The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: Alexander Hamilton Not Actually Egalitarian Progressive After All
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A New York Times op-ed:

What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Hamilton
By JASON FRANK and ISAAC KRAMNICK JUNE 10, 2016

ALEXANDER HAMILTON is all the rage. Sold out for months in advance, the musical “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s remarkable hip-hop dramatization of this founder’s life, is arguably the most celebrated American cultural phenomenon of our time. Reported on from every conceivable angle, the show has helped keep Hamilton on the $10 bill and prompted a new nickname for this weekend’s Broadway awards ceremony: the “Hamiltonys.”

Central to the musical’s power is the way it and its extraordinarily talented multiracial cast use Hamilton’s immigrant hustle to explain the most important political episodes of his life. …

In Hamilton’s tumultuous life, Mr. Miranda saw the drive and promise of the immigrant story of America. … Hamilton announces this entrepreneurial ambition early in the show: “Hey, yo, I’m just like my country/I’m young, scrappy and hungry.” The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.

After all, who can’t name countless Puerto Rican immigrants who have been economic dynamos in America, such as … uh … [checking Wikipedia] hmmhmmhhh … a bunch of people whom I am apparently not enough of a corporate insider to have ever heard of. But even though I can’t name many, obviously Puerto Ricans have made New York the financial powerhouse that it is, or otherwise all those Puerto Ricans who are dropping four figures for tickets couldn’t afford to be attending “Hamilton” in such vast numbers. It’s simple logic. As we all know, “Hamilton” is attracting a New, Diverse audience to Broadway. This isn’t like 15 years ago when The Producers musical was, briefly, a huge smash on Broadway on the backs of an older white audience from the Greater New York area that found Mel Brooks’ sense of humor to their taste.

Vast numbers of Puerto Ricans are attending “Hamilton,” right?

Hmmmhmmhhh … looking around the Internet I see eyeball estimates of “Hamilton’s” audience as 98% white and there being more nonwhites on stage than in the audience, but that couldn’t possibly be correct, could it?

… But the musical avoids an equally pronounced feature of Hamilton’s beliefs: his deeply ingrained elitism, his disdain for the lower classes and his fear of democratic politics. The musical’s misleading portrayal of Hamilton as a “scrappy and hungry” man of the people obscures his loathing of the egalitarian tendencies of the revolutionary era in which he lived.

Hamilton mistrusted the political capacities of the common people and insisted on deference to elites. In a speech delivered at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton praised the hierarchical principles of the British political system. He argued, for example, that the new American president and senators should serve for life. Many of the Convention participants feared the “excess of democracy,” but Hamilton went much further. He wanted to bring an elective monarchy and restore non-titled aristocracy to America. “The people are turbulent and changing,” he declared. “They seldom judge or determine right.” They must be ruled by “landholders, merchants and men of the learned professions,” whose experience and wisdom “travel beyond the circle” of their neighbors. For America to become an enduring republic, Hamilton argued, it had to insulate rulers and the economy as much as possible from the jealous multitude.

One of the musical’s most memorable scenes portrays Hamilton’s debate with Thomas Jefferson over the establishment of a national bank. What it doesn’t convey is Jefferson’s populist resistance to an economic plan that, in his view, supported the rule of commercial oligarchs who manipulated credit and currency at the expense of debtors and yeoman farmers. Instead, Mr. Miranda stages a confrontation between a hypocritical republican slave owner and an abolitionist visionary (“A civics lesson from a slaver,” a scoffing Hamilton says in response to Jefferson. “Hey, neighbor, your debts are paid ’cause you don’t pay for labor”) that conceals as much as it reveals.

Hamilton’s opposition to slavery — reflected, for example, in his being a founder of New York’s Manumission Society — was not central to his political vision. The musical’s suggestion that had he not been killed in the duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton would have gone on to play an important role in the abolitionist struggle is fantasy. Even the lionization of Hamilton as the exemplar of America’s immigrant ideal neglects his ultimate endorsement of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it harder for immigrants to become citizens while allowing their deportation if they were suspected of disloyalty (he urged exceptions, though, for some foreign merchants and those “whose demeanor among us has been unexceptionable”). Jefferson led the opposition to this policy, and his victory in the presidential election of 1800 brought most of its provisions to an end. …

Hamilton, with his contemptuous attitude toward the lower classes, was perfectly comfortable with the inegalitarian and antidemocratic implications of his economic vision. One has to wonder if the audiences in the Richard Rodgers Theater would be as enthusiastic about a musical openly affirming such convictions. No founder of this country more clearly envisioned the greatness of a future empire enabled by drastic inequalities of wealth and power. In this sense, too, “Hamilton” is very much a musical for our times.

Jason Frank and Isaac Kramnick teach political theory in the department of government at Cornell.

Indeed. The Obama Era has been very, very good for Manhattan and the parts of Brooklyn that are close to Wall Street. Hamiltonmania is the victory lap of the Obama Era.

It couldn’t be that the economic genius of “Hamilton,” which is based on Ron Chernow’s hagiography of the New York Founding Father, is in its pandering to the prejudices of the same affluent audience that made “The Producers” and “Fiddler on the Roof” huge hits on Broadway, could it?

Of course not. That Lin-Manuel Miranda’s beloved father, political consultant Luis Miranda, had a front-row seat for understanding the mindset of representative white New Yorkers like three term Mayor Ed Koch (the Mayor character in “Bonfire of the Vanities”) is totally irrelevant. From a 2013 obituary for Koch:

“In 1986, when the federal government approved an amnesty immigration law for the undocumented, Ed Koch made sure that all New Yorkers without documents knew how to apply, and provided assistance through community organizations,” said Luis Miranda, founding president of the Hispanic Federation and Koch’s special advisor for Hispanic Affairs.

But, obviously, that Miranda Senior is a master marketer of political claptrap in New York has nothing to do with the success of Miranda Junior’s musical.

 
Hide 78 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous [AKA "Trump\'s Hellhounds"] says:

    Wait, has the NYT finally discovered which way the wind is blowing?

    Two recent NYT articles that actually tell a smidgen of truth?

  2. Koch drifted a bit to the right on immigration in his later years ( http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/862661.html ). By now, after Kate Steinle, San Bernardino, the Zika virus, etc., I wouldn’t be surprised if he would have become a restrictionist.

  3. “… the musical “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s remarkable hip-hop dramatization of this founder’s life, is arguably the most celebrated American cultural phenomenon of our time…” cause it be Black, and Black Lives Matter more than any other.

    “…a scoffing Hamilton says in response to Jefferson. “Hey, neighbor, your debts are paid ’cause you don’t pay for labor”) that conceals as much as it reveals.” Hamilton surely wouldn’t have said this under any condition, for he well knew the burdensome debt that slaves imposed on their owners – food, clothing, housing, medical expenses, etc. Even with such obligations, owners felt compelled – morally – to see after the welfare of their charges.

  4. “the musical “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s remarkable hip-hop dramatization of this founder’s life”

    I am not into musicals, in fact I hate them, but, I had never heard about this musical before reading about it in Steve’s blog. Why is it a hit?
    I am not very interested in seeing it after knowing that the genre is “hip-hop”
    I don’t really care about Hamilton either
    I don’t care about Puerto Ricans
    I think I even prefer Mexicans
    And Colombians
    And Equatorians
    And Brazilians
    And Uruguayans
    And even Argentinians

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I'm not a fan of hip-hop, but it is interesting and commendable when someone takes material from history or classic literature and makes it lively and popular. Doesn't always work. There was a musical about the Civil War years ago that didn't do that well.
  5. Hamilton, and by extension Lin-Manuel Miranda, has become sort of a lefty culture war totem—it just proves Hispanic immigrants are wildly successful! But success in business, finance and the hard sciences is much more impressive than success in the performing arts.

  6. Oh come on.

    When Eva Peron died Che Guevera was on his way to Cuba.

    The Von Trapp family left by train, not by climbing every mountain.

    King Mongkut of Thailand was 58 when he hired Anna Leonowens so I doubt he did much vigorous dancing or anything else with her.

    These things aren’t documentaries and I doubt anyone thinks they are. If you saw someone burst into song as they walked down the street would you join them or avoid them? Musicals assume the former, but I guess they assume everyone knows they’re fiction.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    These things aren’t documentaries and I doubt anyone thinks they are.
     
    You'd be surprised how stoopid and impressionable people are.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "The Von Trapp family left by train, not by climbing every mountain."

    Yeah, but they were Austrians, not - say - a black family from Gary Indiana. Should they have been portrayed as the Jackson Family?
  7. Luis is a master at getting inexperienced Latino pols and those adopted by certain unions and interests that can pay his fees to sign up with him.

    His actual services to those candidates don’t amount to much. MirRam group does not strike any fear into their competitors. You can make a good living just winning occasionally in local NY elections, and finishing second and third a lot more. The city has 6:1 matching funds.

    Luis is a master of pumping up his clients and making them feel ‘big time,’ before they realize what it’s costing them. But if I see an opponent has hired MirRam, it’s actually a relief. Much rather go against them than BerlinRosen, Red Horse, and some of the others, though those guys have other problems now.

    But obviously, business is especially good for MirRam since ‘Hamilton.’

  8. “Hamilton mistrusted the political capacities of the common people and insisted on deference to elites.”

    So in other words “Hamilton the Musical” is similar to elite politics of today: proclaim love for the common man and democracy while giving the middle finger to both.

    Consider how many leftwing victories are the result of completely flouting democracy. It’s no wonder Miranda finds so much to love about Alexander Hamilton.

  9. “Jason Frank and Isaac Kramnick teach political theory in the department of government at Cornell.’

    And they speak the truth. Utterly astonishing!

    Hamilton stunk to high heaven as did the rest of the “Federalists” and their sympathizers.

  10. JVO says:

    The target audience of Hamilton is wealthy boomers/early gen x whites who’ve, directly or indirectly, profited off the rapid browning of America. Hamilton tells them everything will be fine and these new guys actually love the nation the boomer generation inherited.
    The blacks and Puerto Ricans are rapping about the founding fathers! We’re still such awesome, amazing people!

  11. Alexander Hamilton, the main author of The Federalist Papers, to be the Founding Father right-wing “intellectuals” often cite to give heft to their self-serving rhetoric favoring the rich and powerful. There is little evidence of this in the biography. Rather, Hamilton was a visionary who championed a strong central government and mercantilism and opposed Jeffersonian Republicanism, which was based largely on land-ownership. In a way, Hamilton was an ambitious city boy and Jefferson a gentleman farmer.

