The villain in your history
March 7, 2017 12:52 PM Subscribe
The Hamilton Hustle. Why liberals have embraced our most dangerously reactionary founder
Why liberals have embraced our most dangerously reactionary founder
I’m guessing because they liked the tunes.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:01 PM on March 7, 2017 [51 favorites]
I’m guessing because they liked the tunes.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:01 PM on March 7, 2017 [51 favorites]
I was wondering when somebody was going to bring this up...
posted by saulgoodman at 1:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 1:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
It's probably because of the musical! Saved you all some time yeah I'll go read it now
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
All the founders were legitimately pretty terrible, but a brilliant work of alternate history showed us American history as we wish it could be and inspired us to believe in the visionary ideal of America we're still fighting to build, and now more than ever.
But I suppose that not-so-hot take doesn't really lend itself toward 7,000 words of being insufferable.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 1:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [67 favorites]
But I suppose that not-so-hot take doesn't really lend itself toward 7,000 words of being insufferable.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 1:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [67 favorites]
Because Hamilton isn't really about Alexander Hamilton
I wish I could have written it up as well as Todd VanDerWerff did here.
posted by hobgadling at 1:08 PM on March 7, 2017 [34 favorites]
I wish I could have written it up as well as Todd VanDerWerff did here.
posted by hobgadling at 1:08 PM on March 7, 2017 [34 favorites]
It is well near impossible these days to discuss anything without tossing in liberal or conservative as part of the discussion. There were some ten (10) American presidents who owned slave either in office or out of office. Should someone who voted for Democratics in the recent election ignore them in every way imaginable? Even the so called good guys back then kept slaves. Should non whites performing in the musical refuse to perform because of Hamilton was "bad."?
posted by Postroad at 1:09 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 1:09 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I've always believed our nation would have been better off if Burr busted a cap in his ass 20 years earlier.
posted by mikelieman at 1:12 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 1:12 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I don't usually find myself in the position of arguing that we take historical accuracy less seriously, but permit me to make a vigorous jerking-off motion for the next few minutes here.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:13 PM on March 7, 2017 [44 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:13 PM on March 7, 2017 [44 favorites]
The article in question is about Alexander Hamilton and his authoritarian opposition to democracy, preferring oligarchic plutocracy. It is worth reading. I found it less insufferable than Metafilter, ymmv.
posted by ent at 1:21 PM on March 7, 2017 [32 favorites]
posted by ent at 1:21 PM on March 7, 2017 [32 favorites]
I have enjoyed few things as much as telling Hamilton musical fans that actual Hamilton was like the Carl Rove of his day. Not because I think historical accuracy is some requirement for art based on history, but because we are all good theater queen liberals who came to political awareness during the Bush administration.
posted by munchingzombie at 1:22 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by munchingzombie at 1:22 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
The challenge: demand satisfaction
If they apologize, no need for further action
posted by entropicamericana at 1:23 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
If they apologize, no need for further action
posted by entropicamericana at 1:23 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Funny how outsiders always make the best defenders of conservatism. See also Disraeli.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 1:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
7 Other Musicals Lin-Manuel Miranda Wrote About Aaron Burr Killing Someone Before He Landed On ‘Hamilton’
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:27 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:27 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
in his episode of Drunk History, LMM was very clear that Hamilton was a reactionary gaslighting jerk that screwed Burr over. but he conceded that this is all the stuff you can't put in the play.
posted by numaner at 1:30 PM on March 7, 2017 [28 favorites]
posted by numaner at 1:30 PM on March 7, 2017 [28 favorites]
What’s strange about all of this praise is how it presumes that Alexander Hamilton was a figure for whom social justice and democracy were key animating traits. Given how Democrats, in particular, embraced the show and Hamilton himself as a paragon of social justice, you would think that he had fought to enlarge the democratic rights of all Americans. But Alexander Hamilton simply didn’t believe in democracy, which he labeled an American “disease.” He fought—with military force—any model of organizing the American political economy that might promote egalitarian politics. He was an authoritarian, and proud of it.
I find this to be simply, forgive the term, baffling. I am a fan of Hamilton the musical. I have friends who are fans of the Hamilton the musical. Do you know what we all agree on? Alexander Hamilton the person was basically garbage, but it is fun to watch him self-destruct, and Lin-Manuel Miranda did an amazing job of turning his life into a narrative about the American Experience. People have adopted LMM as their hero, based on his creation of the show and his performance. That is not the same thing as crowning the historical A. Ham with "LIBERAL HERO".
People with these hot takes about the show seem to have not even listened to the soundtrack or read the libretto (I excuse them for not having seen it). It's like Guy Fleegman's best line in Galaxy Quest-- "Did you guys ever watch the show?"
Hamilton spends the play letting his ego destroy everything in his life and cutting off his nose to spite his face. The idea that he is the inspirational hero of the musical requires you to have never known anything about the play except that it exists and liberals like it.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:30 PM on March 7, 2017 [101 favorites]
I find this to be simply, forgive the term, baffling. I am a fan of Hamilton the musical. I have friends who are fans of the Hamilton the musical. Do you know what we all agree on? Alexander Hamilton the person was basically garbage, but it is fun to watch him self-destruct, and Lin-Manuel Miranda did an amazing job of turning his life into a narrative about the American Experience. People have adopted LMM as their hero, based on his creation of the show and his performance. That is not the same thing as crowning the historical A. Ham with "LIBERAL HERO".
People with these hot takes about the show seem to have not even listened to the soundtrack or read the libretto (I excuse them for not having seen it). It's like Guy Fleegman's best line in Galaxy Quest-- "Did you guys ever watch the show?"
Hamilton spends the play letting his ego destroy everything in his life and cutting off his nose to spite his face. The idea that he is the inspirational hero of the musical requires you to have never known anything about the play except that it exists and liberals like it.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:30 PM on March 7, 2017 [101 favorites]
This reads like a screed sent forward in time by Jeffersonians/anti-Federalists, or like watching the Fox News Biography of Obama. I haven't read Chernow's book, for example. Can someone who has comment on this article' author's depiction of Chernow and his work as a lying fraud stooge of Wall Street? The author repeatedly accuses Chernow of outright fabrication.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:35 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 1:35 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
This could've been a really interesting article critiquing Chernow's book, informing fans of the Hamilton about things left out of the show, and illuminating the difference between art and history. But the whole thing is framed around a ridiculous conspiracy involving the "highest levels of the political establishment" nurturing Lin to create a propaganda piece to forward an agenda against democracy and "agitat[ing] for rule by big finance." Um, ok.
posted by Mavri at 1:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by Mavri at 1:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [20 favorites]
The idea that he is the inspirational hero of the musical requires you to have never known anything about the play except that it exists and liberals like it.
You don't need to know much more than that to write the contrarian hot (lukewarm, here) take du jour.
posted by praemunire at 1:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
You don't need to know much more than that to write the contrarian hot (lukewarm, here) take du jour.
posted by praemunire at 1:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
What’s strange about all of this praise is how it presumes that Alexander Hamilton was a figure for whom social justice and democracy were key animating traits
OK Google, what is the definition of 'remix'?
posted by capricorn at 1:38 PM on March 7, 2017
OK Google, what is the definition of 'remix'?
posted by capricorn at 1:38 PM on March 7, 2017
This article isn't a hot take about the play. It is a discussion of Hamilton's politics, and how they relate to our politics now. Obviously, the play is a prime driver of why Hamilton is being discussed, but it is okay to have a criticism of historical figures who have recently been popularized and to talk about the actual things that they did and the actual policies that they held.
posted by ent at 1:41 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by ent at 1:41 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Hold up on the resurrection spells, everybody!
posted by Artw at 1:43 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:43 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
> The article in question is about Alexander Hamilton and his authoritarian opposition to democracy, preferring oligarchic plutocracy.
Based on the facebook feeds of every one of my friends who has tweens or teens in the household where the cast album has taken unbreakable hold, all of those kids and most of the parents have read Chernow's biography of Hamilton and yes, they know this!
It's amazing what art can encourage.
posted by rtha at 1:43 PM on March 7, 2017 [27 favorites]
Based on the facebook feeds of every one of my friends who has tweens or teens in the household where the cast album has taken unbreakable hold, all of those kids and most of the parents have read Chernow's biography of Hamilton and yes, they know this!
It's amazing what art can encourage.
posted by rtha at 1:43 PM on March 7, 2017 [27 favorites]
This article isn't a hot take about the play.
The article spends an awful lot of time heaping scorn on deluded liberals who like the play to call it anything BUT a hot take about the play.
Everything this author writes about Hamilton's horrible politics is IN the play. Maybe not the specific incidents that are getting his hackles up, but "Hamilton is The Worst at Most Things Except Writing and Annoying People" is part of the plot.
This is like writing about how stupid people are for loving the play Richard III, because he was a BAD GUY and you shouldn't be a fan of BAD GUYS.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:48 PM on March 7, 2017 [44 favorites]
The article spends an awful lot of time heaping scorn on deluded liberals who like the play to call it anything BUT a hot take about the play.
Everything this author writes about Hamilton's horrible politics is IN the play. Maybe not the specific incidents that are getting his hackles up, but "Hamilton is The Worst at Most Things Except Writing and Annoying People" is part of the plot.
