How I came to write a novel: McSocrates

After the American Century

Once upon a time I was in Yorkshire for a semester of research, and after several months I had exhausted all the local archival materials. Not that my project was done, but there was nothing more to do there. At first I was bored, but then I decided to try writing a little fiction. I had often thought about writing a novel, but I always seemed too busy. And what kind of a career move was it for a historian to write a novel anyway?

As it happened, not only was I a bit bored but the weather turned inclement. Rain and yet more rain, all spring. And so I started a short story, or so I imagined, one set in a small college in upstate New York. I know quite a bit about small colleges, as my father taught at Trinity College, Hartford, and I went to Amherst College. Later I taught for a few years at Union College, and I have also lectured at quite a few small colleges over the years. In the novel I did not model Socrates College on any of these individual places, nor is its faculty like that at any one institution, though a few former colleagues have been gathered together at this new location. In any case, I did not have a plan worked out for a novel, but was just trying to write a short story.

Then something quite unexpected happened. After describing the campus and introducing several characters, a woman suddenly appeared. I had expected the main character to be Al Thayer, a middle-aged historian whose work focused on Renaissance Italy. But I began to make snide remarks about him, and after just a few pages, Michelle Jensen, a young woman drove an old Chevy into the manuscript and just took over as the main character. The book also became more irreverent and satirical. And what had been a short story grew to over 50,000 words. Fortunately, I know several women roughly the same age as Michelle, and they were willing to read the manuscript. To my relief, they found her credible, but they had helpful advice on her clothing and vocabulary.

By the time I had completed the first draft, I was back in Denmark, where full-time teaching and research demanded my time. I completed the historical study I had begun in England, and it was published by MIT Press. A year after I started my inadvertent novel, it was almost forgotten, and for another year I did not look at it. When I eventually did, I liked it more than expected. I made a few revisions, forgot about it again, and then made further revisions one summer later. I also got feedback from several more readers. At this point, I realized that the little book was done. But I was afraid to publish it. After writing many historical works, conceivably it would tarnish my reputation, to the extent I had one. Nor did I relish the prospect of probable rejection from commercial publishers.

So, in the summer of 2018 I made a final edit, and put the book out with Amazon. Since it deals with academic life and with the effects of digitization on a college campus, it may be of interest to some. I had fun dong it, and a sequel is starting to emerge.

The Energy Transition from Gas to Electricity

American Illuminations: The Energy Transition from Gas to Electricity

After the American Century

In 1900 the city of Cincinnati sent a small group around to ten other cities to study their lighting systems. Cincinnati had an old gas system and wanted to upgrade it. It may seem strange to us today, but it was by no means obvious that they should choose electricity. Gas lighting had improved greatly in the 1890s, and when the Cincinnati committee got to St. Louis they were told that while electricity was popular with the citizens, it was rather expensive and was only used on a few streets. Elsewhere, St. Louis was going to use Welsbach gas mantles. The committee next went to Indianapolis, but its system was not cutting edge and left immediately for Chicago, where they heard that of course the city was converting everything to electricity. But in Milwaukee, they learned that gas was preferred.

And so it went. The choices were also more complex than just gas or electricity, for there were many different kinds of arc lights, some open, others enclosed, some using alternating current and others direct current. The committee also had the problem that they wanted to compare systems side by side, but they were hundreds of miles apart. How could they compare the electrical system in Pittsburgh with the gas system in St. Louis? They might see one city when the moon was shining and another when it was raining. The problem is much like that of a city buying a technical system today, and it is not always clear which system is the optimal choice.  

This is just one of many stories in American Illuminations which looks at how Americans developed the most brightly lighted cities in the world by the end of the nineteenth century. The larger story includes the spectacular displays at world's fairs, the development of "moonlight towers" and electric signs, the illumination of skyscrapers, the invention of the city skyline, the lighting of amusement parks, the city beautiful movement, and the many uses of electric lighting in parades and politics, particularly presidential inaugurations. 

Walter Benjamin once wrote that "overabundance of light produces multiple blindings." Read this book, and see if you agree.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/american-illuminations

Our energy transition

After the American Century

We are living in the midst of an energy transition, shifting away from fossil fuels to solar, wind, biomass, and other forms of alternative energy. The price of solar power has been dropping rapidly during the last five years, and is now a cheaper source of electricity than windmills and more importantly, cheaper than coal. The price differences will become even larger, as new R&D keeps finding greater efficiencies, and manufacturers achieve economies of scale in production.