    Hamilton is an important piece of art. Lets start with the cast, all Black and Latino,- for the entire existence of Broadway and Hollywood white actors have played roles of people of color, but it was unheard of for actors of color to play “white roles”. Miranda has thrown that right out the window, he has taken an a story of white americans and used a cast of color to portray them. That has challenged the status quo.
    This is the quintessential American story, what (white) school kid doesnt love the story of our “founding” or the great revolution against the evil British empire, Lin writes this for an audience of color, using a story for white people by white people, to explain the struggles of people of color. It was easy for him to do inl “in the heights”, because it was written by people of color about their lives, yet in Hamilton he takes their story and makes it his (people of color) own.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    It wasn't unheard of for black actors to play white roles on Broadway - Kate Sacker of Billions played Juliet on Broadway, for example ( http://www.sho.com/billions/cast/kate-sacker ). What Hamilton does that's new is have a nearly all-NAM cast play white roles.
    , @This Is Our Home
    If this is true then why did they only leave the evil King as white?
  12. I’m fed up with liars calling Hamilton an “immigrant.”

    Hamilton was not an immigrant. Like the other pre-Revolution Founding Fathers, Hamilton was a fellow British subject – he merely relocated from one British colony to another.

    • Agree: gruff, Clyde
    • Replies: @Lex Corvus
    Yup, much like Miranda's own father. But even if moving from Puerto Rico to Nueva York doesn't technically make you an immigrant, what's important is that you feel like one.
  13. Only Roman Catholic priests should have the right to vote or hold elective or appointive public office.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    You're the ultimate agent provacateur. What you propose not only wouldn't be "good for the Catholics," it would be about as bad for us as you can get.
  14. The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.

    This really gives the game away regarding Hamilton’s success.

    Nothing is more beautiful, more original, more clever, more revolutionary, more inspiring, or more profound than something that tells you how smart you are to believe exactly what you do.

    Ask Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert how wonderfully this works.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Nothing is more beautiful, more original, more clever, more revolutionary, more inspiring, or more profound than something that tells you how smart you are to believe exactly what you do.
     
    Candid, you nailed the psychology of these folks--the Jon "Stewart" watchers.

    But ...

    The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.
     
    what really pops from this snippet for me, is the absolute *contempt* of this "elite" for the actual American people. And yet, this nation was the most prosperous nation in the world before their ancestors showed up in any number. And it won't be such when they are done looting and wrecking it.
  15. Where’s John Adams in all this? He was, after all, the first president to both exemplify Hamilton’s policies and actually win office through a competitive election. Alien and Sedition Acts, anyone? Anyone? Spirit of 1798?

  16. anon • Disclaimer says:

    pandering to the prejudices of the same affluent audience that made “The Producers” and “Fiddler on the Roof” huge hits on Broadway, could it?

    Is this related to the purpose of an otherwise gratuitous scene in “The Big Short,” where we learn that one of the subjects, a Bubble Prognosticator-cum-anti-Wall Street Corruption Crusader, butted heads with his Rabbi as a young boy? Remember, it’s not like everyone was on the same side.

  17. “deeply ingrained elitism,..disdain for the lower classes and…fear of democratic politics.”

    Are we talking about a long-dead Founding Father or the current political establishment in America?

    • Replies: @gruff
    Yes.
  18. @anony-mouse
    Oh come on.

    When Eva Peron died Che Guevera was on his way to Cuba.

    The Von Trapp family left by train, not by climbing every mountain.

    King Mongkut of Thailand was 58 when he hired Anna Leonowens so I doubt he did much vigorous dancing or anything else with her.

    These things aren't documentaries and I doubt anyone thinks they are. If you saw someone burst into song as they walked down the street would you join them or avoid them? Musicals assume the former, but I guess they assume everyone knows they're fiction.

    These things aren’t documentaries and I doubt anyone thinks they are.

    You’d be surprised how stoopid and impressionable people are.

  19. Hamilton, with his contemptuous attitude toward the lower classes, was perfectly comfortable with the inegalitarian and antidemocratic implications of his economic vision.

    Well, no kidding. Of course he was. If Lin-Manuel Miranda had actually studied the history of the founding instead if writing idiotic rap lyrics, he would have known this.

    As it so happens, I also teach political theory – however, unlike Frank and Kramnick, I’m not a member of the right Tribe so I don’t teach it at Cornell. So I’ll save you the $60k that Cornell costs and give it to you for free.

    Three rights are named in the Fifth Amendment from being abridged by the Federal Government without “due process”: life, liberty, and property. The Founders got this idea straight from John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise of 1689, named life, liberty and property as the three natural rights the social contract was created to protect. Locke’s Second Treatise coincided with the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights, which brought decades of civil war and unrest to an end.

    As English colonists, the Founders believed that they were entitled to these rights. When Gen. Thomas Gage declared martial law in Boston in 1774 after the Tea Party, he singlehandedly violated all the provisions of the Bill of Rights, prompting the Revolution. The Founders were so paranoid of government abuse that when the Revolution ended, they created the Articles of Confederation, which were so weak they were practically no government at all.

    In short order, a different problem surfaced: not violation of natural rights by the British Army, but violation of natural rights by mobs of commoners. In 1786, rogue militiaman Daniel Shays led an armed anti-tax and anti-debt revolt in Western Massachusetts. He and his fellow militiamen, by not paying off legitimate debts, were essentially stealing the property of creditors and lenders. Shays’s Rebellion was one of the main events prompting the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    The Federalists, advocating for the proposed constitution, were quite clear that defense of property rights was a priority. Madison, who, along with Hamilton wrote about 80 of the 85 Federalist Papers, made this crystal clear in his famous Federalist #10:

    “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is … an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

    So, the protection of inequality is the “first object of government.” What evils befall a nation that does not protect the rights of property?

    “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…”

    Sounds like Madison anticipated Obama, Sanders and Clinton. Oh, wait — he did!!

    “It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”

    The Founders were forming a nation on an empty continent. ANYTHING you wanted to do, boy, well you just go out and have at it. Nobody’s going to give you anything… but you get to keep everything that you work for. And the job of government was to help you protect what you earned — and prevent the stupid, the lazy, the shiftless and the moronic from voting to take if from you.

    That was Hamilton’s attitude. Hamilton was born into poverty and worked his way up from his bootstraps. He believed that wealth was earned, and shouldn’t be confiscated by either the government or the masses.

    The idea that Hamilton could identify with black and brown immigrants is just plain ridiculous. Hamilton would have looked at all the immigrant grifters on welfare, Sec. 8, WIC, Medicaid, and TANF and thrown them all the hell out.

    Actually, he would be absolutely aghast if he could return from the grave and discover that his Federal government had created those programs at all.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    "Actually, he would be absolutely aghast if he could return from the grave and discover that his Federal government had created those programs at all."

    Sure, but who from his era would have expected it? Had he lived in the late 19th Century, he might have advocated a welfare state for pragmatic reasons, as Bismarck did.
    , @TomSchmidt
    In 1786, rogue militiaman Daniel Shays led an armed anti-tax and anti-debt revolt in Western Massachusetts. He and his fellow militiamen, by not paying off legitimate debts, were essentially stealing the property of creditors and lenders.

    This hardly captures the essence of Shays' rebellion, which strikes me as the sort of thing we need today. Some quotes from Wikipedia:
    From a farmer: "I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates ... been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth ... The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

    "When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the European business partners of Massachusetts merchants refused to extend lines of credit to them and insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency. Despite the continent-wide shortage of such currency, merchants began to demand the same from their local business partners, including those merchants operating in the market towns in the state's interior. ... The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands being made of them by merchants or the civil authorities, and individuals began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations. This led to strong resentments against tax collectors and the courts, where creditors obtained and enforced judgments against debtors, and where tax collectors obtained judgments authorizing property seizures."

    Think, for a moment, of college students with unpayable student loan debt who cannot find relief in bankruptcy courts. These are the new rabble ready to find their Daniel Shays. Perhaps they could have paid off debts if the economic rules hadn't changed, as they did in MA after the revolution.

    Shays sounds pretty much like the kind of guy that we like around here, patriotic, hard working: "Shays was a farmhand from Massachusetts when the Revolution broke out; he joined the Continental Army, saw action at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and Saratoga, and was eventually wounded in action. In 1780, he resigned from the army unpaid and went home to find himself in court for nonpayment of debts. He soon realized that he was not alone in his inability to pay his debts and began organizing for debt relief."

    In other words, Shays was part of the mulcted white working class that is currently in revolt against a financialized elite. Have you noticed that there is no limit to the deductibility of mortgage interest on your federal taxes?

    But a corrupt elite bought debt at pennies on the dollar and insisted on full repayment. Governor Bowdoin: "When Bowdoin (a perennial loser to (former governor John) Hancock in earlier elections) was elected governor (in 1785), matters became more severe. Bowdoin stepped up civil actions to collect back taxes, and the legislature exacerbated the situation by levying an additional property tax to raise funds for the state's portion of foreign debt payments. Even comparatively conservative commentators such as John Adams observed that these levies were 'heavier than the People could bear.'"

    Why was Bowdoin so invested in collecting taxes? "In Rhode Island, matters were resolved without violence because the "country party" gained control of the legislature in 1786 and enacted measures forcing its merchant elites to trade debt instruments for devalued currency. The impact of this was not lost on Boston's merchants, especially Bowdoin, who held more than £3,000 in Massachusetts notes."

    To sum up, the Boston merchant class decided to use the power of the legislature to push oppressive taxes onto the whole of the state to make ITS debts good, much as the banks in 2008 had the rest of the country bail them out. Bowdoin won the war, but failed to prosper:

    "the legislature elected in 1787 cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts. It also refocused state spending away from interest payments, resulting in a 30% decline in the value of Massachusetts securities as those payments fell in arrears."

    We have trillions of dollars of unpayable government debt similarly awaiting its Shays today. No Hamilton can come along and tapped latent economic energy to allow the Federal Government to assume the debts of the states and so make grifters like Bowdoin whole. No, this time the bankruptcy will take down everyone foolish enough to own government debt, which is sadly most of us.
  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The reason very few Americans perceive the webs of disproportionate Jewish influence, or what that influence is directed toward, is that they don’t know any Jews. Jews are concentrated in a few places, highly insular, and rarely wear their Jewishness openly on their sleeves. Thus, a very small but powerful minority’s interest and enthusiasm for diluting the majority (aka divide and conquer, not a bad idea) doesn’t even rise in the average gentile mind.

    Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor? Given that Jews like Miranda’s production, it must be first class.

    Why an immigration panderfest, using blacks (mulattos through octoroons, really) but really about making Jews feel good about themselves, would rule Broadway in Obama’s final year doesn’t compute with 95% of the population (it does with the 2% who are Jews and a miscellaneous 3% who understand the world).

    • Replies: @guest
    You forgot about homos. Jews and homos (and Jewish homos) have creatively run Broadway since forever. You must bear in mind what makes homos feel good about themselves, as well.
    , @Clyde

    Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor?
     
