So, President Obama thought he'd launch the schoolyear with a message to the nation's children. What a great idea, I thought to myself. After all, I grew up spending schooltime writing letters to the president, hearing letters from him read in class.

But apparently some people think this is an outrage. That somehow President Obama plans to use his "air time" to foist a nefarious political agenda on innocent kids. Frankly, I can't bother being outraged over their outrage. I'm too busy being heartsick about it.

Has it come to this? Are we a nation so divided that the president of the country, a man legally elected to lead us, can't talk to the nation's kids? It's horrifying and heartbreaking. But here's the saddest, most painful part: Those kids whose parents object to the speech are learning a lesson anyway. A big one and it's this:

Kids, fear anyone who isn't One of Us. Because it's Us against Them, and you are first and foremost one of us, and only secondarily and occasionally an American citizen (and then only when it's convenient to Us).

Got that?

Part One --- Part Two ---- Part Three ---- Part Four ---- Part Five

And once again, I am frustrated by his simplistic assessment, and, frankly, by his elitism. (In the Age of Obama, the word “elitist” is on the verge of being over-worked, but sometimes it’s the right word to use.)

First let me say that I’ve never met Pollan. This is in no way a personal attack on him as a human being. Indeed, I admire his work, admire his style as a writer, and appreciate his efforts to engage Americans in a conversation about food. I think everyone should read his books.

But. There’s a fundamental, almost willful, illogic to his arguments. Not just this in this recent essay about cooking, but, for example, an earlier essay of his in which he argued that we all ought to be planting and harvesting our own food. (*1)

Pollan argues that we’re wired to “cook” and to share food. When we don’t, he says, we lose part of who we are as human beings.

He laments the fact that nowadays, we Americans don’t cook and even when we do “cook” at home, we’re not really cooking. We’re heating up heavily processed foods and dumping them on a plate.

In the picture he paints, back in the good old day, someone --- typically the woman of the house --- cooked fresh food. Because it took time and labor to do so, people tended to eat more sparingly. He cites research that indicates that the decline in cooking at home is directly related to a rise in obesity.

According to one study, the more time a society spends cooking at home, “the lower its rate of obesity.” No doubt that research is accurate. No doubt, too, that there is a biological and evolutionary connection between “cooking” (using fire to transform food) and the development of homo sapiens. (*2)

The problem is that there's not much historical accuracy, and by ignoring the reality of history, Pollan and his followers (who are legion) are misrepresenting the "problems" of contemporary American food culture and, more worrisome, over-simplifying the solutions to those problems.

Next: Cooking and a dose of historical reality

_________________

*1: He’s off-base on this in so many ways that I hardly know where to begin, and my response to it would be another blog rant entirely. For now let me just say that he’s obviously never had to rely on --- depend on --- homegrown food. If he had or did, he wouldn’t be praising the virtues of maintaining a garden.

*2: Pollan cites a new book which I have, but have not yet read: Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham.

So Chrysler is planning its bankruptcy. My plan for a Big Three Automaker Bailout, which I first suggested back in December, sounds even better now.

Okay, after being urged by Loyal Reader Dave, I watched the "I Am A Craft Brewer" film. You can see it here.

Nice piece of filmmaking. Lively, well-paced, well-filmed, and well-lit. Music aimed straight at the heart. Did what it's supposed to do: Rally the craft beer troops.

Content? Hmmm. . . . Well . . . . Hmmmmm. Astounding lack of historical perspective -- or, alternatively, "historical perspective" constructed so it matched what the filmmaker wanted to say rather than historical reality.

Once again, the drumbeat of "We are the American dream" (as if somehow the rest of us who don't make beer or earn livings by working for larger companies can't possibly represent that dream).

I was surprised that the film avoided mentioning the Big Talking Point that everyone who's anyone in craft brewing always make: The number of American craft brewers. Craft brewers love to roll out the numbers. "We are 1489 strong!" they say. (Or whatever the current number is. Just under 1500.)

Except, ya know, they're not. Because that number includes every outlet of every chain restaurant that claims to be a "brewpub."

