[dang]

I used to feel that way, with much annoyance. But it dawned on me that Keillor was really an ironist (a rather prickly one), and that the sentimentalism and old-timey nostalgia were largely camouflage.

I think the day I started changing my view was when they were reading birthday greetings passed up as notes from the audience. Keillor read one that said "Happy birthday to Grandma so-and-so in X-ville, upstate NY. 96 years old and still chopping her own wood." The audience dutifully went "awwww" and clapped. Keillor paused and said: "Why doesn't anybody up there help that old lady out?"

[wahern]

You're confusing sarcasm for irony. Once upon a time you could be ironic without implying anything negative about the subject or object of the irony. Perceptive and incisive irony can elicit complex emotions and thoughts about a subject, but it can and often does end there, regardless of the speaker's personal beliefs.

A quote from Garrison Keillor reprinted in the article alludes to this: "You get old and you realize there are no answers, just stories."

American law schools use the Socratic method for teaching. A good law school professor will never answer a question even when directly posed, but merely respond with another question, often times using classic Socratic irony. With the really good professors, no matter how heavily laden with innuendo their questions, in three years you'll never figure out their actual opinions or beliefs about a subject without resort to their published material outside of class.

(And, FWIW, the biggest mistake you could ever make reading Plato, for example, is to believe that it's obvious what kind of point his protagonists (e.g. Socrates) are trying to make. The Laws is an excellent example.)

That's the type of character Garrison Keillor seems to be, particularly when it comes to questions of culture and sentimentality. If you think he's gaming his audience, then that's sad.