    You omitted Galaxy Quest.
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, have you even read the Chernow book? I would characterize it as interested in its subject — as most biographies tend to be — but politically aloof insofar as not waving a bloody shirt, not taking ahistorical potshots at distinguished gentlemen-planters & their Hackett Fischerian aristo-populist mores, and relatively disengaged from current partisanship. I don’t recall any references to FWD.us or Hamilton’s brief, tragic CNBC hosting gig. Lately your neck seems to be getting redder whenever the subject is NYC (though it may be due to that presidential candidate, or 3 of them)

    • Replies: @guest
    Chernow I perceive as a straight shooter, though well ensconced in the historical mainstream. He wouldn't get his sales or his press if he weren't, but that doesn't affect the quality of his books adversely. His biographies on Masters of the Universe like Morgan, Rockefeller, and the Warburgs are extensively cited by conspiracy nuts, for instance, despite Chernow being what they'd term a "court historian."
    , @Desiderius

    Lately your neck seems to be getting redder whenever the subject is NYC
     
    You say that like it's a bad thing. When the redneck is held up to the goodthinkers as the epitome of all that is evil with the world, then perspectives slanting redneck are likely to be closer to the truth than those widely held in places such as NYC where goodthinkers convene.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    On red necks and blue bloods: when observing from the outside the statistical outlier (NYC), the outlier is observed correctly as one. When observing from the point of the outlier, everything else is observed incorrectly as one.

    This is not to say that all outliers are bad. Outliers of excellence are praiseworthy.

    If you haven't really followed the full extent of Steve's take on NYC, the theme is how its provincialism/outlierness makes it think that the vast majority of the country is strange, and its own particular quirks and hypocrisies are moral and good. Urban provincialism is still provincialism. I haven't seen this play, but it appears to be as corny and smugly feel good as the Southern gothic-lite, ain't we so quaint comedies you see in community theaters where I live. We can see the obvious bad taste, but they can't.

  22. I’m uncertain there’s any kind of Broadway production Sailer would tolerate– unlesss maybe someone does a musical of The Hunger Games, or “The Passion of Robert Trent Jones”

  23. In Hamilton’s tumultuous life, Mr. Miranda saw the drive and promise of the immigrant story of America.

    Hamilton was NOT a diverse immigrant in either a legal or cultural sense. He was a citizen of the British Empire who happened to be born in a New World colony rather than a Old World county. As such his legal standing was the same as Washington et al. He would have been hung for treason.
    Nor was he diverse, he was a Scots Presbyterian. About as WASPish as you can get.
    The Narrative is a farce.

  24. @Anonymous
    The reason very few Americans perceive the webs of disproportionate Jewish influence, or what that influence is directed toward, is that they don't know any Jews. Jews are concentrated in a few places, highly insular, and rarely wear their Jewishness openly on their sleeves. Thus, a very small but powerful minority's interest and enthusiasm for diluting the majority (aka divide and conquer, not a bad idea) doesn't even rise in the average gentile mind.

    Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor? Given that Jews like Miranda's production, it must be first class.

    Why an immigration panderfest, using blacks (mulattos through octoroons, really) but really about making Jews feel good about themselves, would rule Broadway in Obama's final year doesn't compute with 95% of the population (it does with the 2% who are Jews and a miscellaneous 3% who understand the world).

    You forgot about homos. Jews and homos (and Jewish homos) have creatively run Broadway since forever. You must bear in mind what makes homos feel good about themselves, as well.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Andrew Lloyd Webber is neither Jewish nor gay.
  25. @Anonymous
    Steve, have you even read the Chernow book? I would characterize it as interested in its subject -- as most biographies tend to be -- but politically aloof insofar as not waving a bloody shirt, not taking ahistorical potshots at distinguished gentlemen-planters & their Hackett Fischerian aristo-populist mores, and relatively disengaged from current partisanship. I don't recall any references to FWD.us or Hamilton's brief, tragic CNBC hosting gig. Lately your neck seems to be getting redder whenever the subject is NYC (though it may be due to that presidential candidate, or 3 of them)

    Chernow I perceive as a straight shooter, though well ensconced in the historical mainstream. He wouldn’t get his sales or his press if he weren’t, but that doesn’t affect the quality of his books adversely. His biographies on Masters of the Universe like Morgan, Rockefeller, and the Warburgs are extensively cited by conspiracy nuts, for instance, despite Chernow being what they’d term a “court historian.”

  26. @candid_observer

    The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.
     
    This really gives the game away regarding Hamilton's success.

    Nothing is more beautiful, more original, more clever, more revolutionary, more inspiring, or more profound than something that tells you how smart you are to believe exactly what you do.

    Ask Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert how wonderfully this works.

    Nothing is more beautiful, more original, more clever, more revolutionary, more inspiring, or more profound than something that tells you how smart you are to believe exactly what you do.

    Candid, you nailed the psychology of these folks–the Jon “Stewart” watchers.

    But …

    The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.

    what really pops from this snippet for me, is the absolute *contempt* of this “elite” for the actual American people. And yet, this nation was the most prosperous nation in the world before their ancestors showed up in any number. And it won’t be such when they are done looting and wrecking it.

  27. OT,

    But I wonder if others react as much as I do to the current character of the NY Times.

    I find it hard to believe how much of the most prominent news articles — and of course the commentary — is devoted to smearing Trump.

    Maybe my memory doesn’t serve me well here, but I just can’t recall such an obsession with a political figure this far out from the actual election. They can’t even seem to give poor Bernie a break at this point because he seems to them to be dimming Hillary’s prospects.

    They seem to have totally lost their minds. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a better example of moral panic. They’ve tried to convince the public that Trump is a boogeyman, but now no one seems to be more deathly afraid of him than they themselves.

    And at base it all seems to stem from the time Trump called some illegal immigrants from Mexico “rapists”. It seemed to induce a spiral of increasingly disordered thinking in them. After Trump’s comment on the rapists, Trump was then pronounced a “racist”, a “bigot”, a “nativist”, a “demagogue”, and it proceeded to his being called a “fascist”, a “Mussolini”, and, as Godwin’s Law foresaw, “Hitler”. And yet not a single one of his comments, even the cruder among them, could fairly be said to be clearly “racist” in any pernicious sense of the term. They’ve manufactured in their own heads all of the “racism” they attribute to him, and then have cowered before their own creation.

    They’ve long ago abandoned any journalistic standards; they don’t even seem to be embarrassed by their own now perfectly obvious corruption.

    It’s just bizarre.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    We all notice it. It is just the beginning of the smear campaign that was very much anticipated: buckle your seat belts, invest in great sound-blocking headphones, don't watch network TV, stay In Cognito in your neighborhood. Preserve - reserve - persevere. It is time to self-isolate, maybe start/do yoga, hike a bucket-list trail, travel, volunteer at an animal shelter. Don't let stuff upset you.
  28. @Anonymous
    The reason very few Americans perceive the webs of disproportionate Jewish influence, or what that influence is directed toward, is that they don't know any Jews. Jews are concentrated in a few places, highly insular, and rarely wear their Jewishness openly on their sleeves. Thus, a very small but powerful minority's interest and enthusiasm for diluting the majority (aka divide and conquer, not a bad idea) doesn't even rise in the average gentile mind.

    Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor? Given that Jews like Miranda's production, it must be first class.

    Why an immigration panderfest, using blacks (mulattos through octoroons, really) but really about making Jews feel good about themselves, would rule Broadway in Obama's final year doesn't compute with 95% of the population (it does with the 2% who are Jews and a miscellaneous 3% who understand the world).

    Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor?

    You omitted Galaxy Quest.

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor?"
    You forgot "American Pie Number Five".
    Possibly the pinnacle of jewish moviedon shitness.
  29. @Arclight
    "deeply ingrained elitism,..disdain for the lower classes and...fear of democratic politics."

    Are we talking about a long-dead Founding Father or the current political establishment in America?

    Yes.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  30. @anony-mouse
    Oh come on.

    When Eva Peron died Che Guevera was on his way to Cuba.

    The Von Trapp family left by train, not by climbing every mountain.

    King Mongkut of Thailand was 58 when he hired Anna Leonowens so I doubt he did much vigorous dancing or anything else with her.

    These things aren't documentaries and I doubt anyone thinks they are. If you saw someone burst into song as they walked down the street would you join them or avoid them? Musicals assume the former, but I guess they assume everyone knows they're fiction.

    “The Von Trapp family left by train, not by climbing every mountain.”

    Yeah, but they were Austrians, not – say – a black family from Gary Indiana. Should they have been portrayed as the Jackson Family?

  31. @Dumbo
    "the musical “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s remarkable hip-hop dramatization of this founder’s life"

    I am not into musicals, in fact I hate them, but, I had never heard about this musical before reading about it in Steve's blog. Why is it a hit?
    I am not very interested in seeing it after knowing that the genre is "hip-hop"
    I don't really care about Hamilton either
    I don't care about Puerto Ricans
    I think I even prefer Mexicans
    And Colombians
    And Equatorians
    And Brazilians
    And Uruguayans
    And even Argentinians

    I’m not a fan of hip-hop, but it is interesting and commendable when someone takes material from history or classic literature and makes it lively and popular. Doesn’t always work. There was a musical about the Civil War years ago that didn’t do that well.

    • Replies: @IA

    . . . but it is interesting and commendable . . .
     
    You are naive. They subvert the original ideas to suit their emotional/political ends. This has been going on for years. They'll subvert the original story by "modernizing," say, the Nutcracker by Mark Morris, staging men wearing tutus and dancing the ballerina parts. They would prefer flat out anti-traditional Western music too but nobody would go, so they have to keep the music.

    Culture is more a question of identity, who you think you are. Certain people understand this, while those being more literal-minded and naive do not comprehend the subliminal way culture operates.
  32. Whoah. I’m starting to think that the duel had more significance and, erhmmm, outcome than either Burr or Hamilton would have anticipated. Not so sure they would approve of rap and hip-hop, though…or any revisionist thinking beyond just the blood-feud they wanted, and to just, savagely, waste each other. Existentialism was still “a thing” then, back in the day, of the 1700’s.

  33. @Dr. X

    Hamilton, with his contemptuous attitude toward the lower classes, was perfectly comfortable with the inegalitarian and antidemocratic implications of his economic vision.
     
    Well, no kidding. Of course he was. If Lin-Manuel Miranda had actually studied the history of the founding instead if writing idiotic rap lyrics, he would have known this.

    As it so happens, I also teach political theory - however, unlike Frank and Kramnick, I'm not a member of the right Tribe so I don't teach it at Cornell. So I'll save you the $60k that Cornell costs and give it to you for free.

    Three rights are named in the Fifth Amendment from being abridged by the Federal Government without "due process": life, liberty, and property. The Founders got this idea straight from John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise of 1689, named life, liberty and property as the three natural rights the social contract was created to protect. Locke's Second Treatise coincided with the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights, which brought decades of civil war and unrest to an end.

