A Cry from the Far Middle: Dispatches from a Divided Land

by P.J. O'Rourke

In a time of chaos, the #1 New York Times–bestselling political humorist asks his fellow Americans to take it down a notch.   Is there an upside to being woke (and unable to get back to sleep)? If we license dentists, why don’t we license politicians? Is your juicer sending fake news to your FitBit about what’s in your refrigerator? The legendary P. J. O’Rourke addresses these questions and more in this hilarious new collection of essays about our nation’s propensity for anger and perplexity, which includes such gems as “An Inaugural Address I’d Like to Hear” (Ask not what your country can do for you, ask how I can get the hell out of here) and “Sympathy vs. Empathy,” which contemplates whether it’s better to hold people’s hands or bust into their heads. Also included is a handy quiz to find out where you stand on the Coastals-vs.-Heartlanders spectrum. From the author of Parliament of Whores, None of My Business, and other modern classics, this is a smart look at the current state of these United States, and a plea to everyone to take a deep breath, relax, and enjoy a few good laughs. “To say that P. J. O’Rourke is funny is like saying the Rocky Mountains are scenic—accurate but insufficient.” —Chicago Tribune   “The funniest writer in America.” —The Wall Street Journal

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Humor, Audiobook, History, Essays, Current Affairs

197 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2020

About the author

Patrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke is an American political satirist, journalist, writer, and author. O'Rourke is the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and is a regular correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, and frequent panelist on National Public Radio's game show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Since 2011 O'Rourke has been a columnist at The Daily Beast. In the United Kingdom, he is known as the face of a long-running series of television advertisements for British Airways in the 1990s.

He is the author of 20 books, of which his latest, The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way (And It Wasn’t My Fault) (And I’ll Never Do It Again), was released January 2014. This was preceded on September 21, 2010, by Don't Vote! – It Just Encourages the Bastards, and on September 1, 2009, Driving Like Crazy with a reprint edition published on May 11, 2010. According to a 60 Minutes profile, he is also the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations.

Reviews

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Amusing, this political pundit can make even the current and past turmoil in our country, funny. This is hard to do, now I think near impossible. I tend not to identify with any particular party, vote more for the person and their stand on the issues. Not even quite sure why one is considered a moderate, conservative, or progressive. Right? left? Currently I'm just trying to stand upright.

We get funny, albeit occasionally grumpy, anecdotes on our country from the beginning of the Roanoke colony to our near present. This might be the only item politically that has made me smile. Anyway, however I would be classified politically, I agreed with much he said. Much needed and glad I read.

Narrator was L. J. Gander and his narration gets 4 stars.

ARC from Netgalley.

[Geoff · Rating 2 out of 5]

My dad was a big fan of P.J. O'Rourke, but I did not fall too close to the libertarian tree. That said, maybe it's my political biases, but the title seems a little disingenuous; O'Rourke does take some shots at Pres. Trump, but he seems far more interested in making tired jokes about progressives than making tired jokes about conservatives. There really wasn't a whole lot new or fresh in here; how many times do we need to hear cracks at Pres. Clinton these days? And at one point O'Rourke aims a crack at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that was literally an ancient blonde joke. If a humorist is being lazy with his jokes, what is there left worth listening to?

**Thanks to the author, narrator, publisher, and NetGalley for a free copy in exchange for an honest review.

[Kasa Cotugno · Rating 4 out of 5]

I look forward to P.J. O'Rourke's appearances on Wait Wait, so I know that we are on the same side of the current political divide. This country is more fractured than ever, but he begins with the "lost" colony of Roanoke to make his point. Most people will know whether they are "coastal" or "Midlander," but the quiz he has within will still make you smile. As will most of his "get off my lawn" essays.

[Fred Forbes · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think he phoned it in. Hey, let's grab a bunch of my columns and slap them together and make a book! This approach probably explains the disjointed nature of this book. Not cohesive or well organized, just a collection of O'Rourkeisms. He can actually be quite clever in his satire and I have enjoyed much of his work despite our differing perspectives on the subjects. Just think he missed the mark with this one.

[John of Canada · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review to follow

[Darius Ostrowski · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love P.J. O’Rourke. I have read most of his books, most of them multiple times, and the man always makes me smile. His intelligent humor always manages to teach, to get a point across. Whether you agree with his politics or not, he is a gifted writer who can turn a phrase and earn your respect whatever you think of his beliefs.

His latest collection of essays is “Please Calm Down”, written before the pandemic (other than a brief introduction). Therefore, most of the book focuses on the current state of our nation. Mr. O’Rourke deals with a variety of topics with his usual insight and humor, although he has gotten much crankier as he’s gotten older (which is OK, since I have also gotten crankier with age).

He starts out with a view of our country’s history, how polarization and violence can be traced back to before we were a country. He then talks about the divides in our country today, classic liberalism (and its death?), the difference between government and politics, rich vs. poor and why Robin Hood economics doesn’t work, sympathy vs. empathy, nationalism vs. patriotism, Orwell’s 1984, social media and communication technology, the internet of things, politicians’ war with the media, the new Puritanism, young people and Marxism (and literature), defining a good education, a look-back at the 60's, why government can’t be run like a business, the electoral college, foreign policy problems, Mr. O’Rourke’s take on an inaugural address and his fantasy presidential candidates, why we should license politicians, a deeper look at our Founding Fathers, and finally what Mr. O’Rourke likes about this country.

A wide range of topics mostly about what in this country divides us, and his views on why we should come together in the middle.

As usual, Mr. O’Rourke writes with intelligence, humor, logic, and charm. I found this collection to be a little bit all over the place, with varying quality. Being the conservative/libertarian that he is, I was curious on his take on our current administration, and you can see that he’s not all that happy with the way things are.

But overall an enjoyable read, that makes you both think and smile.

I requested and received a free advanced electronic copy from Grove Atlantic / Atlantic Monthly Press via NetGalley. Thank you!

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

He's still reasonably funny. But it's hard to see authors get old, self-righteous, and just not as interesting.

[Melissa McShane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is much, much more readable than the last book O'Rourke wrote about the current U.S. political climate, How the Hell Did This Happen?: The Election of 2016. There, O'Rourke was clearly overwhelmed and bitter and, I'm sorry, but even he couldn't make that subject funny when so much about it was painful no matter which political opinions you hold. This book is much less...personal, maybe? It felt like O'Rourke had regained his sense of humor, and while I didn't find this laugh-out-loud funny, it was never less than amusing.

I liked his recounting of the earliest settlements in the United States and his take on some of the American Founding Fathers. O'Rourke considers himself a libertarian, which informs all his political essays here, and his brand of libertarianism puts him closer to the middle (though still leaning right) than to either extreme. And that was refreshing. Even better were his occasional side notes about interviewing people like Colin Powell (they mostly talked cars instead of politics or warfare). In all, this will never be my favorite of his collections because I really prefer his travel writing, but it had some gems I'd quote if the book weren't way across the room and I weren't lazy.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

P.J. never fails to make me smile, and often he makes me laugh. In these contentious times, it's so therapeutic to have a laugh at the expense of politics and politicians.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you to Netgalley and publisher for advanced copy of this title.

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 5 out of 5]

PJ O'Rourke's approach to life and mine are very similar. Like Menken and Twain he has very little respect for the establishment - he is adept at pointing out the idiocy of the chattering classes including politicians, journalists and other pettifoggers.

This book starts with a reasonable premise. The left and the right have become screechy. For him the country desperately needs a vibrant middle. He was not a fan of Trump, but he recognizes that the President accomplished some important things. (Except for his tweets!)

He does a superb job of poking fun at all sorts of idiocy. For example he compares the Woke and Me Too movements to a new puritanism. He describes youth's attraction to income redistribution to a shelf of Twinkies in a 7-11. He makes a very funny but substantive case for the Electoral College (yes San Francisco has more population than Montana, Wyoming and Alaska - millions of acres but do you really want that 14 square miles to control your life.). He urges all of us to understand each other by walking a mile in another person's shoes which produces two advantages - by the time you do that you will be a mile away and you will have the other person's shoes. He does an elegant discussion of positive versus negative rights (get back to the Twinkie analogy). And he explains why Boston traffic is so horrific.

In short these essays confirm him as a national resource. This book is just good fun. If you don't like his writing you probably need to be inoculated for the intersectionality virus.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

O'Rourke is clearly a talented writer. I appreciated his insights and the humorous way in which he delivered them. That said, his commentary about Trump, which is minimal, falls flat. This is mainly due to his perception of Trump being nearly identical to what the mainstream media peddles. Overall, a good entertaining book.

[Cristie Underwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a quick and hilarious read about the state of the United States. The author uses humor to alert the reader to the issues we are facing, such as getting information on social media that is not true.

[ManOfLaBook.com · Rating 4 out of 5]

For more reviews and bookish posts please visit: https://www.ManOfLaBook.com

A Cry from the Far Middle: Dispatches from a Divided Land by P.J. O’Rourke is a humorous look at today’s charged political climate. Mr. O’Rourke is a political pundit, author, reporter, and frequent guest on political shows.

