The Greatest Luxury of All

In Joseph Ellis' biography of George Washington, we're offered a look into the world of the "new" landed gentry - the Virginia planting class.  This elite group had stumbled upon a rare combination; a new crop and a ready-made market, albeit an ocean away.  While tobacco took Europe by storm, becoming an instant success and a mainstay commodity for the civilized world, it was something of a puzzle to the agri-businessman because it was particularly hard on the land itself and required a great deal of physical labor to cultivate.

The labor issue, tragically, led to the infamous colonial slave trade.  As far as tobacco's toll on the land, it just so happened that Virginia provided  a seemingly endless supply!  It doesn't take an economist, merely a glance at a map, to understand the scope of North America and how it dwarfed the comparatively crowded European states.  A Virginia planter was more concerned about protection than he was space.  So while a market existed and land was plentiful, the planters had uncovered a unique set of challenges in managing these tobacco plantations.

In short, the planters' story went like this:  fantastic wealth followed by over-spending and often times, bankruptcy.  Ellis describes the peculiar 'code' of the planters under which they were notably and negligently unconcerned with managing budgets, income, and expenses.  A farmer is concerned with such things.  An aristocrat is not.  And for an aristocrat to appear to be concerned with profit and loss would be damaging to his social position.  A gentleman spent freely and borrowed without regard for the bottom line.  These Virginia gentlemen did so often to their financial ruin. 

This was part European import and part human nature, only in places like England, the nobility had a more mature social stratification.  While the industrial revolution would later mean that the English lords were just as doomed for eventual failure, the ancient monarchical system would take longer to uproot. 

(One of the most interesting stories involving the land-owning English came much later with the construction of the Erie Canal.  The canal bridged a tremendous gap between the North American east coast and the heartland.  The resulting influx of American grain in the global market effectively rendered ancient, wealth-producing estates in England, worthless.)

In the colonies, this elitist 'lord of the manor' mentality was exacerbated by the energy-depleting crop and an ever-present inferiority complex.  Wealthy Americans wore the latest European fashions and subscribed to the latest in European thought and artistic expression.  The desire for class acceptance stretched across the Atlantic as the Virginians wanted to impress big brother back home.  This was perhaps most notable in the relationship between the Virginia planter and his agent in London - the import/export guy (can't help but think of Costanza here)  It was the agent who arranged for your purchases in the old country and likewise, assisted with the sale and shipment of your crops.  The savvy agent would often take advantage of the situation and, knowing his American client would be uncomfortable arguing over the price of goods or shipping terms or the sale of tobacco, charge as much as he could.  Like a gallant soldier on the battlefield, the planter thought it preferable to go down the tubes financially while pretending to not care what things cost.  The ultimate sign that one was truly wealthy was when things related to income and expenses and negotiations and contracts, were held as beneath one's station and thus, irrelevant.

Washington was either too intelligent or, some would suggest, too daft for this.  He was also something of a nouveau riche having inherited a modest farm only because his older brother had died (in colonial Virginia, the eldest inherited the entire estate), and then marrying the wealthiest widow in town and thus, gaining the vast lands surrounding Mount Vernon.  Whether he failed to grasp these more intricate social nuances or whether he was a social trail-blazer who didn't give two whits what England thought, Washington refused to take his financial hits lying down.  He was active in negotiating terms with his customs agent in London and he was painstakingly detailed in the management of Mount Vernon.  While the modest success of Washington's business dealings indicate that he was a far better soldier than a businessman, still Washington's estate at his death was worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million (today's dollars).

It seems, the greatest luxury of all was a luxury he could not afford.  Washington was not so wealthy that he could neglect his finances, nor were any of the other planters.  But Washington was not going to pretend that he could spend as an aristocrat in order to impress society. 

While the circumstances in colonial Virginia were unique, the tendency to pretend that money is unimportant is not.  As absurd as it may sound, this characteristic is another peculiarity in the long list that defines human nature.  To feign a peculiar hatred for money, ambition, and/or commercial interests is in a way, a show of strength.  Furthermore, those who strive for wealth - to achieve - with no loftier goal than to improve one's financial (material) position, are to be looked down upon.  In fact, one of the fundamental principles of acting may apply here.  To show calm and unbothered is to appear stronger than the other character who is exerting himself.

Where does this come from?  Why the pretense?  Understanding that it may provide a psychological feeling of superiority, is it really worth risking the loss of a vast estate?  The Virginian and European versions are actually rooted in truth for the gap between landowners and laborers has historically been immense.  So much so that the wealth of the highest ranking medieval earls or dukes or what have you, WAS virtually limitless.  There has always been a driving force in the middle that also has a part to play.  In an agricultural society, the merchants fill this role.  Particularly during the Renaissance when trade was expanded, the merchant class' influence and wealth rose considerably.  And here's the distinction.  In order to be a successful merchant, one had to have been paying attention.  One had to work hard.  And one had to develop skills in sales, finance, budgeting, and negotiation.  The most successful merchants, those who had grown their enterprises geometrically, accrued wealth comparable to the nobility.

