As the world knows, the United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II died on September 8 at the age of 96, kicking off weeks of national mourning and ceremonies of transition.

Fewer noticed the passing, the day before, of American actress Marsha Hunt — whose film career began in 1935, and who starred opposite such names as John Wayne, Mickey Rooney, and Laurence Olivier before getting caught up in the McCarthy-era “blacklists” — at 104 years.

While these two women came from different countries and backgrounds, and took wildly different career paths, I’m struck by what they had in common with each other that few of the rest of us can even remember, let alone really understand.

They both lived through the Great Depression, World War Two, the Cold War, and the reorientation of global politics after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was itself younger than Hunt!).

Most of us know those events only from literature and film (perhaps including Hunt’s None Shall Escape, the first movie about the Holocaust) or, if we’re lucky (and a little older than average ourselves), the oral recollections of our parents or grandparents.

The median global age is around 30. Half of humans now living can’t remember a world before the World Wide Web.

Marsha Hunt and Elizabeth II were adults before television became common and before most households even in “developed” countries had telephones, let alone telephones that could be carried around, take photos, and run sophisticated computer applications.

Between the two of them, they watched most of cultural, economic, political, and military water that ran under the bridge of the last century, a bridge we now find ourselves stranded on far side of without much living memory of where we came from.

Is “institutional memory” a substitute for the real thing? I don’t think so. While the Renaissance-era clothing and trumpet-blowing of Charles III’s ascent to the throne — or for that matter, a film retrospective of Hollywood’s “golden age” —  may be interesting and engaging, we remain trapped in the same tired old cycles of culture, politics, finance, and war that made the 20th century as horrific as it was innovative. We benefit from the advancements, but keep making the same mistakes.

Elizabeth II and Marsha Hunt may have been makers as well as observers of those mistakes, but we’re poorer for their passing: They’re no longer around to remember the mistakes for us, leaving us likely condemned to repeat them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Had I Known was the title of Barbara Ehrenreich’s final book before her passing on September 1, and indeed, the longtime investigative journalist never closed the book on what there was to learn.

In the introduction, Ehrenreich wrote that “I realized that there was something wrong with an arrangement whereby a relatively affluent person, such as I had become, could afford to write about minimum-wage jobs” — the subject that brought her fame and fortune as an author.

Ehrenreich’s reporting on the conditions of low-paying work in the bestselling exposé Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America was summed up by Roderick T. Long as a rebuke “to those on the right who heroise the managerial class and imagine that the main causes of poverty are laziness and welfare.”  As Charles W. Johnson noted at the time, Nickel and Dimed manages to also be “a frighteningly real response to those feel-good liberals who proclaim the virtues of voluntarily living in poverty and complain about how frustrated they feel with their Palm Pilots and SUVs.”

A decade later, Ehrenreich wrote in the afterword to a new edition of Nickel and Dimed that having assumed that “the standard liberal wish list” of more “public programs” was the way to “reduce poverty” had obscured how the same government increases poverty by criminalizing efforts of the poor to get by.

Had I Known includes a lauding of “informal networks” which “put the official welfare state, with its relentless suspicions and grudging outlays, to shame.”  Yet it also ascribes economic inequality to “the free-enterprise system” which “depends only on markets.” Ehrenreich suggests this is really a “free-president system” in which elected officials are “free of all responsibility for the economically anguished.” Yet her own muckraking shows an economy actually existing far closer to Paul Goodman’s term “un-free enterprise.”

In Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America, Ehrenreich viewed a Templeton Foundation report’s rhetoric about how “free enterprise and other principles of capitalism can, and do, benefit the poor” as indicating “a foregone conclusion.”  While not “a right-wing conspiracy,” free-enterprise advocacy by groups like Templeton and the Association of Private Enterprise Education was inherently “conservative.”

Ehrenreich should not have been so sure if she had attended a panel at APEE’s conference the following year making the case for “free market anti-capitalism,” including contributions from both Johnson and Long. Unhindered by obstacles such as what Johnson calls “the government-supported stranglehold of big banks on capital” withholding funding for business outside of big business, market forces would not conserve entrenched power dynamics but dissolve them. Ehrenreich might even have recognized a comrade in Long when he concludes that “libertarianism is the proletarian revolution.”

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

1. “What Ehrenreich didn’t know” by Joel Schlosberg, USA Today, September 9, 2022
2. “What Ehrenreich didn’t know” by Joel Schlosberg, The Spectrum, September 9, 2022
3. What Ehrenreich didn’t know” by Joel Schlosberg, Yahoo! News, September 9, 2022
4. “What Ehrenreich didn’t know” by Joel Schlosberg, The Montana Standard, September 9, 2022
5. “What Ehrenreich didn’t know” by Joel Schlosberg, The Daily Star [Hammond, Louisiana], September 12, 2022
6. “What Ehrenreich Didn’t Know” by Joel Schlosberg, Williston, North Dakota Herald, September 26, 2022

“When police found a kindergarten boy who had walked off from school after attacking his teacher and classmates,” Elizabeth K. Anthony writes at The Conversation, “it didn’t take them long to start guessing about the cause of his behavior.”

Long story short: The cops concluded  the boy wasn’t getting enough of That Good Old Corporal Punishment at home, and told his mother exactly that.

“He’s bad because no one’s correcting it.”

“This is why people need to beat their kids.”

“As law enforcement officers  … we applaud the fact that you will please beat your kid.”

There are no happy endings to such incidents, but this case did result in a hefty settlement after a judge ruled that the police behavior involved was “assaultive in nature.”

For much of my own life, I assumed that “spare the rod, spoil the child” was not only how things were, but the only way they could be. My wife and I debated that belief in a  spirited manner and she largely prevailed in banning corporal punishment for our kids. I learned to keep my opinion (or at least my hands) to myself. But I never questioned it.

Then I inherited the razor strop.

It was my great-grandfather’s, then my grandfather’s, then my father’s, and when he passed away it — and memories of it that I’d tried to bury — came to me.

I assume my grandfather and his father used the strop for its intended purpose, sharpening the straight razor which I also inherited. And, yes, maybe for other things.

My dad didn’t need the razor or strop for shaving — disposable razors were fine with him.  But he used that strop liberally, on me, when my behavior didn’t measure up to his standards.

It’s just a strip of leather, backed by a strip of thick cloth, maybe two feet long and four inches wide. But in memory,  it’s a giant serpent of fire and pain that I lived in abject terror of throughout my childhood.

Was my father an evil man? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, 40 years or more after my final disciplinary encounter with the strop, I’m no longer convinced that his decision to inflict pain on me is the reason I’m not dead, in prison, or an alcoholic.

If the strop taught me anything, it was the false lesson that instant resort to violence “works.” I suspect I’m not dead, in prison, or an alcoholic in spite of, not because of, the strop.

I also suspect that violent punishment of children makes those children, and their parents, more inclined to non-defensive violence in general.

Corporal punishment becomes a shortcut that superficially “solves” problems without the time and effort required to understand and work through those problems for real. It’s the crack cocaine of dispute resolution — an instant high followed by the constant need for more.

If you’re a good person with good kids — and I bet you are — don’t make it harder on them, or on yourself. Parent peacefully.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY