Susan Gerstein's Blog - Posts Tagged "the-way-we-live-now"
The More Things Change. . .
We in the United States are in the midst of a surreal period: with the presidential elections coming up in November, one of the two major parties is about to nominate a fraudulent, self-important, clueless clown for the role of Leader of the Western World. As if this Western World had not been in enough trouble already, with epic migrations, a crazed Muslim group re-enacting the 12th century, nations breaking apart instead of joining forces. In the midst of all this, somehow, the United States had seemed an the island of some sanity, with its politics always tending to the center, which, it seems, cannot hold. The nomination of Donald Trump changes everything; even if he, one hopes, cannot actually win, the mere possibility, his very presence in the process had contaminated that process and dirtied all of us.
So, to get away from a world that is too much with us, I decided to do again what I had been doing increasingly in the last several years: re-read something from the past. Anthony Trollope had served the purpose before, so I picked up “The Way We Live Now”, fondly remembered from some thirty years ago when I read it with great pleasure. I did so again. And then, to my astonishment, I came to the section that deals with the nomination of one Mr. Melmotte to become a Member of Parliament, representing the important borough of Westminster. Mr. Melmotte is a fraud purporting to be a vastly wealthy man, ignorant of politics, ignorant of policies, ignorant of everything in fact but the clever handling of money, and in the end even ignorant of that. Reasonable people consider his nomination, strictly on the strength of his supposed vast wealth, a scandal – and yet he is actually elected by the people, who are riled up by a populist campaign. Page after page I am reading of a proposed election in the London of circa 1865 – a century and a half ago! – sentences that, were the name of Trump to replace that of Melmotte, one could be reading as current events. Here are a few examples:
“The friends of (Trump) had a basis of hope, and were enabled to sound premonitory notes of triumph, arising from causes quite external to their party. This support was given, not to the great man’s political opinions, as to which a well-known writer in the newspaper suggested that the great man had probably not as yet given very much attention, to the party questions which divided the country, but to his commercial position.”
“. . . it was asserted in newspapers that the country would be absolutely disgraced by his presence in (the election).”
“There was one man who thoroughly believed that the thing at the present moment most essentially necessary to (America’s) glory was the (election of Trump) for (the Presidency). This man was undoubtedly a very ignorant man. He knew nothing of any one political question which had vexed the country for the last half century, -- nothing whatever of the political history which had made (the United States) what it was at the beginning of that half century. He had probably never read a book in his life. He knew nothing of the working of the (Senate), nothing of nationality, -- had no preference whatever for one form of government over another, never having given his mind a moment’s trouble on the subject. He had not even reflected how a despotic monarch or a federal republic might affect himself, and possibly did not comprehend the meaning of those terms. But yet he was fully confident that (the United States) did demand and ought to demand that (Mr. Trump) should be (elected). This man was (Mr. Trump) himself.”
“In this conjunction of his affairs (Mr. Trump) certainly lost his head. He had audacity almost sufficient for the very dangerous game which he was playing; but, as crisis heaped itself upon crisis, he became deficient of prudence. He did not hesitate to speak of himself as the man who ought to (be elected as President), and of those who opposed him as little malignant beings who had mean interests of their own to serve. He went about with (Governor Christie) at his left hand, with a look on his face that seemed to imply that (the Presidency) was not good enough for him.”
“The more arrogant he became the more vulgar he was, till even (Christie) would almost be tempted to rush away to impecuniosity and freedom. Perhaps there were some with whom this conduct had a salutary effect. No doubt arrogance will produce submission; and there are men who take other men at the price those other men put upon themselves. Such persons could not refrain from thinking (Trump) to be mighty because he swaggered; and gave their hinder parts to be kicked merely because he put up his toe.”
“(Trump) was not the first vulgar man whom the Conservatives had taken by the hand, and patted on the back, and told that he was a god.”
