word for me, does it carry any specific connotation?

oliveshell• 4 years ago

It used to mean someone who literally destroyed icons— as in statues and things that folks would worship.

Nowadays it mostly refers to “A person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions”. [1]

It connotes that someone isn’t afraid to loudly voice a (potentially) minority or unpopular opinion. See also ‘shit-stirrer’, ‘skeptic’.

It’s also in the title of a classic Simpsons episode. [2]

[1] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/iconoclast

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast

hirundo• 4 years ago

He was a butcher of sacred cows.

rodgerd2• 4 years ago

Attacking icons; the classic iconoclasts wanted to destroy sacred church imagery as a distraction from the proper worship of god.

In O'Rourke's case it meant that while saying that he was a republican and having a go at cyclists and fat women and other "safe" targets, he was also happy to rip into Reagan for supporting Marcos against the peaceful Yellow Revolution, or his seminal essay on the war on drugs, "The Whiffle Ball Life", where he pointed out that the people selling the war could always be sure that they or their kids would never suffer any serious consequence for their own drug use, but that it would be borne by black teens and young men.

skeeter2020• 4 years ago

> Although he was mainly conservative

I agree this is how he was classified on the modern spectrum but I think he was really a classic liberal, a pre-Peter Thiel libertarian without all the distracting noise. He's a hard person to fit cleanly into any single bucket, which is a good thing that isn't received well in our current binary environment.

"There is only one basic human right: the right to do as you please, without causing others harm. With it comes our only basic human duty: the duty to accept the consequences of our actions."

We're pretty good at the former, and almost universally ignore the latter.

wyclif2• 4 years ago

He was hard to classify because he was equal parts libertarian and libertine.

rootusrootus7• 4 years ago

He indicated repeatedly that he believed the bit about individualism and human rights applied to today's conservatives. I find his writing delightful and amusing, certainly, but he definitely fits squarely into the current political tribal definitions. Though as much as he tried to be satirical about it, he definitely saw his own side through much rosier glasses than he saw the left.

hash872• 4 years ago

He was militantly anti-gay rights and anti-gay marriage. I'm not familiar with the rest of his conservative views, but I don't find much iconoclastic or libertarian in there- he was a standard-issue Republican in the GWB era

stickfigure2• 4 years ago

Not sure there is any comparable figure today that comes to mind.

The obit already mentioned the late great Christopher Hitchens.

In his (frequent) funnier moments, I think Scott Alexander channels the same daemon.

zerocrates• 4 years ago

Not to laser in too much on something that's not key to your point but, are you saying that it's notable that as a conservative he was in those places, or to indicate a significant gulf between the political leanings of the Washington Post and NPR? Because I, and I think most people, would slot both outlets in a pretty similar place.

zeruch5• 4 years ago

"Not sure there is any comparable figure today that comes to mind."

There isn't.

Every single one of that breed is gone (from the conservative to the liberal, because there is no replacement for Molly Ivins either). The closest we have are a few UK public intellectuals/satirists (e.g. Stephen Fry, Ian Hislop) but even they aren't quite the same animal. There are writers of a certain quality that are massively entertaining and brilliant, like Cintra Wilson (Her book on the national Fame-virus epidemic, "A Massive Swelling" is essential), but her focus isn't just on political satire, so it's still not quite the same.

nineplay3• 4 years ago

When I was a young lass I read "Holidays in Hell" over and over again. His complaint that Europe had no real ice cubes and if you asked for Scotch on the Rocks they gave you "the crumbling leftover from some Lilliputian puddle freeze"[1] still lives in my head. I didn't always agree with him politically, then and now, but his writing and his person transcend politics.

[1] Fortunately I was able to find the exact quote on Google

Angostura• 4 years ago

Loved that book. I remember him complaining that European countries were 'stoo small to swing a cat, without it passing through customs' and that Korean dog soup was remarkably palatable 'when you consider what a hot, wet dog smells like'.

faster• 4 years ago

I remember reading "Modern Manners" and laughing so hard. The first edition was so extreme that the working was softened in later versions. "Dating is a social engagement with the threat of sex at its conclusion."

deltarholamda• 4 years ago

I didn't always agree with him politically, then and now, but his writing and his person transcend politics

His intro to "Republican Party Reptile" more or less said (this is from memory) that his politics fit more into the Republican mold, but that he wasn't particularly happy about that, because he also liked having fun. It's hard to cubbyhole P.J., and he preferred it that way.