So, for example, every Rock Bottom outlet is counted as a separate "brewery." Every Granite City outlet is counted as a separate brewery. Strip those down to what they are --- a single brewing "company" selling its beer in a number of retail outlets --- and the number of "craft breweries" plunges. I

ndeed, it's not clear to me why those are even counted as "breweries."

But hey, it's not my organization and it's not my turf to protect. And you gotta love the tiny core of "real" craft brewers who are doing just that: honoring and protecting their turf. Now --- what was it someone in the film said about "snakeoil salesmen"?

Silly me. Somehow I thought the troops would rally 'round the president. No. Instead, we've been subjected to a week of senators and representatives strutting around the capital building playing "Mine's Bigger."

Which I wouldn't mind, except -- Rome is collapsing while they're busy comparing dicks/clits/facelifts/whatever.... I belive that most people who run for "high office" start their careers with good intentions. (*1)

But then they get comfy and get used to the free health insurance and the gym and the drivers and the other perks and pretty soon they forget why they went there in the first place. Which is why there oughta be term limits for both House and Senate. (*2)

But I digress. Point is: someone needs to be thinking beyond dick-size and where the next cocktail party is.

For an antidote to your nausea, and some clear thinking/writing on the disaster that is our economy, some Sunday-morning reading:

This from Matthew Yglesias. Tyler Cowen's response.

Lots of ponderings from Patrick Emerson, but this in particular.

And then of course there's always Krugman.

(Yes, the internet improves our lives. Ten years ago, it would have been tough to find so much accessible clear thinking on such difficult topics.) (Gee, I hope the electrical grid holds up under the weight of so many internet connections, and that somehow we can figure out how to make high-speed internet affordable for everyone because clearly digital communication/debate and digital information creation/gathering/access are The Way We Live Now. (*3))

(Oh. Wait. That would require the House and Senate to stop dicking around and do something and . . . . ) (Oh. Never mind.)

_____________________

*1: There are, of course, exceptions. I'm pretty sure Palin, for example, only wants to sit in the Senate because it's good for her, not for her constituents. I'm not picking on her, mind you; there are plenty of Palin-types out there. But she's the only obvious example I can think of at the moment.

*2: For more information on term limits, see here, here, and here.

*3: Nod to my second-favorite Anthony Trollope novel. If you can't bring yourself to wade through it (it runs about a thousand pages), at least watch the BBC production, which is spectacular.

I know that among the beer geeks, this is the standard view: Big Breweries make bland beer. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and disagree (which, yes, I so hate to do. Stan is smarter than me and he'll likely chop up this post and use it to mop his floor. . . .) Big Breweries make profits. They do so in order to make shareholders happy. That's what they do, because their owners went into business to make lots and lots of money.

And the way they could make money was by making beer that appealed to the largest number of people. Which, by definition, is a beer that contains a balance of malt and hops. Not a malt-rich beer.

Not a beer stuffed with as many hops as the brewer could stuff into it using his keeno, whiz-bang, hops-stuffing device. It's a beer that hits the middle road and therefore appeals to the most potential buyers.

Ain't no one, and I mean no. one., gonna get Big Rich making beer only for the roughly 50% of the population that prefers the flavor of hops.

Ain't no one gonna get Big Rich by making beer only for people like me, who prefer the flavor of malt.

The people who will make Big Bucks (and make their shareholders happy) are the ones who hit the sweet spot in the middle. So: it's not bland beer. It's smart beer.

(Because of the book I'm working on. I've been spending a lot of brain power lately thinking about how capitalism works, and why and how big corporations grow -- and thereby attract shareholders, and then grow more by making shareholders happy.)

I’m still pondering Michael Phelps and the bong. Seems to me there’s a Major Moment going on here.

Think about it: Yeah, so Phelps got stoned. But hey, we’ve got a president who not only smoked; he, gasp, inhaled. (No pun intended.) And, bigger gasp, he admits it.

That’s important. Not that Obama or Phelps smoked pot. Coulda been they chugged some beers or slugged down some vodka.