This my first foray into downloaded Netgalley audio books, and after a bit of a learning curve, I have to say that I’ll happily continue to listen to books this way. As a political junky I was happy to listen to this book, since I’m familiar with the author’s views, read articles by him and listen to him on TV and other media I’m following.

A Cry from the Far Middle: Dispatches from a Divided Land by P.J. O’Rourke is as funny as one can get in the current US political climate. As hard as he tries, and he tries hard, the author managed to put a smile on my face, and get a few laughs as well. As many of us realized, the country is fractured and Mr. O’Rourke begins with a fun history lesson about the Roanoke colony to make a point about polarization, along with a silly quiz to figure out on which side you’re on.

One could tell that he is not happy with any side of the political isle. Mr. O’Rourke identifies as a Libertarian, but it’s clear he looks down more on the bleeding hearts on the left, than the hypocrites on the right. He takes shots at everyone, but his observations on left seem acute, some just lazy, while the observations on the right seem to be forced in order to be perceived even handed.

I appreciate the effort the author puts in, there isn’t much one could say at this point that hasn’t been said. We’re a few week away from the general election and it seems everyone has already made up their minds. Mr. O’Rourke knows this and isn’t trying to change anyone’s mind. In fairness, in all the years of reading his work and listening to him, he has only tried to bring forth observations, never to convince someone.

The essays in this book or intelligent, charming, and often cranky. I know Mr. O’Rourke sees himself as a Libertarian, and probably a classical conservative, so I was interested to hear what he has to say on the current administration.
He’s not too happy, to say the least.

Mr. O’Rourke puts together the wide range of topics he ranted about: Founding Fathers to technology, sympathy vs. empathy, nationalism vs. patriotism, and even why the government can’t be run like a business, and more. At the end of the book, the author makes his case for the country to come together in the middle, if I was talking to him, I would say that we have no idea where the middle is, even the title of this book can’t agree on it (what is the “far middle”?)

[Curtis Edmonds · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave A CRY FROM THE FAR MIDDLE a quick read-through, and was initially unimpressed and underwhelmed. What do you make of a book with a prologue that, essentially, says that pretty much everything in the book is dated and irrelevant?

This, I must stress, is not P.J's fault; it is the nature of how this kind of book is written - it's a collection of essays, written in 2018 and 2019, all of which sound dated in this year of calamity 2020. It's a relic of the Before Time. (In the Before Time, we would have said that it was a "September 10th" thing.)

So I read through it, and at first there were a lot of dad jokes. Like, just so many dad jokes. And I am, you know, a dad, and a practitioner* of the genre, and I thought there were too many dad jokes. There was a Shirley MacLaine joke, and those are almost as old as she is.** There was a very long and discursive history of the Roanoke and Jamestown colonies, which somehow managed to morph into a discussion of whether the nice lady who wrote "America the Beautiful" was a lesbian.

Disclaimer here. I am an unreserved fan of P.J. O'Rourke. I have nine or ten of his books on my bookshelf (although you'd never be able to tell because there's a picture of me on the shelf in front of them, with my twin daughters sitting on my lap, unwillingly wearing Dallas Cowboys t-shirts). I believe that HOLIDAYS IN HELL ought to be on the foreign service exam and that PARLIAMENT OF WHORES should be required reading for everyone in a hundred-mile radius of the Capitol.

This book is not as good as those.

Which is fine! It's hard to keep consistently writing satirical classics. It's hard to write one! And I think that it's wrong to say that it's because he's older, or that he's lost a few miles per hour on his fastball, but... maybe not that wrong?

So I was completely prepared to trash this book, to say that it wasn't worth it, to say that here was someone who was so far past his prime that he needed to be escorted to the front porch with a nice cool glass of lemonade, with maybe a little vodka in it. And then I ran across this bit, which I will quote, because it is JUST THAT GOOD and I missed it the first time I read it.

Now politics is at the point of promising everything to everybody. And everybody is disappointed. Everybody goes away empty-handed. Everybody feels cheated. Does this make us mad at our politicians? Yes. But mostly it makes us mad at each other, because politics is a zero-sum game the way freedom and free markets are not. Zero-sum games are not played for kicks and giggles. Zero-sum games are blood sports.

What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd.

Let me put kind of a gloss on this. The leading political theory out there is something called the "Overton Window," which basically says that any political goal that you want is impossible until it is. Same-sex marriage was politically impossible for decades, until it became the law in a few states, and got on the ballot in a few more, and eventually became the Constitutionally-protected law of the land. The various political pressure groups managed to move the Overton Window just enough to make it possible. And the Overton Window moves both ways--Prohibition was impossible until it wasn't, and Repeal was impossible until it became so.

What that line of thinking leads to is that politicians, and the political pressure groups that back them, start believing that the things they want are possible, even when they are objectively impossible. The right-to-life groups want a national ban on abortion, and even if that would happen, there would still be abortions. The ultimate goal of gun control organizations is the eradication of firearms in America; good luck doing that. (Charles C. W. Cooke spells out what you'd have to do: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/)

What happens when politicians promise things that are not going to happen but are objectively impossible? (Mexico is not going to pay for the border wall, carbon dioxide will continue to be emitted, the Texas Rangers are not going to win the World Series in my lifetime.) What does that do to the national mood? What do you do with a zero-sum game when the rewards are zero?

A CRY FROM THE FAR MIDDLE is not as good as I want to be, not as funny as I'd like it to be, not as coherent as it needs to be. But there is a spark or two left among the kindling.



* Exemplia Gratia: Child A left a takeout container on the table that had once held chicken, and her mother said, "Why is the chicken container still on your side of the table," to which I replied, "Because it hasn't made it to the other side."

** In writing this sentence, I made the initial assumption that Shirley MacLaine had long since shuffled off this mortal coil, and was all ready to make a joke that she had reincarnated already and was a third-grader in Evansville, Indiana or something. But she is, as it turns out, still alive (age 86) as of this writing, which ruined the joke. Someone remind me in fifteen years or so and I'll make it then, even though it will be less funny.

[Stefani Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

***Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this audiobook in exchange for an honest review. Thank you HighBridge Audio and NetGalley!***

I had never heard of P.J. O’Rourke before this book. I was drawn in by the title and wanted to check it out. This is essentially a collection of this columnist’s previous columns about politics. This made it very easy to listen to. Nothing dragged out too long before we were on to the next essay.

It was such a breathe of fresh air. Funny, self deprecating, insightful, and thought provoking. I consider myself a political junkie and also a staunch Libertarian. If you’re wondering who the person in your neighborhood who thinks you should be able to own a grenade launcher, legalize prostitution, legalize all drugs, feels that taxation is theft and wants to fire most politicians….that person is me. While I have a feeling that Mr. O’Rourke falls more on the Conservative side of Libertarian than he believes he does, he did a fairly even handed job in this book. I have already quoted a few of these essays in other forums because I felt his point was right on the money. I will have to seek out more of his work.

Reviewed for Written Among the Stars

[Matt Eversmann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love PJ but this one never really made me laugh or even chuckle. Progressives are a pain and President Trump is a bad guy. Will wait for the next one or reread Parliment.

[Jessica · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had first discovered P.J. O'Rourke when I read (or listened to in this case, as it was an audiobook) his commentary on the 2016 election, How the Hell Did This Happen? and found it funny and insightful. Sadly, I cannot say the same for A Cry from the Far Middle, which bills itself as a reflection on the partisan hellhole we've fallen down, but more often than not veers into old-man-yells-at-cloud territory. The few laughs I got out of this book did not make up for the drudgery that was O'Rourke's commentary on kids these days, and I can only hope that his next work will be a bit more inventive.

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The second of four timely political books I’m reading. This one is more satire, but within the satire are solid truths about our time. I love P.J. O’Rourke, a political satirist and one of the founders of “National Lampoon”. He was the conservative voice of that collection of writers and satirist back when conservatives, moderates, and liberals could sit down work together and create something together. And in this case they pushed the boundaries of satire that led to programs like Saturday Night Live. P.J. O’Rourke is not anymore afraid to call out Conservatives and Republicans than he is Liberals and Democrats. He doesn’t fit in with the “maintain the party line, even if you’re dead wrong” mentality of the current state of the Republican Party. This would be his 19th book of satire that hold true to his core beliefs. He is not too kind to Democrats nor Republicans in this book and laments on what we’ve lost and the murky waters into which we are headed. You come away with a picture that we’ve lost our basic common sense. If this ship is sinking you may as well have a laugh as it goes down. P.J. O’Rourke may be one of the last of a dying bread, a Republican who thinks for himself.

[Rhodes Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

The change from the Trump to Biden presidency was the perfect time to read this book. It was written before the 2020 election and, true to O'Rourke, he points out the ridiculousness in both candidates, parties, and the system. He is fair about what does work (little) and even finds a bright side to the partisan bickering. The discussion of Coastals vs. Heartlanders is spot on and his explanation of the Electoral College is spot on. The discussion of Patriotism vs. Nationalism should be included in civics books. The social media analysis is unapologetically "Ok Boomer" and his analysis of socialism reflects the wisdom of a journalist who has visited the socialist "ideals" in their prime and afterwards. O'Rourke's writing style is witty, insightful, and filled with so many literary and cultural references that provide an extra reward for the reader.