    As English colonists, the Founders believed that they were entitled to these rights. When Gen. Thomas Gage declared martial law in Boston in 1774 after the Tea Party, he singlehandedly violated all the provisions of the Bill of Rights, prompting the Revolution. The Founders were so paranoid of government abuse that when the Revolution ended, they created the Articles of Confederation, which were so weak they were practically no government at all.

    In short order, a different problem surfaced: not violation of natural rights by the British Army, but violation of natural rights by mobs of commoners. In 1786, rogue militiaman Daniel Shays led an armed anti-tax and anti-debt revolt in Western Massachusetts. He and his fellow militiamen, by not paying off legitimate debts, were essentially stealing the property of creditors and lenders. Shays's Rebellion was one of the main events prompting the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    The Federalists, advocating for the proposed constitution, were quite clear that defense of property rights was a priority. Madison, who, along with Hamilton wrote about 80 of the 85 Federalist Papers, made this crystal clear in his famous Federalist #10:

    "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is ... an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."

    So, the protection of inequality is the "first object of government." What evils befall a nation that does not protect the rights of property?

    "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project..."

    Sounds like Madison anticipated Obama, Sanders and Clinton. Oh, wait -- he did!!

    "It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."

    The Founders were forming a nation on an empty continent. ANYTHING you wanted to do, boy, well you just go out and have at it. Nobody's going to give you anything... but you get to keep everything that you work for. And the job of government was to help you protect what you earned -- and prevent the stupid, the lazy, the shiftless and the moronic from voting to take if from you.

    That was Hamilton's attitude. Hamilton was born into poverty and worked his way up from his bootstraps. He believed that wealth was earned, and shouldn't be confiscated by either the government or the masses.

    The idea that Hamilton could identify with black and brown immigrants is just plain ridiculous. Hamilton would have looked at all the immigrant grifters on welfare, Sec. 8, WIC, Medicaid, and TANF and thrown them all the hell out.

    Actually, he would be absolutely aghast if he could return from the grave and discover that his Federal government had created those programs at all.

    “Actually, he would be absolutely aghast if he could return from the grave and discover that his Federal government had created those programs at all.”

    Sure, but who from his era would have expected it? Had he lived in the late 19th Century, he might have advocated a welfare state for pragmatic reasons, as Bismarck did.

    • Replies: @guest
    "who from his era would've expected it?"

    The anti-federalists smelled a rat, though I can't say it was the King Rat that is socialism.

    Hamilton could easily have been Bismarckian if born generations later. I consider him the least principled of the well known Founders.

  34. @candid_observer
    OT,

    But I wonder if others react as much as I do to the current character of the NY Times.

    I find it hard to believe how much of the most prominent news articles -- and of course the commentary -- is devoted to smearing Trump.

    Maybe my memory doesn't serve me well here, but I just can't recall such an obsession with a political figure this far out from the actual election. They can't even seem to give poor Bernie a break at this point because he seems to them to be dimming Hillary's prospects.

    They seem to have totally lost their minds. I'm not sure I've ever seen a better example of moral panic. They've tried to convince the public that Trump is a boogeyman, but now no one seems to be more deathly afraid of him than they themselves.

    And at base it all seems to stem from the time Trump called some illegal immigrants from Mexico "rapists". It seemed to induce a spiral of increasingly disordered thinking in them. After Trump's comment on the rapists, Trump was then pronounced a "racist", a "bigot", a "nativist", a "demagogue", and it proceeded to his being called a "fascist", a "Mussolini", and, as Godwin's Law foresaw, "Hitler". And yet not a single one of his comments, even the cruder among them, could fairly be said to be clearly "racist" in any pernicious sense of the term. They've manufactured in their own heads all of the "racism" they attribute to him, and then have cowered before their own creation.

    They've long ago abandoned any journalistic standards; they don't even seem to be embarrassed by their own now perfectly obvious corruption.

    It's just bizarre.

    We all notice it. It is just the beginning of the smear campaign that was very much anticipated: buckle your seat belts, invest in great sound-blocking headphones, don’t watch network TV, stay In Cognito in your neighborhood. Preserve – reserve – persevere. It is time to self-isolate, maybe start/do yoga, hike a bucket-list trail, travel, volunteer at an animal shelter. Don’t let stuff upset you.

  35. Ghost of Bull Moose could confirm this, but my impression is that Luis Miranda is pretty centrist for a New York Puerto Rican. He was affiliated with Ed Koch, who was right of center for a New York Democrat.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    New York's consultant class is politically amoral. citycouncilwatch.net is a great source for inside baseball stuff about the city.

    The key to BdB is that he plays ball with the developers, as do all the 'progressives', as does BerlinRosen, MirRam, all the rest of them. They lobby and work elections. Preet is looking into all this stuff now.

    Latinos in NYC do not care about the Progressive Caucus. WFP, who basically put BdB in, have always been frustrated by attempts to bring in Latinos to the Prog/Black alliance. So you have dubious groups like Make the Road trying to fill this void.

    My experience is that Latinos and Latino pols love the idea of elites. They just want to be part of it, and obviously they don't have particular loyalty to their own who don't make the grade, though they are happy to work the solidarity angle.

    Maybe they'll fit right in in America after all.
  36. @guest
    You forgot about homos. Jews and homos (and Jewish homos) have creatively run Broadway since forever. You must bear in mind what makes homos feel good about themselves, as well.

    Andrew Lloyd Webber is neither Jewish nor gay.

    • Replies: @guest
    "Andrew Lloyd Webber is neither Jewish nor gay"

    Okay.

    By the way, he's also one of two Broadway composers to become household names in the last several decades. Maybe his lack of alienation from mass audiences has something to do with the facts you mention.

  37. Wow. The next thing you’re going to tell me is that Alexander Hamilton was not actually Black or a person of color. What’s next? That George Washington actually owned slaves?

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Did you know that the Greeks stole science from Egypt and have kept it concealed through white devils for thousands of years, all part of my master plan?

    I have given you a taste of the knowledge. It is up to you to head to your local NOI center to learn more.

    Yaqub the Mad Scientist
  38. @Steve Sailer
    Ghost of Bull Moose could confirm this, but my impression is that Luis Miranda is pretty centrist for a New York Puerto Rican. He was affiliated with Ed Koch, who was right of center for a New York Democrat.

    New York’s consultant class is politically amoral. citycouncilwatch.net is a great source for inside baseball stuff about the city.

    The key to BdB is that he plays ball with the developers, as do all the ‘progressives’, as does BerlinRosen, MirRam, all the rest of them. They lobby and work elections. Preet is looking into all this stuff now.

    Latinos in NYC do not care about the Progressive Caucus. WFP, who basically put BdB in, have always been frustrated by attempts to bring in Latinos to the Prog/Black alliance. So you have dubious groups like Make the Road trying to fill this void.

    My experience is that Latinos and Latino pols love the idea of elites. They just want to be part of it, and obviously they don’t have particular loyalty to their own who don’t make the grade, though they are happy to work the solidarity angle.

    Maybe they’ll fit right in in America after all.

  39. Luis’ big client right now is Adriano Espaillat, a State Senator running for Rangel’s old seat. If he wins, he will be a new Luis Gutierrez. Until AE gets arrested.

    • Replies: @UnlearnedElder
    Does he have any chance of winning? I would expect rangle's district to be pretty black. Does it include Spanish Harlem?
  40. @Dave Pinsen
    Andrew Lloyd Webber is neither Jewish nor gay.

    “Andrew Lloyd Webber is neither Jewish nor gay”

    Okay.

    By the way, he’s also one of two Broadway composers to become household names in the last several decades. Maybe his lack of alienation from mass audiences has something to do with the facts you mention.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Only two? Jonathan Larson (Jewish, not gay) was pretty well known went Rent came out in the '90s. Stephen Sondheim (Jewish, gay) is pretty well-known.

    There are also composers who were household names before they worked on Broadway, such as Elton John (not Jewish, gay), Matt Parker (not Jewish, not gay) & Trey Stone (Jewish, not gay), and Mel Brooks (Jewish, not gay).
  41. @guest
    "Andrew Lloyd Webber is neither Jewish nor gay"

    Okay.

    By the way, he's also one of two Broadway composers to become household names in the last several decades. Maybe his lack of alienation from mass audiences has something to do with the facts you mention.

    Only two? Jonathan Larson (Jewish, not gay) was pretty well known went Rent came out in the ’90s. Stephen Sondheim (Jewish, gay) is pretty well-known.

    There are also composers who were household names before they worked on Broadway, such as Elton John (not Jewish, gay), Matt Parker (not Jewish, not gay) & Trey Stone (Jewish, not gay), and Mel Brooks (Jewish, not gay).

    • Replies: @guest
    No way is Jonathan Larson a household name.

    Sondheim is the other name I had in mind.

    I don't count any of the other people you mentioned. If their fame was dependent on their Broadway work the general population wouldn't know them from Adam.
  42. @Clyde

    Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor?
     
    You omitted Galaxy Quest.

    “Jewish humor is hilarious, of course. How many Americans understand that the excellence of Space Balls and the Princess Bride derives entirely from the Jewishness of their humor?”
    You forgot “American Pie Number Five”.
    Possibly the pinnacle of jewish moviedon shitness.

  43. @Tiny Duck
    Alexander Hamilton, the main author of The Federalist Papers, to be the Founding Father right-wing "intellectuals" often cite to give heft to their self-serving rhetoric favoring the rich and powerful. There is little evidence of this in the biography. Rather, Hamilton was a visionary who championed a strong central government and mercantilism and opposed Jeffersonian Republicanism, which was based largely on land-ownership. In a way, Hamilton was an ambitious city boy and Jefferson a gentleman farmer.

    Hamilton is an important piece of art. Lets start with the cast, all Black and Latino,- for the entire existence of Broadway and Hollywood white actors have played roles of people of color, but it was unheard of for actors of color to play "white roles". Miranda has thrown that right out the window, he has taken an a story of white americans and used a cast of color to portray them. That has challenged the status quo.
    This is the quintessential American story, what (white) school kid doesnt love the story of our "founding" or the great revolution against the evil British empire, Lin writes this for an audience of color, using a story for white people by white people, to explain the struggles of people of color. It was easy for him to do inl "in the heights", because it was written by people of color about their lives, yet in Hamilton he takes their story and makes it his (people of color) own.

    It wasn’t unheard of for black actors to play white roles on Broadway – Kate Sacker of Billions played Juliet on Broadway, for example ( http://www.sho.com/billions/cast/kate-sacker ). What Hamilton does that’s new is have a nearly all-NAM cast play white roles.

  44. Hamilton The Musical , Country music derpery or opiate induced whiggerdom. Take your pick schmucks. There’s no other choice.