The point is: young humans learn by doing (aka trial-and-error), and they often make mistakes. That’s what we do, whether we’re future presidents or athlete superstars. We screw up. We fuck up. We smoke pot and drive like idiots and snub the wierder kids and all kinds of other stuff.

That’s what we do en route to adulthood. It’s crazy to ask Michael Phelps to suddenly become A Perfect Adult without allowing him to make the stupid mistakes that eventually produce a sane, sensible, rational adult.

This falls into the same category as making kids wear helmets while they’re cycling along a bike path that’s no where near a street, or wearing fifteen body pads while they rollerskate, or padding every single surface in your house so infants won’t “get hurt” while they learn to walk.

Because that’s what we humans do: we “get hurt.” We experience life. We grow, we change, we learn. And eventually we become adults.

We become, in other words, older but wiser by fucking up en route to wisdom. So Phelps + bong = [wise] adulthood.

The whole Michael-Phelps-With-A-Bong thing got right by me (I was busy with and then missing King Willem), but when I caught up with it, yeah....... well. Big eye-roll.

The only thing "regrettable" is that he got caught on camera. This is perhaps the best -- and smartest -- collection of commentary on the episode.

And while we're on the subject of dumbass laws (which, yes, we were ....), this also got by me: a nice essay by Jacob Grier in Doublethink.

I don't smoke anymore but god damnit it pisses me off when governments tell business owners they can't allow smokers anymore. (Which my city council did here in Ames some years back. I never had any problem with places where lots of people smoked.

Or, rather, I solved the problem: I just didn't GO to them. Problem solved....)

As I said to the city council when it contemplated this ordinance, which it did on grounds of "public health": What's next? Someone's gonna complain that they're allergic to grass and so you're gonna pave over all the public parks so that he/she won't suffer the "health" consequences of living in a town with grass?

In the past ten days or so, global beermakers have reported declining beer sales. This surprises some observers, who assume that beer is the go-to drink during hard economic times. As Jeremiah McWilliams of Lager Heads notes:

At first glance, it would surprise us if the reason for slumping beer sales were weak economies. Beer is generally not that expensive. But we could be wrong about this — maybe people are cutting WAY back, starting with the six-packs.

Historical perspective puts the situation in context:

Put simply, and a bit crudely, when times are truly tough, poor people turn to hard liquor. And most people in the world are “poor,” at least relative to American or European living standards. For them, a “six-pack” is expensive, and, ounce for ounce, packs a smaller wallop than a bottle of spirits.

Here's a specific historical example: In the early 19th century, much of Europe was in political and economic turmoil. In what is now Germany, and in other parts of northern Europe, the “peasants,” as poor people were called then, could no longer afford beer or wine. Instead, they turned to “schnaps,” the generic name then for any cheap liquor made from whatever was available. In early 19th century Germany, schnaps was typically made from potatoes. (*1)

As the economy deteriorated, and more people switched from beer to hard liquor, brewers began closing their doors. Many migrated to the United States in search of work. (Among them was the Best family, which founded what eventually became Pabst Brewing.)

My educated historian’s guess tells me that the same thing is happening now in countries and regions around the world: Poor people who could afford beer a year ago are turning to cheaper spirits instead. In China, for example, the economy has all but collapsed in the past year. Many people in that rising middle class who might have drunk Heineken or Budweiser or Snow (the best-selling Chinese brand) will turn back to dirt-cheap -- and highly intoxicating -- spirits made from bamboo or rice. (*2)

So, too, in Latin America and eastern Europe, even if those regions seems relatively affluent. Brazil, for example, and Mexico, contain huge, sophisticated cities, but those cities are full of people who live close to disaster and who often scrounge for food. And most human beings don’t live in cities. They live in the country and are the first to feel the impact of global economic chaos. China may seem like a nation of urbanites, for example, but most Chinese people are still “peasants.”

So I’m not surprised that the global beer companies like SABMiller and others are reporting declining sales.

_________________

*1: People viewed potatoes as fit only for animals, and turned to it for sustenance -- or drink -- only when “real” food was in short supply. (There’s a reason potatoes are associated with the Irish and the Irish famine.)