He had a way of turning a phrase that made you go, "yeah, I wish I came up with that." I have to viciously edit anything I write because if I'm not paying attention I will blithely rip off something of his without thinking about it.

kwertyoowiyop• 4 years ago

Very nicely written. Mr. O’Rourke’s politics don’t match mine but he was damn funny and kudos to him for taking a swing at all those who deserve it. Parliament of Whores should be required reading in high school.

major505• 4 years ago

"Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it."

lazyeye• 4 years ago

His politics dont match mine but....(thats all I want everybody to know).

gojomo• 4 years ago

Can't be too careful!

jbellis• 4 years ago

I've seen a lot of authors I respect say how great PJ was, but satire tends to go stale. If I wanted to read him today for the first time without nostalgia-tinted glasses, what should I start with? I was not able to find such a list on Google.

wyclif2• 4 years ago

I'd start with Parliament of Whores or Holidays in Hell. It's not as well known, but Modern Manners is a real howler with more laughs per page than just about any book I can think of, and is the perfect night table book because you can read short snippets of it right before bed.

victor106• 4 years ago

I heard PJ talk in a show about having a three party system in the US. And this is what he had to say.

“Our big and sloppy political system keeps America away from abstract political theorists. Away from abstract political theory is a good place to be. Our compromised and compromising system with its messey conflicts and fitful bipartisanship keeps governments close to real life. Because in reality we all contain within ourselves elements of the democrat and republican. We are conservatives when we catch the kids smoking pot and we are quite liberal when we catch ourselves doing it. No one ever says oh goodie when its time to pay the taxes and no one ever turns down a government benefit. Abondining the two party system would mean abondining a great truth. The truth that we are all of two minds about politics Greater certainity in our political system would mean more politics, more arguments, more strife we dont need that we got enough...”

MontagFTB2• 4 years ago

This is a great quote - do you have a link to a source?

robotresearcher• 4 years ago

https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/two-party-syst...

at 1h29m in transcript

ncmncm5• 4 years ago

Sounds articulate, plausible, and just so, so wrong.

Other countries are not stuck with our system. We are stuck with it, but that is not a reason to come to like it. We have to find ways to work around being stuck with it. Pretending it is OK actively interferes with that.

mabub242• 4 years ago

Yeah, I think most people look at the endless 1v1 party sparring of America's political system and just see a recipe for unending revenge and bitterness.

Most parliamentary systems, or multi-party systems, do not have the same amounts of longstanding political polarization that has come to grip America, where every issue must be divided along party lines or you're a "traitor to the cause".

rpmisms9• 4 years ago

I spent my tween years reading an assortment of his work. Absolutely brilliant, and didn't think what he was told to. He was a formative influence on me, and I appreciate the impact he had on the world. Rest in peace, you glorious troll.

ubermonkey• 4 years ago

He was pretty funny until the mid-90s, and then seemed to just get cranky. I honestly hadn't given him a thought in years.

W-Stool• 4 years ago

Anyone who is interested in P.J.'s earlier work should look at his contributions to the late, great National Lampoon, where at one time he was editor. His piece "Foreigners Around the World" is completely outrageous and certainly NOT politically correct. Still to this day I consider it the funniest thing I have ever read.

pklausler2• 4 years ago

I nearly agree, but have to give top honors to OC & Stiggs, also from the Nat'l Lampoon.

anigbrowl2• 4 years ago

And in only 40 years, it became the GOP's foreign policy platform! Truly a man ahead of his time.

lazaruzLong• 4 years ago

This obituary/remembrance is an amazing piece of writing.

bigmattystyles• 4 years ago

I only ever saw him on Bill Maher's show, but would enjoy the show so much more when he was on it. I always told myself that I needed to go check out more of his work and never did. My loss. Aside from some of the pieces already linked in the thread are there any worth reading that stand out? RIP.

ghaff5• 4 years ago

The mentions on this thread are a pretty good list. It's been a while since I read though. I just took a couple off my shelf to re-read.

Arubis• 4 years ago

From TFA, an outstanding quote in its own right:

Good writers make you want to read, but great writers make you want to write.

bigbillheck2• 4 years ago

I fell off the O'Rourke fan train back in the early 00s when I was flipping thru his 'Enemies List' in a bookstore and came to the realization that if the B-52s were his enemy then I was one too.

Did O'Rourke ever say anything about 'cancel culture'? Because that book is an excellent example.

tux1968• 4 years ago

Is it an excellent example of 'cancel culture', though? Disliking something, and considering it your enemy, isn't the same as cancelling something. Did he ever try to stop one of their concerts, or demand that nobody else listen to them, or get their management to drop them?

bigbillheck2• 4 years ago

I found a copy online, and these are some excerpts from the first chapter:

And why aren't we making sure that that Fidel-snuggler Ron Dellums never works again?

(Ron Dellums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums)

If we hope to wreck careers, destroy reputations, and drive holistic Ortega fans into exile in Sausalito and Amherst, we're going to need tactics very different from those used by Roy Cohn, Bobby Kennedy, and [McCarthy].
We have to come up with more clever ways to ruin these people.