    • Replies: @Njguy73
    Can't download Mozart? Or Sinatra? Or The Ramones?
  45. Hamilton hated non-whites. He didn’t care for all the Irish immigrants coming in, many of whom were Jefferson supporters and had populist democratic principles. And, as well have been taught, the Irish weren’t white back in those days (of course that means that early American government was far more diverse than we realize).

    The irony of the open borders crowd idolizing Hamilton is just another example of selective historical ignorance, right up there with claiming the Irish weren’t white.

  46. I’m looking for a new place to live. Anyone know of a search tool that can cross reference lowest percentage of nams with lowest percentage of people who’ve seen ‘Hamilton’?

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Just Google "Cumberland Plateau".
  47. This music video was shot in The Caribbean. Being that Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant from The Caribbean, these are his people.

  48. According to Chernow, Hamilton did help abolish slavery in New York State, against the unanimous opposition in the state Legislature of the Democratic-Republican party.

  49. I hate hip hop and Hamilton. Hamilton may be a great show as entertainment and box office but politically and historically it is a lie. So what.

    But the NYT telling the truth? Very disturbing.

  50. @Tiny Duck
    Alexander Hamilton, the main author of The Federalist Papers, to be the Founding Father right-wing "intellectuals" often cite to give heft to their self-serving rhetoric favoring the rich and powerful. There is little evidence of this in the biography. Rather, Hamilton was a visionary who championed a strong central government and mercantilism and opposed Jeffersonian Republicanism, which was based largely on land-ownership. In a way, Hamilton was an ambitious city boy and Jefferson a gentleman farmer.

    Hamilton is an important piece of art. Lets start with the cast, all Black and Latino,- for the entire existence of Broadway and Hollywood white actors have played roles of people of color, but it was unheard of for actors of color to play "white roles". Miranda has thrown that right out the window, he has taken an a story of white americans and used a cast of color to portray them. That has challenged the status quo.
    This is the quintessential American story, what (white) school kid doesnt love the story of our "founding" or the great revolution against the evil British empire, Lin writes this for an audience of color, using a story for white people by white people, to explain the struggles of people of color. It was easy for him to do inl "in the heights", because it was written by people of color about their lives, yet in Hamilton he takes their story and makes it his (people of color) own.

    If this is true then why did they only leave the evil King as white?

  51. @Dr. X

    Hamilton, with his contemptuous attitude toward the lower classes, was perfectly comfortable with the inegalitarian and antidemocratic implications of his economic vision.
     
    Well, no kidding. Of course he was. If Lin-Manuel Miranda had actually studied the history of the founding instead if writing idiotic rap lyrics, he would have known this.

    As it so happens, I also teach political theory - however, unlike Frank and Kramnick, I'm not a member of the right Tribe so I don't teach it at Cornell. So I'll save you the $60k that Cornell costs and give it to you for free.

    Three rights are named in the Fifth Amendment from being abridged by the Federal Government without "due process": life, liberty, and property. The Founders got this idea straight from John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise of 1689, named life, liberty and property as the three natural rights the social contract was created to protect. Locke's Second Treatise coincided with the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights, which brought decades of civil war and unrest to an end.

    As English colonists, the Founders believed that they were entitled to these rights. When Gen. Thomas Gage declared martial law in Boston in 1774 after the Tea Party, he singlehandedly violated all the provisions of the Bill of Rights, prompting the Revolution. The Founders were so paranoid of government abuse that when the Revolution ended, they created the Articles of Confederation, which were so weak they were practically no government at all.

    In short order, a different problem surfaced: not violation of natural rights by the British Army, but violation of natural rights by mobs of commoners. In 1786, rogue militiaman Daniel Shays led an armed anti-tax and anti-debt revolt in Western Massachusetts. He and his fellow militiamen, by not paying off legitimate debts, were essentially stealing the property of creditors and lenders. Shays's Rebellion was one of the main events prompting the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    The Federalists, advocating for the proposed constitution, were quite clear that defense of property rights was a priority. Madison, who, along with Hamilton wrote about 80 of the 85 Federalist Papers, made this crystal clear in his famous Federalist #10:

    "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is ... an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."

    So, the protection of inequality is the "first object of government." What evils befall a nation that does not protect the rights of property?

    "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project..."

    Sounds like Madison anticipated Obama, Sanders and Clinton. Oh, wait -- he did!!

    "It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."

    The Founders were forming a nation on an empty continent. ANYTHING you wanted to do, boy, well you just go out and have at it. Nobody's going to give you anything... but you get to keep everything that you work for. And the job of government was to help you protect what you earned -- and prevent the stupid, the lazy, the shiftless and the moronic from voting to take if from you.

    That was Hamilton's attitude. Hamilton was born into poverty and worked his way up from his bootstraps. He believed that wealth was earned, and shouldn't be confiscated by either the government or the masses.

    The idea that Hamilton could identify with black and brown immigrants is just plain ridiculous. Hamilton would have looked at all the immigrant grifters on welfare, Sec. 8, WIC, Medicaid, and TANF and thrown them all the hell out.

    Actually, he would be absolutely aghast if he could return from the grave and discover that his Federal government had created those programs at all.

    In 1786, rogue militiaman Daniel Shays led an armed anti-tax and anti-debt revolt in Western Massachusetts. He and his fellow militiamen, by not paying off legitimate debts, were essentially stealing the property of creditors and lenders.

    This hardly captures the essence of Shays’ rebellion, which strikes me as the sort of thing we need today. Some quotes from Wikipedia:
    From a farmer: “I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates … been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth … The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers.”

    “When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the European business partners of Massachusetts merchants refused to extend lines of credit to them and insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency. Despite the continent-wide shortage of such currency, merchants began to demand the same from their local business partners, including those merchants operating in the market towns in the state’s interior. … The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands being made of them by merchants or the civil authorities, and individuals began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations. This led to strong resentments against tax collectors and the courts, where creditors obtained and enforced judgments against debtors, and where tax collectors obtained judgments authorizing property seizures.”

    Think, for a moment, of college students with unpayable student loan debt who cannot find relief in bankruptcy courts. These are the new rabble ready to find their Daniel Shays. Perhaps they could have paid off debts if the economic rules hadn’t changed, as they did in MA after the revolution.

    Shays sounds pretty much like the kind of guy that we like around here, patriotic, hard working: “Shays was a farmhand from Massachusetts when the Revolution broke out; he joined the Continental Army, saw action at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and Saratoga, and was eventually wounded in action. In 1780, he resigned from the army unpaid and went home to find himself in court for nonpayment of debts. He soon realized that he was not alone in his inability to pay his debts and began organizing for debt relief.”

    In other words, Shays was part of the mulcted white working class that is currently in revolt against a financialized elite. Have you noticed that there is no limit to the deductibility of mortgage interest on your federal taxes?

    But a corrupt elite bought debt at pennies on the dollar and insisted on full repayment. Governor Bowdoin: “When Bowdoin (a perennial loser to (former governor John) Hancock in earlier elections) was elected governor (in 1785), matters became more severe. Bowdoin stepped up civil actions to collect back taxes, and the legislature exacerbated the situation by levying an additional property tax to raise funds for the state’s portion of foreign debt payments. Even comparatively conservative commentators such as John Adams observed that these levies were ‘heavier than the People could bear.’”

    Why was Bowdoin so invested in collecting taxes? “In Rhode Island, matters were resolved without violence because the “country party” gained control of the legislature in 1786 and enacted measures forcing its merchant elites to trade debt instruments for devalued currency. The impact of this was not lost on Boston’s merchants, especially Bowdoin, who held more than £3,000 in Massachusetts notes.”

    To sum up, the Boston merchant class decided to use the power of the legislature to push oppressive taxes onto the whole of the state to make ITS debts good, much as the banks in 2008 had the rest of the country bail them out. Bowdoin won the war, but failed to prosper:

    “the legislature elected in 1787 cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts. It also refocused state spending away from interest payments, resulting in a 30% decline in the value of Massachusetts securities as those payments fell in arrears.”

    We have trillions of dollars of unpayable government debt similarly awaiting its Shays today. No Hamilton can come along and tapped latent economic energy to allow the Federal Government to assume the debts of the states and so make grifters like Bowdoin whole. No, this time the bankruptcy will take down everyone foolish enough to own government debt, which is sadly most of us.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    No, this time the bankruptcy will take down everyone foolish enough to own government debt, which is sadly most of us.
     
    Not if they can be encouraged to kill themselves and/or forgo bearing children to inherit that debt first. Failing that, death taxes work reasonably well.

    It's not so much a culture of death as a going concern.
  52. @tbraton
    Wow. The next thing you're going to tell me is that Alexander Hamilton was not actually Black or a person of color. What's next? That George Washington actually owned slaves?

    Did you know that the Greeks stole science from Egypt and have kept it concealed through white devils for thousands of years, all part of my master plan?

    I have given you a taste of the knowledge. It is up to you to head to your local NOI center to learn more.

    Yaqub the Mad Scientist

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Did you know that the Greeks stole science from Egypt and have kept it concealed through white devils for thousands of years, all part of my master plan?"

    I did know that, blabber-mouth, but I have managed to keep that knowledge concealed, unlike some other people I could name who like to run their mouths.
  53. @bob sykes
    Only Roman Catholic priests should have the right to vote or hold elective or appointive public office.

    You’re the ultimate agent provacateur. What you propose not only wouldn’t be “good for the Catholics,” it would be about as bad for us as you can get.

  54. IA says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I'm not a fan of hip-hop, but it is interesting and commendable when someone takes material from history or classic literature and makes it lively and popular. Doesn't always work. There was a musical about the Civil War years ago that didn't do that well.

    . . . but it is interesting and commendable . . .

    You are naive. They subvert the original ideas to suit their emotional/political ends. This has been going on for years. They’ll subvert the original story by “modernizing,” say, the Nutcracker by Mark Morris, staging men wearing tutus and dancing the ballerina parts. They would prefer flat out anti-traditional Western music too but nobody would go, so they have to keep the music.

    Culture is more a question of identity, who you think you are. Certain people understand this, while those being more literal-minded and naive do not comprehend the subliminal way culture operates.

  55. @Anonymous
    Steve, have you even read the Chernow book? I would characterize it as interested in its subject -- as most biographies tend to be -- but politically aloof insofar as not waving a bloody shirt, not taking ahistorical potshots at distinguished gentlemen-planters & their Hackett Fischerian aristo-populist mores, and relatively disengaged from current partisanship. I don't recall any references to FWD.us or Hamilton's brief, tragic CNBC hosting gig. Lately your neck seems to be getting redder whenever the subject is NYC (though it may be due to that presidential candidate, or 3 of them)

    Lately your neck seems to be getting redder whenever the subject is NYC

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. When the redneck is held up to the goodthinkers as the epitome of all that is evil with the world, then perspectives slanting redneck are likely to be closer to the truth than those widely held in places such as NYC where goodthinkers convene.