*2: The bamboo liquor will knock you flat on your ass in ten minutes flat. I speak from experience. We still have some in our house, leftover from our last trip to China. I keep my distance....

Apropos my mash note to Andy Crouch, this from the always entertaining Alan Jacobs on the "fascism of Facebook," as he calls it. He links to this 2003 essay in the New Atlantic, which contains this spot-on summary of me, er, of the introvert:

Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who . . . can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice? . . . If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands . . . ."

Introverts of the world, rise up against the tyranny of extroversion. Seize your solitude!

So the Detroit Auto Show is taking place right now. Seems a bit, um, looney to have a Detroit Auto Show, but okay. What do I know? And the buzz at the show is electric, electric, electric. Great. Fine. We all dutifully do our bit for the economy and the environment by buying electric cars.

But -- what's going to happen when we plug them in? Large chunks of the power grid in this country are in less-than-prime condition. I doubt that the grid will hold up under the burden of this new demand.

I gather Almost-President Obama realizes this and his transition team is soliciting plans and ideas for constructing a 21st century "smart" power grid.

Great! We need it sooner than we need new bridges.

But back to the Auto Show. The star of this year's event is the offering from BYD, a Chinese company. BYD's president says he'll be ready to start selling his electric cars in the U.S. in 2010. That's at least a year earlier than Chevrolet plans to release its hybrid, the Volt.

And, get this: BYD's car will cost about $22,000. The Volt? It'll start at $40,000. Both cars, by the way, are mostly-electric, meaning they're designed to run on their charge. Toyota's Prius, in contrast, is a gas-powered car whose electric motor acts a booster rather than the primary power source.

Anyway -- putting on my historian's hat to take the Long View of the Big Picture: All I can think of is the 1970s, when the Japanese began selling their vastly superior (and less expensive) cars in the U.S. Thirty years later, the American auto industry lies in ruins. Bye-bye, Ford, Chrysler, and GM.

Move over, Toyota and Honda. BYD is here. Read more in the excellent front-page story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

This "research" from the World Cancer Research Fund (a British group) (and via the weekly newsletter [subscription only] edited by Pete Reid of Modern Brewery Age).

To which I say: Oh, for fuck's sake. Give it up. How much anyone wanna bet that the World Cancer Research Fund is interested in cancer research in the same way that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is interested in science? (As far as CSPI is concerned, the only "real" science is the stuff that supports its nearly fascist, nanny-state agenda....)

Besides which, this drinking-and-cancer thing has been around for decades and warnings show up, clockwork-like, every decade or so. To say nothing of that fact that humans drink less alcohol now than they have in millennia past, and if cancer were really so lethal and risky, well, the human race would have died out, ya know, millennia ago.

It's a prohibitionist plot, is what it is.....

(Kidding.) (Sort of.)

Speaking of comments functions malfunctioning, the other day I tried to post a comment at Shawn Connelly's blog, Beer Philosopher, and his comments function was also haywire. (What's up with this anyway? That meteor shower is over with, and there's no full moon, so what gives?)

Anyway, I wanted to comment on his post summarizing and surveying the 2008 traffic at his blog and his site, Aleuminati. The stats are impressive. They're even more impressive when you know that Shawn has a fulltime "real" job, and running his blog and Aleuminati are sidelines. Labors of love, you might say.

But as I've noted before, the beer world is full of people like Shawn: decent, generous people who are passionate about beer, and want to share that passion with others. (And yes, the Aleuminati site breaks my rule of NO BLACK BACKGROUND, but I gather that Shawn is in the process of giving the site a facelift, with the intent of shifting to a easier-on-the-eyes appearance.)

So three cheers for Shawn, and for Alan (see this post), and all the other folks out there who work to make the enjoyment of beer a communal venture.

As always, one way to find many of those other beer-lovers and their sites is through Jonathan's really simple BEER syndication.

Here’s my plan for the Big Three Bailout (I’m serious, by the way. Obviously I have no clout and no contacts and no way to promote my plan, but that’s not stopping me from proposing it.)