Danish windmills

The energy transition is taking place most rapidly not in the nations that were dominant in the old oil-coal-gas energy regime, such as the United States, but rather in nations which do not possess many fossil fuel resources but do have lots of sun, wind, or thermal heat.  Chile, for example, has all three of these, and will soon be supplying most of its energy needs from windmills along its long coastline and solar installations in the large desert region in the north. When I visited Chile last year to attend a conference on energy transitions, I heard many people talk about the vast exports of energy that were possible, too, once high tension lines reached into other South American countries.  Iceland is a leader in thermal heating and thermal electricity, and sunny Portugal is also rapidly becoming a player in alternative energy. 

Old fossil fuel economies are not as quick to change, and they are behaving in quite different ways. Germany has invested heavily in solar and wind power, creating thousands of jobs, and its official policy is to close nuclear plants and get rid of fossil fuels as soon as possible. Britain seems unable to give up nuclear power as a fantasy solution, but meanwhile is muddling through and headed toward more alternative energies, though not with the same pace and determination as Germany. France has long invested heavily in atomic reactors, and of all the nations in the world, has the greatest dependence on them. 

The United States is divided, on this as on everything else these days. Some states, notably California, Massachusetts, and New York, are acting like Europeans, becoming more energy efficient, while investing in alternative power. In contrast, the Deep South until quite recently has invested almost nothing in alternative energies, and uses about twice as much energy per capita as the three states just mentioned. The Federal government is rather schizophrenic, with programs from the Obama years designed to increase energy efficiency and move toward wind and solar power, but run by Trump appointees who are undercutting the programs. Meanwhile, Trump is a strong supporter of the fossil fuel industries, particularly coal. One hopes he will be the last such president, for the long term health of the American economy depends on making the transition quickly, rather than lagging behind. Interestingly, some "red"states in the western US that usually vote Republican are nevertheless rapidly adopting wind mills, because their region happens to have steady, strong wind. This is in contrast to the American South, while has good sun but little wind except for that blasts of hot air coming from its politicians.

China is investing heavily in alternative power systems, and more recently India has begun to cancel plans to build new fossil fuel electrical plants, choosing alternative energies instead. The change is driven by falling costs at least as much as by environmental idealism.

How long will this take? Based on previous energy transitions, which I have studied, the shift in energy regimes takes at least 30 years, normally. But in the past the changes were driven by prices and the comparative versatility and convenience of different sources of power. For example, in factories steam power was not as flexible as electrical power. On the other hand, in 1910 gasoline engines were more convenient on the whole that electric motors to power automobiles, because batteries were not good enough. That problem seems to be all but solved, now, but it took more than a century.  How long will the transition as a whole take? Perhaps only a decade or two more in countries that are really trying to make the change, like Portugal and Chile. Sadly, the US, once a leader in the transition to fossil fuels and again a leader in electrification, is falling behind. The Republican Party is largely responsible, but the Democrats also share some of the blame. US energy policy has been a battlefield for decades. 

The big question is whether in the world as a whole the transition will come quickly enough to overcome the destructive effects of global warming. Since the current US government has adopted the policy of denying the reality of climate change, our hopes will have to rest with the US state governments, thoughtful corporations that shift to energy efficiency and alternative energies (such as Apple), and most importantly, other nations. In this particular area, we do seem to be living "after the American century."  

For anyone interested, I wrote about the earlier energy transition from gas to electricity as the source of lighting in a book that is about to be published, American Illuminations  MIT Press, 2018.

Republicans Vote for a Shutdown

Republicans vote for a shutdown

After the American Century

Only 45 Republicans voted for the budget bill that would keep the government open. They have 51 seats, barely enough for a majority, but need more than a simple majority. Under Senate rules, they need 60 votes to end debate and then vote on the bill. According to the New York Times, five Republicans who voted against included the majority leader, Mitch "ConMan" McConnell. He voted against his own party, and yet was later on the radio blaming the Democrats for shutting down the government. John McCain, who is not in good health, was the only senator who did not vote.

McConnell has been an incompetent, self-serving embarrassment as party leader. So little legislation has been passed in the last year and he has been so divisive, that he ought to resign and let someone else try their hand at it. Consider the situation. There ought to have been a budget by Christmas, but instead, McConnell only produced a continuing resolution that kicked the can down the road to yesterday's deadline. There is still no budget, and the Democrats were asked once again to vote for a temporary extension of last year's budget. This is no way to run the legislature. If the Republicans cannot manage to produce a budget when they control both houses of Congress and the White House, it is a sign of gross incompetence. 

Not all Democrats were against the bill. Five supported it, including te newly seated Doug Jones from Alabama. He voted for the bill, though one might have thought that a lawyer famous for defending civil rights might have voted no. The other Democratic turncoats were, like Jones, from swing states where moderation is the safe road to re-election: North Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, and Indiana.

For readers abroad, who may not know what this means, the shutdown only affects the Federal government. I heard an incompetent "expert" on the radio this morning declare that because of the shutdown all the schools in the US would close on Monday and that no one would be able to take a driving test. This is not the case, as both are State (not Federal) functions. Likewise, if someone needs a marriage license, that is a local matter. But a shutdown, at least in theory, could stop airport security (it will not) and close all the national parks (it will). The tax offices will be closed and all federal employees in Washington will get an unpaid "vacation" until Congress starts to do its job.

Meanwhile, the Republicans will try to convince the public that the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown.

Expatriation: not what it used to be

After the American Century

A century ago being an expatriate had a certain cachet. Some major American writers once lived primarily in Britain, notably Henry James and T. S. Elliot. In the 1920s a raft of famous authors resided in Paris, as chronicled in Malcolm Cowley's Exile's Return. Central works of American literature were written while the authors were living in Europe, and they often take place there as well, notably Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises or F. Scott Fitzgerald's Tender is the Night. A sojourn in Europe was once thought essential for every sculptor, painter, musician, and writer. The American artist abroad then lived well due to a strong dollar. In that era, the terms commonly used for such people included "emigrant," "émigré," "expatriate," and "exile." These did not usually have a negative connotation.

Today, the image of the foreigner who lives abroad is somewhat different. Many terms referring to them do not have positive connotations, including "illegal immigrant," "refugee," "alien," "deportee," "evacuee," "migrant," "foreign national," "itinerant," "displaced person," and "gypsy." The term "expatriate" is not much used, and I do not recall being called that by anyone, at least not recently. These days, the dollar is strong but not as strong as in 1920. 

Stokholm, June, 2013

For many reasons it is getting more difficult to be an American expatriate (the older term) or foreign national. This is an unintended product of many factors, including greater mobility, the tightening of security in the face of terrorism, and the digitization of information. The long lines at airports are one obvious example, where on arrival the non-citizen must wait in the slower queue. 

Banking offers a second example. The Economist writes that "Worried about being hit by massive fines for unwittingly aiding money-laundering, sanctions-evasion or financing terrorism, banks have over the past few years dropped customers in countries or sectors deemed high-risk." Even in countries where risks are low, it is now far more difficult to open a banking account. I know this from personal experience. When abroad for more than a few months, it used to be routine to open a local bank account. This has become more difficult, and one is forced to use ATMs and the bank in one's home country, with all the currency exchange charges that come with it. Yet a foreign account cannot deal with every contingency, as local services often are based on having a local bank and credit card. Digital payment systems, for example in the London tube system, do not always work with foreign accounts.

Pensions are a third example. Work in several counties during your lifetime, and each will give only a partial pension on retirement. Nor is there much logic to how much one receives. A nation where one worked only two years may pay half as much as another country where one worked more than 25 years. Saving privately can compensate for this problem, but saving for a pension in one country may not be accepted as a tax deduction in another. These matters vary from one nation to another, and generalization is impossible beyond the fact that sorting it out takes time. A lot of time.

A fourth example is taxation. A decade ago I was temporarily in Britain for a semester, and agreed to give a lecture in Norway. I made the mistake of accepting a modest honorarium for this work. As a result, the honorarium was taxed in Norway, in Denmark (my permanent residence), in the UK (my temporary residence), and in the US (my citizenship). Taken together, these taxes amounted to more than 100% of the honorarium. Perhaps there was a way to avoid paying so much. If so, the rules are hard to make out, and the time demanded to find and fill out various forms made it impractical to contest it.  Since then, I have been far less interested in being paid for lecturing abroad, unless it is in Denmark or the US, which limits the taxes to "just" two countries. Double taxation demands time and produces anxiety.

The difficulties of being an American expatriate have measurable consequences. An increasing number of long-term residents abroad are renouncing their US citizenship. I am not considering this option, but I know people who have turned in their passports. Fortune magazine noted that more people are giving up American citizenship, with a 26% increase in 2016 alone. That was before Donald Trump became president.