This is like writing about how stupid people are for loving the play Richard III, because he was a BAD GUY and you shouldn't be a fan of BAD GUYS.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:48 PM on March 7, 2017 [44 favorites]
Let's try and take old A.Ham off the $10 again and see how nuanced all the musical fans' opinions of him are again.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:49 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 1:49 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Alexander Hamilton the person was basically garbage... The idea that he is the inspirational hero of the musical requires you to have never known anything about the play except that it exists and liberals like it.
This feels close to me but I'd go even farther.
I'd say that it's simultaneously true that Hamilton as presented seems to have some large flaws of character and ideas that I'd certainly take issue with -- and that he's also at least partly sympathetic, impressive and even inspiring, and perhaps even arguably heroic at some points. As well as being an asshole.
Traveling in the very recent historical wake of figures like, say, Steve Jobs -- or for that matter, certain famous hip-hop figures, which is half the damn point of the musical -- that all seems pretty current, and the amazing achievement is that Hamilton gives us that kind of human picture instead of the hagiography.
There's a lot of different reasons people could love a musical, or this musical. It might be the music, it might be because they found a hero, it might be because they like the complex interplay of different human flavors found in a bio, much like they might like a complex dish.
posted by wildblueyonder at 1:53 PM on March 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
This feels close to me but I'd go even farther.
I'd say that it's simultaneously true that Hamilton as presented seems to have some large flaws of character and ideas that I'd certainly take issue with -- and that he's also at least partly sympathetic, impressive and even inspiring, and perhaps even arguably heroic at some points. As well as being an asshole.
Traveling in the very recent historical wake of figures like, say, Steve Jobs -- or for that matter, certain famous hip-hop figures, which is half the damn point of the musical -- that all seems pretty current, and the amazing achievement is that Hamilton gives us that kind of human picture instead of the hagiography.
There's a lot of different reasons people could love a musical, or this musical. It might be the music, it might be because they found a hero, it might be because they like the complex interplay of different human flavors found in a bio, much like they might like a complex dish.
posted by wildblueyonder at 1:53 PM on March 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
This is such a strange critique because Hamilton the play has almost nothing to say about Hamilton the Founding Father's politics or ideology. The play is almost entirely about the personal drama of his life. No one goes to see Hamilton and comes out a monarchist or with different views about the Federal Reserve. To believe that the play is trying to make any kind of political statement is to see the world through a very bizarrely ideologically blinkered lens. It's very much just a play about the life of a compelling antihero.
The story Hamilton tells about the Founding Fathers is mostly fictional, except in the very broadest sense but most of the stories that have been told about the Founding Fathers for the past few centuries have been mostly fictional. Hamilton just gives non-white people and immigrants new entry-points into these stories, a new sense of personal buy-in and interest.
It might be the music, it might be because they found a hero, it might be because they like the complex interplay of different human flavors found in a bio, much like they might like a complex dish.
For me and I suspect many other non-white people/immigrants, I loved the musical because it took these dead, boring stories I had never cared about or felt remotely connected to, that I remembered mostly within the context of helping my parents memorize facts for their citizenship tests and made me feel emotionally invested in them. Even if it was for superficial reasons. I was just so taken aback at caring about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, for God's sake. Or feeling any sense of personal triumph in the idea of America winning the Revolutionary War. My passion for the play has cooled a bit with time but when I first heard the soundtrack, back in 2015, I felt more American than I think I had ever felt before in my life.
posted by armadillo1224 at 1:59 PM on March 7, 2017 [33 favorites]
The story Hamilton tells about the Founding Fathers is mostly fictional, except in the very broadest sense but most of the stories that have been told about the Founding Fathers for the past few centuries have been mostly fictional. Hamilton just gives non-white people and immigrants new entry-points into these stories, a new sense of personal buy-in and interest.
It might be the music, it might be because they found a hero, it might be because they like the complex interplay of different human flavors found in a bio, much like they might like a complex dish.
For me and I suspect many other non-white people/immigrants, I loved the musical because it took these dead, boring stories I had never cared about or felt remotely connected to, that I remembered mostly within the context of helping my parents memorize facts for their citizenship tests and made me feel emotionally invested in them. Even if it was for superficial reasons. I was just so taken aback at caring about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, for God's sake. Or feeling any sense of personal triumph in the idea of America winning the Revolutionary War. My passion for the play has cooled a bit with time but when I first heard the soundtrack, back in 2015, I felt more American than I think I had ever felt before in my life.
posted by armadillo1224 at 1:59 PM on March 7, 2017 [33 favorites]
This article isn't a hot take about the play.
Well, if you take out all the complaining about liberals worshipping Hamilton and LMM pushing propaganda (accusations that the author doesn't even bother supporting with any evidence), and then squint really hard, sure. But then the article would be about two paragraphs long and not anywhere near as likely to generate clicks.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:00 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Well, if you take out all the complaining about liberals worshipping Hamilton and LMM pushing propaganda (accusations that the author doesn't even bother supporting with any evidence), and then squint really hard, sure. But then the article would be about two paragraphs long and not anywhere near as likely to generate clicks.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:00 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
"worshipping" a musical? Was "Cats" worshipped? What about Bye Bye Birdie"?
It's a song and dance show, it's not a footnoted authoritative text. People like song and dance shows.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 2:05 PM on March 7, 2017
It's a song and dance show, it's not a footnoted authoritative text. People like song and dance shows.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 2:05 PM on March 7, 2017
Also, FYI: The show "Evita" was not 100% accurate and was problematic in its portrayals of some of the characters. Also, Che Guevara wouldn't have ever been near Juan Peron.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 2:07 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by jeff-o-matic at 2:07 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
This article isn't a hot take about the play.
Well then maybe he shouldn't have spent the first 8 paragraphs talking about the play.
posted by Mavri at 2:08 PM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
Well then maybe he shouldn't have spent the first 8 paragraphs talking about the play.
posted by Mavri at 2:08 PM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
Was "Cats" worshipped?
Nobody's really that observant, it's mainly just on Caturdays.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [23 favorites]
Nobody's really that observant, it's mainly just on Caturdays.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [23 favorites]
As I've always said: Burr did nothing wrong.
posted by asteria at 2:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by asteria at 2:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also, FYI: The show "Evita" was not 100% accurate and was problematic in its portrayals of some of the characters. Also, Che Guevara wouldn't have ever been near Juan Peron.
I am told Jesus Christ Superstar is not absolutely faithful to the gospels, but I reject the notion.
Mary, mmm, that is good.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:12 PM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
I am told Jesus Christ Superstar is not absolutely faithful to the gospels, but I reject the notion.
Mary, mmm, that is good.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:12 PM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
The story Hamilton tells about the Founding Fathers is mostly fictional, except in the very broadest sense but most of the stories that have been told about the Founding Fathers for the past few centuries have been mostly fictional.
Now I suppose you're gonna tell me that Henry V didn't really give a speech in pentameter at Agincourt.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:26 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Now I suppose you're gonna tell me that Henry V didn't really give a speech in pentameter at Agincourt.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:26 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
>But I suppose that not-so-hot take doesn't really lend itself toward 7,000 words of being insufferable.
>But then the article would be about two paragraphs long and not anywhere near as likely to generate clicks.
Y'all are being pretty disingenuous here. It's really only the intro* that brings up the musical at all, and the rest is solidly focused on Hamilton's authoritarian background and how that differs from the modern portrayal of his views (by right-wing groups and historians, not just LMM). And, yes, Stoller could've nixed the intro, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss the reason why a particular historical figure has suddenly become relevant.
And as for the people saying that they knew perfectly well Hamilton the person wasn't great but they enjoyed the musical anyways- awesome! So did I. But you can't honestly say that therefore the musical's rosy portrayal won't have any effect on popular perception of Hamilton, and I'm glad there are articles trying to correct the record.
The headline, though, is awful.
*(admittedly relatively lengthy- about 16% of the total article)
posted by perplexion at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
>But then the article would be about two paragraphs long and not anywhere near as likely to generate clicks.
Y'all are being pretty disingenuous here. It's really only the intro* that brings up the musical at all, and the rest is solidly focused on Hamilton's authoritarian background and how that differs from the modern portrayal of his views (by right-wing groups and historians, not just LMM). And, yes, Stoller could've nixed the intro, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss the reason why a particular historical figure has suddenly become relevant.
And as for the people saying that they knew perfectly well Hamilton the person wasn't great but they enjoyed the musical anyways- awesome! So did I. But you can't honestly say that therefore the musical's rosy portrayal won't have any effect on popular perception of Hamilton, and I'm glad there are articles trying to correct the record.
The headline, though, is awful.
*(admittedly relatively lengthy- about 16% of the total article)
posted by perplexion at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
Y'all are being pretty disingenuous here.
But Stoller, as you note, spent nearly 1/5th of the article not just discussing the musical, but as Mavri says above declaring that the musical is propaganda created and promoted by a conspiracy of elites to further the interests of Wall Street.
Like, it's a pretty bizarre statement to make in general, and a really bizarre way to open a piece on a historical figure if what you want is just a discussion of that history. What seems disingenuous is saying that this big, strange part of this article isn't up for discussion. It immediately made me suspicious of everything that came next, which was only deepened by his repeated, strongly-worded attacks backed by almost no evidence or citations.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:49 PM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
But Stoller, as you note, spent nearly 1/5th of the article not just discussing the musical, but as Mavri says above declaring that the musical is propaganda created and promoted by a conspiracy of elites to further the interests of Wall Street.
