George Will: Progressives take lessons from ‘Downton Abbey’

WashPo ^ | 2/12/14 | George Will

[T-Bird45]

Many “Downton Abbey” watchers are nostalgia gluttons who grieved when Lord Grantham lost his fortune in Canadian railroad shares. There are, however, a discerning few whose admirable American sensibilities caused them to rejoice at Grantham’s loss: “Now perhaps this amiable but dilettantish toff will get off his duff and get a job.”

This drama’s verisimilitude extends to emphasizing that his lordship had a fortune to squander only because he married an American heiress. By battening on what they disdained, this republic’s commercial culture, many British aristocrats could live beyond their inherited means — actual work being, of course, unthinkable.

[T-Bird45]

A bit of a wandering column, flitting among various 19th Century writers for the odd quote and interspersing that with observations on parallels to now. As usual, the best reading is the comments section following the article as the denizens of the currently-frigid DC environs regale us with their own interpretations of Marx and Dickens.

[LibLieSlayer]

will is better than zzz-quil for sleep.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

By battening on what they disdained, this republic’s commercial culture, many British aristocrats could live beyond their inherited means — actual work being, of course, unthinkable.

In American Beliefs, John McElroy notes that there were four main colonial powers in America, and each of them found different things and wanted to do different things:

• Spain found bronze-age civilization, and conquered them in a conventional manner as they would have liked to have done in Europe, especially England. Since they found a going concern their only interest was in dominating and exploiting it, rather than creating it. So the only people they sent to their colonies were soldiers and gentlemen to be in charge. No Spanish peons need apply.

• France found in Canada not a going bronze-age civilization but a stone age one. But like Spain, France's primary motivation was control - of navigation of the St. Lawrence River - and trade with the natives. So there was need of traders, but mostly of gentlemen and soldiers to control. Very few peons, even French ones and certainly none other, were needed.

• Portugal found stone age peoples in Brazil. In order to exploit Brazil they sent over workers - in the form of African slaves. Plus of course, gentlemen to control the operation.

• England (it wasn't Great Britain until later) found in the portion of North America which it was able to claim nothing but stone-age people and forests. The land was rich and had tremendous agricultural potential but wasn't farmland until it had been laboriously cleared of trees and vines. The English colonists found that gentlemen were pretty useless; what the situation cried out for was farmers. So England sent over poor people - some, including some of my ancestors, came from Lutheran Germany - and so the American polity was dominated by practical people (even if they often had religious motivations for wanting to come, still they learned that the situation required diligent work).

  The conclusion is that Americans respect any honest work. If you reflect on English costume drama, you will realize that we didn't get that attitude from England - where the emphasis was on who you were rather than what you did - but in the American melieu where people who were respected because they were useful, and were respected for the caluses on their hands.

  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1385564/posts?page=9#9

[T-Bird45]

Thanks for that quote and observation on similarities and differences among the colonial powers.

[Borges]

Dickens politics were hard to pin down...that’s partially why he’s so popular.

[Soul of the South]

“The English colonists found that gentlemen were pretty useless; what the situation cried out for was farmers. So England sent over poor people - some, including some of my ancestors, came from Lutheran Germany - and so the American polity was dominated by practical people (even if they often had religious motivations for wanting to come, still they learned that the situation required diligent work).”

I think there was also a bit of natural selection involved. The trip over was hazardous and once they arrived survival was a daily battle. Only the hardy, creative, self reliant, and industrious could survive. The shiftless, the lazy, and the weak soon died. Therefore the colonists and early citizens of the Republic were hard working, no nonsense people, who valued the output of their hard labor (i.e. property) and had no tolerance for people who lacked self discipline, a work ethic, and a sense of responsibility for self and family. From this came our cultural values of respect for property, hard work, and personal accountability. The focus was on individuals, not the collective.

“Gentlemen” and elites can only survive and prosper when there is a collective of laborers to support them. The plantation owner prior to the Civil War, the executives of a large modern corporation, and the powerful government official of today can only survive because they have the means of controlling the output of large numbers of individuals and redistributing a significant amount of that output for themselves.

America was built by individual farmers who marched off into the wilderness to create a life for themselves and their families through the sweat of their own muscles. Once they paved the way the plantations and merchants followed. The defining essential element that allowed American individualism to take root was the fact that for most of the 1800’s any individual could homestead and be completely self reliant. As long as individuals could be self reliant they could be free.