  56. @TomSchmidt
    In 1786, rogue militiaman Daniel Shays led an armed anti-tax and anti-debt revolt in Western Massachusetts. He and his fellow militiamen, by not paying off legitimate debts, were essentially stealing the property of creditors and lenders.

    This hardly captures the essence of Shays' rebellion, which strikes me as the sort of thing we need today. Some quotes from Wikipedia:
    From a farmer: "I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates ... been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth ... The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

    "When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the European business partners of Massachusetts merchants refused to extend lines of credit to them and insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency. Despite the continent-wide shortage of such currency, merchants began to demand the same from their local business partners, including those merchants operating in the market towns in the state's interior. ... The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands being made of them by merchants or the civil authorities, and individuals began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations. This led to strong resentments against tax collectors and the courts, where creditors obtained and enforced judgments against debtors, and where tax collectors obtained judgments authorizing property seizures."

    Think, for a moment, of college students with unpayable student loan debt who cannot find relief in bankruptcy courts. These are the new rabble ready to find their Daniel Shays. Perhaps they could have paid off debts if the economic rules hadn't changed, as they did in MA after the revolution.

    Shays sounds pretty much like the kind of guy that we like around here, patriotic, hard working: "Shays was a farmhand from Massachusetts when the Revolution broke out; he joined the Continental Army, saw action at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and Saratoga, and was eventually wounded in action. In 1780, he resigned from the army unpaid and went home to find himself in court for nonpayment of debts. He soon realized that he was not alone in his inability to pay his debts and began organizing for debt relief."

    In other words, Shays was part of the mulcted white working class that is currently in revolt against a financialized elite. Have you noticed that there is no limit to the deductibility of mortgage interest on your federal taxes?

    But a corrupt elite bought debt at pennies on the dollar and insisted on full repayment. Governor Bowdoin: "When Bowdoin (a perennial loser to (former governor John) Hancock in earlier elections) was elected governor (in 1785), matters became more severe. Bowdoin stepped up civil actions to collect back taxes, and the legislature exacerbated the situation by levying an additional property tax to raise funds for the state's portion of foreign debt payments. Even comparatively conservative commentators such as John Adams observed that these levies were 'heavier than the People could bear.'"

    Why was Bowdoin so invested in collecting taxes? "In Rhode Island, matters were resolved without violence because the "country party" gained control of the legislature in 1786 and enacted measures forcing its merchant elites to trade debt instruments for devalued currency. The impact of this was not lost on Boston's merchants, especially Bowdoin, who held more than £3,000 in Massachusetts notes."

    To sum up, the Boston merchant class decided to use the power of the legislature to push oppressive taxes onto the whole of the state to make ITS debts good, much as the banks in 2008 had the rest of the country bail them out. Bowdoin won the war, but failed to prosper:

    "the legislature elected in 1787 cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts. It also refocused state spending away from interest payments, resulting in a 30% decline in the value of Massachusetts securities as those payments fell in arrears."

    We have trillions of dollars of unpayable government debt similarly awaiting its Shays today. No Hamilton can come along and tapped latent economic energy to allow the Federal Government to assume the debts of the states and so make grifters like Bowdoin whole. No, this time the bankruptcy will take down everyone foolish enough to own government debt, which is sadly most of us.

    No, this time the bankruptcy will take down everyone foolish enough to own government debt, which is sadly most of us.

    Not if they can be encouraged to kill themselves and/or forgo bearing children to inherit that debt first. Failing that, death taxes work reasonably well.

    It’s not so much a culture of death as a going concern.

  57. @Ozymandias
    I'm looking for a new place to live. Anyone know of a search tool that can cross reference lowest percentage of nams with lowest percentage of people who've seen 'Hamilton'?

    Just Google “Cumberland Plateau”.

  58. @Anonymous
    Steve, have you even read the Chernow book? I would characterize it as interested in its subject -- as most biographies tend to be -- but politically aloof insofar as not waving a bloody shirt, not taking ahistorical potshots at distinguished gentlemen-planters & their Hackett Fischerian aristo-populist mores, and relatively disengaged from current partisanship. I don't recall any references to FWD.us or Hamilton's brief, tragic CNBC hosting gig. Lately your neck seems to be getting redder whenever the subject is NYC (though it may be due to that presidential candidate, or 3 of them)

    On red necks and blue bloods: when observing from the outside the statistical outlier (NYC), the outlier is observed correctly as one. When observing from the point of the outlier, everything else is observed incorrectly as one.

    This is not to say that all outliers are bad. Outliers of excellence are praiseworthy.

    If you haven’t really followed the full extent of Steve’s take on NYC, the theme is how its provincialism/outlierness makes it think that the vast majority of the country is strange, and its own particular quirks and hypocrisies are moral and good. Urban provincialism is still provincialism. I haven’t seen this play, but it appears to be as corny and smugly feel good as the Southern gothic-lite, ain’t we so quaint comedies you see in community theaters where I live. We can see the obvious bad taste, but they can’t.

  59. @yaqub the mad scientist
    Did you know that the Greeks stole science from Egypt and have kept it concealed through white devils for thousands of years, all part of my master plan?

    I have given you a taste of the knowledge. It is up to you to head to your local NOI center to learn more.

    Yaqub the Mad Scientist

    “Did you know that the Greeks stole science from Egypt and have kept it concealed through white devils for thousands of years, all part of my master plan?”

    I did know that, blabber-mouth, but I have managed to keep that knowledge concealed, unlike some other people I could name who like to run their mouths.

  60. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Luis' big client right now is Adriano Espaillat, a State Senator running for Rangel's old seat. If he wins, he will be a new Luis Gutierrez. Until AE gets arrested.

    Does he have any chance of winning? I would expect rangle’s district to be pretty black. Does it include Spanish Harlem?

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Adriano ran against Rangel before. Charlie has endorsed Assemblyman Keith Wright, who is also chair of New York County Dems, to succeed him.

    People were saying Espaillat could win last time, but a friend worked his campaign, and I was on a roof in Inwood with Luis & Adriano the night before Eday. It was depressing. A lot of big talk, but we walked out & my candidate looked at me and said, 'no way.'

    Never underestimate the little old Harlem church ladies in a Democratic primary. Wash Heights & Inwood has more billboards & signs for elections in D.R.

  61. Why an immigration panderfest, using blacks (mulattos through octoroons, really) but really about making Jews feel good about themselves,

    Jews are nostalgic for the Great Wave immigration era, but this doesn’t translate into Jewish support for recent immigration generally. Large swathes of the major urban areas were transformed and made unlivable for Jews long before it impacted the heartland and polls show we want less immigration.

    Or at least I’ve not seen proof Jews view immigration as being beneficial to their ethnic group from anyone who doesn’t rely on MacDonald’s work, MacDonald who falsified the evidence supporting his theory that immigration benefited Jews.

    Here’s MacDonald referring to an interview with Foucault which he claims showed the largely mythical enemy, the Frankfurt School, influenced Foucault when Foucault actually said the School had little impact on him until he already developed his own theories.

    Explain to me why he can’t quote his sources truthfully and why his immigration history deserves to be viewed as any more truthful than this example from CofC:

    https://archive.org/stream/TheCultureOfCritiqueAnEvolutionaryAnalysisOf/cultureofcritique_djvu.txt

    pg 199

    Reflecting the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary
    postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault
    stated, “If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been
    saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense
    and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the
    Frankfurt School had already cleared the way” (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4).
    Whereas the strategy of the Frankfurt School was to deconstruct universalist,
    scientific thinking by the use of “critical reason,” postmodernism has opted for
    complete relativism and the lack of objective standards of any kind in the
    interests of preventing any general theories of society or universally valid
    philosophical or moral systems (Norris 1993, 287ff). 145

    Contemporary postmodernism and multiculturalist ideology (see, e.g., Gless
    & Hermstein Smith 1992) have adopted several central pillars of the Frankfurt
    School: the fundamental priority of ethics and values in approaching education
    and the social sciences; empirical science as oppressive and an aspect of social
    domination; a rejection of the possibility of shared values or any sense of
    universalism or national culture (see also Jacoby’s [1995, 35] discussion of
    “post-colonial theory” — another intellectual descendant of the Frankfurt School);
    a “hermeneutics of suspicion” in which any attempt to construct such universals
    or a national culture is energetically resisted and “deconstructed” — essentially
    the same activity termed by Adorno “negative dialectics.” There is an implicit
    acceptance of a Balkanized model of society in which certain groups and their
    interests have a priori moral value and there is no possibility of developing a
    scientific, rational theory of any particular group, much less a theory of pan-
    human universals. Both the Frankfurt School and postmodernism implicitly
    accept a model in which there is competition among antagonistic groups and no
    rational way of reaching consensus, although there is also an implicit double
    standard in which cohesive groups formed by majorities are viewed as
    pathological and subject to radical criticism.

    http://stunlaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/foucault-and-frankfurt-school.html

    Now, the striking thing is that France knew absolutely nothing – or only vaguely, only very indirectly – about the current of Weberian thought. Critical Theory was hardly known in France and the Frankfurt School was practically unheard of. This, by the way, raises a minor historical problem which fascinates me and which I have not been able to resolve at all. It is common knowledge that many representatives of the Frankfurt School came to Paris in 1935, seeking refuge, and left very hastily, sickened presumably – some even said as much – but saddened anyhow not to have found more of an echo. Then came 1940, but they had already left for England and the U.S., where they were actually much better received. The understanding that might have been established between the Frankfurt School and French philosophical thought – by way of the history of science and therefore the question of the history of rationality – never occurred. And when I was a student, I can assure you that I never once heard the name ofthe Frankfurt School mentioned by any of my professors.

    FOUCAULT: Now, obviously, if I had been familiar with the Frankfurt School, if I had been aware of it at the time, I would not have said a number of stupid things that I did say and I would have avoided many of the detours which I made while trying to pursue my own humble path – when, meanwhile, avenues had been opened up by the Frankfurt School. It is a strange case of non-penetration between two very similar types of thinking which is explained, perhaps, by that very similarity. Nothing hides the fact of a problem in common better than two similar ways of approaching it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Jews are nostalgic for the Great Wave immigration era, but this doesn’t translate into Jewish support for recent immigration generally."

    The way they vote, and the expressed goals of most organizations that purport to speak for them belies your claim.

    Your crusade against MacDonald, which you trot out here at the least provocation (or, indeed, none at all) is equally unimpressive. And your specific claim here is disingenuous. What you say MacDonald said about Foucault and the Frankfurt school is no different that what Foucault himself said about them - that they were espoused the same things he did. At least based on the exerpts you reproduced here.
  62. Thus, a very small but powerful minority’s interest and enthusiasm for diluting the majority (aka divide and conquer, not a bad idea)

    We didn’t dilute it and don’t benefit from immigration.