[Roy · Rating 3 out of 5]

As always PJ is an effective essayist with a sarcastic quick wit. Many of his observations about our time ring true. I especially like his description/caricature of the current American people and the rise of the division between the conservative and liberal factions.
I did find his description of the economics of government programs to be ludicrous and to look like a standing straw man ready to be punched mercilessly by his more sensible take on matters. The problem to me is that he is taking the most extreme versions of the left pronouncements and assuming that there is zero benefit from the programs. As an example, the idea that we will take all the income from rich people to pay the poor while illustrating the magnitude of the problem does not credibly represent in any way what would happen, yet he seems to think so.
Aside from making points against non-existent possibilities, I still find his curmudgeonlt wit entertaining and insightful.

[Joanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was just reading John Dickerson’s new book, The Hardest Job in the World, in which he states first and foremost, a president of the United States needs a sense of humor to preserve equanimity. Agree. This is why it’s perfect timing for a new one from PJ O’Rourke during these trying times of the 2020 election. Read it if only for his fictionalization of a good republican vs good democratic debate which shows how to find that middle ground. Very funny. Enjoyable for all level of politico-even if you don’t know, as PJ puts it, a sequester from Ryan Seacrest.

[Marin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short light-hearted and caustic essays (newspaper columns?) on the various current political and cultural topics.
I relished his style, despite finding many of his observations difficult to understand. I am not very familiar with American politics, and some American names, products, and facts are unknown to me.
There are parts where it feels he cannot concentrate on making a clear point, but I found some very interesting analyses on surprising themes such as:
- the story of the Jamestown colonists (about whom we learn that most of the things we know are fiction, not facts)
- how what he calls “The LeftRight Party” is the party that rules America and how its members practice the doublethink that Big Brother demanded in Orwell’s 1984
- a defense of Classical Liberalism that “has had a good run and now it’s about to get run over by a bus full of stupid “post-capitalist” political trends”
- how politics is now at the point of promising everything to everybody, and everybody is disappointed.
- how the Internet treats user privacy, and aids and abets, particularly in the destruction of intellectual property rights.
- the rule of law (“When government takes ownership of everything the result is either the terror of collectivism or the horror of crony capitalism or, as in China, both. The checks bounce and the balances are weighted by the thumbs of special interests.
Also, lacking civil liberties and property rights, representative democracy is left with nothing to represent except the will of the mob or—as it’s called these days, activism.”)
- a comparison between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton:
“George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton present a paradigmatic contrast between sympathy and empathy. Bush was a deeply sympathetic man. He cared about other people’s feelings. And he was no dummy. He understood why people felt the way they felt.
On the other hand, Bush never seemed to have the imagination or temperament to practice empathy—to project himself into other people’s lives. In fact, George may have thought that would be rude, too intrusive, and too inappropriately personal.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was the most inappropriately personal man on earth. He had no problem projecting himself into other people’s . . . underwear. Not to mention lives. Clinton was Mr. Empathy. “I feel your pain.” And when he said that he probably—in his overimaginative theatrical brain full of shallow adolescent sensitivity—meant it. For a moment. Until it was somebody else’s turn for Bill to feel their … whatever.
But did Bill have any sympathy for other people? We’ll have to ask Hillary. You first.”
- A short critique of Marxism and its nowadays followers:
“Marxism puts inarticulate notions of a sharing-caring nicer world into vivid propaganda slogans. Slogans such as: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Which may be the most ridiculous political-economic idea that anybody has ever had. My need is for Beluga caviar, a case of Chateau Haut-Brion 1961, a duplex on 5th Avenue overlooking Central Park, a bespoke suit from Gieves & Hawkes in Savile Row, and a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO that recently sold at Sotheby’s Monterey auction for $48.4 million. My ability is … Um … I have an excellent memory for limericks … There once was a man from Nantucket …
What kind of totalitarian mind-meld would be required to determine everyone’s abilities and needs? What kind of dictatorship body slam would be necessary to distribute the goods of the able to the wants of the needy? We know what kind. The kind that the U.S.S.R and Mao’s China did their best to create.
The Soviet Union and Maoist China are two more reasons that millennials love socialism. This is not because young people learned left-wing lessons from the Soviets and the Red Guards. It’s because they didn’t. Kids don’t get it that communists are bad people. It was too long ago.”

He was a very sharp writer who knew how to get a point across with panache. His departure left a void in today’s political commentary scene.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found the 2020 election so stomach churning that I left social media for awhile. Too often, I was left slack-jawed by the vitriol posted by people with whom I grew up, or with whom I had worked for a number of years. It may yet be awhile before I return to social media, but in the meantime, this review comes from the relieved perspective of Donald Trump having been voted out of office. in the days leading up to this dethronement--and certainly in the days since--more and more of my Republican friends were laying low and striving mightily to avoid the taint of the fetid swamp water (pun most certainly intended) issuing forth from the presidential Twitter feed. Maybe the loudest pro-Trumpets had no use for the likes of a liberal Democrat like me...but the moderate voices on both sides were discovering that they had more and more in common. Such was my discovery upon reading the latest installment of a collection of columns by the estimable PJ O'Rourke.

In the past, I read O'Rourke looking to be entertained by his wicked sense of humor. I believe he wrote his earliest works as a conservative Republican, so he always saved his sharpest cuts for liberal Democrats. I have been a liberal Democrat for a number of years, but O'Rourke often humorously represented some of the occasional misgivings I harbored about certain liberal policies. So what the heck; I thought he was funny. He now declares himself a libertarian. One might suspect a rather wide chasm between a liberal and a libertarian. However: the further i ventured into A Cry from the Far Middle, it occurred to me that I was reading the words of a kindred spirit: one who couldn't stand Trump any more than I could, and one who moved over to make a little more space for more moderate liberal views. If I knew him better, I'd call him and say, "PJ, I appreciate the effort, but I liked you already." Well, I DID like him already. But I like this O'Rourke even better. He makes comments about such liberal-claimed issues as a living wage, and about racial inequality. I had to stop and double check the cover. This is PJ O'Rourke?!? It is indeed.

O'Rourke's sense of humor is on full display here, as he covers some vital points in American history as well as modern goings-on. He still adheres to some of the more steadfast planks in the conservative platform. But I would suggest that any moderate who reads this book might come away with the impression that, while the extremists on either side of the aisle are hoarding all the righteous indignation, and at full volume no less, perhaps we moderate American voices can get together and hammer out some genuine solutions to the ills that plague us. It's worth a shot. I wonder if anyone could talk Mr. O'Rourke into running for office?

[David Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

We live in an increasingly polarized age. Television talking head, political pundits, athletes, movie stars, everyone seems to be yelling to move to the left or move to the right like some perverse square dance from hell. In the middle of all of this comes A Cry From The Far Middle. This cry is brought to us by none other than satirist extraordinaire, P. J. O’Rourke. Author of such fun works as Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards and The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way And It Wasn’t My Fault And I’ll Never Do It Again, O’Rourke is back to start a movement towards each other instead of away from each other.

In his introduction he tells us that “America is in need of some explaining, especially at the moment. That the country is a mess is the one thing the country agrees on. And even about this we differ. Half the nation seems to be saying, “We don’t know what’s wrong with America, but we can fix it,” while the other half says, “There’s nothing wrong with America, and we can fix that.” This does not bode well for the nation. As he points out this is nothing new. Strife and bickering are nothing new. They are built into the fabric of the US. From the founding of the first British colonies there was strife. To begin with there was strife with the local population who didn’t understand that it was the White Man’s Burden to deprive natives of their food, homes, and land. O’Rourke provides a succinct and darkly humorous reading of these early conflicts.

After setting the historical stage O’Rourke launches into the breakdown. The nation is in a conflict between “Heartlanders” and “Coastals.” These breakdowns are more about ideas than anything else. There are Coastals and Heartlanders on both sides of the aisle. “Harry Truman was a Heartlander. Steve Bannon makes Heartlander tornado noises but is in fact a Coastal hurricane of know-it-all, cared-stiff self-regard. Donald Trump is a Coastal pretending to be a Heartlander, covering his oh-so-Coastal real estate scammer face with a mask of drunk-in-a-bowling-alley Heartlander bigotry. Elizabeth Warren is a Heartlander. You can tell by the middle-American banality of all her “to-do” lists.” The problem in American “is not about Heartlanders being good and Coastals being evil. It’s about their respective ability to tell the difference.” This is at the heart of our conflict.

In his next chapter O’Rourke lays out the case that the best solution to the difference between the competing visions of the Heartlander and the Coastal is what today is known as Classical Liberalism. “Civil liberties. Free speech. Property rights. Rule of law. Representative democracy. Free enterprise. Free trade. These are the ideas of Classical Liberalism. Since 1776 the fortunate among us have been living in places where those ideas were embraced.” Sadly, both sides are abandoning this excellent middle ground in an effort to dominate the other side. The call of today’s society is not to find ways to get along, but rather find ways to dominate.