Like, it's a pretty bizarre statement to make in general, and a really bizarre way to open a piece on a historical figure if what you want is just a discussion of that history. What seems disingenuous is saying that this big, strange part of this article isn't up for discussion. It immediately made me suspicious of everything that came next, which was only deepened by his repeated, strongly-worded attacks backed by almost no evidence or citations.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:49 PM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
I'm not really saying I don't believe in democracy, but it seems like now, of all times, is a particularly terrible time to be pointing at some historical figure and saying, "This person didn't support the way our system turned out, or supported something that turned out poorly, and if you like them then clearly you hate freedom!"
I mean, Hamilton's a terrible model for the sort of person who should be in charge of anything, in the musical or out of it, it just seems like a weird angle. If anything, right now is the least trust in democracy I've ever had in my lifetime. Talking about what happened during that time period as a "defeat of the middle class"--I'm sorry, but I have some reason to suspect that I wouldn't have fared any better in the world the middle class of the 1780s would have wanted to create than this one, so it's hard for me to feel that outraged by the historical machinations of various types of terrible white men trying to figure out which group of terrible white men was going to be in charge.
posted by Sequence at 2:53 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I mean, Hamilton's a terrible model for the sort of person who should be in charge of anything, in the musical or out of it, it just seems like a weird angle. If anything, right now is the least trust in democracy I've ever had in my lifetime. Talking about what happened during that time period as a "defeat of the middle class"--I'm sorry, but I have some reason to suspect that I wouldn't have fared any better in the world the middle class of the 1780s would have wanted to create than this one, so it's hard for me to feel that outraged by the historical machinations of various types of terrible white men trying to figure out which group of terrible white men was going to be in charge.
posted by Sequence at 2:53 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
It just seems outlandish that an important American political official would argue that democracy was an actively bad system.
Does it though? I mean, even if you thought it was outlandish back when you first became aware of Hamilton, does it still? Like now in 2017, even if we are still happily lining up behind democracy, anybody who thinks "you know democracy is actively bad" may not be somebody I agree with, but I sure as hell get why right-minded folk may jump that conclusion.
(On preview: Sequence says it better right above me.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:58 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Does it though? I mean, even if you thought it was outlandish back when you first became aware of Hamilton, does it still? Like now in 2017, even if we are still happily lining up behind democracy, anybody who thinks "you know democracy is actively bad" may not be somebody I agree with, but I sure as hell get why right-minded folk may jump that conclusion.
(On preview: Sequence says it better right above me.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:58 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Haven't finished the article, and I'm not fully taking sides here at the moment. But I learned that quote from Hamilton about "the people, Sir, are a great beast" way, way back in high school, and it's always stuck with me as having some uncomfortable truth to it. I think of it every time I see a Trump voter - because in my interpretation of the quote, that is precisely the danger the line is pointing to.
And also, while I'm not sure I'd be down with the "president for life" thing, on the other hand I've grown pretty damn sick of these utter upheavals we have to endure every four years.
posted by dnash at 3:00 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
And also, while I'm not sure I'd be down with the "president for life" thing, on the other hand I've grown pretty damn sick of these utter upheavals we have to endure every four years.
posted by dnash at 3:00 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
Y'all are being pretty disingenuous here. It's really only the (admittedly relatively lengthy- about 16% of the total article) intro.
Well, the intro and the conclusion - but yes much of it is discussion of the history and criticism of Chernow. I actually think it would maybe have done better to focus more on the text of the musical because it clearly wants to extend its criticism of Chernow to Miranda but seems to fail to elaborate on which parts of Chernow make it into the musical.
But the whole thing is framed around a ridiculous conspiracy involving the "highest levels of the political establishment" nurturing Lin to create a propaganda piece to forward an agenda against democracy and "agitat[ing] for rule by big finance." Um, ok.
It makes an unnecessary leap from "functions as propaganda" - which does not at all require a "conspiracy of elites," only that influential people separately find the message of the work aligns with their interest and choose to amplify it - to the harder-to-argue "designed as propaganda." The Gilder-Lehrman connection is interesting though.
My impression was the Chernow's book and Miranda's musical are both openly revisionist takes on Hamilton, which isn't necessarily a problem as long as the broader context is not hidden. I haven't read the book or seen the musical so I can't say whether the criticism here is fair. (The songs I know are Not Really My Thing, but they're not aiming to be.)
posted by atoxyl at 3:09 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, the intro and the conclusion - but yes much of it is discussion of the history and criticism of Chernow. I actually think it would maybe have done better to focus more on the text of the musical because it clearly wants to extend its criticism of Chernow to Miranda but seems to fail to elaborate on which parts of Chernow make it into the musical.
But the whole thing is framed around a ridiculous conspiracy involving the "highest levels of the political establishment" nurturing Lin to create a propaganda piece to forward an agenda against democracy and "agitat[ing] for rule by big finance." Um, ok.
It makes an unnecessary leap from "functions as propaganda" - which does not at all require a "conspiracy of elites," only that influential people separately find the message of the work aligns with their interest and choose to amplify it - to the harder-to-argue "designed as propaganda." The Gilder-Lehrman connection is interesting though.
My impression was the Chernow's book and Miranda's musical are both openly revisionist takes on Hamilton, which isn't necessarily a problem as long as the broader context is not hidden. I haven't read the book or seen the musical so I can't say whether the criticism here is fair. (The songs I know are Not Really My Thing, but they're not aiming to be.)
posted by atoxyl at 3:09 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
It just seems outlandish that an important American political official would argue that democracy was an actively bad system.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just really puzzled...are you genuinely unaware that democracy was a tremendously controversial idea in western Europe at the time that the events of Hamilton took place and that it was by no means clear how it could be effectively and safely implemented? If not, why would it be "outlandish" to you that leading American political figures of the time would have significantly varying attitudes towards it?
Look at any revolutionary government, especially of the early modern period, and you will generally find that it is made up of people with a wide spectrum of political views.
posted by praemunire at 3:12 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just really puzzled...are you genuinely unaware that democracy was a tremendously controversial idea in western Europe at the time that the events of Hamilton took place and that it was by no means clear how it could be effectively and safely implemented? If not, why would it be "outlandish" to you that leading American political figures of the time would have significantly varying attitudes towards it?
Look at any revolutionary government, especially of the early modern period, and you will generally find that it is made up of people with a wide spectrum of political views.
posted by praemunire at 3:12 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Am I the only one who can't really distinguish the Matts Stoller and Taibbi?
posted by PMdixon at 3:20 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by PMdixon at 3:20 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Space Coyote: Let's try and take old A.Ham off the $10 again and see how nuanced all the musical fans' opinions of him are again.
Most of the reaction I saw there was because people had been agitating to take the genocidal Andrew Jackson off the $20, and it got diverted to the $10. Hamilton had his issues, as did pretty much every "Founding Father" in some way or another, but he wasn't Jackson-level, and at least n my sphere people were pretty annoyed by the dodge. And Treasury Secretary Lew did eventually change course (though who knows if that will stick under orange Mussolini.)
I personally would like to see a rotation of all sorts of people, same as the UK does.
posted by tavella at 3:21 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Most of the reaction I saw there was because people had been agitating to take the genocidal Andrew Jackson off the $20, and it got diverted to the $10. Hamilton had his issues, as did pretty much every "Founding Father" in some way or another, but he wasn't Jackson-level, and at least n my sphere people were pretty annoyed by the dodge. And Treasury Secretary Lew did eventually change course (though who knows if that will stick under orange Mussolini.)
I personally would like to see a rotation of all sorts of people, same as the UK does.
posted by tavella at 3:21 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
The only way this can be settled, as I can see it, is for someone to produce a Jefferson musical, and then challenge Lin-Miranda with a trial by combat at an obscure spot below the New Jersey cliffs.
It might make more sense.
posted by runcifex at 3:47 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
It might make more sense.
posted by runcifex at 3:47 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
dnash: "I learned that quote from Hamilton about "the people, Sir, are a great beast" way, way back in high school, and it's always stuck with me as having some uncomfortable truth to it. I think of it every time I see a Trump voter - because in my interpretation of the quote, that is precisely the danger the line is pointing to. "
This idea -- that the people are untrustworthy, with the obvious corollary that they should not be trusted with political power -- is the subject of another salvo from the same issue of the Baffler that came out today. Angela Nagle's Enemies of the People begins:
As we veer into a brave new age of right-wing populism, a restive mood of contempt for the masses has seized the opposition. Demoralized liberals, still reeling from the debacle of the 2016 presidential ballot, are salving their wounds with reveries of metaphysical superiority...
In but one representative sample of the growing allergy to ordinary people within contemporary liberalism, HBO pundit Bill Maher airily informed Trump campaign spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway during a pre-election interview that her candidate was gaining popular support “because people are stupid.” The tone was strikingly similar in outlets of respectable liberal opinion. In response to the rise of the populist right in Britain and the United States, Foreign Policy magazine ran a title-says-it-all essay under the headline “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses.” One History News Network contributor weighed in during the early phase of the GOP primaries with the anguished cry, “Just How Stupid Are We?”
Rule by the elite -- it's not just for Republicans anymore!
posted by crazy with stars at 3:50 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
This idea -- that the people are untrustworthy, with the obvious corollary that they should not be trusted with political power -- is the subject of another salvo from the same issue of the Baffler that came out today. Angela Nagle's Enemies of the People begins:
As we veer into a brave new age of right-wing populism, a restive mood of contempt for the masses has seized the opposition. Demoralized liberals, still reeling from the debacle of the 2016 presidential ballot, are salving their wounds with reveries of metaphysical superiority...
In but one representative sample of the growing allergy to ordinary people within contemporary liberalism, HBO pundit Bill Maher airily informed Trump campaign spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway during a pre-election interview that her candidate was gaining popular support “because people are stupid.” The tone was strikingly similar in outlets of respectable liberal opinion. In response to the rise of the populist right in Britain and the United States, Foreign Policy magazine ran a title-says-it-all essay under the headline “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses.” One History News Network contributor weighed in during the early phase of the GOP primaries with the anguished cry, “Just How Stupid Are We?”
Rule by the elite -- it's not just for Republicans anymore!
posted by crazy with stars at 3:50 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
I tend to believe Jackson will always be on there, just as a "fuck you" to his memory forevermore. "We got a bank! Neener neener!"
posted by hleehowon at 3:53 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by hleehowon at 3:53 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
But I learned that quote from Hamilton about "the people, Sir, are a great beast" way, way back in high school, and it's always stuck with me as having some uncomfortable truth to it. I think of it every time I see a Trump voter - because in my interpretation of the quote, that is precisely the danger the line is pointing to.
Yeah, definitely. It exhausts me, but enough of "the people" voted for him to be terrifying.
posted by corb at 3:57 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah, definitely. It exhausts me, but enough of "the people" voted for him to be terrifying.
posted by corb at 3:57 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
I wonder how many fans of the musical went on to listen to other hip-hop.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 3:57 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Strange_Robinson at 3:57 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I tend to believe Jackson will always be on there, just as a "fuck you" to his memory forevermore. "We got a bank! Neener neener!"
Little known fact: Jackson is entombed under the lobby of the NY Fed and every incoming Fed Chair is required to dance over the location.
posted by PMdixon at 3:58 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Little known fact: Jackson is entombed under the lobby of the NY Fed and every incoming Fed Chair is required to dance over the location.
posted by PMdixon at 3:58 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I've always believed our nation would have been better off if Burr busted a cap in his ass 20 years earlier.
Burr wasn't much of a bargain. A deadbeat whore monger who married for money (gambled with it, too) and schemed to have the US take over Florida and Mexico.
As to Hamilton - Broadway, like Hollywood, is no place to learn history, that's just a given.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:03 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Burr wasn't much of a bargain. A deadbeat whore monger who married for money (gambled with it, too) and schemed to have the US take over Florida and Mexico.
As to Hamilton - Broadway, like Hollywood, is no place to learn history, that's just a given.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:03 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
hleehowon: I tend to believe Jackson will always be on there, just as a "fuck you" to his memory forevermore. "We got a bank! Neener neener!"
See also:
Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson...
The Corrupt Bargain:
All you educated people can talk about liberty
But do you really want the American people running their own country?
Populism Yea Yea:
Why wouldn't you ever go out with me in school?
You always went out with those guys
Who thought they were so cool.
And I was just nobody to you,
Nobody to you, nobody to you.
But it's the early 19th century
And we're gonna take this country back
From people like us who don't just think about things
People who make things happen.
Sometimes with guns
Sometimes with speeches too.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:06 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
See also:
Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson...
The Corrupt Bargain:
All you educated people can talk about liberty
But do you really want the American people running their own country?
Populism Yea Yea:
Why wouldn't you ever go out with me in school?
You always went out with those guys
Who thought they were so cool.
And I was just nobody to you,
Nobody to you, nobody to you.
But it's the early 19th century
And we're gonna take this country back
From people like us who don't just think about things
People who make things happen.
Sometimes with guns
Sometimes with speeches too.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:06 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Next you're going to tell me the characters in RENT were horrible, too.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:08 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:08 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
where the fuck were all these very serious people when I was vainly trying to argue, to a world that did not care, that Mozart wasn't a complicated machine built to produce equal amounts of fart jokes and concertos and Salieri wasn't a sexy god-hating murder monster slash resentment factory, even though Amadeus was still the greatest movie in the world, because art is a different thing from truth and truth is a different thing from fact, and read all of Mozart's letters, which have plenty of wit and subtlety and melancholy in them, if you don't believe me?
oh right they were ignoring me because I was eleven
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:16 PM on March 7, 2017 [39 favorites]
oh right they were ignoring me because I was eleven
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:16 PM on March 7, 2017 [39 favorites]
The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780s and 1790s, both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy. The Obama political elite, in other words, celebrates Hamilton not in spite of Hamilton’s anti-democratic tendencies, but because of them.
You lost me there.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:33 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
You lost me there.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:33 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Next you're going to tell me the characters in RENT were horrible, too.
Oh. Well, you didn't see the student production we saw in Toronto that had an all-white cast* who were not...in key, let's just say.**
* Except the guy playing Angel, who was the saving grace of the show and was very good, which was important because dog help you if "Today 4 U" doesn't work. We probably would have walked out at that point, and we're not walk-out people.
** Not entirely their fault as individual performers. I think their program director gave them a book that was a little more than they could handle as a cast. He should have given them something that they could have performed solidly, and having seen an interview with him about the show, it was pretty clear he didn't get the context for the show he was making his college students do.
Anyway, I'm derailing, but this kind of relates.
From the Baffler piece:
Hamilton lost, but not without bequeathing to later American citizens a starkly stratified political economy. Bouton argues that the defeats of the middle class in the 1780s and 1790s narrowed democracy for everyone. As poor white men found the freedoms for which they fought undermined by a wealthy elite, they in turn “tried to narrow the concept to exclude others.” Much of the turn toward a more reactionary version of white supremacy in the early 1800s, in other words, can be laid at Hamilton’s feet. Later on, Hamilton’s financial elite were ardently in favor of slave power. Manhattan, not any Southern state, was the first political entity to follow South Carolina’s call for secession, because of the merchants’ financial and cultural ties to the slave oligarchy. In other words, Hamilton’s unjust oligarchy of money and aristocracy fomented a more unjust oligarchy of race. The aggrieved rites of ethnic, racial, and cultural exclusion evident in today’s Trump uprising would no doubt spark a shock of recognition among the foes of Hamilton’s plutocracy-in-the-making.
So, in my humble view, the way Hamilton as a musical is intentionally and actually cast is a way of pointing out, "Oh, hey - you realize what this points about the protagonist and his whole political milieu, right?" Because it gives the audience some credit and frees itself from needing to be painfully didactic on that point. YMMV, etc.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:38 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Oh. Well, you didn't see the student production we saw in Toronto that had an all-white cast* who were not...in key, let's just say.**
* Except the guy playing Angel, who was the saving grace of the show and was very good, which was important because dog help you if "Today 4 U" doesn't work. We probably would have walked out at that point, and we're not walk-out people.
** Not entirely their fault as individual performers. I think their program director gave them a book that was a little more than they could handle as a cast. He should have given them something that they could have performed solidly, and having seen an interview with him about the show, it was pretty clear he didn't get the context for the show he was making his college students do.
Anyway, I'm derailing, but this kind of relates.
From the Baffler piece:
Hamilton lost, but not without bequeathing to later American citizens a starkly stratified political economy. Bouton argues that the defeats of the middle class in the 1780s and 1790s narrowed democracy for everyone. As poor white men found the freedoms for which they fought undermined by a wealthy elite, they in turn “tried to narrow the concept to exclude others.” Much of the turn toward a more reactionary version of white supremacy in the early 1800s, in other words, can be laid at Hamilton’s feet. Later on, Hamilton’s financial elite were ardently in favor of slave power. Manhattan, not any Southern state, was the first political entity to follow South Carolina’s call for secession, because of the merchants’ financial and cultural ties to the slave oligarchy. In other words, Hamilton’s unjust oligarchy of money and aristocracy fomented a more unjust oligarchy of race. The aggrieved rites of ethnic, racial, and cultural exclusion evident in today’s Trump uprising would no doubt spark a shock of recognition among the foes of Hamilton’s plutocracy-in-the-making.
So, in my humble view, the way Hamilton as a musical is intentionally and actually cast is a way of pointing out, "Oh, hey - you realize what this points about the protagonist and his whole political milieu, right?" Because it gives the audience some credit and frees itself from needing to be painfully didactic on that point. YMMV, etc.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:38 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Sometimes I wonder how Aaron Burr's phantom empire would have turned out. The guy was a proto-abolitionist, and a proto-feminist, and a proto-socialist(???), so it couldn't have been all bad.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:59 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 4:59 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
My favorite thing about Hamilton is the way they reflect the philosophical tensions that are still relevant today. Democracy (B&W) vs Elitism (J&H), Partisanship (B&J) vs Noblesse Oblige (W&H).
