Cromwell

My wife and I visited five Gilded Age mansions during our recent trip to Newport.  Two of them were relatively modest affairs that were notable mostly for their architecture and furnishings.  A third (The Elms) was grandiose, but contained several rooms that were both visually splendid and livable, an unusual combination.  The fourth, The Breakers, made more sense as a stage for over-the-top parties and events than as a place for people to live.  And then there was the Marble House.

The Marble House is a “cottage” built by one of the Vanderbilts.  It apparently was modeled after the Petit Trianon at Versailles.  It is full of very expensive brownish marble (they apparently ran out, so portions of the upstairs area are faux).  The most striking thing about the place, however, is that the dining room contains large portraits of Louis XIV and XV, and the hall has a bust of Louis XIV flanked by reliefs of his principal architect and the architect of the Marble House.

My jaw dropped at the absurdity and arrogance of this.  Could you possibly think of a more visible way of expressing contempt for the democratic values of your own country?  Even having untold millions of dollars in the America of the Gilded Age didn’t make you the heir of French royalty.  As far as I know, even Donald Trump wouldn’t make that kind of a statement.

I had to further ask myself:  what was the purpose of the house in the first place? You can obviously make a case for a medieval castle based on its military value. English and French manor houses are a slightly harder sell, but those houses also served as the headquarters for a business establishment, and they helped to overawe the lord’s tenants, so there is a functional argument for them.  The Newport “cottages”, however, didn’t serve either of those purposes, and they weren’t designed for comfortable informal living. Their only function, as far as I could tell, was to stand out in a neighborhood of similarly opulent homes, which is pathetic.

I don’t know enough about Theresa May to make a prediction as to whether she will make a good PM, but she has certainly exhibited a high level of political shrewdness to date, as evidenced by the following:

1.  Allying herself with the “One Nation” crowd puts plenty of distance between herself and George Osborne, her most dangerous long-term rival, and gives a kick to the rotting carcass of the Labour Party, which is likely to split in the next few months.
2.  Appointing BoJo as Foreign Minister may turn out to be a disaster for the country, but it is a great way to give him enough rope to hang himself.

The UK is going to have to make an extremely painful decision at the end of the Article 50 process:  does it give up the banks, its freedom on immigration, or something else?  Ms. May’s ability to deal with that issue without losing half of her party will probably determine the ultimate success or failure of her government.  Another referendum, perhaps?

 

The condition of the American economy, then and now:

1.  Globalization:  The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a golden age for globalization.  There were no ideological barriers to international trade (i.e., no Communist countries); the British Navy controlled the oceans; steamships, railroads, and canals reduced travel times; the telegraph improved communications; and refrigeration made it possible to transport food overseas. In addition, immigration was at a very high level, which helped keep wages down.  Today, the biggest issue is offshoring, which was still impracticable back in the 1890’s.  Wages for unskilled workers are stagnant due to competition from foreign workers and machines (see below), while profits have soared due to the availability of new foreign markets and reduced costs.

2.  Technological change:  The principal technological changes were in the fields of transportation and communications, and had a limited impact on existing jobs; however, improvements to agricultural machines made it possible for American farmers to reduce the number of manual laborers, thereby providing an additional pool of workers for industry. Today, the concern is whether machines using some form of artificial intelligence will provide new employment opportunities, or force people with limited skills out of the labor market altogether.  The threat of being replaced by a machine has reduced wage demands from unskilled workers in both manufacturing and services businesses.

3.  Welfare state:  There wasn’t one; the down-and-out had to rely on their families and private charities, mostly affiliated with churches.  Today, the welfare state is under threat for being too expensive.

4.  Public health and safety regulations:  To the extent they existed at all, it was on a state level.  Today, reducing their costs is one of the principal objectives of the GOP.

5.  Taxes:  The income tax was unconstitutional until 1913.  Today, of course, reducing taxes on the wealthy to the maximum extent possible is another longstanding GOP objective.

There is no mystery was to why some members of the GOP think the country started to go to hell in a handbasket when Woodrow Wilson was elected.  An America dominated by the Republican Party would look even more like the America of the Gilded Age than it does today, which is saying something.

Per the GOP nominee Don:

All those Mexican workers are gone.

