Sinclair Lewis, Progressives and the Gospel of Contempt

Sinclair Lewis wrote very important novels in the last century. They are important, because the novels have been used to mark the Hegelian line in the sand separating Americans. He is a Nobel laureate. Here are some of the words he slung at his acceptance speech -

Whether imaginary castles at nineteen lead always to the sidewalks of Main Street at thirty-five, and whether the process might be reversed, and whether either of them is desirable, I leave to psychologists. . . .

I drifted for two years after college as a journalist, as a newspaper reporter in Iowa and in San Francisco, as - incredibly - a junior editor on a magazine for teachers of the deaf, in Washington, D.C. The magazine was supported by Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone. What I did not know about teaching the deaf would have included the entire subject, but that did not vastly matter, as my position was so insignificant that it included typing hundreds of letters every week begging for funds for the magazine and, on days when the Negro janitress did not appear, sweeping out the office.

Doubtless this shows the advantages of a university education, and it was further shown when at the age of twenty-five I managed to get a position in a New York publishing house at all of fifteen dollars a week. This was my authentic value on the labor market, and I have always uncomfortably suspected that it would never have been much higher had I not, accidentally, possessed the gift of writing books which so acutely annoyed American smugness that some thousands of my fellow citizens felt they must read these scandalous documents, whether they liked them or not.

Main Street, published late in 1920, was my first novel to rouse the embattled peasantry and, as I have already hinted, it had really a success of scandal. One of the most treasured American myths had been that all American villages were peculiarly noble and happy, and here an American attacked that myth. Scandalous. Some hundreds of thousands read the book with the same masochistic pleasure that one has in sucking an aching tooth.

Since Main Street, the novels have been Babbitt (1922); Arrowsmith (1925); Mantrap (1926); Elmer Gantry (1927); The Man Who Knew Coolidge (1928); and Dodsworth (1929). The next novel, yet unnamed, will concern idealism in America through three generations, from 1818 till 1930-an idealism which the outlanders who call Americans «dollar-chasers» do not understand. It will presumably be published in the autumn of 1932, and the author's chief difficulty in composing it is that, after having received the Nobel Prize, he longs to write better than he can.

Lewis had contempt for the subject of all his body of work - people who were not unhappy.

There are the Babbits and the Progressives and all the poor, ignorant, and helpless masses who follow their directions in American Life. Opposing them are everyone else - the Middle Class and those much more financially fortunate.

The Babbits are those who see living a good, useful and comfortable life as a good thing - bills paid, kids fed, family housed by dint of hard work, personal economics, and faith.

The Babbits reflect the life lived by George Babbit, a fictional Midwestern Middle Class, Middle Western pater familias, who stood for everything that Sinclair Lewis was not and would not become - dull.

The 1922 satire Babbit was all the rage and the antithesis of the wild bohemianism that accompanied America's first victory as World Power, the prohibition of alcohol universal within the States, the disposable income that followed the post-War economic boom, and the challenge to values.

WWI was objected to by the new Hegelians, not so much out of love for humanity, as it was an interruption in Progressive Socialism. The Wobblies ( International Workers of the World) had moved beyond organizing labor to radical revolutionary goals. Planned Parenthood and Roger Baldwin's ACLU sprouted up with the success of American Labor, which took the path most taken - to the Middle Class. Workers wanted their children to eat, go to school, avoid the mines and mills, and scratch out a better life in America. They were not much interested in a Classless Society.

The Wobblies were co-opted into the American Communist Party and largely disappeared as irrelevant. Planned Parenthood, ACLU and the Progressive Left became the Movement. Workers do not tend to follow Worker Mandarins who could not identify the working end of a broom. Academics do that. So do young people ignorant of history and the values attached to hard work.

Sinclair Lewis became the voice of the voiceless Left of the Post WWI Era. He smartly delineated the Us and the Thems in very witty and attractive prose. Two years before the publication of Babbit, Lewis produced Main Street - the Progressive icon for American Middle Class hypocrisy, vacuity, bigotry, Bible/Gun Clinging, boosterism, and hate. Lewis voiced what the ACLU brings to court -Contempt for Middle Class values, faith, and quality of life, much more powerfully than Babbit.

When we read Main Street, Lewis pushes our noses in the THEY that Progressives want eliminated

“They were staggered to learn that a real tangible person, living in Minnesota, and married to their own flesh-and-blood relation, could apparently believe that divorce may not always be immoral; that illegitimate children do not bear any special and guaranteed form of curse; that there are ethical authorities outside of the Hebrew Bible; that men have drunk wine yet not died in the gutter; that the capitalistic system of distribution and the Baptist wedding-ceremony were not known in the Garden of Eden; that mushrooms are as edible as corn-beef hash; that the word "dude" is no longer frequently used; that there are Ministers of the Gospel who accept evolution; that some persons of apparent intelligence and business ability do not always vote the Republican ticket straight; that it is not a universal custom to wear scratchy flannels next the skin in winter; that a violin is not inherently more immoral than a chapel organ; that some poets do not have long hair; and that Jews are not always peddlers or pants-makers.

"Where does she get all them the'ries?" marveled Uncle Whittier Smail; while Aunt Bessie inquired, "Do you suppose there's many folks got notions like hers? My! If there are," and her tone settled the fact that there were not, "I just don't know what the world's coming to!”
― Sinclair Lewis, Main Street

You can hear that voice coming over the air-waves of NPR anytime of the day. We don;t want to be Uncle Smail, much less Aunt Bessie.

Progressives understand that the Rock of Ages will wash away from the beating the tides of WILL and Time.

“I think perhaps we want a more conscious life. We're tired of drudging and sleeping and dying. We're tired of seeing just a few people able to be individualists. We're tired of always deferring hope till the next generation. We're tired of hearing politicians and priests and cautious reformers... coax us, 'Be calm! Be patient! Wait! We have the plans for a Utopia already made; just wiser than you.' For ten thousand years they've said that. We want our Utopia now — and we're going to try our hands at it.”
― Sinclair Lewis, Main Street

We are the Aware the Progressive. They are patient.

Occupy Wall Street is the Triumph of Progressivism and the Triumph of Contempt.

Sinclair Lewis was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1930. He wrote It Can't Happen Here a really crappy novel, but a great icon of the intellectual Left and nine more unremarkable works. He died of alcoholism a year before I was born at Englewood Hospital to parents who lived in the back apartment above the alley at 76th & Union; moved to a large two bedroom apartment near Sherman Park on 55th Street and finally a Two Story Georgian at 75th & Wood in Gresham where my brother and sister were born. My Dad worked two-three jobs a week and sometimes a day. My Mom stayed home with us. We lived in a house we owned from 1952 -1974 and I went to teach in Kankakee, Illinois. A beautiful town built on a river with factories and opportunities. Sinclair Lewis hated towns like Kankakee and people who lived their - Kiwanis, Rotarians, Elks, Moose and most of all Knights of Columbus.

Babbits.


http://counterpoint.uchicago.edu/contempt.html

Shakman, Grid and Progressives the Imperial Triumvirate of Chicago

"The aldermanic role in service delivery should be ended and the focus of aldermanic activity shifted to legislation and oversight functions," the report says. Amen. Yes, those high-maintenance constituents will howl, but that's not what aldermen fear most. They're afraid taxpayers who learn they don't need 50 garbage districts will realize they don't need 50 aldermen.

Chicago Tribune Editorial Ending Any and All Debate on the Grid System


In Republican Rome, after each abuse of power by political strongmen( Marius and Sulla)and civic turmoil, arose a committee of three - a Triumvirate - literally three men. There were two Triumvirates - the first was Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey.

Caesar was a class warrior who took the side of the lower classes over the rich, though Caesar was a Patrician (rich guy) himself. Caesar managed public opinion and then exercised public control He was the original Op Ed opinion maker - Commentarii de Bello Civili et Commentarii De Bello Gallico - were Caesar's Dreams from My Father and Audacity of Hope.

Caesar ruled. Here in Chicago, Mayors came and went, until the 1950's and the decades of Mayor Richard J. Daley. Like Caesar Daley was popular and powerful. Mike Royko's book Boss portrayed Mayor Richard J. Daley as Caesar.

Caesar amassed power with the full approval of the Senate of Rome. Some Progressive Senators did not like that and sought to end one man rule. They Shakman'd Caesar.

When Mayor Daley died our home-grown idiots wrung hands and rent garments about such one man power emerging again and employed the Shakman Decrees - in my opinion the most moronic, mealy-mouthed and cynical dagger to the kidneys of the body politic ever crafted by a legal sneak. Nothing against the corporeal Michael Shakman, mind you, he had his agenda and shopped for the right judges. He and his enterprise is doing swell. The City of Chicago Post-Shakman? Not so hot.

Policy,not politics was the true exercise of power - Shakman was the knife. Progressives palmed that shiv and will twist it home with the Grid System that will effectively end any and all power within the City Council.

This is a Triumvirate of Power - Shakman, Progressives and the Grid System.

Chicago Aldermen, or City Council Members as they like to be PC addressed, have historically handed power over to anyone.

Question: What is an Alderman?

Answer: The City of Chicago is comprised of 50 wards or legislative districts, determined by census of the population. Each ward elects one alderman - at times there two. The 50 aldermen comprise the City of Chicago's Council, who with the Mayor of Chicago, are charged with governing the city. An alderman's term is four years. The Chicago City Council is gaveled into session regularly (usually monthly) to consider ordinances, orders, and resolutions whose subject matter includes traffic code changes, utilities, taxes, and many other issues

The Mayor of Chicago appoints. He appoints Department Heads - Water, Police, Fire, Streets and Sanitation City Departments. Likewise, the Mayor appoints the boards that govern Chicago Park District, Chicago Public Library, Chicago Housing Authority, Chicago Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, et al and thanks to Richard M. Daley and Illinois Legislature the the heads of the Chicago Public Schools.The Mayor is the President of the City Council and the City Clerk is the Secretary of the City Council.

The Mayor and the Aldermen serve four year terms following an April Election per the 1872 City and Villages Act.

Sounds simple? Read the papers. Read Chicago history. Chicago city government is designated a 'weak Mayor' system by Charter. Still is.

In practice, the Mayor's Office is virtually Imperial. Old Mayor Daley took the power of Budget from the City Council. Mayor Harold Washington signed the idiotic and Chicago Metro Unique Shakman Decrees. Shakman* killed Jacksonian democracy in Chicago.

That was the end of the Jacksonian intent. Andy Jackson, the Pappy of the Democratic Party, believed that if elected officials had more 'checks' on them, the less harm they could do - it is to giggle, Old Hickory.

Coming soon, will be the end of the City Council. The American Media have been at war with legislatures for decades. When the people vote, overturn the will of the people by Executive fiat or Shop for a Judge. Witness California's recent Defense of Marriage Vote. People 0; an openly Gay Judge 1.

Here in Chicago "Everybody Hates Alderman." You can see an Alderman; not so a Chicago Mayor. Aldermen go to jail ( 30 since 1972). Governors of Illinois go to jail ( Kerner, Walker, Ryan, Blago soon), but Mayors do great.

I know a couple of Aldermen. They are very hard working people. They are accessible. My Alderman is all over the Ward. Most voters like and appreciate him and some do not. I like my Alderman very much. Matt O'Shea elected last April to serve the 19th Ward. I see him out in the Ward almost every day. He knows what the needs and problems are and he can solve a few of them. Most of what can not be solved are due to the historical context into which he was elected.

The Grid System being considered for garbage collection in the City will most likely be a reality.

Waste Management, or some other private company, will be awarded a City Contract, much like the Parking Meter deal, or the one that went to the Australian Company that operates the Skyway Toll Booth, both were said to be Revenue Boosting and dollar smart. The Media wanted those; the BGA approved, and Progressives and Goo-Gos gushed! Executive Fiat!

Shakman and the Grid and the Progressives are the Triumvirate.

If you think Chicago has been an Imperial City, stick around.


* Shakman Decrees

In 1969, one man made his stand against the Chicago political machine. Michael Shakman, an independent candidate for delegate to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention, battled against one of the most enduring traditions in Chicago's politics: political patronage, or the practice of hiring and firing government workers on the basis of political loyalty. With many behind-the-scenes supporters, Shakman's years of determination resulted in what became known as the “Shakman decrees.”

Shakman filed suit against the Democratic Organization of Cook County, arguing that the patronage system put nonorganized candidates and their supporters at an illegal and unconstitutional disadvantage. Politicians could hire, fire, promote, transfer—in essence, punish—employees for not supporting the system, or more particularly, a certain politician. The suit also argued that political patronage wasted taxpayer money because public employees, while at work, would often be forced to campaign for political candidates.

In 1972, after an exhaustive court procedure and much negotiating, the parties reached an agreement prohibiting politically motivated firings, demotions, transfers, or other punishment of government employees. A 1979 ruling led to a court order in 1983 that made it unlawful to take any political factor into account in hiring public employees (with exceptions for positions such as policy making). Those decisions along with companion consent judgments—collectively called the Shakman decrees—are binding on more than 40 city and statewide offices.

