I don’t know whether liberals read more books or simply buy more books (buying books without reading them is a consumer habit that keeps publishing from imploding). I don’t know if liberals are the kind of people whose intellectual vanity requires them to tell pollsters they read more books than they do.
But I do know that the liberal smugness on display in Pat Schroeder’s comments is the gift that keeps on giving for conservatives. It is a sign of liberal insularity, call it Pauline Kaelism, that Schroeder could say this sort of thing about so many of her own customers without inviting an industry backlash.
Of course, it’s hardly original. Remember Mario Cuomo liked to say the same thing. He said of conservatives, “You see, look, they write their message with crayons. We use fine-point quills. We get a little bit more, I think — intellectual is not the right word….” he never said what the right word was, but I think “ass-hattish” fits nicely. And if one listens carefully, it’s not hard to imagine that this is what folks like Al Gore (undoubtedly a reader) and John Kerry (a master at using flashcards) really think.
I should also say, that Schroeder’s comments contradict my personal impressions and experience, but of course there’s a selection bias problem here. I know more conservative policy wonks than liberal ones. I can’t think of any prominent conservatives who brag about not reading books, I can think of at least two prominent liberals who are at least somewhat boastful on this score: Michael Kinsley and Markos Moulitsas. Kinsley is famous for shunning books in favor of magazine articles. He even boasted that he didn’t read all — or even most — of the books that were nominated for a National Book Award, even though he was a judge on the panel. I think Kinsley is a special case, because whatever disagreements I have with him, he is brilliant and can get away without reading a lot of books (though he was in the wrong on the Book Award thing). As for Moulitsas, when Hunter S. Thompson died he confessed , “One of my dirty little secrets — I read very few books. In fact, the only time I read books is when I’m traveling, at the airport and on a plane. There are only two authors I have ever gone out of my way to read everything they’ve written — Hunter S. Thompson and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.” Now, that hasn’t made him less effective, and good for him for admitting it, but it does run counter to Schroeder’s bowl-stewing inanity. (My own dirty little secret: I’m a terrible book nibbler, reading the introductions and then grazing from the tasting menu called the index).
The post I put up last night by Michael Tomasky also runs against the spirit of Schroeder’s comments. He observed — from a better vantage than mine — that liberal politicians don’t read seriously any more.
And that raises another interesting point. Self-described liberals may read more books, but what kind of books? Reading most of the books I see in the front sections of bookstores hardly qualify liberals or conservatives as policy wonks with a gift for intellectual nuance and a yearning for deep understanding. “Ohhh…he’s a scholar, he read You Can Run But You Can’t Hide by Duane Chapman” is not a sentence I expect to hear soon — or often.
Oh and one last interesting thing about that survey. According to the AP: “Among those who had read at least one book, liberals typically read nine books in the year, with half reading more than that and half less. Conservatives typically read eight, moderates five.”
Obviously, this unspectacular finding highlights how outlandish Schroeder’s outburst was. But going by her logic, is she saying that moderates are even bigger muddle-headed simpletons than conservatives?
(Also, shouldn’t the AP using the word “average”* instead of “typically” here?).
*Update: Yes, yes: I should have said “median” not “average.”