“A failure! Of course he’s a failure, whether rich or poor; -- a miserable imposition, a hollow vulgar fraud from beginning to end, -- too insignificant for you and me to talk of, were it not that his position is a sign of the degeneracy of the age. What are we coming to when such as he is an honoured guest at our tables? –You can keep your house free from him, and so can I mine. But we set no example to the nation at large. They who do set the example go to his feasts, and of course are seen at theirs in return. And yet these leaders of the fashion know, -- at any rate they believe, -- that he is what he is because he has been a swindler greater than other swindlers. What follows as a natural consequence? Men reconcile themselves to swindling. Though they themselves mean to be honest, dishonesty of itself is no longer odious to them. Then there comes the jealousy that others should growing rich with the approval of all the world, -- and the natural aptitude to do what all the world approves. It seems to me that the existence of a (Trump) is not compatible with a wholesome state of things in general.”
“the working classes were in favour of (Trump), partly from their love of a man who spends a great deal of money, partly from the belief that he was being ill-used, -- partly, no doubt, from that occult sympathy which is felt for crime, when the crime committed is injurious to the upper classes. Masses of men will almost feel that a certain amount of injustice ought to be inflicted on their betters, so as to make things even.”
I have changed nothing except the names and the office aspired for. I find it bone chilling; and the more so for thirty or so years ago when I read “The Way We Live Now”, I paid scant attention to this whole sub-plot of the novel, treating it as a rather outlandish caricature of British political life.
I was, however, then and now, most impressed by Trollope the feminist. He is the anti-Austen: whereas his novels do have the “marriage plot”, as they must in mid-nineteenth century, his take on romance is jaundiced to say the least. Very few people end up with objects of their passionate love, which is often made to seem a foolish quest. Marie Melmotte, the heiress who at the beginning of the tale is an oppressed mouse of a person, helpless subject in Melmotte’s grandiose plans, grows through painful trial and error into a self-possessed young woman whose eventual marriage is a business proposition convenient to herself. Lady Carbury, the very voice of anti-romance, learns to appreciate a dependable friend. The country “wench” Ruby Ruggles’ foolish fantasies of a glamorous lover come to nothing and she succumbs to the sensible swain who can give her a home. The one “romance” carried through to its conclusion involves a man whose previous affair follows him and interferes with his aspirations for the love of a proper young lady. The former love, an American woman, thrown over but still hoping to re-kindle the dying embers of the past, is given the best lines and I think all of Trollope’s sympathies. Much is made of her independence, financial and otherwise: she is a grown up person taking matters into her own hands. She loses her battle; however one can’t help but feel that exchanging her for the dewy-eyed young ninny will have its regrets for her faithless lover, while she, undoubtedly, will make an interesting life for herself.
Hurray for Anthony Trollope, contemporary novelist!
So, to get away from a world that is too much with us, I decided to do again what I had been doing increasingly in the last several years: re-read something from the past. Anthony Trollope had served the purpose before, so I picked up “The Way We Live Now”, fondly remembered from some thirty years ago when I read it with great pleasure. I did so again. And then, to my astonishment, I came to the section that deals with the nomination of one Mr. Melmotte to become a Member of Parliament, representing the important borough of Westminster. Mr. Melmotte is a fraud purporting to be a vastly wealthy man, ignorant of politics, ignorant of policies, ignorant of everything in fact but the clever handling of money, and in the end even ignorant of that. Reasonable people consider his nomination, strictly on the strength of his supposed vast wealth, a scandal – and yet he is actually elected by the people, who are riled up by a populist campaign. Page after page I am reading of a proposed election in the London of circa 1865 – a century and a half ago! – sentences that, were the name of Trump to replace that of Melmotte, one could be reading as current events. Here are a few examples:
“The friends of (Trump) had a basis of hope, and were enabled to sound premonitory notes of triumph, arising from causes quite external to their party. This support was given, not to the great man’s political opinions, as to which a well-known writer in the newspaper suggested that the great man had probably not as yet given very much attention, to the party questions which divided the country, but to his commercial position.”
“. . . it was asserted in newspapers that the country would be absolutely disgraced by his presence in (the election).”