I'm hesitant to put too much at Hamilton's feet regarding a stratified political economy. The other candidate was the Jeffersonian model of farming, subsidized heavily by slavery. The racism was baked into all of the options all policies would be tainted during a roll-out because policy reflects society.
I mean, yes, he was F You Got Mine like noones' business. But only in the way the token poor immigrant allowed into the circle of elites can be. It's a survival strategy.
posted by politikitty at 4:59 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I'm hesitant to put too much at Hamilton's feet regarding a stratified political economy. The other candidate was the Jeffersonian model of farming, subsidized heavily by slavery. The racism was baked into all of the options all policies would be tainted during a roll-out because policy reflects society.
I mean, yes, he was F You Got Mine like noones' business. But only in the way the token poor immigrant allowed into the circle of elites can be. It's a survival strategy.
posted by politikitty at 4:59 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
> I wonder how many fans of the musical went on to listen to other hip-hop.
Hi!
posted by rtha at 5:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
Hi!
posted by rtha at 5:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I quit reading when he deliberately distorted the meaning of the Chernow quotation from Time he used.
posted by epj at 6:04 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by epj at 6:04 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
The sense I get is that he used Hamilton, the popular pop culture sensation, as his hook to talk about the serious policy issue he really wanted to talk about, and so that's why we get this piece that has some interesting ideas but comes off pretty disingenuous.
Anyway, if you'd like to read a better, less conspiracy-theory-oriented version of this essay, read this piece from Harper's last fall. I'm side-eyeing Stoller a bit because there's no way he didn't read that and it's pretty interesting that he doesn't mention it at all .
posted by lunasol at 6:47 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Anyway, if you'd like to read a better, less conspiracy-theory-oriented version of this essay, read this piece from Harper's last fall. I'm side-eyeing Stoller a bit because there's no way he didn't read that and it's pretty interesting that he doesn't mention it at all .
posted by lunasol at 6:47 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
The only way this can be settled, as I can see it, is for someone to produce a Jefferson musical...
Assuming it's two hours of Daveed Diggs in purple velvet, I'm there.
posted by rokusan at 7:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Assuming it's two hours of Daveed Diggs in purple velvet, I'm there.
posted by rokusan at 7:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Assuming it's two hours of Daveed Diggs in purple velvet, I'm there.
Um, why settle for two when you can have four?
Or six?
Or eight, maybe. Eight, tops.
posted by praemunire at 7:32 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Um, why settle for two when you can have four?
Or six?
Or eight, maybe. Eight, tops.
posted by praemunire at 7:32 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
I'd say that it's simultaneously true that Hamilton as presented seems to have some large flaws of character and ideas that I'd certainly take issue with -- and that he's also at least partly sympathetic, impressive and even inspiring, and perhaps even arguably heroic at some points. As well as being an asshole.
Everybody's got their plusses and minusses. This sums it up exactly. He's an asshole at times, kinda heroic at times, interesting to watch with his drama at all times.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:39 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Everybody's got their plusses and minusses. This sums it up exactly. He's an asshole at times, kinda heroic at times, interesting to watch with his drama at all times.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:39 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
This article annoyed me and not because of its take on the musical.
Hamilton was a late 18th century politician. He had 18th century opinions. If you try to take a modern progressive understanding of what "side" he'd be on with various issues you're being hopelessly anachronistic to begin with. But relative to others of his time you would probably find him worse on many things and better on many things.
America after the revolutionary war was not on the verge of becoming an economically egalitarian and democratic state. The alternative to Hamilton was not Eugene V. Debs. Jefferson can sound egalitarian today because he basically thought southern style white yeoman farmers were the universe. Hamilton, for all his contempt for the mobs, had a sympathy for landless skilled laborers rare among his compatriots.
The spin on race is especially one-sided:
Bouton argues that the defeats of the middle class in the 1780s and 1790s narrowed democracy for everyone. As poor white men found the freedoms for which they fought undermined by a wealthy elite, they in turn “tried to narrow the concept to exclude others.” Much of the turn toward a more reactionary version of white supremacy in the early 1800s, in other words, can be laid at Hamilton’s feet.
They even pull this last sentence out as a pull quote. But what they're laying at "Hamilton's feet" is that racist fucks acted like racist fucks and maybe they wouldn't have if only they'd got everything they wanted. Which, again, wasn't going to happen.
Jackson killed Hamilton's US Bank and didn't move the country the right direction on race. Other influential actors included states rights fanatic Calhoun, or Thomas Jefferson writing privately to people urging them not free their slaves. But if only Hamilton weren't there with high interest rates a half century earlier everything would have been OK?
Later on, Hamilton’s financial elite were ardently in favor of slave power.
Meh. Industrialists and capitalists--Hamilton's other elite heirs--were opposed to slavery. A big chunk was self interest (the capitalist ideology wanted free labor to exploit and to enable policies that favored industry over agriculture) but they were often surprisingly ahead in the anti-slavery fight. Pure financial types weren't on that side because Jefferson's southern elite (to use the author's framing) still controlled the overwhelming majority of the nation's capital.
So it's complicated? There's a lot about Hamilton to dislike, and if the article framed itself as something other than totally earnest I'd be fine with highlighting the warts now that he's having his day in the sun.
posted by mark k at 9:56 PM on March 7, 2017 [21 favorites]
Hamilton was a late 18th century politician. He had 18th century opinions. If you try to take a modern progressive understanding of what "side" he'd be on with various issues you're being hopelessly anachronistic to begin with. But relative to others of his time you would probably find him worse on many things and better on many things.
America after the revolutionary war was not on the verge of becoming an economically egalitarian and democratic state. The alternative to Hamilton was not Eugene V. Debs. Jefferson can sound egalitarian today because he basically thought southern style white yeoman farmers were the universe. Hamilton, for all his contempt for the mobs, had a sympathy for landless skilled laborers rare among his compatriots.
The spin on race is especially one-sided:
Bouton argues that the defeats of the middle class in the 1780s and 1790s narrowed democracy for everyone. As poor white men found the freedoms for which they fought undermined by a wealthy elite, they in turn “tried to narrow the concept to exclude others.” Much of the turn toward a more reactionary version of white supremacy in the early 1800s, in other words, can be laid at Hamilton’s feet.
They even pull this last sentence out as a pull quote. But what they're laying at "Hamilton's feet" is that racist fucks acted like racist fucks and maybe they wouldn't have if only they'd got everything they wanted. Which, again, wasn't going to happen.
Jackson killed Hamilton's US Bank and didn't move the country the right direction on race. Other influential actors included states rights fanatic Calhoun, or Thomas Jefferson writing privately to people urging them not free their slaves. But if only Hamilton weren't there with high interest rates a half century earlier everything would have been OK?
Later on, Hamilton’s financial elite were ardently in favor of slave power.
Meh. Industrialists and capitalists--Hamilton's other elite heirs--were opposed to slavery. A big chunk was self interest (the capitalist ideology wanted free labor to exploit and to enable policies that favored industry over agriculture) but they were often surprisingly ahead in the anti-slavery fight. Pure financial types weren't on that side because Jefferson's southern elite (to use the author's framing) still controlled the overwhelming majority of the nation's capital.
So it's complicated? There's a lot about Hamilton to dislike, and if the article framed itself as something other than totally earnest I'd be fine with highlighting the warts now that he's having his day in the sun.
posted by mark k at 9:56 PM on March 7, 2017 [21 favorites]
I think people are missing--or arguing past, to other issues--what the article tries to accomplish. The Baffler tends to be--especially lately--about dragging back The Left from being a cultural identity to an economic focus. As with founder Thomas Frank's recent book, "Listen, Liberal".
Hamilton is an expensive musical to see, playing in exclusive venues, and it's easy to see how those out of those loops can get annoyed at how those raving about the musical seem like they're bragging about being in an exclusive club.
And then the fact that it's in service of--and I admit I haven't seen it--giving a gloss to this Founding Father who while not being unique in his badness (Jefferson is more centrally associated with slavery) tried to build into the fabric of the newly forming nation a top-heavy economic system. One could argue that the top-heavy economic priorities are still the number-one problem of our nation. I think Hamilton's distrust of democracy and mob rule was more about preventing people like Bernie Sanders from gaining power than people like Donald Trump. I think the issue of which economic class's interests matter more is still with us in nearly unaltered form from Hamilton's time.
That Hamilton rose from modest means only supports the neoliberal emphasis on opportunity over redistribution. Better to celebrate (or at least marvel) that a few brave exceptions are able to rise up, than to intervene and constrain the plans of the job-creators.
This contrast: that well-off liberals love it while it normalizes a man whose legacy was advocating for priority for the rich, that's meat for The Baffler.
posted by Schmucko at 10:44 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Hamilton is an expensive musical to see, playing in exclusive venues, and it's easy to see how those out of those loops can get annoyed at how those raving about the musical seem like they're bragging about being in an exclusive club.
And then the fact that it's in service of--and I admit I haven't seen it--giving a gloss to this Founding Father who while not being unique in his badness (Jefferson is more centrally associated with slavery) tried to build into the fabric of the newly forming nation a top-heavy economic system. One could argue that the top-heavy economic priorities are still the number-one problem of our nation. I think Hamilton's distrust of democracy and mob rule was more about preventing people like Bernie Sanders from gaining power than people like Donald Trump. I think the issue of which economic class's interests matter more is still with us in nearly unaltered form from Hamilton's time.