Both political parties have long ignored the plight of expatriates, and it was the Democrats who in 2010 passed tax laws for Americans abroad that are more draconian and punitive. As at the airports, the targets of this legislation were smugglers and terrorists, and the intentions were laudable.  The absolute numbers renouncing citizenship are still small, but the trend is troubling. The increase in the last decade has been more than 100%.

We are continually told that the world is becoming more international. Were Hemingway to return, he might disagree. At times, it seems to be more nationalistic and xenophobic.

Why the US Should Have Signed the Paris Climate Accords

After the American Century 

I have been studying the history of energy, especially electricity, for three decades.* In fact, I spent much of this spring studying the history of alternative energies and comparing their adoption to the history of previous energy transitions. I can say with certainty that Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords will look idiotic to future historians, for at least six reasons.

(1) because global warming is very real and getting worse.

(2) because many places that voted for Trump will suffer terrible flooding as the oceans continue to rise, more hurricanes as the oceans continue to warm up and more tornados, caused by the collision of cold continental air masses with much hotter air coming off the Gulf og Mexico.

(3) because solar and wind energy are now cheaper than coal or oil, as established by the marketplace.

(4) because we are in the later stages of an energy transition that is well underway, especially in countries like Portugal and Chile, where fossil fuel lobbies are weaker than in the US,

(5) because due to this decision the centers of alternative energy research and manufacturing will be less American than they might have been, with China, Germany, and other nations taking the lead;

(6) because this decision drives another wedge between the US and its European allies, weakening American leadership and credibility.

It is as if Woodrow Wilson had tried to stop adoption of the automobile in order to save the harness makers, horse breeders, and stables.

Pulling out of the climate accords cannot be done all at once, however, and this issue should be at the center of the elections in 2018 and again in 2020.

Trump is spitting into the wind of change, and the spit is already smeared all over his face.

* My books on energy history include Electrifying America (1990), Consuming Power (1998), When the Lights Went Out (2010), and American Illuminations (2018, forthcoming) - all published by MIT Press.

Trump Seeks to Revive Calvin Coolidge's America

The First Trump Budget Reveals Republican Values: 
A Return to Calvin Coolidge's America

After the American Century

Calvin Coolidge

Deeds often reveal far more than words. Trump talks and tweets endlessly, and most of it is rant and distraction. Ignore it. But the Budget is something else. The Republicans would rather have you think about silly distracting statements that pop out of the Administration several times a day. Ignore it. The bottom line is what matters, and this budget shows exactly what Republicans value.

They value weapons, private schools, military hardware, the FBI, expelling illegal immigrants, and building a wall-fence along the Mexican border.

Republicans do not value diplomacy by the State Department, health care, clean air and water, scientific research, the arts, the humanities, museums, disease control, nursing education, public radio, or food for the poor.

The Republicans propose to eliminate entirely the following agencies, endowments, and services:

African Development Foundation
Appalachian Regional Commission
Chemical Safety Board
Corporation for National and Community Service 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Delta Regional Authority
Denali Commission
Institute of Museum and Library Services 
Inter-American Foundation
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
Legal Services Corporation
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Northern Border Regional Commission
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

This is only a partial list of the proposed cuts. As I wrote earlier on this blog, it seems that the Republican program is to return the nation to its condition in about 1925. Most of the programs and agencies listed immediately above did not exist then.  However, there is one huge difference: President Calvin Coolidge talked very little.

The Huckster President: Trump's flagrant conflicts of interest

After the American Century

Donald Trump likes to be a moving target, constantly drawing attention away from what he did yesterday with something entirely different today. The media seem endlessly willing to shift their attention, and as a result many of the questions or problems that Mr. Trump raises are never dealt with thoroughly. What is necessary, in this situation, is that journalists and citizens keep their attention on major problems, rather than hop from one topic to another.

So what is an example of a major problem?  Mr. Trump has not properly separated his businesses (and those of his family) from the office of president. There was some attention to this matter before he assumed office, but the matter has not been properly dealt with. This is not a trivial issue. At the moment Mr. Trump is in constant danger of violating one or another laws because he has not separated himself (and his financial interests) from his duties as president. In Washington itself he has leased a building from the Federal government and remodeled it into a hotel. This was legal for him to do as a private citizen, but it is not legal for an elected official to lease a Federal building. At present, foreign governments (notably through their embassies) hold receptions and make payments to Mr. Trump for the use space in this hotel. It is illegal for him to receive payments from foreign governments, yet he is doing so. The Constitution is quite clear about this: the president may not “accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” This question alone ought to be raised every day by the media until it is dealt with.  The Atlantic, to its credit, is pushing on this issue, and notes that the "president himself is now making money off of routine governmental functions."