So far all the talk has been about how much money should we-the-taxpayers ought to give the Big Three and under what conditions. I think that’s the wrong approach (obviously, or I wouldn’t be wasting my time and yours outlining my alternative.

Here’s my plan: First, let the companies fail.

Second, hire the Car Czar -- but make sure it’s someone from OUTSIDE the auto industry. My vote is for someone at Google, because, love ‘em or hate ‘em, those Google folks are smart, creative, and innovative. They invented the phrase “think outside the box.” (Not literally, but you get the idea.)

Third, put most of the money that would have gone to the companies into a special unemployment fund for all the people who will lose their jobs because the Big Three have shut down.

Fourth: use part of the money to have the Car Czar and his/her staff fund and organize “wisdom-and-planning groups,” which will consist of those laid-off auto industry employees: line workers, engineers, managers, designers, foremen and so on. Collectively, those people represent years of car-making wisdom. They’ve been on the front lines. They know what works and what doesn’t. Let them talk about and draw up plans for new, 21st-century automakers.

As plans solidify, the Car Czar will then begin re-hiring those same former auto-industry employees to help turn the plans into nuts, bolts, machine tools, and new cars.

Do I sound crazy? Maybe. But no crazier than the idea of giving the Big Three Dumbasses millions of dollars when they haven’t a clue what to do with it and will, mostly likely, come back in six months asking for more.

Second Thoughts On Vilsack Okay -- I spent much of yesterday thinking about Obama’s nomination of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture -- and have had second thoughts. And I retract my previous statement. This was a case where I was a bit too close to the situation and didn’t think it all the way through. (I live in Iowa and Vilsack governed the state from 1998 to 2006.)

My initial reaction was: huh? Couldn’t BHO find someone a bit more forward-thinking? But -- in fact, Vilsack engaged in plenty of forward and creative thinking during his two terms as governor. I can see, however, why others might doubt that. After all, Iowa is known primarily for Big Agriculture, and therefore lots of the much-reviled Big Subsidies.

But Vilsack worked hard as governor to force us Iowans to step back and take a second look at how we see “agriculture.” (Which isn’t that easy to do: farming is like air around here; it’s the last thing we notice...)

During his tenure, the state encouraged and fostered research and development in alternative fuels, bio-pharmaceuticals, alternative energy, organic farming, and “alternative” medicine (aka “eastern” medicines), much of which depends on plants. The state created agencies to help foster these areas of R&D, but it also encouraged the two research universities to devote time and resources to these issues.

Among other things, for example, Iowa State University now has a superb program in bioethics, because of course “agriculture” forces humans to deal with the social and ethical consequences of what we put in the ground. Iowa is also now, among the fifty states, the second-largest producer of wind power.

I should also add that although “ethanol” got a lot of attention the past few years, Vilsack encouraged researchers to think waaaaaaay byond corn-as-fuel. There are a number of research projects here in Ames exploring the use of other plants as fuel, including harvest leavings and weeds.

But here’s the point: Vilsack encouraged these efforts because he’s smart and willing to tackle complex problems, but also because he himself is not now and never has been a farmer. (He’s a lawyer.) His view of agriculture was that of an outsider and, as a result, was more forward-looking and creative than many of our previous governors who did come from farming backgrounds. (Indeed, as the news broke yesterday about Vilsack’s nomination, farmers around the state openly criticized the choice because Vilsack was NOT a farmer.)

And it’s worth pointing out that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is best served by someone who isn’t a farmer. Why? Because the “farming” and “agriculture” are only small components of the USDA’s responsibilties. Indeed, the department is charged with an incredible range of jobs and with developing and carrying out policies for food aid (including foodstamps), conservation, food safety, nutrition, food-related research, rural development, and the like.

So it’s useful to have someone like Vilsack. After all, agriculture is part of what happens here in Iowa, but it sure as hell isn’t the only thing. (Only Connecticut, for example, has a larger insurance industry.) Iowa is also a state that contains the richest soil in the world (I’m sitting on some of it as I type this), as well as some of the nation’s worst poverty. But Iowa isn't just farms, and so Vilsack also knows that the U.S. consists of cities and rural areas that need to figure out how to live in a digital world.