    MacDonald, the only paleocon source for that theory, took evidence from resources about WWII and pre-WWII Jewish lobbying to help Jews escape persecution and twisted and lied about them to make them seem as if Jews supported non-white immigration before other gentile elites were on board with it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

    He has been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. For example, Dr. Barry Mehler, an educator at Ferris State University, noted that MacDonald had claimed that “…Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation (to limit immigration) was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.” MacDonald based this on a dissertation entitled “American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953” by Sheldon Morris Neuringer.[who?] Nueringer’s thesis posited that Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration. Mehler stated “It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald’s use of the historical data.” [34]

  63. @Dave Pinsen
    "Actually, he would be absolutely aghast if he could return from the grave and discover that his Federal government had created those programs at all."

    Sure, but who from his era would have expected it? Had he lived in the late 19th Century, he might have advocated a welfare state for pragmatic reasons, as Bismarck did.

    “who from his era would’ve expected it?”

    The anti-federalists smelled a rat, though I can’t say it was the King Rat that is socialism.

    Hamilton could easily have been Bismarckian if born generations later. I consider him the least principled of the well known Founders.

  64. @Dave Pinsen
    Only two? Jonathan Larson (Jewish, not gay) was pretty well known went Rent came out in the '90s. Stephen Sondheim (Jewish, gay) is pretty well-known.

    There are also composers who were household names before they worked on Broadway, such as Elton John (not Jewish, gay), Matt Parker (not Jewish, not gay) & Trey Stone (Jewish, not gay), and Mel Brooks (Jewish, not gay).

    No way is Jonathan Larson a household name.

    Sondheim is the other name I had in mind.

    I don’t count any of the other people you mentioned. If their fame was dependent on their Broadway work the general population wouldn’t know them from Adam.

  65. Hamilton has yet to be subjected to a serious musical criticism. I quickly scanned the sound track recording, and what I immediately notice is very little modulation of key. There’s a lot of jive talk to a drum machine, but for any given song, if you skip along the YouTube time bar at regular intervals, you keep landing on the same sparse chord, no sevenths, no ninths. There is also a total lack of counterpoint, with two or more melodies going at once. This would be a mediocre effort even for a pre-college Julliard composition student. So I’m trying to figure out why this is a successful cultural phenomena. A ticket to this snooze fest costs $3000 these days, but I don’t see what sustains this Broadway Happening for a run longer than a year, especially after Obama leaves the White House. Without the soaring melodies and lush orchestration of Camelot, Cats, or Les Mis, or the catchy tunes of Annie, how does this thing achieve permanent cultural status?

    Listening to Hamilton is like listening to somebody rapping names from the Lexington and Concord phone directory.

    I will say one thing for Lin-Manuel Miranda, who has no formal musical training. He made a great lunatic sidekick for Hugh Laurie in the House MD episode where Dr House voluntarily commits himself to a psychiatric hospital for Vicodin addiction. There’s a great scene where they rap together in a nut ward talent show.

    • Replies: @guest
    One thing I like about Hamilton!, and it's pretty much the only thing it has going for it, is that it's in a musical style that bears some relation to the listening habits of the general public. Not that it has cracked the public consciousness; it hasn't. But it's not showtuney, for lack of a better term, which really only works in Disney cartoons these days.

    Problem is, hip-hop is a severely limited style. It feeds off the capital of previously produced music, in the form of sampling. If you want modulation, counterpoint, harmony, and often the simplest elements like melody and rhythm, you get it from the backing track. The original part is mostly boasting and studio wizardry. I assume Hamilton! doesn't sample like that, which leaves them with the less musical aspects.

  66. @UnlearnedElder
    Does he have any chance of winning? I would expect rangle's district to be pretty black. Does it include Spanish Harlem?

    Adriano ran against Rangel before. Charlie has endorsed Assemblyman Keith Wright, who is also chair of New York County Dems, to succeed him.

    People were saying Espaillat could win last time, but a friend worked his campaign, and I was on a roof in Inwood with Luis & Adriano the night before Eday. It was depressing. A lot of big talk, but we walked out & my candidate looked at me and said, ‘no way.’

    Never underestimate the little old Harlem church ladies in a Democratic primary. Wash Heights & Inwood has more billboards & signs for elections in D.R.

  67. And, in the spirit of the shows’ subject, Tax-Master H – that rappin’ federalist who promoted the whiskey tax (which favored wealthy eastern distillers over the rough-hewn corn farmers of the west), the shows backers want to continue their special tax treatment:

    Broadway Wants Longer Tax Break

    It’s……….egalitarian, or something.

  68. @The Undiscovered Jew
    Why an immigration panderfest, using blacks (mulattos through octoroons, really) but really about making Jews feel good about themselves,

    Jews are nostalgic for the Great Wave immigration era, but this doesn't translate into Jewish support for recent immigration generally. Large swathes of the major urban areas were transformed and made unlivable for Jews long before it impacted the heartland and polls show we want less immigration.

    Or at least I've not seen proof Jews view immigration as being beneficial to their ethnic group from anyone who doesn't rely on MacDonald's work, MacDonald who falsified the evidence supporting his theory that immigration benefited Jews.

    Here's MacDonald referring to an interview with Foucault which he claims showed the largely mythical enemy, the Frankfurt School, influenced Foucault when Foucault actually said the School had little impact on him until he already developed his own theories.

    Explain to me why he can't quote his sources truthfully and why his immigration history deserves to be viewed as any more truthful than this example from CofC:


    https://archive.org/stream/TheCultureOfCritiqueAnEvolutionaryAnalysisOf/cultureofcritique_djvu.txt

    pg 199

    Reflecting the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary
    postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault
    stated, “If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been
    saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense
    and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the
    Frankfurt School had already cleared the way” (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4).
    Whereas the strategy of the Frankfurt School was to deconstruct universalist,
    scientific thinking by the use of “critical reason,” postmodernism has opted for
    complete relativism and the lack of objective standards of any kind in the
    interests of preventing any general theories of society or universally valid
    philosophical or moral systems (Norris 1993, 287ff). 145

    Contemporary postmodernism and multiculturalist ideology (see, e.g., Gless
    & Hermstein Smith 1992) have adopted several central pillars of the Frankfurt
    School: the fundamental priority of ethics and values in approaching education
    and the social sciences; empirical science as oppressive and an aspect of social
    domination; a rejection of the possibility of shared values or any sense of
    universalism or national culture (see also Jacoby’s [1995, 35] discussion of
    “post-colonial theory” — another intellectual descendant of the Frankfurt School);
    a “hermeneutics of suspicion” in which any attempt to construct such universals
    or a national culture is energetically resisted and “deconstructed” — essentially
    the same activity termed by Adorno “negative dialectics.” There is an implicit
    acceptance of a Balkanized model of society in which certain groups and their
    interests have a priori moral value and there is no possibility of developing a
    scientific, rational theory of any particular group, much less a theory of pan-
    human universals. Both the Frankfurt School and postmodernism implicitly
    accept a model in which there is competition among antagonistic groups and no
    rational way of reaching consensus, although there is also an implicit double
    standard in which cohesive groups formed by majorities are viewed as
    pathological and subject to radical criticism.


    http://stunlaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/foucault-and-frankfurt-school.html

    Now, the striking thing is that France knew absolutely nothing – or only vaguely, only very indirectly – about the current of Weberian thought. Critical Theory was hardly known in France and the Frankfurt School was practically unheard of. This, by the way, raises a minor historical problem which fascinates me and which I have not been able to resolve at all. It is common knowledge that many representatives of the Frankfurt School came to Paris in 1935, seeking refuge, and left very hastily, sickened presumably – some even said as much – but saddened anyhow not to have found more of an echo. Then came 1940, but they had already left for England and the U.S., where they were actually much better received. The understanding that might have been established between the Frankfurt School and French philosophical thought – by way of the history of science and therefore the question of the history of rationality – never occurred. And when I was a student, I can assure you that I never once heard the name ofthe Frankfurt School mentioned by any of my professors.

    FOUCAULT: Now, obviously, if I had been familiar with the Frankfurt School, if I had been aware of it at the time, I would not have said a number of stupid things that I did say and I would have avoided many of the detours which I made while trying to pursue my own humble path – when, meanwhile, avenues had been opened up by the Frankfurt School. It is a strange case of non-penetration between two very similar types of thinking which is explained, perhaps, by that very similarity. Nothing hides the fact of a problem in common better than two similar ways of approaching it.

    “Jews are nostalgic for the Great Wave immigration era, but this doesn’t translate into Jewish support for recent immigration generally.”

    The way they vote, and the expressed goals of most organizations that purport to speak for them belies your claim.

    Your crusade against MacDonald, which you trot out here at the least provocation (or, indeed, none at all) is equally unimpressive. And your specific claim here is disingenuous. What you say MacDonald said about Foucault and the Frankfurt school is no different that what Foucault himself said about them – that they were espoused the same things he did. At least based on the exerpts you reproduced here.

  69. @Auntie Analogue
    I'm fed up with liars calling Hamilton an "immigrant."

    Hamilton was not an immigrant. Like the other pre-Revolution Founding Fathers, Hamilton was a fellow British subject - he merely relocated from one British colony to another.

    Yup, much like Miranda’s own father. But even if moving from Puerto Rico to Nueva York doesn’t technically make you an immigrant, what’s important is that you feel like one.

  70. @ChaseBizzy
    Hamilton The Musical , Country music derpery or opiate induced whiggerdom. Take your pick schmucks. There's no other choice.

    Can’t download Mozart? Or Sinatra? Or The Ramones?

  71. And your specific claim here is disingenuous. What you say MacDonald said about Foucault and the Frankfurt school is no different that what Foucault himself said about them – that they were espoused the same things he did.

    If they ‘espoused the same things’ Foucault did, then that contradicts the whole thesis of MacDonald’s chapter on the Frankfurt School – his point is that they were pursuing an ethnic agenda with their ideology.

    If the gentile Foucault, who MacDonald wrongly represented as having been influenced by them, says he came up with a ‘very similar’ ideology without knowing who they were then that means the Frankfurt School was not ‘a Jewish ethnic front’ since a gentile came up with almost the exact same ideas as Foucault did.

    And if he can’t be trusted to quote his sources accurately, why are we supposed to believe him and his nimrod followers (such as yourself) that immigration serves a ‘Jewish’ ethnic strategy when MacDonald has been caught lying about his own sources?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "If they ‘espoused the same things’ Foucault did, then that contradicts the whole thesis of MacDonald’s chapter on the Frankfurt School – his point is that they were pursuing an ethnic agenda with their ideology.

