Posted on 09/17/2007 12:32:54 PM PDT by blitzgig
It looks as if the media will have to find another pretentious intellectual to refer to as “the conscience of the American theater” (according to The Boston Globe), “the moralist of the American theater” (The New York Times), and, most gratuitously, “the moralist of the past American century” (The Denver Post). In fact, given their track record, elitist intellectuals should probably refrain from using the word “moralist” altogether.
Those words were written about Arthur Miller, the playwright who became famous by penning dreary plays about America’s alleged failures. Miller’s pompous liberalism has been forced upon high school and college students ever since he wrote Death of a Salesman in 1949. Although most people immediately find his writing to be both pretentious and mind-numbingly boring, Miller spent most of his career denigrating capitalism and defending communists at home and abroad. So, naturally, Miller’s plays are always prefaced by fawning praise for his courage and moral insight. According to fellow playwright Edward Albee, Miller “held up a mirror to society and said, ‘This is how you behave.’”
But now it appears that communist sympathizer Miller wasn’t quite the humanitarian the cultural elites claim he was. This month’s issue of Vanity Fair includes an investigative piece on Miller’s “secret son” – a boy born with Down’s syndrome whom Miller “deleted from his life.” According to the article, Miller hid his son Daniel’s existence for forty years, did not mention him in his memoirs, and didn’t even bother to leave him a piece of his immense fortune when he died in 2005.
In fact, Miller’s friends say he had no contact with Daniel since he dumped him in an overcrowded mental institution at birth (the facility was later sued over its poor conditions). He allegedly referred to his son as a “mongoloid.” Miller’s wife wanted to keep the baby, but he refused. As Thomas Lifson wrote in the American Thinker, “[Miller] ripped apart a child and mother…all because he must have been embarrassed that his son wasn't capable of being the intellectual he wanted to pretend to be himself.”
I don’t understand why everyone is so shocked. Miller belongs to a long tradition of left-wing “humanitarians” who have wagged their fingers at the unenlightened common people, scolding them for their support of capitalism and their lack of concern for the downtrodden – and yet couldn’t manage to stop using and abusing everyone around them.
Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose theory of the general will was a precursor to modern socialism, believed that private ownership of property was selfish and destructive to the collective state. As historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book Intellectuals, Rousseau “was the first intellectual systematically to exploit the guilt of the privileged.”
So how did Rousseau conduct his personal life? After repeatedly borrowing money from his parents, he never repaid them and allowed his foster mother to die of malnutrition. He kept a peasant girl as his mistress, exploited her sexually, and forced her to abandon all five of their children at birth. He didn’t let her name the babies, and, as Johnson noted, “it is unlikely that any of them survived long.”
Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto, wrote about the oppression of the working class – a subject he knew nothing about since he refused to work, keeping his wife and children destitute. He kept a young girl as his household slave, sexually abused her, and forced her to send their son to a foster home. If that weren’t enough, Marx also made his family’s life distinctly unpleasant by refusing to bathe.
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a correlation between radical socialist views and heinous personal conduct?
In fact, from the seventeenth century forward, it’s difficult to find a prominent leftist intellectual who wasn’t manipulative, abusive, selfish, or violent – including Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre. That reality is covered in-depth in Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals, originally published in 1988 but updated in May 2007. Maybe the next version will include a chapter on Arthur Miller and his abandoned son.
As Phyllis Schlafly noted in a column on the book, these men were not irrelevant left-wing scolds. They were influential writers and philosophers “who arrogantly presumed to diagnose the ills of society…and to tell mankind how we should all live our lives and how society and the economy should be structured.”
From now on, before textbooks and college courses demand that we admire these intellectuals’ unique brilliance and follow their dictates for humanity, how about a few side notes on how they treated actual humans?
Ashley Herzog is a junior at Ohio University, studying journalism, and lives in Avon Lake, Ohio.
PING - An Ashley Herzog column not to be missed.
Thankfully, I don’t remember any of his books when I was in high school. If I were to remember them, I’d probably consider them boring.
Bravo to the author, but I wonder if this is akin to shooting oneself in the foot before the race.
Glad I saw this. I just requested the Paul Johnson book from the library!
Miller was a phony til the end. He also badmouthed his former wife, Marilyn Monroe.
Well, when you have no standards, no one can accuse you of being a hypocrite...
Well said and so true. I’m going to use that in the future if you don’t mind!
The presmise is stupid. The ideas should be the target of criticism not their personal lives. Shakespeare apparently abandoned his wife. And since when are Tolstoy and Hemingway ‘Left Wing Intellectuals’?
“Miller’s pompous liberalism has been forced upon high school and college students ever since he wrote Death of a Salesman in 1949.”
I’m of the opinion, having recently seen No. 1 son safely through high school English, that the only reason books such as “Death of a Salesman,” “The Catcher in the Rye,” and “East of Eden” have any market at all is the requirement by leftist teachers that they be read.
There are infinitely more books that provide a positive and up-lifting message, and which have much more to recommend them from a literary standpoint, relative to this dreck.
For really bad insomnia I would use Jean-Paul Sartre.
‘Catcher in the Rye’ pops up on Conservative favorite lists. There’s nothing leftist about it.
You could dispute the "intellectual" part about Hemingway, certainly. But Tolstoi was a socialist and Hemingway fought for the Communists in Spain in the 1930s.
The Rousseau story is also covered in Florence King’s “With Charity Toward None: A Fond Look at Misanthropy.” Rousseau sounds like a truly loathsome individual.
Tolsoty could be called a Christian Socialist. The Soviets certainly had no use for his philosphical work which they found counter-revolutionary. I don’t exactly where Hemingway told people how to live their lives or what his part in the Spanish Civil War has to do with the merits of ‘A Farewell to Arms’ or lack thereof. He’s about the least preachy of all great writers.
I’m wondering if Chomsky is as averse to soap as Marx...
The description of Marx pretty much sums up the value system of the left...
The key is that the main character is not supposed to be terribly sympathetic. He’s a selfish little twit who learns that the world doesn’t revolve around him.
I’m not saying it’s leftist, I’m saying it’s trash.
When you have no moral standards, everything is acceptable. That's the liberal mantra.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.