And I gather from yesterday’s news reports that yes, he’s learned how to use email (something he was rather proud of not knowing while he was governor, sad to say) and owns a blackberry. He’s also, as I noted yesterday, a decent human being. Yes, he’s a politician; don’t let his mild-mannered demeanor fool you. But -- Blagojevich, he ain’t.

This is a completely self-indulgent post, so by all means: ignore. (Well, who am I kidding. Writing blog posts or anything else is, by definition, an exercise in self-indulgence....)

I spend much of my time expounding on this, that, and the other thing. Journalists regularly interview me, mostly about beer, but sometimes about plumbing or Key West. I write op-ed pieces. I appear more-or-less regularly on Fox Business Network. In short, I put myself out there as Someone Who Knows Something. But -- I sometimes experience self-doubt (although I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person who does)

I mean, okay, so I’ve got a PhD in history. So I spent five years working on a book about beer and two years writing one about Key West and four years writing a thesis, dissertation, and then a book about plumbing. Do I know anything? Have I learned anything from my years of training and practice? When I’m sitting there on-camera or talking a reporter, do I REALLY know what the hell I’m talking about?

Apparently I do.

I learned this week when Pete Reid, the editor of Modern Brewery Age, interviewed Robert Weinberg. (Sorry, the MBA weekly is subscription-only). Weinberg was, during his long career (he’s in his eighties and at least semi-retired), the nation’s leading brewing industry analyst. Whatever there is to know or understand about American brewing, Bob Weinberg has it in his brain. I got a chance to meet and talk to him two years ago, and I assure you: He’s smart. Ultra smart.

Anyway, Pete asked Weinberg about the InBev acquisition of A-B, and what that event and the failing economy mean to A-B InBev and the rest of the industry. And according to Weinberg -- it means just about what I’ve been saying in print, at this blog, and on television for the past six months. (For any or all of it, see in particular my various related blog series. Links are on left side of your screen.)

Again, I can’t direct you to the interview, but it’s probably okay if I share a couple of quotes (it IS okay, isn’t it, Pete?) Said Weinberg regarding the InBev purchase:

I think we will see a level of competition now that the industry has not seen before. It will be a true battle of the titans.

He also said that InBev’s takeover “will likely change the corporate culture of A-B,” which would be, in his words,

a shame. . . . There was a human element to A-B, that had to do with the family ownership. There was a genuine pride, and they cared so much about the beer they made. If it just comes down to dollars and cents, some of that pride will evaporate.

There was more, the drift was -- Weinberg and I are on the same page. Apparently I’m not a complete idiot. Good to know. I’m thinking of this as Mr. Weinberg’s solstice-season gift to me.

__________________________________

All quotes from “Analyst Weinberg says ABI has big opportunities,” Modern Brewery Age 59, no. 50 (December 15, 2008): 5.

I think Obama finally did something to disappoint me. Vilsack for Ag Secretary? Huh? What am I missing? Don't get me wrong. Vilsack was a good governor here in Iowa. And he's a decent, honest human being. (Hmmmm. Maybe that's good enough for a federal official?? It would be a switch anyway.)

But -- I can't say he's the most out-of-the box guy. Certainly he's not the first person I'd think of to bring creative, out-of-the-box thinking to what is a post that badly needs some out-of-the-box thinking. (At the very least, I sure as hell hope he now knows how to use email, something that, as governor, he said he didn't know anything about....) I agree completely with Michael Pollan's assessment of the job of Ag Secretary

. Somehow, however, I can't quite see Vilsack in the role. On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there's more to Tom V. than he showed during his time as governor.

After all, we Iowans did dig (no pun intended) into organic and wind farming while he was governor. And hey, even Almost-President Obama is entitled to screw up once in awhile.

Part One --- Part Two

In the hours and days after the election, there was much talk about the fact that American elected a multi-racial man who identifies himself as "African-American." According to most commentators, that was the historical significance of the election of 2008.