In this book O’Rourke brings both sides to task for playing the power politics game of trying to rule instead of trying to work together. First he takes on those calling for socialism. “Socialism is the politicization of everything. Socialism is when the stakes in the political battle are so high that they include control of the entire socioeconomic system. In this kind of boxing match it’s the referee—the sovereign people of the United States—who’s down for the count.” Later he takes on those calling for a new nationalism. “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is the difference between the love a father has for his family and the love a Godfather has for his family—the Bonanno family, the Colombo family, the Gambino family, the Genovese family, the Lucchese family . . . Patriotism is a warm and personal business. Nationalism is another business entirely, the kind of business Tessio talks to Tom Hagen about after Tessio’s betrayal of Michael Corleone. “Tell Michael it was just business.” Both world views are zero sum and both are seeking to draw people away from the middle and towards the extremes.

O’Rourke goes after the sacred cows in our society because he knows that in the end they make the best hamburgers. Some of what he says is jarring to consider. Some of it can be a little crazy. But all of it is shot through with his typical satire. If you want to read O’Rouke tearing apart social media, Donald Trump, the “democratic” socialists and the other unpleasant issues of our time then you have come to the right place. As always, O’Rourke takes his pen and skewers both right and left. He is an equal opportunity curmudgeon. It is always a pleasure and a joy to read O’Rourke. This was no exception. It made me laugh and wince at the absurdities around me in ways that only P. J. O’Rouke can do.

[Brett T · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suspect that a lot of political satirists have been divided during the presidency of Donald Trump. On the one hand, he's a serious goofball who offers a wealth of material of which fun can be made. On the other hand, every time someone jokes about what the president might do, using wacky exaggeration to make the point in a funny way, he'd go ahead and do exactly that thing or something so far beyond it that they just give up and stare dumbly at the screen.

Although he's still insightful and perceptive and he still knows how to throw a funny line in a way that a lot of supposed modern online commentators and satirists can't match, P. J. O'Rourke's A Cry From the Far Middle has a distinct atmosphere of staring dumbly at the screen in a few too many places to be some of his best work.

The idea hinted at by the title is that someone with a long history of libertarian and conservative policy ideas finds no home with the protectionist, undisciplined and shallow man in the White House. But if opposing him means throwing in with the even wackier and lunatic wokery of the Democratic party that person doesn't feel like that's a choice either. Thus, "the far middle." Spectator USA columnist Bridget Phetasy uses the phrase "politically homeless."

A couple of longer introductory essays offer this idea as a frame for the pieces in the book, many of which have already appeared in O'Rourke's American Consequences magazine. And of course O'Rourke is a consistent enough thinker that his worldview does stay more or less connected to this central thread. But sometimes it's more less than more, and several of the short essays don't really hang together as solidly as some earlier books, such as Holidays in Hell, Give War a Chance or the magnificent Parliament of Whores.

One of the things that anyone following the news to any degree over the last four years could probably discuss ad æternum is how exhausting the process has been. The news cycle has operated at warp speed, with major events being subsumed and forgotten in mere weeks, if not days. Cry may be laboring with that burden, rendering even O'Rourke's mighty satirical eye a little sleepy. Reading it, you'll still probably laugh and learn -- just not as much as you might have wished you could.

Original available here.

[Peter K · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have been reading P.J.O'Rourke's books for the best part of 25 years now so in this time of lockdown and increased reading opportunity I took the chance to read his latest work without a great deal of hesitation.

My political beliefs are quite different from that of the author but I do believe I should push myself a little more to read those that I disagree with with a view to testing my own standpoints and seeing if they bear up to scrutiny.

Additionally P.J.O'R has been, I have found, a writer of some talent with a fine line in dry with and gentle ( and not so gentle ) mockery.

Having said that this will not go down as one of my favourite works of his. The addition to the opening of this book confesses that much was written before the COVID pandemic overtook us and , to some extent , is lacking because of that virus sized elephant in the room ( if you will )

Much of his work has had me laughing out loud in the past, not really the case here. Though there are some wise points drawn out through the quotation of Orwell and George Washington that bear clear relevance to the world today, much of the book is a light skim through themes such as " kids today and their ideals "huh" " and the like that felt a little complacent in approach.

Much of the work is reproductions of articles published elsewhere and this made a lot of sense when I read this in the acknowledgements - having said that as a narrative it did hang together - though not always pleasingly for this reader.