Naturally then, the nobility, looking for ways to differentiate its wealth from the equally wealthy but 'less respectable' merchant class, constructed a 'code' where wealth was important, yes, but how one acquired one's wealth was also important.  Managing business affairs, you see, was terribly gauche.  Taken a step further, ambition itself was distasteful and those who aspired to a higher station in life were considered crass.  The obvious elephant in the room is that the people looking down their collective noses were already at the top - no ambition required.

And I feel it, I sense it.  No one wants to be seen as someone who is lacking.  Better to be seen as someone who has everything already.  And further, it's difficult to try for something and not get it.  It's embarrassing.  Children learn this early on, the whole ‘fear of failure’ concept.  But when this type of (fairly perverted) thinking seeps into a society such that it is embraced and entrenched and even serves as guiding the principles of government,  we've moved beyond the pale.  In England, it took a while, but eventually, enough of the citizens thought it was time for some changes.  The concept remains in our psyche, however.

It was the disenchanted peasants and merchants who moved to America.  The nobility didn't make the move.  Not en masse.  And there's something that was born long ago in our national DNA, I think, that connotes more of the merchant's perspective.  One who strides into the room and may not be dressed quite right and may be made fun of to an extent but he's got more money than you have, truth be told.  He's going to outwork you and outfight you.  This is the guy who just joined the club and hasn't quite figured out the subtle constructs.  This nascent American persona was very Washingtonian.  Dense, perhaps, but insisting on a fair shake.  And we don't give two whits about your silly social rules.  This system of entitlement was rejected by those who sought freedom in the colonies and again by the Founding Fathers.  They came here to be free.  Freedom to do things, yes, but probably more in view was the freedom from all the institutionalized nonsense going on in Europe.  A fresh start.  Jefferson, admittedly a failed member of the planter class, expressed it this way.  "If anybody thinks that kings, nobles, priests are good conservators of the public happiness, send him to Europe".

In fact, we're going to set up our OWN rules.  And when you're ready to see it our way, you're more than welcome at the table.  It isn't fancy and it may not be impressive to you, but we feel like this is the fairest way of doing things.  So come one, come all.  But if you come, you will behave yourself and play by our rules.

Sadly, it seems we Americans have lost sight of that part of our identity.  Our status today is more in keeping with a tired and depleted aristocracy, desperately grasping for self-preservation.  Gone are the swagger and the energy and the collective work ethic.  And we've replaced it with the worst kind of elitism.  The kind that comes from too much success.  Is this really the icing on the cake?  The end of the Great Experiment?  Apologizing for our ambition?  Eschewing achievement?  Being embarrassed by our strength?  Looking down our noses at the wealthy?  Pretending like we have a bottomless pit of money while we sink further into debt and economic ruin?

I've been a political cynic for a long time essentially believing that we're all pretty much on the same page and there's nothing that the politicians can do about it anyway.  But it just may be that things have shifted.  We now have roughly 1/3 of our population on some type of welfare system.  The food stamp program alone has increased from 17 million in 2000 to 46 million people today.  We're creating a nation of beneficiaries - deadbeats, with iPhones, laptops, and satellite dishes - who are working the system.  So we continue to laugh at the achievers and tax the crap out of them and all the while, they strain under the weight of a bloated, tired, unimaginative state.  We tell them they are unrefined and insensitive to the global community.  Their ambition is ugly to us, their values, outdated.  How tacky.  How unrefined.

The nagging subconscious persists:  we should be more like Europe!  When did this change?  When did we fall for the trick, while everyone envied us and wanted to be like us, we told ourselves that we were fatally flawed.  That we could make progress by weakening our identity and national pride.  That winning is not an enviable goal.  That we should stop showing the newcomers what it meant to be American - work your butt off, join in the party, and you'll be fine.  We've given our children so much that they don't value, nor even understand, the concept of working in order to get what you want.  It's all handed to them.  We’ve made it easy because we love them but we’ve neglected to teach them the price that was paid.

Yes, I'll say it.  We do need to take America back.  No Christian, not from the Muslims.  No white guy, not from the ethnics.  No, middle class, not from the poor.  We need to take America back from the ideology that we've bought into.  That says, "American resolve is not enough."  That says, "The government owes me things in addition to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness."  That says, "In spite of the first amendment, be very careful what you say."  And above all, we need to reject with all the disgust and revulsion we can muster, the idea that says, "I'll gladly sell my freedom if the government will provide my safety net."

I don't know if Romney or the Republicans are the answer.  The cynic in me says, they're not and that nothing short of a revolutionary act or laws can correct our problems.  But I do know that this iteration of the Democratic party goes against something very fundamental.  It is axiomatically un-American because it's anti-freedom!  And while I know that most voters are either conservative or liberal and their vote is already pre-determined, my hope is that the generation to follow is made of strong stuff.  Strong enough to take a stand and do the hard thing.  Strong enough to alter perspectives.  Strong enough to demand real changes.  Strong enough to admit mistakes and move forward.  Strong enough, even, to shift our political spectrum back to something that makes sense.  Strong enough to realize that just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I think you should go to jail. 

Because as great as this country is.  As wealthy as we are or think we are.  As intellectually or as technologically or as philosophically advanced as we indeed may be.  We do not have the luxury to pretend it doesn't matter.