Tag Archives: America

What Direction Britain?

Over the weekend while I watched what I knew was coming on the season finale “Downton Abbey” – and no, there will be no spoilers for those few of you who don’t know yet – I was struck by how a costume drama from the Mother County could so enthrall American audiences.  There has always been that so-called “special relationship” between Britain and America despite what they might term the unpleasantness of the Revolution and the War of 1812.  However I wonder how much of that affinity remains at present, or whether we are simply mutually basking in the reflected glow of something now past.

Watching as the current British Prime Minister stumbles his way along through one misguided policy after another, it is hard for an American conservative to fathom that Mr. Cameron happens to be the head of Britain’s Conservative Party.  As recently as the Thatcher, Major, and Blair years, there seemed to be a greater affinity between the two nations with respect to a number of policy issues, regardless of whether it was a Conservative or Labour government.  Yet increasingly under Gordon Brown and now under David Cameron, there is a sense that Britain is going irreversibly in one direction and America in another.

Others of course would argue that Britain is simply ahead of the curve, and that eventually here in the US we will end up something like the UK writ large.  One certainly hopes that this is not the case, and I say that as a life-long Anglophile who has had the good fortune to live in Britain twice.  Though once senses that the mutual values we held of how to achieve mutual prosperity seem to have been eroding rather dramatically.

When we look back to the first half of the previous century, such as the time in which the fictional Crawley family are operating, we notice that there was a healthy fusion of British belief in hard work with an American sense of getting the job done creatively.  British aristocrats married American money to save their houses, and British businessmen went into partnerships with American firms, recognizing that there were natural affinities and mutual needs that could be met through adaptation and change.  After all, what saves Downton Abbey financially is putting a middle-class young man in charge of things, once he gets the backing of his American mother-in-law to persuade her husband.  And lest we forget, like Ladies Mary, Edith, and Sybil Crawley, Sir Winston Churchill himself was half-American.

Yet it must be said that among the Britons whom I regularly interact with, as much as they may love their country, privately they recognize that there are not as many opportunities left for them there, and many of them want to move here.  They see fewer chances of really succeeding on merit in a country which has become so increasingly dependent on government subsidy, and merely surviving rather than thriving.  What Napoleon once referred to as a “nation of shopkeepers”, seems to be increasingly a “nation of victims”.

Now before any of us over on this side of the Atlantic start patting ourselves on the back, or contentedly saying to ourselves, “There but for the grace of God…”, we, too continue to see more and more dependence upon centralized government taking over even the most basic aspects of our lives.  Fortunately our federal system allows for a greater deal of fight-back than we see in Britain, though that requires eternal vigilance, and more often than not the use of the courts, as we see in the current fight over the present Administration’s HHS Mandate.

For all of our complaints about divided government in our unusual American system of government, there is something very good indeed about a weakened Executive Branch in particular.  Among other things, it makes it much harder for any one person or philosophy to absolutely dominate domestic policy.  Thus while he was able to pass Obamcare thanks to his party controlling both the White House and Congress, today Mr. Obama could huff and puff all he wants, but if he were to introduce a bill that Republicans could not support, it simply would not pass.

What the future holds we do not know.  We can be sure that it will be a less prosperous one for both nations, thanks to factors such as short-sighted budget policies more focused on present consumption than future growth, or promoting population control as a way to reign in costs while simultaneously gutting future benefits.  In the end one does not fear for America so much, since she changes regularly throughout her history, but one wonders what will become of dear old Blighty once it is little more than a cog in the European socialist machine.  And that is something which the British will have to answer for themselves.

Matthew

Cousin Matthew out for a spin on “Downton Abbey”

Leave a Comment

Filed under culture

The Presidency: Knowing When to Say When

Presidents Day is coming up here in the U.S. on Monday, and while these days there really are not any traditions to speak of for this holiday, it is a good opportunity to reflect on the limitations of that office.  Technically the holiday is the official celebration of the birthday of George Washington.  However its proximity to the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, not to mention laziness in both academia and in the popular press, has turned it into a day when we celebrate all of the U.S. Presidents.  Thanks to our incessant need for advertising of course, we are being bombarded this long weekend with images of Washington, Lincoln, and others – even non-Presidents like Benjamin Franklin – trying to sell us cars, bed linens, and so on.

That being said, Washington himself is someone for whom all Americans ought to be deeply grateful to Providence, particularly when we look at how the office of Prime Minister or President in other countries can lead to the implementation of policies completely at odds with the will of the people whom they govern.  Cousin George (he is a distant relation) did not make himself a king by setting up an American monarchy and accompanying aristocracy, even though he was certainly popular enough to do so.  Nor did he cling to power once he achieved it, but instead reluctantly served two terms and stepped down, leaving the office to his political successors rather than to his relations.

Yet historically speaking, our Presidents have not always known when to reign themselves in; we see occasions throughout our history when they have become drunk on power and their own opinion of themselves.  One reason why we have two-term limits for Presidents today for example, is because of the inability of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to cede power.  We are often told that thanks to Roosevelt’s inspiration, America got through the Great Depression and World War II, and no doubt he must be remembered for that service.  Yet we should also be aware that he was incredibly power-hungry, as we learned from his breath-taking attempts to bend the Supreme Court to his will.

In the 1930′s when FDR and his brain trust came up with sweeping legislation to get Americans to work and to create the foundations of the social welfare system, to his fury he found that lawsuits were being brought against some aspects of his plans, challenging their constitutionality.  Upset that conservatives on the Supreme Court were determining aspects of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to be unconstitutional, Roosevelt attempted to pass legislation that would have allowed him to pack the Supreme Court with his own appointees, in order to pursue his agenda.  You can learn more about this often-forgotten chapter of American history in Jeff Shesol’s fascinating book, “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court”.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis – certainly not the most conservative of jurists – reacted to the news that FDR was going to attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court with the kind of gravitas with which the old look at the impatient, doomed-to-failure plans of those younger and more foolish than themselves.  On February 5, 1937, Roosevelt sent attorney Thomas Corcoran to hand-deliver a press release to Brandeis before the proverbial poo hit the fan, as Shesol describes:

The president has sent me, Corcoran said. He handed Brandeis a press release. If there had been any way to exclude you from the plan, Corcoran continued, the president would have done so; no offense was intended. Brandeis scrutinized the release, was silent for a moment, then looked up. He asked Corcoran to thank the president for the courtesy. But “tell your president,” Brandeis said gravely, “he has made a great mistake. All he had to do was wait a little while. I’m sorry for him.” Corcoran wondered what Brandeis meant by “wait,” but lacked the nerve to ask. With that, Brandeis shook the young man’s hand and passed through the red velvet curtain.

Fortunately for all of us Roosevelt’s plans eventually fell apart, and after he died during his fourth term in office, Americans had the common sense to pass legislation preventing a President from staying in power again for so long, in so doing looking back to the example of Washington for inspiration.

So as we near George Washington’s official birthday celebration, we Americans can still hope that the tension between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will provide at least the possibility for compromise, and also for prevent those in power from riding roughshod over the will of the people.  Unlike in countries such as Britain, France, and Russia, the head of the ruling political party in the United States does not always get his way.  And that, in my view at least, is a very good thing indeed, as no doubt Washington himself would agree.

George

Detail of “Portrait of George Washington” by Rembrandt Peale (c. 1823)
The White House

2 Comments

Filed under culture

Pulling Heartstrings on Social Media

Sometimes I may not appreciate being told what to do, but I always resent being told how I ought to feel.  Yet on a daily basis, in matters large and small, I find myself being told that I must have emotional reactions to things as grave as the civil war in Syria, or as trivial as which brand of loo paper will better my life, all couched in the same terms.  Whether you realize it or not, gentle reader, this insidious type of manipulation is happening to you as well, all the time. Only now, it is not only happening in print or television media, but in your social media world as well.

Yesterday afternoon, barring some unforeseen intervention, a dog who shall remain nameless was put down at an animal shelter which shall also remain nameless. Admittedly this is not some new occurrence: it happens every day, all over the United States and indeed around the world.  I only know about it because someone placed this information in my social media timeline. Yet what truly struck me was not so much the plight of the dog, but rather the way in which I learnt of her impending doom.

For you see, the shelter housing the dog tweeted out that unless the dog was rescued by a certain time yesterday afternoon, the dog would be destroyed. This tweet included a picture and brief description of the dog, as well as contact information should the person who saw the tweet decide to save the dog’s life.  Needless to say, I found this rather dramatic.

As an experiment, I decided to share the tweet and see what sort of responses it elicited from my followers.  I asked those who cared to respond what they thought about this tweet, but I did not include any editorial comments of my own.  Rather, I wanted to see what sort of reactions I would receive from a cross-section of people. Admittedly this was not a scientific poll nor a carefully controlled survey, but the results are still instructive.

Reactions were split almost exactly into two equal camps. Half of the respondents were moved by pity to say that the tweet emotionally affected them, and were saddened by their inability to do anything to help the dog. These ranged from expressions of wanting to adopt the dog if they could, to feelings of heartbreak, concern, and so on. I did not have the heart to point out that a visit to the shelter’s profile page would reveal that there were, in fact, dozens of other dogs with the same sad story of nearing death unless they were adopted by a certain deadline.

Others, however, had quite a different reaction to this tweet, including at least one dog owner.

One described the tweet as “cheap” and “sensational”. They felt that the attempt failed to make them feel guilty, however, though they could not explain why it had failed. Another compared the shelter unfavorably to those who post images of dead people on social media to shock people and attract attention for a particular cause, while another said they had never seen anything like it on Twitter before, and did not appreciate it. Still another described the tweet as merely “crass emotional manipulation”.

What was particularly interesting was the fact that some of those whose strongest emotional reaction was pity did not at first appear to realize the effect the impending deadline had on them.  Once this was pointed out to them, upon further reflection several suddenly realized that they were being manipulated. Once they had accepted that there was nothing they could do for the dog, and their initial sense of sorrow for the dog had given way to rationality, they recognized that they had been “handled”.

To my mind, there is something rather more macabre about announcing that you will be killing an animal, than simply doing it quietly. It reminds me a bit of posting a bill at a place of execution such as Tyburn in London, saying that so-and-so will be hanged, drawn, and quartered by order of Bad Queen Bess on such-and-such a day, should you care to come along and bring a picnic lunch. Though of course there is a very important difference here, and that is that animals, much as we may love them, are not human beings. To react to the putting down of a dog as something akin to execution is to hold an imbalanced view one’s place in the natural order.

More to the point of this piece however, this is an example of how a group of people can have completely different reactions to the same information, based on how that information is presented to them. Both editorial boards and advertising agencies have understood for a long time that by playing the emotional heartstrings, the public can be manipulated into doing whatever you want, whether it is selling newspapers to start a war, or asking people to watch a monkey throw excrement from behind a screen. William Randolph Hearst built San Simeon as a result of the former, and Piers Morgan is on CNN because of the latter.

Despite the supposed media-savvy nature of those of us who are Gen-X and younger, Americans are still far too easily influenced by those who whip up an emotional overreaction on the part of their target audience. This is nothing new, of course, for examples abound in American history. Yet so often we focus on national and international issues, analyzing what a pundit or a politician means in a major speech, that we miss the more mundane forms of that level of manipulation when we come across them in daily life.

Therefore pay attention in your social media, gentle reader, the next time you read a tweet or see a post that makes you feel emotional. All human beings feel emotions, but not all emotional reactions are ultimately beneficial. Take the time to ask yourself: do I really agree with what I am being asked to do or believe, here? For oftentimes you will discover that the rational, adult reaction is to take a deep breath, and not allow yourself to be manipulated.

Sargent
“Marionettes” by John Singer Sargent (1903)
Private Collection

5 Comments

Filed under culture

The Example of Martha Washington

This morning a good friend posted a quote from the first of First Ladies, Martha Washington, which I wanted to share with you, gentle reader. We perhaps don’t think of Martha much as an influential figure these days, though she was certainly well-thought of not only in her own day, but as a model both for American First Ladies and indeed for American women who came after her, for many years. Of course, now that even the Daughters of the American Revolution are facing internal controversy over whether they should mention Jesus or not, it is not surprising that we find Martha is not as highly esteemed as she once was, and this is indeed a great shame.

Martha spent most of her life living in the countryside among the Virginia gentry, but she was a woman who rose to the occasion whenever the moment commanded it.  She was both emotionally and physically there, at some of this country’s darkest moments, during the War of Independence.  Yet whatever difficulty beset her, she continued to trust in Divine Providence that God would provide what was needed, and that it was her task to simply pick up and carry on.  In writing to her good friend, the writer and Revolutionary propagandist (and mother of five) Mercy Otis Warren, Martha observed:

I am still determined to be cheerful and happy in whatever situation I may be. For I have also learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions and not upon our circumstances.

Perhaps because she comes off as somewhat grandmotherly, seemingly less dynamic than Abigail Adams or Dolley Madison, Martha Washington does not attract the attention she once did. In an age when women who embrace traditional roles are openly mocked in certain quarters, Martha may seem too much a relic of the past, when women tended the home fires. And as it happens, one of the reasons we know less about her is because after her husband’s death, she burned as many of their letters to each other as she could lay her hands on, as they had agreed. When you consider how long they were married – 40 years – and how often he was away from home, you can imagine the voluminous correspondence that has been lost, which would have given us an even greater insight into her character.

Yet as is so often the case, actions speak louder than words.  For Martha was there at Valley Forge during the famous winter encampment, just when all seemed lost – something which might surprise those who simply think of her as this tiny, country lady who happened to be George Washington’s wife, and who assume (wrongly) that she did little but live in his shadow. She tried to rally and encourage the officers and men, and those of their wives who came to join them, through prayer, song, putting on plays and organizing dinners, visiting the sick, and trying to help the men find relief and the strength to go on despite severe poverty, cold, and deprivation. It is said that at one point she herself ran out of pins, and rather than complain or ask to send for them to Philadelphia, she began to use thorns from brambles around the camp to hold together her clothing.

Whatever contemporary society may tell you about the role of women, remember this great lady, who clearly had the courage to come through unbelievably difficult circumstances to help bring about the birth of this nation. She was a wife, mother, patriot and Christian who was too concerned with doing her duty by God and her neighbor to stay focused on negatives. And for that reason she is an inspiration for all of us, regardless of our sex.

VF

Detail of “Washington at Valley Forge” by Tompkins Harrison Matteson (1854)
Private Collection

Leave a Comment

Filed under culture

A Cool Catholic Nerd: Goodbye, Dave Brubeck

One of the great regrets of my life to date – along with not learning to speak French, which I may still hope to do –  is that I never got the chance to see jazz pianist and composer Dave Brubeck, who died yesterday, perform live in concert.  I came close, once: a couple of years ago my good friend over at Ten Thousand Places alerted me that Mr. Brubeck would be performing at The Kennedy Center, and I learnt that nearly around the same time he would be performing at the Blues Alley jazz club here in Georgetown. We talked about possibly getting a small group of friends together to go see him, but were rather dismayed when all of the tickets sold out within minutes, and were then being scalped online for some astronomically high prices.  For a very old man whose heyday was many decades ago, this is quite a testament to the longevity of his career and his enduring popularity.

Dave Brubeck and his eponymous Quartet became a part of my life largely through the influence of my father.  Dad would tell me about listening to Brubeck, Desmond, et al in high school and college during the late 1950′s/early 1960′s, and how he connected with it and with that era.  I distinctly remember being a young boy and staring intently at the cover of his copy of “Red, Hot, and Cool” from 1955, which I believe my youngest brother has now expropriated for his own collection.

This particular record was released well before the now-legendary “Take Five”, “Blue Rondo a la Turk”, “Three To Get Ready”, and so on from their 1959 “Time Out” album, when Brubeck et al were still growing in popularity.  On the cover we see a group of well-dressed, but admittedly rather nerdy-looking guys, playing music in a smoky jazz club somewhere in New York, laughing it up with a beautiful model in a red dress.  ”That’s what I want,” I would think to myself, as a chubby young piano student with thick glasses and little in the way of social skills.  ”If they can do it, so can I.”