As a historian, I agree that this election was historically significant, but not because of Obama's race (although obviously, that was itself momentous.) (*1) Rather, at a pivotal moment in the history of our nation, two candidates offered two distinct alternatives for confronting cultural, social, and economic upheaval. One wanted to circle the wagons; the other wanted to confront the upheaval. One offered a retreat into a mythic nostalgia; the other offered an embrace of the future.

It's not the first time we've mulled such distinct alternatives. One hundred years ago, for example, Americans faced a similar choice at a similar moment of economic, cultural, and social upheaval. In the early 20th century, the United States was in the (rapid) process of leaving behind a rural, non-industrialized society in favor of one that was mostly urban and manufacturing-based. (The 1920 census confirmed the transformation: half of Americans lived in an urban place. Today, something like 75% do.)

During this period, from about 1880 to 1920, industrialization in the form of mechanization and huge factories had become the mainstay of the economy. Electricity, the telephone, and movies changed the way Americans viewed the world around them. So did inexpensive printing processes that made newspapers, magazines, and books more accessible than ever before.

For the first time, average Americans were attending (mostly public) school for anywhere from eight to twelve years. The automobile and rapid travel become commonplace. (Americans acquired roughly nine million cars between 1900 and 1920.) We take those things for granted now, but a century ago, they were Americans' equivalent of our switch to a "wired" world.

Immigration soared, too. Between 1880 and 1920, some 24 million people entered the U.S. legally.(*2) For the first time, however, most of the new arrivals were not from northern Europe or the British isles. Instead, they were Hispanic or Asian, or came from Eastern and Southern Europe. Millions were Jewish and Catholic.

U. S. engagement with the rest of the world increased as well. Some of those episodes are ugly (think Cuba and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War), but good or bad, Americans acknowledged and engaged with people and places beyond their own borders.

Put another way, between 1880 and 1920, the United States became a nation different than it was in, say, 1870. That tumult, which filtered deep into daily life, fostered a powerful political movement that rested on an inward-looking politics of fear. Leaders of this movement portrayed small-town and rural Americans as "good." They painted urban dwellers as decadent and immoral. People who embraced this political culture were hostile toward non-whites and non-Christians; were hostile toward "the other." (*3)

The era also fostered the emergence of what we now call "fundamentalist" Christianity. It inspired a new kind of race-based science (aimed at proving the superiority of the "white" and "European" race). Those same political forces also nurtured the prohibition movement. The Anti-Saloon League's crusade rested on a worldview that pitted small-town and rural America against the decadence and immorality of "big" cities. In the minds of prohibitionists, abstinence from alcohol symbolized a particular way of life (small-town and rural) and a kind of morality (abstinence = god-fearing righteousness, the god, in this question, being a Protestant one). (*4)

Next: What this has to do with the election of 2008.

___________________

*1: As a voter, I was delighted that Obama's father was "black" and his mother "white." That he lived in Indonesia and Hawaii (which is a racially diverse culture). That he has a Kenyan grandmother. But as far as I was concerned, his multi-racial makeup was the icing on an already magnificent cake.

*2: U.S. population in 1900 was 75.9 million; in 1920 it was 105.7 million.

*3: Anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism were not new in early 20th century America; what was different was the idea of seeing Catholics and Jews specifically as "city folks" and therefore suspect. There was also enormous racial conflict. Lynchings were common, as were urban race riots.

*4: It is a measure of the powerful appeal of this particular form of politics that as early as 1909, half of Americans already lived under some form of dry laws, either local or state. The 18th Amendment, however, did not take effect until 1920.

It's been running through my brain and voice all day. Wish I'd sung it last night when I was out in my yard yelling "Yes, we can." Sing with me now. (And then let's ask Congress to make this our national anthem.)

America The Beautiful

O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain!

America! America! God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet Whose stern impassion'd stress

A thoroughfare for freedom beat Across the wilderness.

America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw,

Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law.

O beautiful for heroes prov'd In liberating strife,

Who more than self their country loved, And mercy more than life.

America! America! May God thy gold refine

Till all success be nobleness, And ev'ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years

Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears.

America! America! God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea.