Dear Frank Rich,
Boomer nostalgia in the service of liberalism is no less annoying and alienating for post-boomers than boomer nostalgia used for more nefarious ends. If you want me to take your columns even remotely seriously, please stop.
Thanks,
Erik
I've been thinking quite a bit about Trend's post of a couple of days ago where he argued that Obama could start the deNixonification process in America.
I think there's something to it. It is possible although it is a long row to hoe.
But I also think it is worth considering this matter historically. There is the fact that Nixon semi-permanently damaged the American political system and body politic by his cynical acts. These actions were then built upon by other cynical politicians such as Reagan and Clinton and followed up with Congressional corruption and other acts that disillusioned a large section of the American public.
But there is also a sense of myth to this. To believe this entire construction, as I did before I really thought hard about it, is to ignore the Gilded Age. This is not the first time that the voting public has hated politicians and had no respect for the political system. Between about 1870 and 1901, most Americans had nothing but contempt for the people who ran their nation. This was a period of weak presidents and a strong but corrupt Congress. It was almost assumed by most Americans that if you were in Congress, you were probably taking bribes. And both parties essentially did whatever corporations wanted. I know this sounds nothing like the present.
The Credit Mobilier scandal of 1872 was just one of many times when the American public had little reason but to show contempt for their politicians. To be brief, the Union Pacific railroad decided to create a nonexistent company that they could funnel money to in order that they could be paid more for building the Transcontinental Railroad. They charged at least $23 million extra dollars for building the railroad, all of which went into the hands of executives and the politicians needed to make the scheme work.
Among the politicians implicated: Vice President Schuyler Colfax, future president James Garfield, future presidential candidate and powerful Maine senator James Blaine, and about 10 other congressmen and senators.
You can imagine the contempt and cynicism such actions, particularly when repeated time and time again, would have on the American public.
The difference between the 1880s and 2000s is that people still voted in large numbers, often over 80% turnout of the voting age population. And while I am not an expert on voting patterns of the Gilded Age, I believe this had more to do with local politics, patronage, and left-over feelings from the Civil War than any real belief that the person at the top of the ticket was worth a damn.
In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt came along and was a refreshing figure that took America in a new direction and really changed how Americans looked at the presidency and politicians in general. Don't get me wrong, I really despise TR. But he does show that a young, idealistic, activist president can make a difference in how people see politicians.
So why do we have this strong myth about everyone respecting politicians and looking up to the president before Nixon. Even during previous periods of high political engagement with low levels of corruption or other cynicism-producing activities, there was significant discontent with the government from large groups of the population.
Thus, I am wondering if this idea of a pre-Nixon past where everyone looks up to the president for leadership isn't a result of McCarthyism. The erasure from public space of real opposition to national leadership was a part of that plastic 50s world of Leave it to Beaver, Mom having Dad's martini ready when we walked in the door, and using your school desk to protect you from the atomic bomb. Of course this was the same world where we killed Ethel Rosenberg, where redbaiting was a part of life, when Mom was killing her own pain and boredom through Valium, and where Dad was the man in the gray flannel suit.
I think that this idea of a heroic political past is a specific historical phenomenon of the 1950s that doesn't really stand up to historical analysis. Like so much of baby boomer culture, this idea has been made normative and the lack of it defined as abnormal. But I would say that the last 35 years are at least as common in American history as the idealized Cold War world.
Software CEO Jeff Hawn bought a ranch near Fairplay, Colorado. Like many nouveau riche who have purchased rural estates in the West during the last 20 years, Hawn didn't understand what he was getting into. Specifically, he lacked understanding of the common conceptions of property in the West. Much of that area of Colorado is essentially open range. For you non-westerners out there, on the open range, livestock are unfenced and wander wherever they want. Hawn didn't like his neighbor's bison coming over to his property to graze. He considered his land "pristine." When it continued, he invited hunters to kill them. 32 were shot. Hawn is now being charged with 32 counts of animal cruelty.
We are seeing these kinds of conflicts all over the West. These rich urbanites are buying their dream homes in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and other western states. Then they find out that their neighbors have animals. Those animals smell. Sometimes they come onto your property. The neighbors have large farm machines. These are working people and they start that work early in the morning. You wake up at 5:30 am. You don't like that. So you try to organize other new residents against this, attempting to pass ordinances limiting animal usage, noise, and other nuisances. Of course, this makes your neighbors furious, dividing communities between old-timers and new residents.
The kind of jerkish behavior Hawn engaged in is not the only interesting bit about this story. I am also amused that he referred to his land as "pristine." What does Hawn mean by this? Does he really think animals have not grazed that land? Animals much more damaging than bison have been on that land for at least 120 years. The ecology of Colorado has been vastly changed by Europeans since their arrival. There is nothing "pristine" about the place. But these people building their starter castles in the forest have heavily romanticized these places. When their romantic vision clashes with the reality of working people, conflict ensues.
People like Hawn have deeply damaged these rural western communities. Property values have skyrocketed. Many ranchers, facing economic hard times, have split their ranches into small parcels that are then sold to rich baby boomers. These new residents demand urban amenities but don't want to pay the taxes to make that happen. They don't contribute to the fabric of the local communities, such as volunteer fire departments. If their home catches on fire, they want someone there immediately. But new residents don't want to serve in these rural communities, overtaxing the older residents and diminishing the ability of these institutions to be effective. They also are shocked when forest fires burn up their homes. They can't believe that firefighters don't protect their backyard. But when their backyard is a national forest, these things happen.
Essentially, you have thousands of people every year buying land in places that look pretty but which are also working and sometimes dangerous landscapes. People don't do any research to understand what life in the rural West is like. They have a romantic image in their minds and a very specific idea of property rights that don't always conform to the reality of West. This is a pretty extreme case, but conflicts like this are taking place throughout the West all the time.
It's pretty clear I think that my sympathies lay with the older residents, who understand the land they work on and respect that land, even if they don't always treat it that well. Nothing is worse for the land and for wildlife than these subdivided ranches where people have built homes every 1/4 mile. Working to keep properties together, whether as working ranches or as nature preserves is the best thing for the land and the people who live out there. Keeping second (or third or fourth) home buyers out, or at least forcing them to take a course in life in the rural West would also be a good thing for the environment and for the communities they want to live in.