    If the gentile Foucault, who MacDonald wrongly represented as having been influenced by them, says he came up with a ‘very similar’ ideology without knowing who they were then that means the Frankfurt School was not ‘a Jewish ethnic front’ since a gentile came up with almost the exact same ideas as Foucault did."

    That does not logically follow. The fact that Foucault came up with it himself does not mean that the Frankfurt school wasn't motivated by some kind of ethnic animus.

    "And if he can’t be trusted to quote his sources accurately, why are we supposed to believe him and his nimrod followers (such as yourself) that immigration serves a ‘Jewish’ ethnic strategy when MacDonald has been caught lying about his own sources?"

    He wasn't lying. I am not a MacDonald "follower", but he does have the virtue of having written some things that are 1.) more factual and 2.) more interesting than anything you write.
  72. Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it harder for immigrants to become citizens while allowing their deportation if they were suspected of disloyalty

    Hmmm, maybe I could get used to this Hamilton admiration. Could have come in handy after the San Jose Trump Rally assaults.

    I don’t see Hamilton so much a”victory lap” for the Obama Administration, than as a lament. POC upstart sticking it to those racists like Jefferson (a stand in for Republicans) who want limited government, like being against the TARP Bailout, etc. Obama’s term is ending and the financial elites are making up for the relative failure of his presidency through the Hamilton play. Other than that, it is just an example of the time tested Broadway tradition of a glorified minstrel show.

  73. @JimB
    Hamilton has yet to be subjected to a serious musical criticism. I quickly scanned the sound track recording, and what I immediately notice is very little modulation of key. There's a lot of jive talk to a drum machine, but for any given song, if you skip along the YouTube time bar at regular intervals, you keep landing on the same sparse chord, no sevenths, no ninths. There is also a total lack of counterpoint, with two or more melodies going at once. This would be a mediocre effort even for a pre-college Julliard composition student. So I'm trying to figure out why this is a successful cultural phenomena. A ticket to this snooze fest costs $3000 these days, but I don't see what sustains this Broadway Happening for a run longer than a year, especially after Obama leaves the White House. Without the soaring melodies and lush orchestration of Camelot, Cats, or Les Mis, or the catchy tunes of Annie, how does this thing achieve permanent cultural status?

    Listening to Hamilton is like listening to somebody rapping names from the Lexington and Concord phone directory.

    I will say one thing for Lin-Manuel Miranda, who has no formal musical training. He made a great lunatic sidekick for Hugh Laurie in the House MD episode where Dr House voluntarily commits himself to a psychiatric hospital for Vicodin addiction. There's a great scene where they rap together in a nut ward talent show.

    One thing I like about Hamilton!, and it’s pretty much the only thing it has going for it, is that it’s in a musical style that bears some relation to the listening habits of the general public. Not that it has cracked the public consciousness; it hasn’t. But it’s not showtuney, for lack of a better term, which really only works in Disney cartoons these days.

    Problem is, hip-hop is a severely limited style. It feeds off the capital of previously produced music, in the form of sampling. If you want modulation, counterpoint, harmony, and often the simplest elements like melody and rhythm, you get it from the backing track. The original part is mostly boasting and studio wizardry. I assume Hamilton! doesn’t sample like that, which leaves them with the less musical aspects.

  74. @The Undiscovered Jew
    And your specific claim here is disingenuous. What you say MacDonald said about Foucault and the Frankfurt school is no different that what Foucault himself said about them – that they were espoused the same things he did.

    If they 'espoused the same things' Foucault did, then that contradicts the whole thesis of MacDonald's chapter on the Frankfurt School - his point is that they were pursuing an ethnic agenda with their ideology.

    If the gentile Foucault, who MacDonald wrongly represented as having been influenced by them, says he came up with a 'very similar' ideology without knowing who they were then that means the Frankfurt School was not 'a Jewish ethnic front' since a gentile came up with almost the exact same ideas as Foucault did.

    And if he can't be trusted to quote his sources accurately, why are we supposed to believe him and his nimrod followers (such as yourself) that immigration serves a 'Jewish' ethnic strategy when MacDonald has been caught lying about his own sources?

    “If they ‘espoused the same things’ Foucault did, then that contradicts the whole thesis of MacDonald’s chapter on the Frankfurt School – his point is that they were pursuing an ethnic agenda with their ideology.

    If the gentile Foucault, who MacDonald wrongly represented as having been influenced by them, says he came up with a ‘very similar’ ideology without knowing who they were then that means the Frankfurt School was not ‘a Jewish ethnic front’ since a gentile came up with almost the exact same ideas as Foucault did.”

    That does not logically follow. The fact that Foucault came up with it himself does not mean that the Frankfurt school wasn’t motivated by some kind of ethnic animus.

    “And if he can’t be trusted to quote his sources accurately, why are we supposed to believe him and his nimrod followers (such as yourself) that immigration serves a ‘Jewish’ ethnic strategy when MacDonald has been caught lying about his own sources?”

    He wasn’t lying. I am not a MacDonald “follower”, but he does have the virtue of having written some things that are 1.) more factual and 2.) more interesting than anything you write.

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    He wasn’t lying. I am not a MacDonald “follower”, but he does have the virtue of having written some things that are 1.) more factual and 2.) more interesting than anything you write.

    There are other examples where MacDonald has demonstrated he is a liar, as well as an idiot for thinking no one would notice his evidence doesn't match his descriptions of them.

    Here is another example of him lying:

    1) He refers to a study about authoritarianism among religious groups and claims the results prove Jews are highly authoritarian.

    2) The actual study says Jews tied with Anglicans and Unitarians for being among the least authoritarian of all measured religious groups.

    Explain how this isn't a lie:



    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    Kevin MacDonald:

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups

    (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish

    Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews
    .59

    The real study:

    [A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

    So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious.

    Yet in an awe-inspiring display of sheer gall (dare I say, 'chutzpah'?), MacDonald takes information Altemeyer has collected from studies of subjects explicitly identified as “White North Americans” and applies it willy-nilly to the Jews whom Altemeyer, working from actual data rather than his own 'suppositions,' largely exempts from the discussion. The point is worth emphasizing: these highly ethnocentric, highly authoritarian, highly self-deceptive “people who are highly attracted to cohesive groups,” as MacDonald so guardedly puts it, whom MacDonald adduces as evidence for the self-deceptive tendencies of Jewish “hyper-collectivism,” were in fact members of MacDonald's own ethnic group. I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud.
  75. That does not logically follow. The fact that Foucault came up with it himself does not mean that the Frankfurt school wasn’t motivated by some kind of ethnic animus.

    The way MacDonald presented the interview was to imply Foucault was influenced by School, which in fact is the exact opposite of what Foucault meant and act of deception on his part.

    Furthermore, it does follow from MacDonald’s own argument that the Frankfurt School must be ideologically distinct from the theories of gentile liberals such as Foucault. MacDonald spends the entire chapter to distinguish it’s ideological foundations from other liberal ideas.

    That’s why he felt compelled to lie and suggest Foucault gathered ideas from them when in reality Foucault, who was more influential than anyone from the Frankfurt School, said he had never heard of them until he had completed his own work.

    If they’re essentially the same as Foucault argued then he has little evidence of Jewish ethnic animus.

    If they’re the same then it’s evidence the Frankfurt School was just adopting the same liberal ideals gentiles were, for basically the same reason.

  76. @Mr. Anon
    "If they ‘espoused the same things’ Foucault did, then that contradicts the whole thesis of MacDonald’s chapter on the Frankfurt School – his point is that they were pursuing an ethnic agenda with their ideology.

    If the gentile Foucault, who MacDonald wrongly represented as having been influenced by them, says he came up with a ‘very similar’ ideology without knowing who they were then that means the Frankfurt School was not ‘a Jewish ethnic front’ since a gentile came up with almost the exact same ideas as Foucault did."

    That does not logically follow. The fact that Foucault came up with it himself does not mean that the Frankfurt school wasn't motivated by some kind of ethnic animus.

    "And if he can’t be trusted to quote his sources accurately, why are we supposed to believe him and his nimrod followers (such as yourself) that immigration serves a ‘Jewish’ ethnic strategy when MacDonald has been caught lying about his own sources?"

    He wasn't lying. I am not a MacDonald "follower", but he does have the virtue of having written some things that are 1.) more factual and 2.) more interesting than anything you write.

    He wasn’t lying. I am not a MacDonald “follower”, but he does have the virtue of having written some things that are 1.) more factual and 2.) more interesting than anything you write.

    There are other examples where MacDonald has demonstrated he is a liar, as well as an idiot for thinking no one would notice his evidence doesn’t match his descriptions of them.

    Here is another example of him lying:

    1) He refers to a study about authoritarianism among religious groups and claims the results prove Jews are highly authoritarian.

    2) The actual study says Jews tied with Anglicans and Unitarians for being among the least authoritarian of all measured religious groups.

    Explain how this isn’t a lie:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    Kevin MacDonald:

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups

    (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish

    Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

    The real study:

    [A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

    So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious.

    Yet in an awe-inspiring display of sheer gall (dare I say, ‘chutzpah’?), MacDonald takes information Altemeyer has collected from studies of subjects explicitly identified as “White North Americans” and applies it willy-nilly to the Jews whom Altemeyer, working from actual data rather than his own ‘suppositions,’ largely exempts from the discussion. The point is worth emphasizing: these highly ethnocentric, highly authoritarian, highly self-deceptive “people who are highly attracted to cohesive groups,” as MacDonald so guardedly puts it, whom MacDonald adduces as evidence for the self-deceptive tendencies of Jewish “hyper-collectivism,” were in fact members of MacDonald’s own ethnic group. I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud.

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I had seen MSN paeans to this play, and the more I learned about it the more confused I became until reading this article. I understand very well now why the big fuss. They are reveling in the posthumous humiliation of the Country’s founding DWMs and in our humiliation for being powerless to do anything about it. Yup it’s a power thing.

    Knowing this scotches the big idea I got from my earlier incomplete knowledge of the genius behind the play ‘Hamilton.’ I thought it would be really cool to write the play, ‘Shaka,’ based on the movie, but which would be played by an all Scottish cast in mini kilts along with the spears, antelope-skin shields, and sundry native body adornments. Except for the crafty Brits played by select members of the ‘Hamilton’ cast once it closes, the appeal here would be all those pasty white legs leaping and spreading on stage. Nah, I’m not thinking about how to hand over to people, who can pay four-figure ticket prices, the supercilious satisfaction they are paying for.

    There also goes my idea for ‘Lin Biao,’ the play in which the killed successor to Mao is a happy go lucky egalitarian closet capitalist whose idealism and lust ran afoul of the Great Helmsman’s secret love-life. I’ll file that one for when China is again the great enemy.

    • Agree: Endgame Napoleon

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings