Apollo 11--Apogee of White America?

 Watched the documentary film Apollo 11 last night. Seeing it 54 years after the original offered a certain perspective, not to mention color and clarity.

Couldn't help noticing the almost 100 percent white male control room and the almost 100 percent white audience at Cape Canaveral viewing in person.  The film didn't make a point of either, though I'm sure it wasn't by chance the camera passed over one woman in the control room and a couple blacks watching. The film was shot in 1969 with the sensibilities of the time, so I'm guessing it didn't miss much. I'm sure there was a sizeable TV audience of blacks, but few would have had the time and money to travel to the Cape.  I can only guess the feelings of the black watchers; possibly discomfort at being one in a thousand, possibly participating in the sort of nationalistic pride most may have felt, or possibly just enjoying the spectacle.

Apollo 11 was a peculiarly white endeavor; IIRC many black leaders questioned spending the money on space rather than domestic needs. The black participants in the effort were hidden. See Hidden Figures.  So it seemed an white American success, perhaps with a little credit to the German scientists who immigrated to Alabama after WWII. 

In 1969 LBJ had been driven from office, so Tricky Dick got to call the astronauts after their recovery. We'd seen the assassinations of MLK and RFK, and the country was sharply divided.  The immigration laws had been reformed in 1965 but it was too early to see their effect.  We were still on the gold standard and inflation was starting to be a concern. 

I don't know how modern historians place the moonshot in the flow of American life.  I suspect many have considered it a sideshow, an assessment which may be changing as we try to get back to the moon and then to Mars. 

I Remember the Lord's Prayer

 Sometime in the early 1950's our morning routine in my school changed.  IIRC at just before 8 am the principal would come the loudspeaker system (in each classroom) with any announcements.  Then we'd all stand with hands across our hearts and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  (A pledge changed to add the words "under God" during those years.)

The change was adding the Lord's Prayer to the routine. At various times my mother and sister both taught Sunday School.  My paternal great grandparents and my grandfather were all ministers. Early on I was very into Sunday School and the singing in our local Methodist church (no nearby Presbyterian churches). But by the mid-50's I turned against religion, considering myself to be an agnostic.  (Now I claim to be an atheist.) So at sometime I stopped saying the Lord's Prayer.  It was a bit uncomfortable.  I don't remember whether anyone conforted me; if they did the fact my father was school board chair was protection (though I never told dad of my stand).

Holton and Constitution

 Reading Woody  Holton "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution".  Some arguments he stresses:

• the Founding Fathers wanted to strengthen the national government more than they actually did in the constitution, because they knew they needed popular support to get it ratified, even after they reduced the required number of states to ratify it from the 13 (required in the Articles of Confederation) to 9.  
• Some debtors wanted sound money being optimistic about borrowing in Europe and the prospects for prosperity. 
• Most state taxes were tariffs (disproportionately aiding MA, NY, PA as opposed to CN, DE, NJ, etc.) and direct taxes--poll taxes and property. Founding Fathers assumed that national government would assume debts and pay using tariff revenues, which would mean a transfer of burden from the states with less import activity to those with a lot. 

Overall it's a reminder that what "history" books describe are a selection of episodes and people, but only they only represent the tip of the iceberg.  For example, the Shays Rebellion was the most visible and biggest episode of resistance to taxes levied to support the wartime debts of the states and to fund the government of the Articles of Confederation. But Holton describes a wide variety of actions in the various states with similar motives and causes for action.

KISS and the Constitution

 Reading Woody Holton's "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution".

I'm about halfway through but already have a reaction.  It's KISS, meaning "keep it simple, stupid'.  And that's what the Constitution did, at least partially. Holton's describing the conditions of the 1780's, and the conflicts which led to the writing and adoption of the Constitution.  Holton describes things, but doesn't see them as follows:

• the state of the currency and of state finances was poor, meaning that state legislatures had tried many measures to obtain money to pay off the obligations from the Revolution and to maintain the government.  While Holton is a good writer, I found the overall picture very confusing.  
• Americans found it hard or impossible to borrow money from the British or on the Continent.  They blamed the devaluing of bond issues and paper currency for damaging American credit.

Seems to me that the Brits, the European bankers, might well have been as confused as I am.  After all, you had 13 different states doing things with no consistency.  I assume that before the Revolution each colony had a network of contacts in the UK government and the banking community which had the knowledge and background to assess what was happening in the colony. That network was disrupted by the Revolution.  The Revolution also meant more interaction among the colonies/states, calling for more knowledge and familiarity with events in the sister states.  The British Empire had had the effect of simplifying things; the Revolution undid things and created complexity.

The Constitution was a step to simplifying things again. We'd still have a decentralized banking system, but by 1800 the issues of the wartime debts were clarified as the federal government took over responsibility.   

Upward Mobility

 Ran across a statistic about the Forbes 400 billionaires so did a search with this result:

"When we first created the self-made score [see the article for an explanation of how they scored], we went back and assigned scores for the members of  the 1984 list. Less than half of them were self-made. By 2014, 69% of the list was deemed self-made. Fast forward to the present list, and that figure has inched up to 69.5%. All but one of the 18 newcomers this year are self-made.   [Oprah Winfrey is an example of someone who's entirely self made]

I don't know how this compares to other nations.  But China is an easy case:

The pandemic has proved no match for China’s wealth juggernaut. The total wealth of the China’s 400 Richest soared to $2.11 trillion, from $1.29 trillion a year earlier. The 64% gain was due to the easing of capital-market rules and an economic rebound that enabled China to pull ahead of the world’s other large economies in recovering from the pandemic. Nearly two-thirds of the listees saw their fortunes climb in the past year. The minimum net worth needed to make the list rose to $1.55 billion, compared with $1 billion a year ago. 

While not everyone on this list is also on the overall Forbes list, we can, I think, assume that many (almost all?) of the Chinese billionaires (I still have trouble comprehending the concept when typing it) are "self-made".  Some proportion of them are likely children or grandchildren of the bigwigs of the original Chinese communist party. 

What's Good in America?

 From Cesar Hidalgo comes a twitter thread describing three things he finds good about America (although he's leaving for more academic opportunity in France).

A tweet:

Today I am leaving the US.
With my family we are exploring a new life in the south of France.
I’ve been in the US for more than 16 years. I earned my citizenship & experienced many ups & downs. But I am grateful. The US was good to me in many ways ...
/1 pic.twitter.com/YRIQrvxbsP

— César A. Hidalgo (@cesifoti) October 17, 2020

My summary of the thread:

• people value quality work (over cost)
• people value entertainment, even in speaking to business audiences
• our bureaucracy is simple!!! 

Let me expand on the last item, since it is so surprising.

He's talking specifically about the running of a small business, and comparing it to the notary-ridden bureaucracy in countries whose legal codes are based on Roman law, not common law. I think it might be related to the De Soto thesis, arguing the need for well-defined and documented property ownership.

Our Schizoid History-I

 Someday I may write more on this, but here's a placeholder: Throughout our history white America has had a schizoid attitude towards slavery, possibly an attitude also found in England and elsewhere.

• on the one hand slavery is bad, the worst thing possible.  It's what Americans feared, or at least said they feared from British rule.  You can see it in the pamphlets leading up to the Revolution, and you can see it in our national anthem.  (Britain's "Rule Britannia" also claims "Britons will never be slaves" in its second line.)
• on the other hand, of course, slavery is legal in some places until 1865.

In Partial Defense of Andy Jackson

Protesters tried to take down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Park last night.

Jackson's reputation has suffered a great decline since his salad days.  Even as late as 2007 Iowa Democrats were holding Jefferson-Jackson day dinners, and Obama made the speech which was key to winning the primary in 2008.

Let me quote a paragraph from near the closing of the speech--why is Obama running?

Because I will never forget that the only reason that I’m standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn’t popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world.

 Implicitly this ties back to his acknowledgement of the occasion near the beginning of the speech:

This party -- the party of Jefferson and Jackson, of Roosevelt and Kennedy -- has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose -- a higher purpose. And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that’s the party America needs us to be right now.

That's my partial defense of Andrew Jackson. According to the way I was taught, the progression of America has been from:

"all men are created equal" where the definition of "men" is implicitly:

•  white men owning property, 
• almost all white men (except felons and Native Americans?)
• almost all men (except felons and Native Americans?)
• almost all adults (except felons)

Jefferson represents the first step, Jackson the second step, Lincoln the third.

Yes, I know Jackson was a slaveowner, a mean man, a bigot. Worst of all, he's the embodiment of America's first original sin (first in my mind if not in popular usage)--its mistreatment of Native Americans.

I don't mind taking down statues of whomever, but it shouldn't cloud our view of history, with all its complexities.

[Updated:  the discussions of Jackson I've seen have focused on the Trail of Tears and his populism/democratic stands, as I did above.  What we all miss is his preservation of the Union, resisting Calhoun and South Carolina over the nullification issue.. Had Jackson allowed SC to prevail, the union might have dissolved.  Definitely the advantages over the South the North had in population and industry in 1860 which allowed it to prevailed in the Civil War were not there.]

Tom Friedman in NYTimes

Last week Friedman had a doom and gloom op-ed in the Times, rather surprising given his past optimism.  He argues three trends have made the world more fragile:

Over the past 20 years, we’ve been steadily removing man-made and natural buffers, redundancies, regulations and norms that provide resilience and protection when big systems — be they ecological, geopolitical or financial — get stressed. We’ve been recklessly removing these buffers out of an obsession with short-term efficiency and growth, or without thinking at all.

At the same time, we’ve been behaving in extreme ways — pushing against, and breaching, common-sense political, financial and planetary boundaries.

And, all the while, we’ve taken the world technologically from connected to interconnected to interdependent — by removing more friction and installing more grease in global markets, telecommunications systems, the internet and travel. In doing so, we’ve made globalization faster, deeper, cheaper and tighter than ever before. Who knew that there were regular direct flights from Wuhan, China, to America?

Today he returns with an even more gloomy one, at least by title:

"I am not at all certain we will be able to conduct a free and fair election in November or have a peaceful transition of presidential power in January. We are edging toward a cultural civil war, only this time we are not lucky: Abraham Lincoln is not the president.

He goes on to segue into praise of local leaders, since he's given up on national leadership/Republicans.

The "doom and gloom" phrase dates back to the 1950's, when Ike attacked Democrats for spreading doom and gloom.  It's a hint that I think Friedman is unreasonable in his fears.   For example, the current pandemic will, I think, kill many fewer people than the 1918-20 one.  Why? Mostly because of our advanced science and communications.  The world is fighting it together, not as together as it could be, but much more so than in 1918.

Another example: the current riots are much less serious than in 1964-68--they don't reflect a racial division nearly as serious as then, mostly because conditions have improved greatly since then. 

The Wearing of Hats

One of the things which fascinate me is the wearing of hats in the US.

If you look at pictures showing massed men in the 1920's/30's, as in unemployment lines or baseball stadiums, you see all the men wearing hats.  There also seems to be a lot of uniformity in dress, like business suits, but the hats are the easiest to see.

Recently I noticed a picture of Abraham Lincoln addressing a crowd, I think the 2nd Inaugural, and noticed his audience was also wearing hats.  The picture wasn't as clear as more modern ones, but it looks as if there's a bit less uniformity in the types of hats being worn.  In another photograph his audience in front is hat wearing, the big shots behind him are hat carrying, mostly top hats.

When you google "when did American men stop wearing hats" the first result is an Esquire article saying hat wearing started to decline in the later 1920's.  Why--perhaps because more people were in cars so they were less needed and some were more awkward to wear.

This NPR page has good comparison pictures and blames Ike but also cars.

Neither of the pieces comment on the change which seems apparent to me--fewer hats correlates with greater variety in menswear.

The Lack of Governmental Infrastructure

One of things crisis  fighters run into is the lack of governmental infrastructure. 

In the Great Recession a bit part of the problem in helping people whose houses were under water was the lack of any infrastructure which had direct contact with mortgagees.  Instead people like Geithner had to design programs to work through banks, but because the mortgages often had been been sold on/collateralized from the original loan maker it wasn't an effective program.

We now come to 2020 and Covid-19.  The programs under discussion now want to make direct payments to people.  But the government doesn't have that infrastructure.  The best we can do is write checks to those who filed a tax return with IRS in the past, but that obviously misses a lot of people: those who weren't required to file, those who joined the country more recently, those who never filed a tax return--i.e., tax evaders.

Count Me a Pollyanna

I know President Trump has support for his China policy from many Democratic politicians and in academia and the chattering classes.  The conventional wisdom today seems to be we need to be tough on China on intellectual property issues and other non-tariff issues.  That's not an endorsement of Trump's specific decisions on tariffs.

I may be naive, I think in the long run, maybe the long long run, that policy is ill-advised.  That feeling isn't based on much knowledge, but these are pointers:

• Theft of intellectual property might be bad, but it seems also true that it's not always easy to exploit stolen ideas.  Ideas rely on a network, a specific environment for their implementation and and further development.
• "theft" of ideas is applying a concept which applies to personal or real property to intellectual things.  Another way to look at it is that the "theft" means additional minds working on scientific and technical issues, coming up with new property which, if shared with the world, can help all of us.
• In the bad old days of the cold war it was reasonable to worry about theft of weapons designs. These days there's no country with an ideology of world domination.
• We used to dream of the US as a model for the world (see the Gettysburg Address).  We're losing that dream.

Fact--China has 7 times more African students than the US.

Our Vanishing Churches--a Miscellany

That's the title of John Phipps post on AGweb.  It's an eloquent analysis of the plight of small rural churches, getting smaller as the community shrinks, and as their religion seems less relevant.

The Post has an article on the vanishing churches of DC.  It attributes the decline to black congregations moving to the suburbs.  But the article notes that some congregations are moving into alternate spaces, rentals, homes, movie theaters, rather than the traditional church building.  (A building, which IMHO, often was a status symbol, displaying the wealth and therefore spiritual devotion of the congregation.

The Post has another article on Lutheran ministers riding circuit--a couple handling five churches. As is mentioned in the article, Methodists have often used the process--the church my parents married in was Methodist and by the time I arrived, it was one of three churches being served by one minister.

My grandfather at the end of his career as a Presbyterian minister was sort of a roving troubleshooter in the Dakotas, much of his time apparently dealing with the issues of declining membership.  That's a trend which has only continued.

Connectedness: the NYTimes Map

The NYTimes has an interactive map showing how people are connected by Facebook, which allows them to show the impact of distance: briefly, our friends are close, physically.  The data is at the county level, so they can show which counties people in Fairfax county are closest to (all VA counties plus DC, no MD counties).

It's good to play with.  As their final analysis, they show how the US divides if you divide areas by closeness of connections.  So if you divide the US into 2 parts, they're Hawaii and the rest of the country.  As a failed historian, I was fascinated to see that only at the 20 part division did the Mason Dixon line show up. 

Japan and America

Via Marginal Revolution, a Mental Floss post of 10 tips for Japanese visiting the US.  Provides a glimpse of the cultural differences between the societies.

U.S. Is Okay

Two observations about the current state of life in the U.S:

• a new book getting rave reviews is a sociologist's study of evictions in Minneapolis  One bit repeated in each of the reviews I've seen: one of the renters who was evicted spent her money, much to the disgust of the author, on a lobster dinner with many trimmings.  Her explanation was something to the effect that "she wanted to".   It's a sign of a great country.
• on the way to the Kennedy Center from Reston we turn off Interstate 66 onto the road which leads to the road which passes by the Watergate on the way to the Kennedy Center.  The road passes under an overpass, which has some homeless people seeking shelter.  Over the years they've moved into real tents.  (The kind with an external frame.)  Progress is being made.

David Plouffe says: "Everything is going to be okay." in his interview with Glenn Thrush at Politico

And see this Fallows piece (referring to a previous post and Warren Buffett) 

[Updated--see Kevin Drum's take.]