Though P. J. OāRourke passed away three years ago, his sharp wit and defense of freedom continue to resonate in a world still tempted by interventionist solutions. Reclaiming his work is more vital now than ever. What he told us through laughs and jabs in recent decades has proven to be one of the sharpest diagnoses of the dangers of postmodern left-wing ideologyāand one of the most inspired reflections on why we must root our societies in individual liberty, private property, the free market, and the Judeo-Christian values that shaped the West for centuries.
Progressives want bigger government, and often conservatives donāt want it as small as we ought to like. OāRourke knew all too well that the larger the state grows, the smaller individuals become. He devoted much of his work to explaining this in a way anyone could understandāeven those not particularly interested in politics. His words resonate today in a new light, and fortunately, they remain easy to access: the Internet is full of OāRourkeās articles, and all his books are still in print. The ideas, the jokesāthe profound, the outdated, and even the ones that havenāt aged all that wellāare still out there, waiting to be discovered by any digital wanderer with a sense of humor and a thirst for sharp thinking. Itās almost frightening to realize that some of OāRourkeās tech-related jokes would go completely over a millennial or zoomerās head today. And itās even more pitiful to think that some of his old comments would be cancelled in todayās dull, hypersensitive postmodern world. Perhaps itās because, as he once said, āOne of the problems with being a writer is that all of your idiocies are still in print somewhere.ā Incidentally, thatās where OāRourke found his only point of agreement with environmentalists: āI strongly support paper recycling.ā
The hippie student he was in the ā60s lost his enthusiasm for leftist ideas the following decade, as soon as he got his first paycheck from National Lampoon: a $300 check that filled him with joyāuntil he was told $140 would be deducted for taxes, health insurance, and Social Security. That day, he got mad at the government, and the grudge never faded. Before that, while still sporting what he called āa bad haircutāāthink John Lennonās worst styleāheād decided to tell his Republican grandmother heād become a communist. Her response threw him off: āWell, at least youāre not a Democrat.ā
OāRourke was never one to romanticize his drug-fueled college days. āOh God, the ā60s are back,ā he wrote. āGood thing Iāve got a double-barreled 12-gauge with a chamber for three-inch magnum shells. And speaking strictly as a retired hippie and former beatnik, if the ā60s come my way, they wonāt make it past the porch steps. Theyāll be history. Which, for Godās sake, is what theyāre supposed to be.ā
The problem of freedomāthe central theme of OāRourkeās work and thoughtāhas been humanityās problem since its very first day on Earth.
From his time as editor-in-chief of National Lampoon in the ā70s, we got his account in The Hollywood Reporter, āHow I Killed National Lampoon.ā The job was a blast, but the environment was hell: āHaving a bunch of humorists in one place is like having a bunch of cats in a sack.ā As a satirical war correspondent covering every late-century conflict, OāRourke filled countless pages describing the struggle to find a damn glass of whiskey in the burning countries at the āend of history.ā His last dangerous assignment was in Iraq. āIād been writing about overseas troubles of one kind or another for twenty-one years, in forty-some countries, none of them the nice ones. I had a happy marriage and cute kids. There wasnāt much happy or cute about Iraq,ā he wrote in Holidays in Heck.
The turning point for OāRourke came during 2003 with the death of his friend and colleague Michael Kelly in Baghdad. Theyād traveled together to the Iraq War. Kelly, former editor-in-chief of The Atlantic when OāRourke wrote there, was āembeddedā with the Third Infantry Division, while OāRourke covered the war āunilaterally.ā The last time they spoke, Mike joked that heād get stuck on the way to Baghdad, while P. J. would be ādriving a rental car through liberated Iraq, drinking Rumsfeld Beer and judging wet abaya contests.ā Instead, OāRourke wrote, āI wound up trapped in Kuwait, bored and useless, and Mike went with the front line to Baghdad, where he was killed.ā Thatās when he decided the war party was over.
In 2015, when the Daily Beast offered me the chance to cover Spain and its surroundings, what thrilled me most was that I would occasionally share a corner of the front page with P. J. OāRourke. He had just joined as a columnist a couple of weeks earlier. The Toledo-born writer had a knack for navigating both left and right-leaning outlets because heād mastered the art of humorās universalityāhe was too funny to spark grudges and too free to stay confined to one column. Thatās a rare gift.
OāRourke was a pioneer in spotting the clash between contemporary progressivism and humor. Today, that clash has worsened with ācancel culture.ā āI couldnāt stay a Maoist forever,ā he wrote in Republican Party Reptile. āI got too fat to wear bell-bottoms. And I realized that communism meant giving my golf clubs to a family in Zaire. Plus, I couldnāt stand the leftās oppressive, dreadful seriousness.ā He knew liberals seemed obsessed with stuffing their jokes full of political messagesāmaking the message bigger than the laugh. Add to that their bad habit of taking themselves way too seriously, and youāve got comedy thatās more likely to put people to sleep than make them laugh. Much of left-wing humor feels more about changing the world than cracking a smile. Real laughter, by contrast, is light, spontaneous, and wonderfully absurd.
OāRourke was a free man in the most heroic sense. His defense of liberty wasnāt just an ideological stance; it was a way of life. He loved America but didnāt shy away from mocking its worst characteristics: āWherever thereās injustice, oppression, and suffering, America will show up six months late and bomb the country next to where itās happening,ā he wrote.
As a disciple of H. L. Mencken, OāRourkeās great calling was spotting idiotsāleft, right, past, present, and even future ones. With Parliament of Whores, he tore apart the world of professional politics, not lingering too long on whether the targets of his skewering were āhis peopleā or not. Though his stance was that of an undergroundāor punkāRepublican, for OāRourke, there was no single enemy. He had no problem taking shots at all politicians and parties alike when defending his ideas: āDistracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby.ā āEvery government is a parliament of whores,ā he declared. āThe trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.ā
He ridiculed the leftās environmentalism long before it began shaping our lives. After writing his essay āShip of Fools,ā he never missed a chance to mock those who use environmentalism as a position of moral superiority from which to take potshots at capitalism. Thereās no difference between the anti-war, Beatles-and-Vietnam-era environmentalism and todayās climate fanaticismāOāRourke understood full well that theyāre just different faces of an ideology far more interested in dismantling capitalism than cleaning oceans.
OāRourkeās satirical style led some to dismiss him as an economic expert, but it made him one of the most effective champions of libertarian-conservative thought.
His satirical style led some to dismiss him as an economic expert, but it made him one of the most effective champions of capitalism, Adam Smithāhe even humorously reimagined The Wealth of Nationsāand libertarian conservative thought. Until the rise of rockstar Javier Milei, no one had quite matched his ability to reach such a broad audience with that mission. āWhen buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators,ā he wrote. And in Eat the Rich, he observed that: āMicroeconomics is about money you donāt have, and macroeconomics is about money the government is out of.ā Through humor, he found ways to express serious truths.
In his later years, he remained the living satirist with the most quotes in the Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations, but no publication championed his presence as they once did. Today, no newspaper would fund a comedic correspondent to Kyiv in the middle of a war; we live in strange times: now the comedian, Zelensky, leads one side of the conflict, while on the other, the leader seems to be losing his sense of humor. And in these thin-skinned times, no one would dare publish a poverty analysis with lines like, āOf course, the humans in Haiti have hope. They hope to leave.ā
Poverty, freedom, good manners, stupidity, technological invasion, or the automobileānothing escaped OāRourkeās sharp eye. Everything remains relevant. Although, thanks to capitalism, poverty has decreased, the left still clings to the beliefāalmost like a ritual actāthat itās not capitalism but socialism thatās worked miracles. Freedom is always under threat, and our privacy is invaded. Good manners are definitely out of fashion among Twitter/X addicts. Stupidity is enjoying a global boom. The technological invasion is making our brains short-circuit. And now, theyāre forcing us to trade in our cars for four-wheeled electric scooters.
The problem of freedomāthe central theme of OāRourkeās work and thoughtāhas been humanityās problem since its very first day on Earth. And so has the problem of the economy. Adam and Eve had to make a choice. They got it wrong, sureābut at least they taught us a key idea of capitalism: economics is the science of choices; if the choices are bad, the economy goes straight to hell.
Now that much of the West is experiencing a revival of libertarian and conservative ideasāwith increasingly younger supportersāOāRourke could serve as the perfect gateway drug. His sarcastic, provocative tone is always cheerful, and itās also the best weapon against a left that seems more and more detached from reality, furious even with biology and science, while growing steadily more humorless and unbearably self-important. Letās not forget that Judith Butlerāthe mother of progressive postmodern theories from the waist downāsomehow managed to turn grotesque ideas, the kind that wouldāve made us burst out laughing just a decade ago, into painfully boring books. You canāt respond to Butler with Blaise Pascal or Thomas Aquinas. Unless you want to lose your mind like her followers, thereās only one answer: with P. J. Take a look at the West and whoās currently in charge, and tell me if thereās a more relevant and timely warning than the classic from the author of Parliament of Whores: āGiving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.ā