His 2016 work " How the hell did this happen ? " was a much more engaging and energetic read.

Having said that this work did give me pause for thought in a number of places (the discourse on the difference between patriotism and nationalism for instance ) and whilst our politics are quite different I completely accept his clarion call for a polity where it is possible to discuss differences in a civil manner for the good of the country as a whole. I suspect I would very much enjoy the opportunity to discuss the state of the world with the author

[Richard Barnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

The late and P.J. O’Rourke’s last published volume (hopefully there are some more writings out there, waiting to be collected up) where the great man takes on the thorny question of the day – what is up with America?

Obviously, he asks the question in a far cleverer way than that, and through this collection he’s taking aim at the world of fury that the USA has become. To some extent, this is the rantings of an old man who’s seeing a world he no longer understands; some of the pieces rail against social media and the internet but when he asks who’s idea it was to get all of the idiots in the world together, he kind of has a point.

This is not as good as his earlier works – partially because these are the musings of a keyboard warrior rather than the younger journalist who actually did go to Libya when it got bombed by the US, who actually did go to Somalia as the country collapsed into anarchy and actually did go to the Democratic Convention in the 1980’s.

These are opinion pieces coming from his desk in New England as opposed to opinion pieces informed by eyewitness testimony. But, shucks, the man was in his 70’s and, possibly fighting against the cancer that finally got him.

However, they are opinion pieces frequently informed by a deep understanding through thorough readings of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the various Amendments and the Wealth of Nations. When PJ tells you that the free market works it comes from an understanding of economics and the hard facts of history as opposed to some prick on Fox News.

I sincerely hope that there is another book to come – what did PJ make of the 2021 riot at the Capitol?

If this is the last gasp, then it’s a fine way to go out. Does he answer the question? Of course not – but at least he’s smart enough to know he doesn’t have the answer. If only those b*****ds who put themselves up for election realised that.

[Rosemary Reeve · Rating 4 out of 5]

P.J. O’Rourke is so funny, and he writes so well, that even if you disagree with everything he says, you can thoroughly enjoy the way he says it.

I was looking forward to O’Rourke’s take on our current quandary. Unfortunately, all but a sliver of “Please Calm Down” pre-dates the pandemic. But it’s quite a sliver. He concludes his gloriously mordant preface like this:

“I’m betting that human nature will triumph over challenge and adversity. And I don’t mean that in a good way.”

I did not enjoy the rest of the book as much as that introduction. If you follow O’Rourke in “The Washington Post” or “American Consequences,” you already may have encountered much of this book. The quality of the collected columns varies. I found O’Rourke’s rereading of “1984” to be thoughtful and compelling. Other columns carping about the Internet and “woke” culture seem cranky and cliched. The collected columns do not always develop the ostensible theme of the book, and in some cases even seem to undercut it, as with the column distinguishing “Heartlanders” from “Coastals.” As for the theme itself – that we are over-polarized through offense and catastrophizing – it’s not a bad idea, but it’s not particularly original.

But, my goodness, the man can write:

“Everything is much more wrong than it ever was and we are much more right about it. We’re all mad at each other and incensed that others are furious with us. It’s sort of a permanent anti-Christmas, an obligatory holiday exchange, where we’re bound to receive umbrage and compelled to give offense.”

Recommended for O’Rourke fans and anyone who admires an exquisite turn of phrase.

Many thanks to NetGalley and Atlantic Monthly Press for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Paul Sand · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

This is, I think, the late P. J. O'Rourke's final book with new material. (Grove Atlantic brought out a "compendium of quotes and riffs" from his career "on what would have been his 75th birthday." That might be a good buy unless you (like me) already own just about everything the guy wrote. I was a fan of my fellow Granite Stater.

This 2020 book is a collection of PJ's recent essays, mostly from the free online magazine he edited, American Consequences, which I think is now defunct. To be honest, the book is kind of a mixed bag. A number of pieces are cynical and pessimistic without actually being funny. (Maybe I wasn't in the mood for that.)

On the other hand, many essays are insightful and witty. The laugh-out-loud gags are rare, but that's OK. (One, on pp. 161-2, is actually a 51-word quote from a Dave Barry book.) PJ's combination of politics (moderate conservatism/libertarianism) resembles mine pretty closely, and his worldview (disgusted/amused/stoic) is roughly what I aspire to.

He unaccountably, but forgivably, voted for Hillary in 2016. ("She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.") I went for Gary Johnson. I'm not sure who I would have voted for if my vote could have actually swung the election, but fortunately it didn't.