We’ll keep the world out

On that banish your doubts

And America’s back number one.

The issue of mass immigration

Divides the US and UK nations.

The racists and bigots

Would turn off the spigot

Thus giving up on integration.

I suspect that Justice Ginsburg thinks that, at her age, she has earned the right to say whatever she wants.  I have a degree of sympathy for that, but her comments on Trump, while accurate, were not a good idea.  The world does not need a left-wing version of Scalia.

The pundits rarely put Trump and William Jennings Bryan in the same sentence, and for very good reasons:  Bryan was a passionate left-wing lawyer and politician who viewed political and economic questions largely in moral terms; while Trump is a semi-successful developer and mass marketer with no interest in traditional Christian values and a predominantly right-wing agenda.  Bryan would have seen Trump as the personification of all of the vices that he was fighting against; Trump would have dismissed Bryan as a loser.

That said, in functional terms, both of them were populists who engineered hostile takeovers of their respective parties, to the horror of the prevailing establishment.  Bryan never succeeded in getting elected; let’s hope Trump suffers the same fate.

We live in a new Gilded Age.

Its significance is hard to gauge.

Life is good if you’re rich.

If you’re not, it’s a bitch

And you may well be seething with rage.

I don’t claim to be an authority on American politics between 1880 and 1920, but it is my understanding that the system was characterized by four large groups:

1.  Republicans:  a pro-business WASP-dominated group with its heart in the Northeast and the Midwest;
2.  Democrats:  an unusual coalition of urban immigrants and white Southerners, united mostly by their antipathy to the Republicans;
3.  Progressives:  largely Republican (though found in both parties), they were dedicated to fighting corruption and perceived abuses of power within a system characterized both by urban machine politics and the increasing economic and political power of large businesses; and
4.  Populists:  a largely rural phenomenon, this grouping within the Democratic Party combined left-wing economic ideas with support for traditional religious and cultural values.

When you compare this picture to the situation today, you find some elements of continuity and some significant differences.  The Republican Party of the 1890’s is essentially the PBP faction of today’s GOP.  The Progressives are best analogized to policy wonks allied with Obama and Clinton within the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party of the 1890’s no longer exists;  the closest modern analogy would be to ethnic minorities within the party (of course, African-Americans had no power at all in the First Gilded Age).  Finally, today’s Populists can be found in both parties–they voted for Trump and Sanders.  Based on the election results, you would have to say they are predominantly Republicans.

If there is a message here, it is that populism can’t easily be forced into traditional left/right pigeonholes.  That is the heart of Trump’s message, and one of the reasons his relationship with the GOP elites is so fraught.

I watched some of his very first game for WFU.  It was in the Great Alaska Shootout, and I don’t think he took a single shot–his offensive game was that raw. It got a lot better, and quickly.

I would guess that I watched 90 to 95 percent of his games since then.  He lost most of his athleticism a long time ago, but he still somehow managed to remain effective, particularly on the defensive end.  He always played hard, and the right way, and with style and grace.  He was always a great teammate.  Finally, he did it all without glorifying himself; it was all about the Spurs, not his ego.

And that is why, in spite of his five rings, his two MVPs, his three Finals MVPs, his All-Star MVP, and all of his All-NBA selections, Donald Trump probably thinks he’s a loser.

During the late 1970’s, it was fairly common for critics to refer to Elvis Costello as the “Cole Porter of Punk.”  That didn’t really mean anything to me at the time, but after I saw the movie “De-lovely,” everything became clear.

The two shared a strong sense of pop craftsmanship and a love of word play.  In my opinion, however, their differences are more significant than their similarities. Porter wrote exquisitely polished and urbane songs which became standards, while Costello’s songs have a much rougher edge, both lyrically and musically.  There is no Costello song that is as instantly memorable and accessible as, say, “Night and Day,” but there is no Porter song that seethes like “Watching the Detectives” or “Lipstick Vogue.”

I don’t think anyone has put adolescent male sexuality to music as artfully as Costello.  Anger, moral and aesthetic disgust, and frustration, mixed with more than a little irony–the entire package can be found in his first three albums.  The amazing thing to me is that he was married at the time he wrote those songs.  I honestly don’t get that.

I think Woody Allen provides a better analogy than Porter to Costello, for the following reasons:

1.  Both of them are in love with language;
2.  Both created geeky, frustrated loser personas in their early days;
3.  Both presented sexual issues with a mixture of anger and humor, although Costello tended to emphasize the anger, and Allen the humor;
4.  Both had popular successes early in their career, but subsequently tapered off, and ultimately became elder statesmen; and
5.  Costello has appeared in movies (“De-lovely”, appropriately enough, being one of them), while Allen is a reasonably accomplished jazz musician.

It is not, therefore, a coincidence that I am a huge fan of both.

In honor of last week’s trip to Newport and the upcoming GOP convention, this week will be dedicated to an analysis of the old and new Gilded Ages.

                                    Money

Money

Not enough

Don’t give away so much free stuff.

 

Money

Check the facts.

We don’t want to pay more income tax.

 

Money

Don’t despair.

We’re going to make the system flat and fair.

 

Money

It’s all mine.

Undeserving poor don’t get a dime.

 

Money

More for me.

I’ve got friends in the GOP.

 

Parody of “Money” by Pink Floyd.

1.  There is plenty of evidence to suggest that African-Americans are treated unfairly by law enforcement and the judicial system.  It is logically impossible, however, to know if racism is responsible for any given police shooting, because you cannot know if the officer would have responded to a white man in a different way.  It is a little bit like attributing hurricanes and tornadoes to climate change;  you know that global warming makes them more likely, but you can’t know if they would have occurred in any event.
2. The MSM frequently appear to buy into the notion that the life of a policeman is more valuable than the life of an innocent civilian.  That really irritates me.  Why do we grieve more for someone who is paid by the taxpayers to put his life on the line than someone who isn’t?
3.  It is frequently necessary in this world to make choices, but this isn’t one of those occasions:  I don’t have to pick between the police and the community.  I don’t want policemen to use unnecessary force, but I certainly don’t want anyone to shoot at them, either.
4. Here is the bottom line:  (a) the police have a difficult and dangerous job, and it is inevitable that mistakes will be made that will cause loss of life on occasion; (b) some of these events may be attributable to racism, but some of them probably are not; (c) there are issues with racism in the system that need to be addressed on a community-by-community basis, but that information is best derived from comprehensive studies, not individual events; and (d) the police are not immune from criticism, and there is nothing wrong with peaceful protests.

My mother, who was kind of an old school Republican (she would have voted for McCain and Romney, but never for Trump), had the best description of Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Lewinsky affair that I have ever heard:  it was a “low crime and misdemeanor.”  Her point was that Clinton’s behavior was deplorable and arguably illegal, but it was not sufficient to warrant impeachment.  The majority of Americans agreed with her, as did I.

I was reminded of this phrase when I heard the FBI Director talk about Hillary and the e-mail issue.  My initial reaction to the use of private e-mail was that it was stupid and arrogant, but essentially inconsequential.  I still think so, but I can’t help but be troubled by the public misstatements that she made to defend herself.  They don’t go far enough to disqualify her as a candidate, but they certainly don’t bode well for her Presidency, if there is one.

The problem is that there is not, and never was, a reasonably plausible alternative.  If Sanders had articulated an agenda that was directed at modernizing the welfare state to address issues created by technological change and globalization, I would have taken him more seriously, but all he wanted to do was bash banks and spend tax money mindlessly on programs like “free public college.”  Like Jeremy Corbyn, he has a mindset that is stuck in the radical politics of the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Trump, on the other hand, is a blowhard strongman wannabe who not only lies every time his lips move, but views lying as a legitimate campaigning and negotiating tactic.  I have discussed the likely implications of that to the world economy in previous posts.

I miss Obama already, and he isn’t even gone yet.

Some commentators and Sanders supporters have speculated that Bernie could become the leader of a left-wing opposition faction analogous to the Tea Party after the election.  It won’t happen, for the following reasons:

1.  Sanders doesn’t have enough friends in Congress to create a faction of any respectable size.
2.  The Tea Party has the ability to wreak havoc because shutting down the federal government is completely consistent with its anti-government ideology.  A left-wing, pro-government faction logically can’t do that.  In other words, you can’t plausibly expect to increase the size and power of the government by threatening to paralyze it–what would happen to the people you are trying to help in the meantime?