That Hamilton rose from modest means only supports the neoliberal emphasis on opportunity over redistribution. Better to celebrate (or at least marvel) that a few brave exceptions are able to rise up, than to intervene and constrain the plans of the job-creators.
This contrast: that well-off liberals love it while it normalizes a man whose legacy was advocating for priority for the rich, that's meat for The Baffler.
posted by Schmucko at 10:44 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
The alternative to Hamilton was not Eugene V. Debs. Jefferson can sound egalitarian today because he basically thought southern style white yeoman farmers were the universe.
Uh, what about the guy who actually slew Hamilton? The society that bears his name seems a little kooky, but if the links I posted earlier were accurate, Aaron Burr seems pretty proto-progressive in his views. In personality and actions he was probably not so laudable, but still.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:06 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Uh, what about the guy who actually slew Hamilton? The society that bears his name seems a little kooky, but if the links I posted earlier were accurate, Aaron Burr seems pretty proto-progressive in his views. In personality and actions he was probably not so laudable, but still.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:06 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Hamilton is an expensive musical to see, playing in exclusive venues, and it's easy to see how those out of those loops can get annoyed at how those raving about the musical seem like they're bragging about being in an exclusive club.
This is something I hear a bunch, except I think it ends up being more of a class-based argument (and also one based on interests and tastes) rather than a strictly economic one. It's weird because I know plenty of people obsessed with the show who have never seen it and perhaps never will. Insofar as theater goes, Hamilton is about as accessible as it gets, with the album, containing 99.997% of the entire show, streaming free on YouTube, carefully annotated lyrics posted free online, and a whole community online devoted to the show. And as rtha noted above, so many people have come to learn the history in much more depth because of the show; you've actually got tweens reading the Chernow book and loving it. But I don't think this argument is entirely invalid, because that perception is fairly common. And that's certainly driven by the fact that Hamilton fans tend to fit certain demographic profiles.
More broadly, I think there's a tension over the fact that some conservatives have explicitly called out Hamilton's "rise up" narrative as vindication for their ideas. It's something we see a whole bunch, with people pointing to some "model immigrant" who achieved success and asking why everyone else can't be like them, as they ignore systemic factors that make such outcomes the exception and not the rule. It's hard to celebrate one person's success without it being used to put others down.
posted by zachlipton at 1:23 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
This is something I hear a bunch, except I think it ends up being more of a class-based argument (and also one based on interests and tastes) rather than a strictly economic one. It's weird because I know plenty of people obsessed with the show who have never seen it and perhaps never will. Insofar as theater goes, Hamilton is about as accessible as it gets, with the album, containing 99.997% of the entire show, streaming free on YouTube, carefully annotated lyrics posted free online, and a whole community online devoted to the show. And as rtha noted above, so many people have come to learn the history in much more depth because of the show; you've actually got tweens reading the Chernow book and loving it. But I don't think this argument is entirely invalid, because that perception is fairly common. And that's certainly driven by the fact that Hamilton fans tend to fit certain demographic profiles.
More broadly, I think there's a tension over the fact that some conservatives have explicitly called out Hamilton's "rise up" narrative as vindication for their ideas. It's something we see a whole bunch, with people pointing to some "model immigrant" who achieved success and asking why everyone else can't be like them, as they ignore systemic factors that make such outcomes the exception and not the rule. It's hard to celebrate one person's success without it being used to put others down.
posted by zachlipton at 1:23 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
if the links I posted earlier were accurate, Aaron Burr seems pretty proto-progressive in his views
Aaron Burr tricked New Yorkers (including Hamilton) into thinking he was going to give them clean water and then built a bank instead with the money. He married his daughter off to further his political obsessions, ultimately leading to her death. I don't think he really works well for a progressive hero, either.
posted by corb at 5:16 AM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
Aaron Burr tricked New Yorkers (including Hamilton) into thinking he was going to give them clean water and then built a bank instead with the money. He married his daughter off to further his political obsessions, ultimately leading to her death. I don't think he really works well for a progressive hero, either.
posted by corb at 5:16 AM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
Am I the only one who can't really distinguish the Matts Stoller and Taibbi?
Stoller thinks he's smarter than you because you're an idiot. Taibbi thinks he's smarter than you because he's a genius.
posted by Etrigan at 5:27 AM on March 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
Stoller thinks he's smarter than you because you're an idiot. Taibbi thinks he's smarter than you because he's a genius.
posted by Etrigan at 5:27 AM on March 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
I think people are missing--or arguing past, to other issues--what the article tries to accomplish. The Baffler tends to be--especially lately--about dragging back The Left from being a cultural identity to an economic focus. As with founder Thomas Frank's recent book, "Listen, Liberal".
So here's the thing - arguments that make a point about Hamilton's financial exclusivity without noting its noticeable racial inclusivity sound a hell of a lot of other arguments we've heard over the past few years that have somehow put economics above all else, and even occasionally accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals.
So some of us are side eyeing the fuck out of this shit.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:04 AM on March 8, 2017 [15 favorites]
So here's the thing - arguments that make a point about Hamilton's financial exclusivity without noting its noticeable racial inclusivity sound a hell of a lot of other arguments we've heard over the past few years that have somehow put economics above all else, and even occasionally accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals.
So some of us are side eyeing the fuck out of this shit.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:04 AM on March 8, 2017 [15 favorites]
The Baffler tends to be--especially lately--about dragging back The Left from being a cultural identity to an economic focus.
I can't really get on-board with the version of that project that Jacobin is doing and this is even more sloppily executed.
posted by PMdixon at 7:12 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I can't really get on-board with the version of that project that Jacobin is doing and this is even more sloppily executed.
posted by PMdixon at 7:12 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Insofar as theater goes, Hamilton is about as accessible as it gets, with the album, containing 99.997% of the entire show, streaming free on YouTube, carefully annotated lyrics posted free online, and a whole community online devoted to the show.
I paid one (1) dollar for the original cast recording on sale at Google Play. I'm sure Stoller's last lunch cost more than that.
posted by praemunire at 8:43 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
I paid one (1) dollar for the original cast recording on sale at Google Play. I'm sure Stoller's last lunch cost more than that.
posted by praemunire at 8:43 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
I've been subjected to select songs of half to two thirds of the musical, on repeat, many times, and as a non American I had zero idea Hamilton the actual person was shitty.
As a casual listener, I was left thinking Hamilton was sympathetic and potentially righteous. Cabinet battles anyone? I mean, a central bank seems like a good idea.
posted by pmv at 9:25 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
As a casual listener, I was left thinking Hamilton was sympathetic and potentially righteous. Cabinet battles anyone? I mean, a central bank seems like a good idea.
posted by pmv at 9:25 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
So here's the thing - arguments that make a point about Hamilton's financial exclusivity without noting its noticeable racial inclusivity sound a hell of a lot of other arguments we've heard over the past few years that have somehow put economics above all else
Watching a Brown Hamilton with a White Audience (Code Switch)
posted by Space Coyote at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2017
Watching a Brown Hamilton with a White Audience (Code Switch)
posted by Space Coyote at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2017
as a non American I had zero idea Hamilton the actual person was shitty.
Well, that's Stoller's thesis, but I think he's got a lot more work to do to prove it. As people have said above, Hamilton was a man of parts. He did some good stuff and some bad stuff. I tend on balance to be sympathetic to him, in part because I think Jefferson was an incredible egomaniac, but YMMV.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:49 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, that's Stoller's thesis, but I think he's got a lot more work to do to prove it. As people have said above, Hamilton was a man of parts. He did some good stuff and some bad stuff. I tend on balance to be sympathetic to him, in part because I think Jefferson was an incredible egomaniac, but YMMV.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:49 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Watching a Brown Hamilton with a White Audience (Code Switch)
Right, but we've already discussed how actually seeing Hamilton live on Broadway isn't the only way to experience Hamilton - it'd be absurd to say that the people who are fans of the show are the ones that have seen it in person, considering the phenomena. I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of gatekeeping that comes with going to a Broadway show, but the majority of Hamilton fans are never going to step foot onto Broadway anyway.
This is also very much not the argument that the FPP is making. The FPP manages to ignore the racial aspect of Hamilton completely, except to trash the idea that Hamilton was an abolitionist with very little to back that up (the truth, of course, is a lot muddier, but Hamilton was a hell of a lot better than Jefferson was on this subject).
We can have intersectional critiques on Hamilton, and there have been plenty in the past (especially regarding how white fans of the musical react to it). The FPP is not it.
posted by dinty_moore at 11:14 AM on March 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
Right, but we've already discussed how actually seeing Hamilton live on Broadway isn't the only way to experience Hamilton - it'd be absurd to say that the people who are fans of the show are the ones that have seen it in person, considering the phenomena. I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of gatekeeping that comes with going to a Broadway show, but the majority of Hamilton fans are never going to step foot onto Broadway anyway.
This is also very much not the argument that the FPP is making. The FPP manages to ignore the racial aspect of Hamilton completely, except to trash the idea that Hamilton was an abolitionist with very little to back that up (the truth, of course, is a lot muddier, but Hamilton was a hell of a lot better than Jefferson was on this subject).
We can have intersectional critiques on Hamilton, and there have been plenty in the past (especially regarding how white fans of the musical react to it). The FPP is not it.
posted by dinty_moore at 11:14 AM on March 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
As a casual listener, I was left thinking Hamilton was sympathetic and potentially righteous. Cabinet battles anyone?
It's so interesting how readings vary - Cabinet battles were the beginning of my viewing Hamilton as nuanced instead of "the hero". He's an asshole in those battles; JAQing off, gratuitous insults, and ending in a threat of violence in the first exchange.
"Madison, you’re mad as a hatter, son, take your medicine // Damn, you’re in worse shape than the national debt is in // Sittin' there useless as two shits // Hey, turn around, bend over, I’ll show you where my shoe fits"
Some of his rhetoric is solid - slavery was a major issue and why the South was more prosperous since they owned people - but most of it is flourish not substance. I was really reminded of some of the worst of MetaFilter in his cabinet battles, and he doesn't always win (rightly). Granted, the other side wasn't much better - but that's what makes it interesting to me. Re-seeing the Founding Fathers as a bunch of 20/30-somethings who think they're hot shit really reframed the Revolution for me and gave me a different way to view current conflicts as well.
A lot of times, Liberals not "falling in line" is treated like a weakness - as if we could just jettison our finer feelings and obey some agreed upon central authority we would be better. I don't tend to agree in general (though sometimes I do in specific' I contain multitudes), and this is one of those places where it feels like people are mistaking a new frame for history for blanket approval of history.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:00 PM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
It's so interesting how readings vary - Cabinet battles were the beginning of my viewing Hamilton as nuanced instead of "the hero". He's an asshole in those battles; JAQing off, gratuitous insults, and ending in a threat of violence in the first exchange.
"Madison, you’re mad as a hatter, son, take your medicine // Damn, you’re in worse shape than the national debt is in // Sittin' there useless as two shits // Hey, turn around, bend over, I’ll show you where my shoe fits"
Some of his rhetoric is solid - slavery was a major issue and why the South was more prosperous since they owned people - but most of it is flourish not substance. I was really reminded of some of the worst of MetaFilter in his cabinet battles, and he doesn't always win (rightly). Granted, the other side wasn't much better - but that's what makes it interesting to me. Re-seeing the Founding Fathers as a bunch of 20/30-somethings who think they're hot shit really reframed the Revolution for me and gave me a different way to view current conflicts as well.
A lot of times, Liberals not "falling in line" is treated like a weakness - as if we could just jettison our finer feelings and obey some agreed upon central authority we would be better. I don't tend to agree in general (though sometimes I do in specific' I contain multitudes), and this is one of those places where it feels like people are mistaking a new frame for history for blanket approval of history.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:00 PM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
As a casual listener, I was left thinking Hamilton was sympathetic and potentially righteous.
I mean, I get this, but casual listeners of "Born in the USA" think it is a patriotic anthem.
It's a similar situation-- the show has lots of hits that get you riled up for AMERICAAAAA, but the arc of the full libretto is "why did everyone who knew this dude try to erase him from our cultural consciousness?" One of the most moving songs about doing what's right in the face of overwhelming opposition is "Hurricane", and taken out of context, it is very inspirational. Hamilton finds himself very inspirational.
Except in the play it is a glimpse into the extreme self-centeredness and lack of perspective Hamilton has about himself, as he makes a plan to publish the details of his sordid affair because...question mark? He thought people would like him more for adultery than embezzlement? He thought humiliating his wife was a good call? He thought his political enemies would back off if he destroyed his career all by himself?
Even the cabinet battles are full of him destroying alliances, being treacherous and petty, and George Washington telling him to shut up. The fact that he is witty and occasionally right while all those things happen doesn't mean he's any less self-destructive.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:56 PM on March 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
I mean, I get this, but casual listeners of "Born in the USA" think it is a patriotic anthem.
It's a similar situation-- the show has lots of hits that get you riled up for AMERICAAAAA, but the arc of the full libretto is "why did everyone who knew this dude try to erase him from our cultural consciousness?" One of the most moving songs about doing what's right in the face of overwhelming opposition is "Hurricane", and taken out of context, it is very inspirational. Hamilton finds himself very inspirational.
Except in the play it is a glimpse into the extreme self-centeredness and lack of perspective Hamilton has about himself, as he makes a plan to publish the details of his sordid affair because...question mark? He thought people would like him more for adultery than embezzlement? He thought humiliating his wife was a good call? He thought his political enemies would back off if he destroyed his career all by himself?
Even the cabinet battles are full of him destroying alliances, being treacherous and petty, and George Washington telling him to shut up. The fact that he is witty and occasionally right while all those things happen doesn't mean he's any less self-destructive.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:56 PM on March 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals
Independently of this whole "Hamilton" debate, elites most certainly do engage in that. When and where is of course debatable, but it's a phenomenon that should not be dismissed out of hand. Monied interests can astroturf both the right and the left. Any activist needs to be aware if their cause is being coopted as part of a larger business strategy.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:05 PM on March 8, 2017
Independently of this whole "Hamilton" debate, elites most certainly do engage in that. When and where is of course debatable, but it's a phenomenon that should not be dismissed out of hand. Monied interests can astroturf both the right and the left. Any activist needs to be aware if their cause is being coopted as part of a larger business strategy.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:05 PM on March 8, 2017
Apocryphon, the problem is that focus on things like trans rights and abortion rights are dismissed as counterproductive distractions by a certain grain of liberal, because they don't see what that has to do with economics and might alienate 'likely voters'. So that anything that might fall under 'identity politics' is somehow less worth fighting for than economic justice - never mind how much those things tie into each other.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:30 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by dinty_moore at 1:30 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's true that such partisans exist, especially on Twitter and blogs, but I think usually what you have are different types of liberals with different priorities, and most people don't actually think that there are issues not worth fighting for. They just disagree about which issues should be dealt with first, or the approach with fighting injustice as a whole.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:36 PM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:36 PM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
tend on balance to be sympathetic to him, in part because I think Jefferson was an incredible egomaniac, but YMMV.
I think Hamilton is more effective as a trashing of Jefferson (despite his being played by the delectable Diggs) than a promotion of Hamilton himself. It'll probably take a couple of decades for Jefferson's middlebrow reputation to recover from "A civics lesson from a slaver? Hey, neighbor/ Your debts are paid 'cause you don't pay for labor!"
posted by praemunire at 1:37 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I think Hamilton is more effective as a trashing of Jefferson (despite his being played by the delectable Diggs) than a promotion of Hamilton himself. It'll probably take a couple of decades for Jefferson's middlebrow reputation to recover from "A civics lesson from a slaver? Hey, neighbor/ Your debts are paid 'cause you don't pay for labor!"
posted by praemunire at 1:37 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's true that such partisans exist, especially on Twitter and blogs, but I think usually what you have are different types of liberals with different priorities, and most people don't actually think that there are issues not worth fighting for. They just disagree about which issues should be dealt with first, or the approach with fighting injustice as a whole.
I mean, they're on Metafilter. We've had weeks of these discussions in the election threads about who to reach out to after the election. I really don't want to revisit them, but they're there for all to see. This also seems like a derail - I'm not really interested in who exactly thinks these things as much as whether you can get a whiff of these ideas off of the FPP.
The FPP is about Obama as much as it about Hamilton. Stoller argued that there wasn't really any difference between Obama and Romney in 2012; he hasn't exactly been a fan of Clinton, either. He does have a long history of looking at recent progressive history in a way that ignores race and gender - for some reason it seems like it's never occurred to him that the souring of the white working class on welfare happened right after black people got more access to it. Hell, the article he wrote on liberals post-watergate essentially argues that liberals focused too much on civil rights for the last few decades. So yeah, I don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:57 PM on March 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
I mean, they're on Metafilter. We've had weeks of these discussions in the election threads about who to reach out to after the election. I really don't want to revisit them, but they're there for all to see. This also seems like a derail - I'm not really interested in who exactly thinks these things as much as whether you can get a whiff of these ideas off of the FPP.
The FPP is about Obama as much as it about Hamilton. Stoller argued that there wasn't really any difference between Obama and Romney in 2012; he hasn't exactly been a fan of Clinton, either. He does have a long history of looking at recent progressive history in a way that ignores race and gender - for some reason it seems like it's never occurred to him that the souring of the white working class on welfare happened right after black people got more access to it. Hell, the article he wrote on liberals post-watergate essentially argues that liberals focused too much on civil rights for the last few decades. So yeah, I don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:57 PM on March 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
Hell, the article he wrote on liberals post-watergate essentially argues that liberals focused too much on civil rights for the last few decades.
This is a mischaracterization.
Here's the link for those who wish to make up their own mind. It's a better article than the one that prompted this post.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 2:17 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
This is a mischaracterization.
Here's the link for those who wish to make up their own mind. It's a better article than the one that prompted this post.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 2:17 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
Here's the link for those who wish to make up their own mind. It's a better article than the one that prompted this post.
This is actually a fantastic article - the 60s Left were right about civil rights, the environment, the war, but it's the challenge of the left now to reconcile their tradition with the New Deal economic populist tradition.
even occasionally accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals.
Nothing to side-eye about this followed by this? Come on - criticism of feminist-washing/antiracist-washing of power should not be conflated with dismissal of feminist and antiracist struggles.
posted by atoxyl at 2:36 PM on March 8, 2017
This is actually a fantastic article - the 60s Left were right about civil rights, the environment, the war, but it's the challenge of the left now to reconcile their tradition with the New Deal economic populist tradition.
even occasionally accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals.
Nothing to side-eye about this followed by this? Come on - criticism of feminist-washing/antiracist-washing of power should not be conflated with dismissal of feminist and antiracist struggles.
posted by atoxyl at 2:36 PM on March 8, 2017
the 60s Left were right about civil rights
And if Stoller says they weren't I missed it, I mean. It doesn't look to me like he's arguing that, it looks to me like he's arguing that in prioritizing the battles of their time - there's no question there was plenty of racism in the old populist Democrats - the American Left of this era lost track of things that turn out also to be important.
posted by atoxyl at 2:41 PM on March 8, 2017
And if Stoller says they weren't I missed it, I mean. It doesn't look to me like he's arguing that, it looks to me like he's arguing that in prioritizing the battles of their time - there's no question there was plenty of racism in the old populist Democrats - the American Left of this era lost track of things that turn out also to be important.
posted by atoxyl at 2:41 PM on March 8, 2017
I think I accidentally posted the same Goldman Sachs tweet twice, the first link was just going to be one of several examples of how - like every dubiously ethical corporation but you mentioned "finance" - they are "celebrating Womens' Day."
even occasionally accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals.
I would not accuse liberals, broadly, of being unable to see through this, but it seems hard to dispute that they do try.
posted by atoxyl at 2:50 PM on March 8, 2017
even occasionally accuse the financial elite of putting an 'identity politics' veneer on a more conservative financial ideology to dupe liberals.
I would not accuse liberals, broadly, of being unable to see through this, but it seems hard to dispute that they do try.
posted by atoxyl at 2:50 PM on March 8, 2017
This is a mischaracterization.
Here's the link for those who wish to make up their own mind. It's a better article than the one that prompted this post.
There are two uses of the word "union" in here and one is to imply a Democrat worked to undermine unions at the behest of finance. You can't talk about a shift in the priorities of the Democratic party without an extensive discussion of the trajectory of union membership unless you're writing presentist ahistorical garbage.
posted by PMdixon at 3:59 PM on March 8, 2017
Here's the link for those who wish to make up their own mind. It's a better article than the one that prompted this post.
There are two uses of the word "union" in here and one is to imply a Democrat worked to undermine unions at the behest of finance. You can't talk about a shift in the priorities of the Democratic party without an extensive discussion of the trajectory of union membership unless you're writing presentist ahistorical garbage.
posted by PMdixon at 3:59 PM on March 8, 2017
Now that is definitely in the spirit of Hamilton!
posted by Strange_Robinson at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Strange_Robinson at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
You can't talk about a shift in the priorities of the Democratic party without an extensive discussion of the trajectory of union membership
This is true but the relationship between the importance of unions and the priorities of the Democratic party may be bidirectional, no?
There are two uses of the word "union" in here and one is to imply a Democrat worked to undermine unions at the behest of finance.
I'm not sure that's what it says, actually, at least not directly? It says the new generation of Democrats distanced themselves from the labor contingent because many of them were seen as being on the wrong side of the Vietnam and racial issues, while not necessarily having the same populist instincts on other issues. I don't happen to know whether this is an accurate assessment of either side - I would be very interested to know more if you do.
posted by atoxyl at 5:22 PM on March 8, 2017
This is true but the relationship between the importance of unions and the priorities of the Democratic party may be bidirectional, no?
There are two uses of the word "union" in here and one is to imply a Democrat worked to undermine unions at the behest of finance.
I'm not sure that's what it says, actually, at least not directly? It says the new generation of Democrats distanced themselves from the labor contingent because many of them were seen as being on the wrong side of the Vietnam and racial issues, while not necessarily having the same populist instincts on other issues. I don't happen to know whether this is an accurate assessment of either side - I would be very interested to know more if you do.
posted by atoxyl at 5:22 PM on March 8, 2017
This is true but the relationship between the importance of unions and the priorities of the Democratic party may be bidirectional, no?
Yes, there is feedback. However, by 1974 union membership had already fallen from it's 50s peak of roughly 30% to roughly 20%, more than it's decreased since. Unions were already weakened by the time of the events discussed.
. I don't happen to know whether this is an accurate assessment of either side - I would be very interested to know more if you do.
This is something where I've read a variety of competing accounts about the usual story that you give, and I'm not qualified to evaluate them. However, I won't let that stop me from saying that I find it a much more plausible story that for a significant bloc the elimination of unions as a vehicle for pursuit of economic self interest led to pursuit of the next most important priority, viz, punching hippies and being racist - et voila, "Reagan Democrats" and the culture wars.
posted by PMdixon at 5:41 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yes, there is feedback. However, by 1974 union membership had already fallen from it's 50s peak of roughly 30% to roughly 20%, more than it's decreased since. Unions were already weakened by the time of the events discussed.
. I don't happen to know whether this is an accurate assessment of either side - I would be very interested to know more if you do.
This is something where I've read a variety of competing accounts about the usual story that you give, and I'm not qualified to evaluate them. However, I won't let that stop me from saying that I find it a much more plausible story that for a significant bloc the elimination of unions as a vehicle for pursuit of economic self interest led to pursuit of the next most important priority, viz, punching hippies and being racist - et voila, "Reagan Democrats" and the culture wars.
posted by PMdixon at 5:41 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Vietnam and unions, now that's a complicated question. It's one I underappreciate since I was born after. You've got the Hard Hat Riot. There's the Clinton and Goldwater connection from that time. She loves, loved Kissinger.
Then you have all the establishment types seeing the military in an intstrumental fashion. They all love talking about sacrifice they'll never have to make. I mean, who was the last dove?
Vietnam is the stabbed in the back myth. It seems so obvious now.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 5:43 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Then you have all the establishment types seeing the military in an intstrumental fashion. They all love talking about sacrifice they'll never have to make. I mean, who was the last dove?
Vietnam is the stabbed in the back myth. It seems so obvious now.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 5:43 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is something where I've read a variety of competing accounts about the usual story that you give
See while I was aware of the death of the Southern Democrat post civil-rights-era, and the rise of the student left, and the later realignment of the party, the idea that the last of those could be an unintended consequence of the former is fairly new to me. That's why I thought it was a really interesting article. But I would like to learn more about e.g. what was actually going on between labor, old Democrats, and New Democrats because I suspect it is in fact a complicated story.
posted by atoxyl at 9:05 PM on March 8, 2017
See while I was aware of the death of the Southern Democrat post civil-rights-era, and the rise of the student left, and the later realignment of the party, the idea that the last of those could be an unintended consequence of the former is fairly new to me. That's why I thought it was a really interesting article. But I would like to learn more about e.g. what was actually going on between labor, old Democrats, and New Democrats because I suspect it is in fact a complicated story.
posted by atoxyl at 9:05 PM on March 8, 2017
I actually read the Chernow book and saw the musical, AND I have a storage locker in Queens that has a variety of history degrees from accredited institutions, so I feel I have huge credibility and must immediately comment on this Blue thread or the world will never know my profound wisdom. Anyway, my take, FWIW, is that Chernow's entire thesis is that Hamilton was incredibly complex and complicated and the most shocking part about him is how he had become a footnote to history when he was in the midst of everything for 20 years or so. And Hamilton the musical more or less replicates that framing (seriously -- try reading the book right before or after seeing the play and experience amazement at how much LMM jams into the lyrics directly from Chernow). So the Stoller article is honestly to me the worst kind of nonsense. It tries to force-fit Alexander Hamilton's complexity into a 2017 set of categories (as several of y'all have noted), it repeatedly makes assertions without support, it uses current definitions of democracy and financial equality in an anachronistic way. I mean, you could sum up all of Chernow in "this dude was super complicated" and all of Miranda as "I want to tell a story about immigrants and dreams unfilled and unrestrained passion leading to tragedy....hey, this guy will do" and you wouldn't be that far off. No matter what the actual 18th Century son of a whore and a Scotsman might have thought about any of the major financial or representational crises, the musical is a clear note in favor of all that is good in the world. And so saying liberals are misrepresenting Hamilton and he's reactionary or sedevacantist or whatever just makes no sense -- I guess that you can argue that people are getting excited about a musical and its message and that the man behind it was not as clear-cut, if you really wanted to. And isn't "beastmaster" one word?
posted by Vcholerae at 12:33 AM on March 9, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by Vcholerae at 12:33 AM on March 9, 2017 [15 favorites]
The musical "Hair", I have heard, contains many Whigs.
posted by benzenedream at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
When asked at school for someone considered a hero, my LO said "John Laurens", because he's the only one who comes out of Hamilton without having lived long enough to betray his inspiring ideals.
Being the UK, the teacher had to look him up. We explained to the LO that even in the US few people would have known who he was.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:15 PM on March 13, 2017
Being the UK, the teacher had to look him up. We explained to the LO that even in the US few people would have known who he was.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:15 PM on March 13, 2017
« Older The Mail Order American Dream | Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:55 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]