And from chapter 2: > We need some means of persecuting neuterers, nutters, and screaming greenies...

tatersolid• 4 years ago

It’s satire of cancel culture.

maybelsyrup• 4 years ago

A good, alternative view on the guy:

https://twitter.com/mgerber937/status/1494060745335660547

I never found him that funny. And I don't say that just because he was un-PC, or racist, or sexist -- though he was those things -- but because he didn't have good jokes, which is the only thing that matters in comedy:

The Chinese have decided to import money instead of things they can immediately enjoy — my black Lab would make quite a stir fry.

This is hack, open-mic-nite-at-the-Sheraton stuff. Yawn.

I get that for people of a certain age (and sex and skin color) this was really cutting-edge, and part of the formative experiences of finding one's own sense of humor in the world, but its time was long past even when these jokes were best-sellers. It's me-me-me boomer stuff that doesn't work as comedy, and I think that's what ultimately sinks the guy's legacy.

ncmncm5• 4 years ago

Yes. If you read carefully, nothing he says is even slightly funny. Some people like it because he would say petty things about people they didn't like. I don't like Hillary much more than he did, but what he would say was never anything substantial about what she said or did, just things he wanted to believe about her personally.

lurquer• 4 years ago

Yes. If you read carefully, nothing he says is even slightly funny.

Let me fix it for you:

Yes. If you read carefully, nothing he says is even slightly funny … to me.

hunterb1237• 4 years ago

Real classy of you. If you didn't enjoy his work, maybe don't comment on his death.

The not so subtle racism / sexism accusation plug (I disagree), segued into slamming of his work during his death is despicable. The ageism was cherry on top.

Opinions are fine, but it's my opinion that you should save the negativity at this time, unless it's a ruthless dictator.

I flagged your post and hopefully this comment thread gets nuked. It's a time of mourning, not a time of slander.

rideontime2• 4 years ago

You disagree? Is that not an accurate quote?

enneff4• 4 years ago

If you’re a prolific writer then the occasion of your death will inevitably be a time for the public to reflect on your life’s work. He was intentionally antagonistic, so it’s actually a sign of respect, not the opposite, that people continue to engage with his ideas after he is gone.

prepend2• 4 years ago

racist, or sexist —- though he was those things --

Those are pretty serious accusations and seems odd of you to so cavalierly throw them out.

I’m not super knowledgeable about O’Rourke, but I’ve seen him around on tv shows and opinion pieces for a few decades and don’t think he’s sexist or racist.

If you’re going to make such statements, back them up a big.

kbelder2• 4 years ago

I would like to reach a point in our society where an unfounded accusation is viewed as reprehensible as the accusation itself.

Calling somebody a racist, casually, without any proof or even evidence, is contemptable.

stickfigure2• 4 years ago

Anyone can cherrypick one line, quote it out of context, and decide it's not funny. If you squint hard enough you might even find something to feel outraged about. Does that make you feel good?

I've read a number of PJ's books and genuinely laughed out loud more times than I can count. Your comment, on the other hand, is exceptionally dull.

harry8• 4 years ago

Seems some people haven't read his stuff. I think these are representative of the comedy and viewpoint.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15142347/ferrari-rein...

https://heretical.com/miscella/reptile.html

Forgeties793• 4 years ago

Do you know why he instituted DADT?

chrissnell• 4 years ago

P.J. O’Rourke played a huge part in the formation of my world view and my transformation from an idealistic, liberal college kid to a conservative grown-up, as he might say. I stumbled upon him while reading the “Best of American Travel Writing” annual series and I had no idea at the time that his wit would eventually win me over and lead me to adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach to solving the world’s problems (and my own).

Rest in peace, sir. Hopefully with a cigarette and some fine scotch in hand. I will miss you greatly.

mathogre• 4 years ago

Sigh

I was in Australia when I read a piece from him on Desert Shield/Storm in an Aussie newspaper. I saved it. A few years later he was to sign books in DC, and I brought along the paper. He signed my book, and also signed the paper. I'd told him I'd seen it while in Australia. He said, "I wonder if I got paid for that?"

RIP, PJ. Thanks for the laughs and the insights.

EdwardDiego• 4 years ago

I've always been left-of-centre, although drifting more towards "centre-with-a-slight-lean-to-the-left" these days, but I enjoyed O'Rourke's cutting wit as a teenager despite ferociously opposing his politics. Which says a lot for his capacity to write.

johnohara• 4 years ago

Human beings like Doug Kenny, P.J. O'Rourke, Anne Beatts, Michael O'Donohue, and every one of the incredibly talented writing and production staff at The National Lampoon during the 70's are proof that God is indeed merciful.

xyzzy21• 4 years ago

"Fast metastasizing cancer' and "Blood clot" screams out just one thing: covid vax damage.

cafard• 4 years ago

Unexpectedly touching.

My memories of O'Rourke are mostly from his National Lampoon days.

P. J. O'Rourke, 1947-2022

Related Stories