People who write letters to the New York Times are different from you and me

A couple weeks back, the New York Times magazine had an article by Bill Keller titled "The Radical Presidency of George W. Bush". Broadly speaking, the piece contrasted the style and policies of Dubya vs. Ronald Reagan and found much in common. Of course any remotely positive mention of Bush is like waving a red flag in front of NYT readers, and today's magazine had this beaut of a letter:

"Bill Keller's article on George W. Bush was the slyest piece of political satire I've read in years (Jan. 26th). In this bitter winter of our latest discontent…."

Let's stop right there. Already I'm choking on the pretentious prep-school puffery. Right off the bat, the author wants to make sure you understand that he's a great connoisseur of satire and sophisticated enough to quote Shakespeare.

"…he has given us the much-needed relief of belly laughs. Gems like "The president has little hesitation in invoking the war on terror on behalf of just about anything" are priceless!"

Terrorism! It's a laff riot! Didja hear the one about the president who wanted to defend the country?

"That Bush 43 has added the populist trappings of the Marlboro man to his native peculiarities of speech – the meandering malapropism – is hardly surprising in this new era of anti-intellectualism."

Rest assured: anyone bemoaning anti-intellectualism fancies himself as an intellectual. I'm sure prep-boy, with his perfect diction, is a real gas at dinner parties recounting (for the hundredth time) how his Yale forensics team beat Harvard while debating the effect of Smoot-Hawley on the prime rate.

"What's surprising is the number of Americans who don't see past the politically expedient disguise, as Keller most obviously does."

Why can't everyone be as perceptive as me and Bill Keller? It's rare to find a letter so jam-packed with smugness, self-love, superciliousness, and super-silliness.

[signed] BARTON SPENCER BROWN, Clinton, Conn.

Natch.