“There was one man who thoroughly believed that the thing at the present moment most essentially necessary to (America’s) glory was the (election of Trump) for (the Presidency). This man was undoubtedly a very ignorant man. He knew nothing of any one political question which had vexed the country for the last half century, -- nothing whatever of the political history which had made (the United States) what it was at the beginning of that half century. He had probably never read a book in his life. He knew nothing of the working of the (Senate), nothing of nationality, -- had no preference whatever for one form of government over another, never having given his mind a moment’s trouble on the subject. He had not even reflected how a despotic monarch or a federal republic might affect himself, and possibly did not comprehend the meaning of those terms. But yet he was fully confident that (the United States) did demand and ought to demand that (Mr. Trump) should be (elected). This man was (Mr. Trump) himself.”
“In this conjunction of his affairs (Mr. Trump) certainly lost his head. He had audacity almost sufficient for the very dangerous game which he was playing; but, as crisis heaped itself upon crisis, he became deficient of prudence. He did not hesitate to speak of himself as the man who ought to (be elected as President), and of those who opposed him as little malignant beings who had mean interests of their own to serve. He went about with (Governor Christie) at his left hand, with a look on his face that seemed to imply that (the Presidency) was not good enough for him.”
“The more arrogant he became the more vulgar he was, till even (Christie) would almost be tempted to rush away to impecuniosity and freedom. Perhaps there were some with whom this conduct had a salutary effect. No doubt arrogance will produce submission; and there are men who take other men at the price those other men put upon themselves. Such persons could not refrain from thinking (Trump) to be mighty because he swaggered; and gave their hinder parts to be kicked merely because he put up his toe.”
“(Trump) was not the first vulgar man whom the Conservatives had taken by the hand, and patted on the back, and told that he was a god.”
“A failure! Of course he’s a failure, whether rich or poor; -- a miserable imposition, a hollow vulgar fraud from beginning to end, -- too insignificant for you and me to talk of, were it not that his position is a sign of the degeneracy of the age. What are we coming to when such as he is an honoured guest at our tables? –You can keep your house free from him, and so can I mine. But we set no example to the nation at large. They who do set the example go to his feasts, and of course are seen at theirs in return. And yet these leaders of the fashion know, -- at any rate they believe, -- that he is what he is because he has been a swindler greater than other swindlers. What follows as a natural consequence? Men reconcile themselves to swindling. Though they themselves mean to be honest, dishonesty of itself is no longer odious to them. Then there comes the jealousy that others should growing rich with the approval of all the world, -- and the natural aptitude to do what all the world approves. It seems to me that the existence of a (Trump) is not compatible with a wholesome state of things in general.”
“the working classes were in favour of (Trump), partly from their love of a man who spends a great deal of money, partly from the belief that he was being ill-used, -- partly, no doubt, from that occult sympathy which is felt for crime, when the crime committed is injurious to the upper classes. Masses of men will almost feel that a certain amount of injustice ought to be inflicted on their betters, so as to make things even.”
I have changed nothing except the names and the office aspired for. I find it bone chilling; and the more so for thirty or so years ago when I read “The Way We Live Now”, I paid scant attention to this whole sub-plot of the novel, treating it as a rather outlandish caricature of British political life.
I was, however, then and now, most impressed by Trollope the feminist. He is the anti-Austen: whereas his novels do have the “marriage plot”, as they must in mid-nineteenth century, his take on romance is jaundiced to say the least. Very few people end up with objects of their passionate love, which is often made to seem a foolish quest. Marie Melmotte, the heiress who at the beginning of the tale is an oppressed mouse of a person, helpless subject in Melmotte’s grandiose plans, grows through painful trial and error into a self-possessed young woman whose eventual marriage is a business proposition convenient to herself. Lady Carbury, the very voice of anti-romance, learns to appreciate a dependable friend. The country “wench” Ruby Ruggles’ foolish fantasies of a glamorous lover come to nothing and she succumbs to the sensible swain who can give her a home. The one “romance” carried through to its conclusion involves a man whose previous affair follows him and interferes with his aspirations for the love of a proper young lady. The former love, an American woman, thrown over but still hoping to re-kindle the dying embers of the past, is given the best lines and I think all of Trollope’s sympathies. Much is made of her independence, financial and otherwise: she is a grown up person taking matters into her own hands. She loses her battle; however one can’t help but feel that exchanging her for the dewy-eyed young ninny will have its regrets for her faithless lover, while she, undoubtedly, will make an interesting life for herself.
Hurray for Anthony Trollope, contemporary novelist!
