What is it about the humble bow tie that drives leftists to distraction? It would probably take Carlyle’s Diogenes Teufelsdröckh to supply a satisfactory disquisition on the subject. I certainly can’t explain it. But I have long noted, and not infrequently delighted in, the phenomenon. Procure a modest strip of colored silk. Knot carefully under your collar, taking care to achieve the sprightly butterfly effect that Bertie Wooster cherished: Presto! You reduce the sweaty masses to jabbering incoherence. If you really want to cause pain, wear spectacles and drop in a literary allusion or a Latin phrase or two. Really, it drives them wild.
I can’t remember when I first noticed this gratifying Pavlovian response. It was quite some time ago, and it certainly prompted me to stock up on bow ties and eschew the ordinary long variety. But while I have long been aware that the bow tie acts as a ferocious irritant upon the politically immature, it is only recently that I have noticed that the combination of a bow tie and a dissenting perspective on some contentious subject produces instant frenzy. Last autumn, when Norman Mailer went to his reward, I posted here a highly critical piece on the old, wife-stabbing egomaniac. Result? A cataract of abusive comments, many of which seemed to be vastly more offended by my bow tie than by anything I had actually written.
My comments about Barack Obama’s Bitter Pill gambit have sparked an even more amusing outbreak of anti-bow-tie animus. Alas and alack, your faithful correspondent sadly reports that neither he nor his bow tie — his “snobby little yellow bow-tie” as one reader eloquently apostrophized — is popular among the Obamamaniacs. Even his eyeglasses — “intellectual round glasses” in the words of the same authority–failed to delight.
Well, Pol Pot didn’t like people who wore glasses either, and if he failed to make Cambodia safe from bow-tie-wearing chaps, that was probably only because he had inadequate exposure to that enlightened fashion accessory.
Watching the herd of independent minds in the grip of a tantrum is always amusing, and this little episode certainly offered some splendid moments. What struck me most powerfully, however, was the fact that many of my correspondents seemed to think I was criticizing their totem for being “elitist.” In fact, I meant to praise elitism. How can you tell? Well, clever hermeneuts will have noticed that the post is called “In Praise of Elitism.” That was the first hint. And then there was the fact that while I allowed that Obama’s bitter-small-town-gun-and-God-lovin’ remarks were “smug,” “self-righteous,” etc. (”blinkered, bigoted, emotionally impoverished, and otherwise odious”), I concluded that they were “not in any normal sense of the word ‘elitist.’”
To repeat: In my book, elitism, properly understood, is a positive thing. Although there was, in my view, plenty wrong with what Obama said, his offense was not elitism but anti-American animus. (As William Kristol observed, in San Francisco, Obama’s “mask slipped” and, for a moment, we all saw the unvarnished anti-American contempt his Harvard polish usually refracts.)
What I actually wrote didn’t matter, though. The script required that a bow-tie-and-glasses white fellow just had to criticize Obama for being elitist. If he failed to do so, no matter: just follow the script and pretend that he did.
There are so many gems of inarticulate rage among the responses that I hesitate to single out any one for special praise. All have their distinctive delights. But there really was something special about “bethincary” who concludes that “Your bow-tied, elitist self–may have heard condescension–pretty much because you’re a HRC supporter.” How can I break the news to her?
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
20 Comments
1. william:Bow ties and history books have something in common. The left seldom sees either.
Apr 15, 2008 - 7:02 am 2. John N. Frary:A promising opportunity for those yearning for Victim Status. Of course, it will entail mastering the technique of roping the inflammatory object around one’s neck; but the rewards of Victimhood are not to be scorned. You get to demand apologies from all kinds of insensitive people.
Chandler Woodcock, the conservative Republican contender for Maine’s governorship attracted much censure for his bow-tie in 2006.
I’ve been getting a little criticsm myself while running for Congress with a snap-brim fedora (or alterntively a boater, a homburg, or a bowler as the mood and weather dictate) but the hostility aroused by bow-ties is far more severe.
Count me as a charter member of the SPCBT. What kind of dues are we talking about?
Apr 15, 2008 - 7:35 am 3. AMERICAN DIGEST:http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/driveby/bill_cosby_race.php
Dress for Distress: “While I have long been aware that the bow tie acts as a ferocious irritant upon the politically immature, it is only recently that I have noticed that the combination of a bow tie and a dissenting perspective on some contentious su…
Apr 15, 2008 - 8:09 am 4. Chris:I wonder how the Obamunists feel about this bow-tied elite? Or this one.
Apr 15, 2008 - 8:35 am 5. Bill Peschel:“What kind of dues are we talking about?”
Seems to me you pay your dues as you go, in the form of abuse received.
Apr 15, 2008 - 9:48 am 6. Richard Whalen:Myth: Crosses have no effect on vampires.
Fact: Bow ties do not repel liberals.
Myth: Liberals are open to debate.
Fact: Latin is part and parcel of the English language.
Myth: Elites are to the manor born.
Fact: “Kids Say the Darnedest Things.”
Wanted:
Turn Key business for tax write-off.
Location: Depressed liberal USA.
Product: retail bow tie boutique.
Partnerships will be reviewed.
Apr 15, 2008 - 10:33 am 7. David Thomson:“In fact, I meant to praise elitism.”
Sorry, the word has been corrupted to the point of total uselessness. This is the same thing that happened to “gay.” There is no sense fighting a lost cause. Elitism now is interpreted as pseudo-educated snobbery. Try thinking of a word that signifies excellence. That is the best you are going to be able to do.
Apr 15, 2008 - 1:00 pm 8. Go_Fish:And let’s not forget Illinois’ most famous wearer of the silken mind destroyer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Simon_(politician)
Apr 15, 2008 - 2:17 pm 9. Richard Whalen:For psychological reasons, I needed to re-read the commentary from your essay, In Praise of Elitism: Obama studies 101
…I’m on my first shot of Tequila.
As a new member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Bow Ties. I pledge to purchase my first bow tie. It will probably be a snap-on version, I’ll wear it as an emblem comparable to the yellow bows fixed to an oak tree. Come to think of it this may turn out to be a happening just like in the olden days of Haight-Ashbury. A sort of tie-in, turn on and take out- fusion whence, We all measure our lives with coffee spoons.
With insights like these:
From Ed :
“The sheer absurdity of this bowtied gent blathering on about Obama’s elitism boggles the mind. You look like the dean of the elitist school…”
From ar :
“Take a good look at your picture. It says I am an elitist SOB with a nice gig at the WSJ. When was the last time you talked to a peasant Roger?”
From Darren :
“Most of all, though, we resent the hell out of people like you (and yourself) telling us what we should think and others what we actually are thinking as if we’re some homogenous culture who gets the vapors when the wrong beer is brought to the table.”
…and after my second shot of Tequila I looked up praxis:
For the Hermeneuts, then, language takes precendence over praxis in the constitution of meaning. That which cannot be said cannot be meant, and the purported meanings embedded in wordless praxis presumably must somehow be founded by language in some sense of the term. This view contrast with that of the Founders, who recognize praxis as at least an equal contributor with language to the constitution of meaning, and with that of the Pittsburgh Hegelians, who give precendence to language, but conceive language as itself fundamentally tied to language. We have at this point, then, the three majors positions before us. To begin sorting them out it will help us to have a more thoroughgoing conception of praxis and social practices at play. We thus turn now to the work of Theodore Schatzki.
Index Verborum Prohibitorum. My imaginary entry for (a wordless praxis) “ ” and you can quote me.
I’m now stuffing my face with bratwursts and working on my third shot of Tequila. Suddenly I’ve developed acute Pickwickian syndrome. Dang. Tequila, wrong beer again.
This is more than I wanted to say, that is, to really say nothing. So I just maybe will vote for Obama after all, wearing my elitist yellow bow tie.
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:52 am 10. Richard Whalen:Forgot the thing about sarcasm/off
Perplexed, never considered myself a bow tie kinda guy. proudly own a bolo.
Apr 16, 2008 - 4:12 am 11. Mark Falcoff:Gee, Roger, I thought that bow ties were the LIBERAL badge par excellence…remember Arthur Schleeeeeeesinger Jr.? Truth to tell, he’s the reason I’ve never worn them.
Apr 16, 2008 - 6:43 pm 12. Anthony (Los Angeles):I’m center-right and I think bow ties look silly. (Of course, I’m anti-tie in general….)
Apr 17, 2008 - 5:50 am 13. Talnik:Mark is right on this one; usually only libs wear them. Paul Simon (the Senator) anyone? I was watching some conspiracy show last night and the leftie wackjobs were either wearing bow ties or had their gray hair in ponytails.
Apr 17, 2008 - 5:59 am 14. Huh?:No offence, but wearing a bow tie gives a person the same credence as a propeller beanie or clown nose. And though I agree with you on almost everything, putting your picture on your blog and wearing a bow tie in it are screams for help. We’re here for you, pal.
So funny – liberals complaining about being the “dean of the elitist school”. If there’s a slightly honest liberal somewhere at an “elite” school, they are embarrassed right now and removing a bow tie.
I guess that person doesn’t realize that those so-called elite schools are where their liberal mindview is regurgitated.
BTW, where can I get a bow tie, and how do I tie it? I always used the clip-on…
Apr 17, 2008 - 7:15 am 15. Chris:To Huh?:
I commend your desire to learn how to tie a bow tie. At the risk of appearing elitist, I must say that clip-ons lack a certain … authenticity (sort of like clip-on four-in-hand ties).
Here’s a good set of directions with a diagram. Link.
Here’s a short video. Link.
The key is the first loop (the “zig zag” in the diagram). This differs from the way people usually tie shoe laces and is critical to tying a bow tie. The rest of it is adjustment. With practice, you’ll be able to do it quickly and without a mirror–which tends to impress the uninitiated.
Apr 17, 2008 - 9:31 am 16. Timothy Tully MD:I have worn a bow tie since medical school and through 30 years of medical practice (except for 2 years service in the Army). It never failed to provoke and obtain a degree of authority that a radiologist needs to convince fellow doctors. I did try for a 3 year period to combine the bow tie with a short ponytail. The ponytail seemed to avert attention from my bald pate, but the bow tie (like Dumbo’s feather) did not distract from my regard.
I have since retired to the northwoods, and have on occasion worn a bow tie on snowmobiling adventures. The guys in the bars do not seem to give a damn what I have on my neck. They are far more interested in my machine and its performance. Like Dumbo’s feather it seems to have lost its powers.
Apr 17, 2008 - 2:24 pm 17. rcocean:Roger – love you; hate the bow tie.
You might as well go around in a top hat or a French beret. It makes you look bad.
Apr 17, 2008 - 11:24 pm 18. John Moore:I wear bow ties. And glasses. Read history books. Even own a tux. And I’m still voting for Obama.
Had to stop wearing the Panama hat, though. Friends said they were embarrassed to be seen with me.
Apr 19, 2008 - 6:31 am 19. baldilocks:I dare anyone on the Left to criticize these chronic bowtie-wearers.
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:08 pm 20. C. O'Donnell:I see this discussion took place last spring. I came across it in a search on bowties and politics, looking for a story I once read about Justice John Paul Stevens.
Justice Stevens wears a bowtie. When he was in private practice, an opposing attorney implied that lawyers who wore clip-in ties could not be trusted. Stevens famously stood up and untied, then retied the bowtie without saying a word.
I like bowties. Democrats and Republicans alike have worn them – Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Paul Simon (IL), Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., all wore bowties.
People from all walks of life wear them. Comedian PeeWee Herman, rock band star Andre 3000, anchor Charles Osgood, designer Karl Lagerfeld, Cincinatti Bengals linebacker Dhani Jones and many others.
Even women wear bowties! Kylie Minogue, Marie Osmond, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrews, Avril Lavigne, Annie Lennox, to name just a few.
Tucker Carlson once noted that a bow tie can seem “like a middle finger protruding from your neck” and I wondered what he was talking about.
Then I realized, it is not about the bowtie! The innocent bowtie is just different enough to stand out a bit. When people are engaged in partisan politics, which manifests as petty and immature name-calling and finger pointing, and a raft of deliberate dishonesties of all kinds, the poor bowtie simply becomes a target.
Partisanship clouds our judgment, causing us to disregard facts that do not fit into our world view. It divides our country into “us” and “them.” It prevents us from working together to effectively address the threats we face as a nation.
Perspective is by definition limited. There is the undeniable certainty that you do not have the truth completely surrounded, that you are, in fact, wrong about at least some of your beliefs and ideas, and the other side is, in fact, right about some of theirs.
If you can consider that truth perhaps your commentary will be less likely to raise the ire of other partisans and more likely to provoke a considered and thoughtful response.
Feb 22, 2009 - 2:48 pm