Yesterday, Mr Trump attacked a major department store chain because they have decided not to sell (anymore) the clothing line produced by his daughter, Ivanka.  Mr. Trump does not understand that it is improper for him to say anything about this, and it is even worse that he proclaims that Nordstrom's decision was "political."  The point is that his businesses and those of his daughter cannot be conducted with their active involvement so long as he is president. For him to attack a company because they do not want to sell her product is a violation of his role and his responsibility as president. He stands forth not as a statesman but a money-grubbing huckster.  

As Robert Casey, the Senator from Pennsylvania put it, with regard to his attack on Nordstrom, "it is unethical and inappropriate for the president to lash out at a private company for refusing to enrich his family."  It is unacceptable that Congress and the Courts do not pressure the president to create a real blind trust so that the public can feel confident he is acting in the national interest, rather than in his own financial interest.

Nor is this all. Mr. Trump's wife has begun a lawsuit against a New York newspaper, claiming that her "brand" was harmed by a story they ran about her, and that she will lose over $100 million because of the story. She clearly sees her role as First Lady in a commercial light, as an opportunity to make money based on the fame and attention that comes with the position. This is fundamentally and absolutely unacceptable.

There are other examples. Mr. Trump has pushed for the completion of that Dakota pipeline through Native American lands, yet before the election he had investments that were directly linked to that very pipeline.  I may have missed something, but I cannot find a story making clear that he has divested himself of financial interests in that pipeline.

Likewise, Mr. Trump has received a large loan from Deutsche Bank, a German bank, in one of his projects. That bank is currently negotiating a settlement with the US Justice Department, because it sold some low quality mortgage bonds to unsuspecting customers.  Trump is in a position to influence these negotiations. He needs to separate himself from any such possibility.

All previous presidents have put their businesses and assets in a blind trust. Mr. Trump has not. His businesses continue to be run by his children and close associates. This is a joke. Who can possibly believe that there is anything "blind" about this procedure?  Ideally, the president should not even know what his investments are, so that his decisions as president cannot be made for personal benefit.

Indeed, we do not even know what Mr. Trump's financial interests are, because he has refused to disclose that information. His taxes remain secret. No other president has done that, either.

In short, it is time for Congress, the Courts, the Media, and public opinion, to demand that Mr. Trump disclose his financial interests, put his businesses in a blind trust (i.e. not run by his children), and begin to create the appearance, at least, of an ethical presidency.  The people have a right to demand that as a bare minimum from any president.

What do we call it, when an elected official mixes their personal property with public property (the Trump hotel), accepts payments from foreign governments, and encourages his family to profit from the power and fame of his office? My friends, it is called corruption. Corruption of the office, corruption of the family, and corruption of the government. We expect this of tinpot dictators, but not of democratically elected officials. We have a president who is wide open to corruption, with no safeguards, and rather than chase after every new story he sets going, it is time to focus a laser beam of attention on his flagrant conflicts of interest and his misuse of the office of president.  He appears to be only a step or two away from impeachable offenses.  Already, one bipartisan lawsuit has been started against him. There will surely be more.

A Trump Vision? Back to 1925?

After the American Century

If one looks at Mr. Trump's pronouncements and puts them together, the overall goal seems to be a return to the America of 1925, with only a few pieces of the New Deal remaining domestically. In foreign affairs, the US would not rely much on NATO or other alliances, but rather would make bilateral arrangements with other nations when it seemed of benefit.

In the United States of 1925, abortion was illegal, race relations were hierarchical (with whites dominant, of course), and the welfare state was quite modest. The Federal government had an adversarial relationship to most cities, because Prohibition was laxly enforced there, and the strongest supporters of the Republican presidents of that era came from rural and small town America. Trump has already developed an adversarial role with many cities, over illegal immigration.

During the 1920s immigration was severely restricted, and with a strong preference given to northern Europeans, and very small quotas to non-whites. Immigration was easier from Mexico and Canada then, but Trump is intent on closing these loopholes, and putting the US behind an exclusionary wall.

In the 1920s there were also large tariffs on imports, and Americans produced most of what they consumed.

It would seem that the Trump Administration wants the United States to return to this era, perhaps without the jazz music of the "Roaring Twenties," but with the soaring stock market. Last week, for the first time, ever, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose about 20,000.

The rest of the world has changed just  a bit since 1925, however, and it might be hard to re-create that era.