Roger R. Fross Chicago Encyclopedia

Joel Kotkin Unmasks the Power Behind the Throne - "Gentry Progressives"

Demographer and journalist Joel Kotkin has studied Americans with a very clear and unjaundiced jeweler's eye for decades. He has studied and identified the power shifts in post-industrial America and long ago predicted the collapse of State economies under weight of policy programs, pensions and wages paid out to policy wizards shilling for agenda PACS, like Acorn, Planned Parenthood, Alien Rights, and Gay Marriage advocates, as well as public service unions especially SEIU.

Every pothole in Illinois and California was predicted by Joel Kotkin long before President Obama took office.

President Obama campaigned as a 'different sort of Democrat' and he surely is that - he is America's first Gentry President, according Kotkin.

This morning in Politico Joel Kotkin unmasks the Gentry Progressive - the wolf in Democrat clothing.

To be sure, Obama’s ground game relied on organized labor, particularly public-sector unions, African-Americans, Latinos and progressive activists. But these groups have not emerged stronger from his three years in office.

Instead, the major winners of the Obama years have been the big nonprofits, venture capitalists and, most obviously, the financial aristocracy. These have all benefited from the Ben Bernanke-Timothy Geithner — previously the Bernanke-Henry Paulson — policy of cheap money and near zero-interest rates, which have depressed the savings of the middle classes but served as a major boon to Wall Street. This has benefited mostly the wealthiest 1 percent, which owns some 40 percent of equities and 60 percent of financial securities.

This Wall Street-first approach makes Reaganite “trickle down” look like a populist torrent. Glimmers of reality are beginning to dawn on more perceptive progressive analysts, like Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, who accuses the Democrats under Obama of abandoning “the middle class in favor of the rich.” The Democrats, grouses the reliably partisan but perceptive Harold Meyerson, should be known as “Bankers R Us.”

Reaction from Tea Party libertarians, Old Timey Democrats like meself, and even the tasseled loafer GOP saw Marxists in the woodpile. They're there, in some small way, but largely the Gentry is all about Lakeview Greystone Urban Power elites: the degree stamped, well-off, childless, venal and secular power-network players. They get into Democratic politics via the backdoor -appointments for favors to come. They are lawyers, connected -professional bankers, fund managers, and agents of every venue that rakes in nickels.

Kotkin presents the power behind the 'mount, shine, evaporate and fall' of the Obama moment in the sun:

To be sure, some parts of the old progressive coalition, such as African-Americans, whose prospects have declined markedly under Obama, will most likely remain loyal to the president. Many other working- and middle-class voters, including Latinos and young people, groups particularly hard hit, may not be ready to bolt en masse for the GOP. But their lessened enthusiasm to participate in either the campaign or to vote could threaten the White House next year.

These developments, as Marxists might put it, reflect the fundamental contradictions of gentry liberalism. Essentially, gentry liberalism reflects the coalescing interests among the financial, technological and academic upper strata. For these people, the Great Recession was brief and ended long ago. All depend heavily on high stock prices to maintain their wealth. Their interest in the overall U.S. economy — particularly the Main Street grass roots — has become ever more tenuous with their increasing ability to shift assets to East Asia and other developing country hot spots.

These prerogatives have been neatly protected under Obama. In the past, administrations let corporate scofflaws, like the savings and loan companies, collapse. Some were sent to jail. . . .
This may have also been good news for Manhattan and San Francisco real estate and luxury retail — Tiffany profits were up 25 percent in the past quarter. Silicon Valley venture capitalists, in particular, have been lavished with access to cheap government loans and incentives — as demonstrated by the recent revelations about solar manufacturer Solyndra — to promote their attempted expansion into the ballyhooed “green economy.”

The essential problem of gentryism, however, is that it fails to address the fundamental economic needs of the vast majority. It is also tied to policy prescriptions that either fail to spur broad-based growth or, in some cases, hinder it.

For one thing, by concentrating wealth at the top, the gentry approach has depressed entrepreneurialism among the vast middle and working classes. In contrast to past “recoveries,” the rate of new start-ups has slowed considerably. The health of existing small business remains feeble, notes the National Federation of Independent Business.

Other initiatives have slowed potential growth, particularly the threat of new draconian environmental regulations. Fossil-fuel development, for example, represents one of the best opportunities for new, high-wage employment for blue- and white-collar workers. In contrast, the massive expenditures of public money on “green jobs” has turned out to be less than effective in creating blue-collar employment.

Joel Kotkin was writing long before Obamas Gentry grabbed power. It is refreshing that people are now reading this prescient man. Click my post title for so much more.