I never did learn to play jazz piano, sticking instead to the classical and the sacred, but neither did I lose my appreciation for Brubeck’s combination of the popular and the cerebral in his performances and compositions; and in fact, the more I came to understand it the more I found it everywhere, in people and things that I admired.  For example, when my favorite Uncle would come to visit us from Madrid, he would sit down at the piano in the living room and play jazz entirely by ear, in a sort of broad, confident style that came from Brubeck’s era.  And as I began to appreciate old movies, I began to hear this sort of playing as it popped up in some of my favorite films, like “All About Eve” (1950) and “Rear Window” (1954) – even though the piano players in those films were not trying to be Dave Brubeck, of course.

Although I own a number of Brubeck albums containing both his original compositions and covers/variations, I must admit that my favorite is “Dave Digs Disney” (1957).  In this recording, the Quartet explores songs from Disney movies, including “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”, “Pinocchio”, “Alice in Wonderland”, and “Cinderella”, among others.  Through the course of the album they take the Disney musical themes and run with them in some creative and innovative ways, a mixture of childlike simplicity with musical complexity and virtuosity, that is truly extraordinary to listen to.

When I was little “Cinderella” was my favorite Disney cartoon, as I dearly loved the two mice Jacques and Gus, and the Quartet’s version of “So This Is Love”, from that film is a real treat for me every time I listen.  There is again a confident but tempered swing in this recording, particularly in Brubeck’s playing, that is paradoxically both smart and popular at the same time.  After Paul Desmond’s portion about midway through the piece, Brubeck gets to have three chances to present his own variations.  Each one builds upon the last, until the third and final variation is just a full-out expression of joy in playing beautiful music on a beautiful instrument.  If you have never heard this composition before, go find it and wait for this moment nearing the end of the piece, and you will see what I mean – and ironically, it did not make the cut on the original release!

As a final note, Brubeck converted to Catholicism a number of years ago, when he was approached to compose the musical settings for the mass.  At the time he was of no particular religious faith, but was so inspired by the experience of composing the “Our Father”, as he described in an interview, that he crossed the Tiber.  Among the many awards he received in his lifetime was the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame at the 2006 Commencement, in recognition for his contributions to the Church and to society.  His brief speech accepting the award, which he kept short so that he could play for the audience, is as follows:

Thank you so much. When I first came into the stadium, I heard a wonderful sound. It was the Concert Band. And I said to myself, ‘”Why didn’t I bring the music I wrote for the Pope that was really for 21 brass?” These guys could really cut that. The reason I wrote it for 21 brass is we were honoring Pope John Paul II in the baseball stadium called Candlestick Park – 72,000 people. And I knew if I had violins and woodwinds, they wouldn’t be heard, but brass…… man, you can hear the brass.

We were supposed to do my Mass with the Pope, but just before that was to start, they informed me that they wanted nine minutes of special music while the Pope came into the stadium in the popemobile. I said, ‘”Well, where is the text?” And they said, “‘Upon this rock, I will build my church and the jaws of Hell cannot prevail against it.” And I said, “‘You want nine minutes on one sentence?” So I turned them down and went to bed and woke up and said, ‘”I know how to do it. I’ll do it like Bach would have done it.” You can use the same sentence over and over if you do a chorale and fugue, and that’s what I did.

Now one of the most nervous days, outside of today, was that day. And all of a sudden, there was kind of a silence when 72,000 people weren’t buzzing and talking. And I looked up and the Pope was looking right at us in the orchestra, the brass. My conductor came over and sat by me on the piano bench and I said, ‘”Did he bless us, or what?” He said, “‘I think he was learning to conduct in 4/4.” Well, it all went very well, but someday Id like to hear it here. It belongs here.

Now I had some kind of serious classical pieces to choose from to play the piano and I’m not going to play any of them. Because you people are going out into the world and you need a piece called “‘Travelin’ Blues.”

Forgive me for saying so, but how cool is THAT?

It is now our turn to wish Mr. Brubeck well, as he travels on his own way to meet his Heavenly Father.  We may feel a bit blue in having lost him, of course.  Yet his smart, cheerful, beautiful music will remain with us, even as we wait to get in and listen to him playing in that magnificent celestial jam session.

Dave

R.I.P. Dave Brubeck (1920-2012)

7 Comments

Filed under culture