University of Virginia Library

'Flippancy'

Permit me to make a few
observations regarding Mr.
Gillmore's column, "Obscene
Affluence: Rebirth Of The Gilded
Age." I am not unused to
encountering self-conscious
"Liberalism" in serious journalists
(and Mr. Gillmore is serious—look at
his headshot, with Brinkleyesque
wince, loosened tie, ruffled
hair—this is a young man in a
hurry). That which strikes me as
curious is the progression of his
ideas: Who reads Playboy? He is
often a "greedy and selfish" young
executive who "lusts for"
(correctly, lusts after) "cars, booze,
lotsa clothes and all the rest."
Where does one find such crass
"cold-eyed" Playboy readers? Why,
at the Nixon-Agnew Presidential
campaign headquarters. Why there?
Because these are men who are
"out to get theirs," and as everyone
knows such materialists are, to a
man, conservatives (shudder,
shudder!) QED.

Now I am quite willing to
concede Mr. Gillmore a wider
knowledge of political sociology,
and all that. But I must observe
that I was not aware that Playboy's
clientele is so exclusive. Ah, but
this is the sort of man who reads
the magazine: far be it from Mr.
Gillmore to make an
undocumented generalization
Moreover, Mr. Gillmore does say
that "many" (not all) "of the men
who read Playboy are determined
to play the magazine's role to their
last dollar." Breath a sigh of relief,
fellow reader, Mr. Gillmore is not
speaking about you. He is placing
the odium where it belongs: with
them folks what has and aim to
keep it. After all, Mr. Gillmore
must have noticed that one or two
Humphrey supporters, a few
students (I have known some
myself), and even an occasional
liberal, read Playboy.

One can dismiss Mr. Gillmore
with such flippancy—but at the
core, there is something more
sinister in his writing. Oh, Mr.
Gillmore is too sophisticated to
criticize "the sex of the
debauchery, or the big boobs." But
notice the latent revivalism, not to
mention populism, in his appeal.
Not a trace of lightness in Mr.
Gillmore's Jeremiad—but then one
does not expect humor from a
young man in a hurry. Mr.
Gillmore, it seems, desires a place
among the Seraphim of journalism:
others (such as Drew Pearson)
attained that exalted status through
gushy moralism, illogical
implication, and "a lotta heart"
(not to mention attacking only the
right targets), why not Mr.
Gillmore?

I must confess that I do not
understand the tortuous discussion
of Consciousness I,II, and III,
which is the peroration of Mr.
Gillmore's sermon. Pitiably, I am
too naive to grasp the similarity of
Ronald Reagan, "some of the Ohio
National Guard, "Andrew Carnegie,
Wendell Willkie, and "many of the
citizens of Kent, Ohio." I do not
know that it helps to observe that
Playboy Magazine rated Kent (two
years ago) the second-most-lively
college town in America. It was not
made so by citizens, or Guardsmen
but (gasp!) Playboy reading
students!!! Something wrong,
there—college students are not on
Mr. Gillmore's list of eligible evils.
So runs Mr. Gillmore's column,
after the fashion of
stream-of-unconsciousness; some
few of us, neglected in Mr.
Gillmore's set of categories, are
consigned to a limbo of tradition,
humor, hip-flask, and decadent
manners. We wish Mr. Gillmore the
success that his earnest moralism
deserves, for he is an honorable
man; so are they all, all honorable
men.