Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
I second Helen’s good wishes. Have a happy Independence Day.
Even so, I should mention that I am still a little sore that you had to go and secede from such a nice German fellow as George III., of all people. I hope you won’t mind when I sulk a bit while you celebrate.
Fortunately, there’s a cure for that. Please excuse me while I withdraw to provide a substantial stimulus to the American bourbon industry in your honor…
A very happy Independence Day week-end from this side of the Pond. I still prefer to think of it as a great event in the history of the Anglosphere but I do get ticked off by various people. Have a great time guys and remember: the dark days do not last for ever. (Well, so we have been telling ourselves for some time.)
When Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, he was very concerned with the need to maintain positive relationships among the Allies. General Lord Ismay, in his memoirs, gives some insight into just how seriously Eisenhower took this aspect of command. In one case, following a serious fracas between a British and an American officer:
..(Eisenhower) came to the conclusion, after a careful consideration of all the evidence, that it was the American who was in the wrong. He ordered him to be dismissed from the Staff and sent back to the United States. The British officer who had been embroiled pleaded for him ‘He only called me a son-of-a-bitch, sir, and all of use have now learnt that this is a colloquial expression which is sometimes used almost as a term of endearment, and should not be taken too seriously.’ To which Eisenhower replied, ‘I am informed that he called you a British son-of-a-bitch. That is quite different. My ruling stands.’ (emphasis added)
I was reminded of this story (taken from this post in my Leadership Vignettes series) by Obama’s behavior toward the British, most recently in the case of the BP fiasco. One of the first things he did on assuming office was to send back the Churchill bust in his office. This was followed by the giving of inappropriate and quite narcissistic gifts, and now by the needlessly offensive assault on BP. Eisenhower, the lifelong soldier, evidently understood something about nuance and diplomacy in interpersonal communications. Obama, who has been positioned as a new-age-y kind of guy, more sensitive and diplomatic than the cowboys he replaced, couldn’t even be bothered to select appropriate gifts or to use the proper name of the corporation he was attacking–which has not been “British Petroleum,” either legally or in marketing usage, for quite a while.
The truth is, people who come across as “sensitive” are very often in actuality sensitive to only one set of feelings: their own.
Some links on Obama’s speech last night here.
Assume there is something called The American Way of Life. The phrase is meant as a shorthand for our culture, society, laws, economy, what have you. It is meant to capture those features of our life here that make us distinct — not unique necessarily, others may share some of these features. These are things that an honest (friendly, hostile, or neutral, but hwhat it is, these are things that make America different from other places, these are the things that capture the essence of what America is.” These should be distinct factors in the world of today, though there historical roots may be relevant.
I have my own ideas, but I am finding myself dissatisfied with my list, which I will share at some future point.
Anyone reader willing to play along with me, please leave a comment. I want no fewer than three, no more than ten, factors or elements or items, each stated in about one sentence. It can be a good, bad or neutral thing in each case. It can be humorous or serious, but I am actually serious about formulating this list. You can cite to books or other sources if you wish. You may rely on just your firsthand observation. The points may be expressed idiosyncratically, but they should be ones that reasonable people would be likely to agree on, or at least take seriously as contenders.
So: What is the American Way of Life?
UPDATE: Interesting set of answers so far. My list, not final, is something like this:
1. America has an ideology of free, independent individuals, and this self-image, and the conduct associated with it, are deeply rooted in our culture.
2. The foundation of this culture is the nuclear family, which creates enterprising and self-reliant families and individuals, and this type of family is different from the family types found in other cultures, which create expectations of dependency and which make lifelong demands on the person, denying independence and taking away incentives to advance oneself.
3. The origins of this culture are in England, transmitted to us by the English colonists, and subsequent waves of migration have largely adapted themselves to it, and we expect others emigrating here to similarly adapt themselves to it.
4. Americans are egalitarian, believing that social classes either don’t exist, or should be open to entry by anyone, and that the rewards of life should be available to all, but granted to those who have earned them, or had good fortune, in an open, competitive process.
5. Americans have middle-class values, generally disliking the culture associated with poverty and not respecting the culture associated with unearned wealth. Americans want to own their own homes, and expect that their home is their castle. They built the suburbs because they like the life of the suburbs.
6. Americans want the freedom to come and go as they please, including by automobile.
7. Americans believe that major disputes should be solved by operation of law, that the legal system should be fair, that people should not have to make bribes or use self-help or personal violence to defend themselves or to solve major disputes. Nonetheless, Americans insist on having access to lethal force to defend their homes and themselves.
8. Americans believe that major economic decision should be made by individuals or voluntary groups, such as business corporations, not by the government.
9. Americans believe the government exists to protect them, their homes, their families, and their material well-being. They have low expectations about what governments can accomplish, and tend to distrust it. They expect government to operate reasonably honestly and transparently, and without excessive corruption.
10. Americans are empiricists, practical-minded, open to technology, and optimistic about the prospects of material progress. Americans are realists about the defects of human nature and are not utopian.
Each of the foregoing seems to me to be pretty distinct, and pretty unusual, with the partial exceptions of the rest of the Anglosphere, and to a lesser degree parts of Europe. Of course, many people do not think this way. But I think the bulk of middle-class Americans more or less fall within the broad sketch I have outlined above.
I am still tinkering with this. Do you think I am wrong about any of these? Have I missed anything major?
UPDATE II: I somehow deleted this post, and had to repost it, copying the text from Google cache. Thanks, Google! I apologize for losing the many excellent comments. I hope people will offer further comments, based on my first update.
Levenson, Thomas, Newton and the Counterfeiter: The Unknown Detective Career of the World’s Greatest Scientist
The publisher kindly provided a copy of this book for review.
This book was recommended during a Holiday 2009 Book Roundup on chicagoboyz here.
Fans of fiction author Neal Stephenson (The Diamond Age and Anathem were reviewed for chicagoboyz) may recall that one of the most intriguing episodes in his mammoth Baroque Cycle
Now we have a non-fiction title by a distinguished American science writer focused on the same subject. Newton’s actions as Warden, then Master, of the Mint were less glamourous than his revolutionary contributions to science and industry, but no less critical to the rapid transformation of England into an industrial giant. The real story behind Isaac Newton’s efforts to rescue England’s silver currency from impending disaster, and to revitalize the Royal Mint, is rather unexpected. And Newton’s methodical (and rather fearsome) efforts to hunt down and hang the country’s counterfeiters turn out to be just as fascinating, and just as strange, as Neal Stephenson’s fictional tale of Newton’s derring-do. Stephenson’s blurb on the back-cover of this book confirms as much.
Levenson’s book is built around two dramatic themes.
Firstly, the “fish out of water” transition of Isaac Newton from nerdy reclusive Cambridge savant, obsessed with his privacy, to senior government functionary … comfortable in parliamentary committees, Law Courts, and in the Royal Mint’s interrogation cells.
Secondly, Newton’s multi-year game of “cat and mouse” with a notorious counterfeiter (William Chaloner) that constantly risked Newton’s professional career, and Chaloner’s life. Chaloner actively sought to have Newton pilloried as incompetent, a thief, and anti-government conspirator, and Newton did his best to see Chaloner hung, drawn, and quartered … counterfeiting being a treasonous offense.
The author first builds contrasting biographies of the scholar and the criminal, providing a snapshot of criminal London in the late 17th century. The woeful state of English silver coinage brings Newton to London where he was soon to begin an education entirely unlike anything available in Cambridge University.
SPOILER ALERT: If you’d prefer to learn the story of Newton and the counterfeiter on your own, by reading this book, please skip down to my general comments in the Section titled General Impressions where I’ve tried not to give too much of the tale away.
EYESTRAIN ALERT: This review runs about 10,500 words. Some readers may prefer to print it out.