Check out Rob York‘s new piece, Born This Way, about an American pastor who, from a barroom pulpit in Seoul, preaches a message of Christian love and acceptance of homosexuality, leading his mostly gay congregation in a David-and-Goliath struggle against South Korea’s conservative Christian establishment. Also featured on the site is The Chicago Way, an essay by Nicole Cipri about the long and brazen history of corruption in that city — a “place so crooked,” the Chicago Tribune once lamented, that “even the reformers are on the take.” If you like these or the other stories we’ve featured throughout the year, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to our nonprofit, which very much needs your support to continue publishing into the new year. Happy holidays!
In South Korea, where a Christian minority dominates the country’s culture and politics, fundamentalists are fighting a culture war against their list of abominations: homosexuality, evolution, even Lady Gaga. But one church in Seoul is fighting back, working from within the faith to make it more tolerant — one gay Christian at a time.
At first glance, the scene seems all too familiar. On the fringe of a gay pride festival, a local church has set up shop. A pastor preaches about homosexuality while his followers hand out Bible passages to passersby.
But look closer. The church is not protesting. The pastor is preaching a sermon of affirmation and acceptance. He is openly gay.
Much like in America, conservative Christianity dominates South Korea’s culture and politics, and there is no shortage of fundamentalist believers who call gay culture an abomination. But as the gay-rights movement has gained traction here in recent years, some liberal Christian congregations have started welcoming members of all sexual orientations, allowing gay Christians — that unlikely but real constituency — to work from within to make their faith more tolerant. One of these churches is the Open Doors Community Church, an activist Christian congregation in Seoul whose members are mostly gay.
This month, In The Fray wants your stories of rivalries. Tell us about the spirit of competition and how these experiences led to an unexpected revelation. Show us the ways that rivalries make people better — and the ways they make people worse.
In The Fray Magazine | Call for Submissions | December 2012: Rivalries
Every one of us has had a rival at one point in our lives: siblings, classmates, coworkers, even strangers. At a national level, we’ve just witnessed a bitterly fought U.S. presidential election, but some of the most iconic rivalries have little to do with politics. Yankees and Red Sox. Microsoft and Apple. Vampires and werewolves. Leno and Letterman.
This month, In The Fray wants your stories of rivalries. Tell us about the spirit of competition and how these experiences led to an unexpected revelation. Show us the ways that rivalries make people better — and the ways they make people worse. As usual, we are open to stories that deal with the topic broadly construed, and in a variety of approaches: profiles, interviews, reportage, personal essays, op-eds, travel writing, photo essays, artwork, videos, multimedia projects, and review essays of books, film, music, and art.
If interested, please email submissions@inthefray.org with a well-developed, one-paragraph pitch for your proposed piece as soon as possible — along with three links to your previous work — NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 15, 2012. All contributors are urged to review our submissions guidelines at http://inthefray.org/submit.
We are also looking for artists, photographers, and writers who can take care of specific assignments, including book and film reviews, interviews, and accompanying photos and artwork. If interested, please follow the instructions at the bottom of http://inthefray.org/submit to join our contributors’ mailing list.
Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich makes remarks in front of his Chicago residence the day before beginning a fourteen-year federal prison sentence. (Flickr)
The “Blago” scandal may have set new lows for reality TV-abetted shamelessness, but the ex-Illinois governor was just one in a long, storied line of corrupt Chicago politicos. We run through the decades of graft and cronyism that have weighed down the City of the Big Shoulders.
Like many other things that the city has branded and made its own (pizza, the blues, improv, hot dogs), Chicago has its own kind of politics. The structure of the city’s government is decentralized and hyperlocal, a swamp of favors, family ties, and a certain flair for the theatrical. Its leaders’ crooked dealings land on the front pages of Chicago’s papers on a regular basis. Corruption in Chicago is as constant as the Cubs’ losing streak: an inside joke that’s been done to death.
Chicago has always belonged to hustlers. In the 1830s, after a stretch of land was ceded by Native Americans, speculators saw the potential for a transportation hub. The city was built in a swamp known for its pungent onions (according to local lore, an Indian word for wild onion, shikaakwa, provided Chicago with its name).
Before Prohibition, the members of Chicago’s city council were mostly self-made men who exchanged favors for votes, giving rise to a system of patronage and cronyism. They were men with backgrounds as colorful as their nicknames: Michael “Hinky Dink” Kenna, “Bathhouse” John Coughlin, Johnny “De Pow” Powers.
They weren’t the first to make a living brokering deals between the criminal element and politicians, but they did it in true Chicago style: loudly and unapologetically. They hobnobbed with the madames, gangsters, and pimps of their districts, took bribes as their due, and ran protection rackets. When the Municipal Voters League, a reform organization, printed that Coughlin was a tool of gamblers and thieves, Coughlin demanded a retraction — not of their claims that he was corrupt, but because they had written he’d been born in Waukegan. As a native Chicagoan, Coughlin took offense.
The last Republican to hold the mayor’s office was William “Big Bill” Hale Thompson. During his time in office, the Chicago Outfit, the organized crime syndicate that Al Capone would make famous, dominated the bootlegging trade. Violent turf wars broke out — between local politicians. These culminated in more than sixty bombings in the run-up to the 1928 primary elections. The editor of the Chicago Tribune once wrote that Thompson had “made Chicago a byword for the collapse of American civilization.”
The Depression turned Chicago into a Democrat’s town. A succession of slick mayors molded the city government into little more than an autocracy, complete with its own dynasties. Richard J. Daley served for five terms before dying in office in 1976. Despite an administration marked by scandals and well-publicized corruption cases, Daley is still regarded by political scientists as one of the best mayors in American history. After all, he gave us Sears Tower (now known as Willis Tower) and O’Hare Airport; what’s rampant and systemic corruption compared to that? The city loved him so much it elected his son, Richard M. Daley, after a very brief flirtation with a couple of reformist mayors. The younger Daley surpassed his father by serving for six terms before retiring.
It takes a certain kind of mindset to go into Chicago politics: a combination of brute determination, narcissism, flexible ethics, and manic tendencies — not to mention a rich vocabulary of curses. Maybe this can explain the slow-motion implosion of Rod Blagojevich’s short stint as governor of Illinois.
The son of Serbian immigrant parents, Blagojevich was born in 1956 on Chicago’s North Side. Growing up, he had a variety of odd jobs: shoeshiner, pizza delivery boy, meat packer. After a short, failed career in amateur boxing, he went to law school at Pepperdine University in California. He married the daughter of a powerful Chicago alderman, Richard Mell, who got him a clerk position with another member of the city council, Edward Vrdolyak. (Vrdolyak had been charged with attempted murder in 1960, at age twenty-two. Nearly a half century later, he would serve time for corruption.)
Blagojevich later became a state representative and then in 1996 won a congressional seat. He was young and charismatic, and he belonged to the city. He won the next two elections easily and eventually set his sights on a higher seat: governor of Illinois. He promised an end to the endemic corruption plaguing then-governor George Ryan, whose single term was marked by the indictments of seventy-nine state workers and business leaders — some of them with close ties to Ryan — on various graft charges. (Ryan himself was convicted in 2006 of mail fraud, tax fraud, racketeering, and lying to the FBI.)
Voters believed Blagojevich when he claimed to be an agent of change. But after becoming governor in 2003, he quickly alienated nearly everyone in his party, including Mell and the other men who had helped put him in power. His approval ratings were an abysmal 13 percent by the time the FBI caught him attempting to sell the newly vacant U.S. Senate seat of Barack Obama in 2008. “I’ve got this thing, and it’s fucking golden,” he said, in the now-infamous recording. “I’m not giving it up for fucking nothing.”
The ensuing frenzy was as sensational as the headlines themselves. Outrage, disbelief, and censure flooded in from all corners. Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office in January 2009.
Blagojevich went on a media blitz, appearing on talk shows to proclaim his innocence and even joining the cast of Donald Trump’s reality TV show, The Celebrity Apprentice. After a mistrial in 2010, a year later the former governor was convicted on most counts and sentenced to fourteen years in prison. He was the fourth Illinois governor convicted of corruption charges since 1973.
This year scholars at the University of Illinois at Chicago released a report, “Chicago and Illinois, Leading the Pack in Corruption,” citing new public corruption conviction data from the Department of Justice. The report concluded that the Chicago metropolitan region has been the most corrupt area in the country for the past thirty-five years, and that Illinois is the nation’s third most corrupt state. From 1976-2010, Illinois saw 1,828 convictions of government workers, including elected officials, appointees, and employees — an average of fifty per year. In Chicago alone, thirty-one aldermen have been convicted of corruption since 1973 — one-third of the aldermen who have served since then. Even nominally reformist aldermen have been embroiled in scandals, prompting the Chicago Tribune to lament that the city is a “place so crooked, even the reformers are on the take.”
It’s interesting to note that no Chicago mayor has ever been arrested, never mind convicted, on corruption charges, even as their associates, friends, and cronies have been carted off to prison. It begs a few uncomfortable questions: Are they more powerful than the governor? Are they above the law?
Today the fast-talking Rahm Emanuel occupies City Hall. The former U.S. House Democrat from Illinois resigned as Obama’s chief of staff to run for Chicago mayor after the younger Daley announced his retirement. (Replacing Emanuel for a time was William M. Daley, the former U.S. commerce secretary — and brother of the man Emanuel would succeed in Chicago.) Emanuel has shown himself to be every bit the autocrat as the Daley father-son dynasty was. The city council acts more like a Greek chorus than a governing body, unanimously agreeing to his budget despite cuts to social services, granting him blanket spending authority for last May’s NATO summit, and backing his speed-camera ticketing plan.
Chicago’s politics are America’s politics — a crossroads of race, money, power, and greed, magnified and put on display. In some respects, the city has come a long way. Its leaders are no longer throwing bombs, gunning down rival politicians, or openly cavorting with mobsters. Yet its politics remain one of the most reliable spectator sports in town. Its cast of characters is huge and colorful, its daily drama edgily entertaining.
Carl Sandburg’s elegant summaryof Chicago gave it one of its proudest nicknames, “City of the Big Shoulders”:
Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning. Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the little soft cities …
There is pride here, to be sure, an ironic swagger that comes as a consequence of such a checkered history. “Chicago ain’t ready for reform,” Alderman Mathias “Paddy” Bauler famously said in 1939. It still ain’t, in plenty of ways.
The stories recently featured on the site — The Grapes of Graft by Karen Schaefer, Guitar Hero by Cherise Fong, and The Cajun Cellist by Eli Epstein — have something to say about virtues often forgotten in today’s competitive, frenzied society: humility, patience, hard work with no immediate gratification.
New York Times columnist David Brooks has made the case that today’s society has lost the sense of humility that once tempered the greatness of the Greatest Generation. Even on the day that the Allies defeated Japan, what was striking was the absence of gloating, Brooks says. Public pronouncements conveyed humility, a simple gladness that the suffering had ended, and a rejection of the tempting belief that the victors were God’s chosen. The Christian faith of the time saw such pride as the worst of all sins, Brooks says:
… what pride does is it estranges you from God. It makes you desire to be your own God. It weakens the resistance to your own weakness inside and it makes it hard to tap the larger blessings of life, which probably come from outside yourself, from your family, your friends, your neighbors, and your creator.
Even the politicians and celebrities of that era were largely obedient to this faith, Brooks says, believing it to be unseemly to promote themselves or think too much of themselves. For many — Brooks mentions presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower — that belief had been inculcated from an early age. In tight-knit communities that taught kids to remember where they came from from and to never get “too big for their britches.” In bible passages that reminded them that “he that ruleth his spirit” is better than “he that taketh a city.”
Perhaps some of this was false modesty, but the contrast with modern attitudes is striking. In 1950, a Gallup poll asked, “Are you a very important person?” Twelve percent of high school seniors said yes — compared to 80 percent in 2006. Brooks offers some other statistics that describe modern society’s bitter cocktail of self-regard. Troubling levels of narcissism. An obsession with fame. An inflated sense of our own abilities.
In other words, American Idol. Not to pick on that hit show, but, diminished ratings aside, it remains an apt symbol of today’s values, for better and worse. On one hand, Idol reflects the principles that makes the global economy so dynamic and exciting: the relentless search for talent (of the mass-marketable kind) and the reassuring optimism that anyone with ability and drive can make it. On the other hand, it peddles the delusion that anyone, regardless of ability, can make it — and that they should even try. That’s the guilty pleasure of the show’s first part, when we laugh at talentless rubes who somehow believe in their genius. But the “somehow” should really come as no surprise: in 2006, 51 percent of twenty-five-year-olds said that being famous was the most important goal they could have.
As Cherise Fong’s review of the documentary Searching for Sugar Man makes plain, Sixto Rodriguez is the anti-Idol. A Detroit singer-songwriter hailed in the seventies as a genius by music critics and a prophet by apartheid dissidents, he never made it big in the U.S. market, but never seemed to care. He went back to Detroit and took up a career in demolition and construction work. “Nothing beats reality,” he said, when his fans finally tracked him down. “Keeps your blood flowing, keeps you fit.” One reason his story is so compelling is that his humility and yearning for privacy are so out of place in an entertainment industry that increasingly sells the extroverted personalities of its artists — via tell-all interviews and confessional tweets — while focusing its marketing juggernaut on a few big bets, crowding out everyone else. Humble people aren’t usually good at selling themselves, after all.
The breathtaking scale and connectedness of today’s world markets has made the likes of Lady Gaga and LeBron James into global superstars, growing the power and allure of celebrity. Technology helps, too, in that today’s aspiring celebrities just need one viral YouTube video to achieve notoriety. Oftentimes, truly talented people — neglected or fallen along the way — rise to the surface of this crowdsourced pond. But the ease of instantaneous fame makes us forget that much of it is just novelty — a quirky skill or salacious episode that draws clicks — while enduring fame requires exceptional ability but also an even more exceptional drive.
In today’s superstar culture, artists like Sean Grissom seem like anachronisms. In Eli Epstein’s profile of him, we learn that Grissom is a classically trained cellist who has played Carnegie Hall and the Kennedy Center. Yet he still spends his days in New York’s subway stations, busking for stray bills and change. His performances underground help develop his craft, he says. “It’s important to be able to play for everybody,” he says. Craftsmanship, patiently paying your dues, slogging through the day-to-day grind of practice to achieve perfection — all of this is at odds with a marketplace that instantly grants a staggering stardom to the hint of promise.
With the rewards so high, and everyone else around them (adults included) grasping for wealth and fame, no wonder today’s young people come across as materialistic and self-centered in the surveys. And yet they might be happier, and their chances to make a real impact might improve, if they waited and let their talents develop before jumping into the latest get-retweeted-quick scheme. Attention can come too early, and criticism can be too cruel. People need the time and space to make mistakes, think crazy thoughts, invent and reinvent themselves.
Karen Schaefer’s profile of Cleveland writer and businessman Mansfield Frazier tells such a story. When he was young, Frazier saw himself as an outlaw, and he counterfeited credit cards across the country. He was arrested and spent years in prison. Once released, he turned his life around by doggedly pursuing his passion for writing, working his way up to writing for the Daily Beast. Now, in his latest incarnation as an entrepreneur, Frazier is transforming his poor, crime-ridden Cleveland neighborhood by bringing urban farming to its vacant city lots. His first venture: a vineyard.
Properly understood, humility is not about retreating into some corner and hiding your face. It’s not about hating yourself or resenting other’s success. It’s about taking yourself less seriously — maybe even reaching that potent state of mind where you lose yourself to your work — so that you can achieve something of genuine and lasting importance. Working hard at your given skills. Giving something of yourself to your family and community. Recognizing your failings and striving to be a better person. Humility in this way leads us down the path to craftsmanship and compassion, and hopefully, too, to a broader perspective on this life and its blessings. Seen from that mountaintop, the goals of fame and wealth seem nothing more than idols.
He used to make counterfeit credit cards. Now Mansfield Frazier has embarked on an even more audacious project: launching a commercial vineyard in the middle of a poor, inner-city Cleveland neighborhood.
Story and photos by Karen Schaefer
A garden hose snakes across the intersection at Hough Avenue and East Sixty-Sixth Street, in a poor urban neighborhood about a mile east of downtown Cleveland. One end is clamped to a city fire hydrant. On the other end, a gaunt man with a weathered face delivers a steady spray of water to the roots of a grapevine.
Around him, another half-dozen workers, dressed in T-shirts and jeans, are hoeing, clipping, and tying up the tender young grapevines of nearly three hundred plants, stretching wires between sturdy wooden posts to trestle the vines. Most of these workers are members of a nearby halfway house, performing court-imposed community service.
Once a deserted lot, the field where they work now boasts three quarters of an acre of prime Cleveland farmland. On one side is a derelict commercial building, partially obscured by weedy trees. On the other side, paint peels from the wooden siding of a boarded-up, white Victorian house.
Welcome to the Vineyards of Chateau Hough.
In the 1960s, the predominantly black neighborhood of Hough was the scene of Cleveland’s race riots, which left four dead and the city burning. For decades, the neighborhood was in decline. The area still has high crime figures and an average income well below the poverty line. Three years ago the corner lot was an overgrown eyesore, made vacant by the demolition of an apartment building abandoned in bankruptcy.
Then local entrepreneur Mansfield Frazier took over the land. At sixty-nine, Frazier is a stout man, whose salt-and-pepper beard skims the broad planes of his smiling face. He is self-educated, a Cleveland native, and a former convict (he prefers the term “formerly incarcerated”). And he is the visionary behind Chateau Hough, a vineyard in the inner city.
His personal story has traced much the same trajectory as downtown Cleveland’s over the past few decades: working-class life disrupted by a descent into lawlessness and poverty, followed by a slow recovery and reorientation toward new, less conventional livelihoods. Frazier grew up about a mile from Hough. He got married at seventeen (much too young, he admits). After high school he got a job with the local electric company. He aced the entrance exam, only to be put to work cleaning toilets. “I worked my way up to be the top welder on the steam line,” says Frazier, “but they would never promote me. They wanted me to train other guys less qualified, to promote past me. And it got very aggravating after a while. I was about to go postal.”
After the 1966 race riots tore apart the area, Frazier left Cleveland and began a twenty-nine-year career in counterfeiting. “I manufactured what are called counterfeit access devices, which are credit cards. And I did that all over the country,” says Frazier. “I didn’t mean to be a criminal, I meant to be an outlaw. There’s a difference, you know. Outlaws live outside the law. I didn’t have much respect for American law, because it wasn’t treating people fairly.”
The authorities failed to see the distinction. Frazier says he was never caught, but he was turned in more than once by fellow criminals and served several sentences in various prisons. But in 1992, his life changed while he was working in a prison library. “I was a tutor in math and English and I was reading an article by William Raspberry,” says Frazier, referring to the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist (Raspberry, who wrote about social issues such as race and poverty, died in July). “And I thought he was alright, but he was speaking from wealth — he’d never lived in the projects. So the other clerk said, ‘You think you can write something better?’ And I said, ‘Well, yeah!’ So on a dare, I started writing.”
While in jail, Frazier wrote and published From Behind the Wall (Paragon House, 1998), a commentary on crime, race, and the underclass. The book came out just a few days before his release. Frazier says that’s when the prison psychologist asked him a question: once he got out, was he going to go back to counterfeiting “and make everything in that book a goddamn lie”?
“That stopped me in my tracks,” says Frazier. “I felt like I’d been hit by a two-by-four.”
Frazier decided to see if he could make a success at something other than crime. After his release, he spent some time helping to build houses. Then he launched into his career as a writer. He got a job working for Cleveland’s black newspaper, the Call & Post, and later moved to the City News. He started Reentry Advocate, a bimonthly magazine that now appears in state and federal prisons in twenty states across the nation. These days, his essays on politics and race appear frequently in the Daily Beast, and he also writes a column for a local online magazine, CoolCleveland.com.
Thomas Mulready, publisher of CoolCleveland.com, admires Frazier for his fearlessness. “He’s not afraid to tackle taboo subjects,” Mulready says. “He says things other people aren’t saying.” In a recent commentary on the site, Frazier proposed that Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant football coach who was convicted of child sexual abuse, should commit suicide.
“I’m a provocateur,” Frazier admits. “I take contrarian points of view. And my background gives me a unique perspective that a lot of people might not have.” Comments about Frazier’s essays show up in almost every issue, Mulready says. “People do disagree with him. But he’s unusual — he often comes back and corrects himself and evolves his position.”
But after years in jail, just writing about social ills wasn’t enough for Frazier. He wanted to do something more tangible to change his community — to help “recreate the black middle class,” in his words. When he got out of prison, Frazier settled down in Hough. He built his own house there and stocked it with vegetable beds, a grapevine, and nut trees. Then he began work on another of his ideas.
An Oasis in a Food Desert
Across the Rust Belt in recent years, in the empty lots of cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Detroit, urban gardens have been sprouting like spring mushrooms. Generally speaking, urban agriculture is nothing new. In her book Food and the City: Urban Agriculture and the New Food Revolution, journalist Jennifer Cockrall-King points out that urban gardens flourished during World War II: at one point, 40 percent of the nation’s vegetables were grown in these “victory gardens.” (In comparison, local foods expert Brad Masi estimates that today’s urban gardens in greater Cleveland produce about 1 to 2 percent of local food consumption; in cities like Chicago, it may be as high as 5 percent.)
What is perhaps different about today’s urban farms is the focus on reclaiming tracts of land in blighted downtown neighborhoods and planting viable businesses on them. And while the movement is still small, a number of trends in recent years have converged to support it. Against a backdrop of growing interest in climate change and pesticide-free produce, books such as The Omnivore’s Dilemma and documentaries such as Food Inc. have extolled the environmental virtues of locally grown, small-scale agriculture. Urban farming projects have gained national exposure with the success of pioneers like Will Allen, a former professional basketball player and MacArthur “genius grant” recipient who heads one of the country’s largest urban agriculture programs in Milwaukee. Meanwhile, the mortgage crisis that set in motion the Great Recession five years ago has brought about an abundance of available land, as abandoned homes and cratering real estate values have made it affordable to farm again on entire city blocks.
Mansfield Frazier was one local entrepreneur who saw an opening. In 2009, as his city was still reeling from the recession, he applied for an initial $18,000 grant from Reimagining Cleveland, a citywide program designed to support sustainability projects that rebuild neighborhoods. Frazier’s idea was to start a farm on an abandoned city lot. It was not just about making money, he says, but about providing food alternatives in a low-income neighborhood with plenty of fast food, but few healthy options — what experts call a “food desert.”
“What you see young mothers putting in their grocery carts is appalling,” says Frazier. “You’ve got to make healthy choices. You can’t raise kids off of Twinkies and that sugary fruit punch.”
A vineyard was the first stage of Frazier’s plans for his nonprofit farming venture. He admits he didn’t know much about wine when he started (“I’m an expert — at taking the cork out of the bottle”). But Frazier won over his skeptics on the grant committee with his personality and passion, and over the past three years he has studied the art of winemaking intensively through his collaborations with local experts, learning enough to start advising other would-be vintners in the city. “Can’t be that hard, it’s the world’s second-oldest profession,” Frazier jokes. “Grapevines have been around forever. The great thing is, you can screw them up and they still come back.”
Neighborhood Progress, a Cleveland nonprofit that funnels federal dollars into local urban agriculture projects, boasts of Frazier’s vineyard as one of their biggest success stories. “His vision is huge — and it’s long-term,” says Lilah Zautner, the organization’s program manager. “He practices what he preaches, he walks the walk. For him to say ‘I want to put a winery and a vineyard in the middle of the inner city in the Hough neighborhood’ is an amazing vision. But also not just to have that vision, but to systematically make that happen.”
The grant from Reimagining Cleveland provided Frazier with the start-up capital for his farm, but local government has also helped him build that: as part of its land-bank program, the city of Cleveland is letting him use the lot virtually for free, so long as he pays the property taxes. Since his business is nonprofit, donations provide the rest of his funding, and local volunteers help out in the fields. And thanks to an agreement with a nearby halfway house, most of the vineyard workers are ex-offenders performing unpaid community service.
“It gives me a chance to mentor,” Frazier says. “We talk when we’re working. Guys say, ‘I’m going to get out, going to get me a dope bag.’ And I say, ‘That didn’t work too well last time. Maybe you want to think about doing something else.’”
Now that the winery is in business, Frazier is moving ahead with plans to expand his urban farm. “That building we intend to do fish-farming in,” he says, pointing at the decaying commercial building next to his lot. “The county wants to give me that building also. They don’t own it, but they’ll take it from the owner; it’s a blight. So we’ll do them a favor and save them from the taxes.” Likewise, Frazier is paying off someone else’s $1,600 tax bill in exchange for the sagging Victorian house on the other end of his vineyard, whose basement he plans to convert into a bio-cellar, a semi-subterranean greenhouse that will be covered with a twenty-foot-high roof of plexiglass. There he’ll grow shiitake mushrooms for local restaurants (they’re selling now for $20 a pound, he notes). Across the street on another vacant property, Frazier sees a vegetable garden whose produce will go to area food banks.
In Hough, the supply is certainly there to meet the demand. Over the last decade there has been some reinvestment in new condominiums and private housing, but much of the neighborhood is still in disrepair, with land bank-owned boarded-up houses and vacant lots. (Overall, Cleveland has 1,200 acres of land — almost 10,000 city lots — available for projects like Frazier’s.)
Just having an urban farm nearby can shape the ways that people in the neighborhood look at their food, Frazier says. “The goal is to train kids and let them see how crops grow, and you can change their eating habits. I think that’s critically important. We are a very unhealthy nation.” And the presence of a growing, locally owned business in Hough will make the community healthier in other ways, too. Frazier sees urban agriculture jobs as a good fit for former inmates reentering the workforce — and as a productive outlet for young people as well, “to keep them off the streets and out of prison.”
That’s what Frazier means when he talks — with his characteristically heady ambition — about “recreating the black middle class” in Hough. The neighborhood doesn’t need saviors; it needs investors to tap the potential that’s already there — in the soil, and in the people. “I don’t think the neighborhood is in that much need of redemption,” Frazier notes. “I don’t think the neighborhood is bad.”
This fall, Frazier harvested his first crop. He doesn’t have a winemaking license, so he’s invited amateur vintners in the area to come and use his Traminette and Frontenac grapes. Frazier personally prefers sweeter wines, like Riesling or Moscato. But he says he doesn’t care what kind of wine comes from the grapes. He just hopes that one day locals will be able to buy a bottle of Chateau Hough.
“Everybody wants to see what the ground has wrought,” says Frazier. “And it’s impossible to tell — you can’t predict what the wine’s gonna taste like. And I’m getting curious.
“Who knows? I might even make an award-winning wine.”
Karen Schaefer is a freelance writer in Ohio.
Dear Reader,In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
South Africans found the unlikeliest of musical heroes in their struggle against apartheid: a Detroit-born, Mexican American guitarist named Sixto Rodriguez. The documentary Searching for Sugar Man traces Rodriguez’s rapid ascent from obscurity in Motown to mythology in Cape Town — and the equally sudden oblivion that followed.
Searching for Sugar Man Written and directed by Malik Bendjelloul
Sony Pictures Classics. PG-13. 1 hour, 25 minutes.
Searching for Sugar Man tells the true story of Sixto Rodriguez, an unassuming Detroit musician whose politically charged songs transformed him into a dissident hero in apartheid-era South Africa, even as fame and fortune eluded him back home. Swedish director Malik Bendjelloul’s feature-length debut spends its first half describing the mythology that arose in South Africa around this Mexican American singer-songwriter, and then delves — with surprising results — into the mystery of his sudden disappearance from the world stage.
Rodriguez was really big in South Africa. Just how big was he? “Much bigger than the Rolling Stones,” his South African distributor says matter-of-factly. Back home, one of his first U.S. producers hailed Rodriguez, the son of Mexican immigrant parents, as a “prophet.” His critically acclaimed songs invariably led to comparisons with Bob Dylan. So how was it that this outstanding artist bombed commercially in the States and was oblivious to his mega success overseas?
In ITF‘s interview with Andrew Blackwell, the author of the book Visit Sunny Chernobyl talks about his travels to the world’s most polluted places. One point he raises is that there’s no way to return the environment to the “pure, pre-human phase” of its existence — and that this is a misguided ideal to begin with.
Inside the U.S., in the environmental movement, there is this foment right now with traditionalists, who draw their spiritual energy as it were from an idea of “pure nature” and restoring as much of the environment to a pure, pre-human phase as possible. That’s not the literal goal, but that is sort of the ideal that drives their entire enterprise.
Then you have these modernist folk, who believe that that is an impossible ideal: holding that ideal actually will leave you to miss out on all kinds of opportunities and will waste your time and energy on causes that aren’t worth it and harmful. They also believe that, yes, ideally it would be great to have that idea of purity and wildness at the center, but we are so far past that being the reality that there has to be something else motivating environmentalism. And what that is, is a recognition that human civilizations are part of nature and that there is no way of knowing what it means to have a pristine environment — and that it doesn’t exist anyway in an era of climate change.
Also, it’s just another form of separation. We’re still seeing nature as separate from human civilization, and that has been half the problem right there. And so the goal really is to find an integrated idea of what a healthy environment is.
Perhaps it says something about humanity’s self-centered view of the world that the catchphrase for the environmental movement is “save the planet.” Planet Earth doesn’t need saving. If life can survive in the pitch-dark, pitiless abyss of the deep ocean, or recolonize remote islands after volcanic explosions wipe the landscape clean, or — as Blackwell points out — thrive in irradiated zones where human beings now fear to tread, then you can imagine that life will eventually adapt to whatever nightmare scenario Homo sapiens visits on its terrestrial neighborhood. (Of course, species higher up on the food chain will vanish — as they already are on track to do — but give the Earth a few more billion years, and perhaps complex life can evolve once again even on an inhospitable, dangerously polluted planet.)
As Blackwell points out, the environment in the modern age is never “pristine.” And that seems to fit with the way of nature, with its (evolutionary) love of mixing and hybrid forms. Nature revels in the “impure.” As the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh writes, flowers arise from mud; the idea of “purity” is in our minds. Regardless of what we do, nature will find a way of dealing with it, because it is, at heart, impure and impermanent.
The point is, life on Earth doesn’t need us; we need life on Earth. Other species on the planet can play a long game, and wait us out, with time and evolution on their side. We can’t. And yet in the United States and many other countries, the popular will is weak to do something about climate change and environmental degradation more generally.
In part, it may be a question of how we frame the problem. Two of the most potent symbols of climate change are melting glaciers and starving polar bears — not the kind of imagery that does a good job of drawing people to see the very real threat to their daily lives. Ironically, even phrases like “saving the planet” tend to make environmental problems appear distant from everyday, “real” concerns. They make environmentalism seem like something you do off in a forest somewhere, away from other people: campaigning to protect far-off waterways and species, crusading like some kind of modern-day monk on behalf of a utopian, preindustrial past. In reality, the core concern of the environmental movement is the most pragmatic of goals: ensuring that we human beings have the food, dry land, and clean water and air that we need, say, to live.
Perhaps it’s time to change the name of “Earth Day.” It’s not a day to celebrate some abstract ideal. It’s a day of judgment. It’s not about the Earth and its survival. It’s about human beings. It’s about whether we are smart enough to value the neighborhood we’re lucky to live in — or content to watch it burn around us.
He has played the Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall. He has performed abroad and earned international acclaim. But most days find Sean Grissom, the Cajun Cellist, playing his favorite venue — the streets and subways of New York City.
By Eli Epstein Photographed by Dana Ullman
The crowds bustle by the rows of vendors that line the Lexington Avenue side of Grand Central Terminal. It is 5 p.m. on a Friday — rush hour — and most New Yorkers scurry past the upscale skincare shops and eateries with unseeing eyes. But as they pass a man on the corner, many do a double take; some stop in their tracks.
It could be his rainbow button-down shirt that draws their gaze, an abstract array of bright-colored shapes that looks like it belongs in a postmodern art museum. Maybe it’s his beaming smile. Or, it could be the large wooden cello he is playing — unconventionally — with the verve and daring of the Texas fiddler he once was, bowing his way through an eclectic set of twangy zydeco numbers and sweet classical arias.
Sean Grissom is the Cajun Cellist. Over his nearly three-decade career as a musician, he’s won his share of fame — invitations to play in Russia and Japan, performances at the Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall. But Grissom maintains that none of these venues are more important to him than, say, a late afternoon set at the Staten Island Ferry Terminal, playing for the dreary but appreciative workers heading home. Most days find Grissom in the streets and subways of New York, filling the urban air with his unique mix of classical, jazz, country, swing, and Cajun rock melodies.
“It’s important to be able to play for everybody,” Grissom says. “Underground you’re playing for nine million people in the course of a year.” He has played for well-heeled crowds in the world’s best concert halls, but for the price of a New York subway fare, he says, anyone can listen to him: “It’s the best $2.25 show you’ll see.”
The Underground Scene
At Grand Central, Grissom plays under the auspices of MUNY — or, as he refers to it, “the program.” MUNY, which stands for Music Under New York, was founded in 1985 by the Arts for Transit division of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. It gives selected performers a set schedule every week (Grissom mostly plays at Grand Central, the Union Square subway station, Penn Station, and the Staten Island Ferry Terminal) and an official banner to hang above their setup, which in the subway musician community is treated like gold.
New York’s subways host dozens of performers and musicians, but few of these can gain the MUNY stamp of approval. The program prefers acts that reflect “the people and culture of New York,” says Lydia Bradshaw, the MTA Arts for Transit and Music Under New York manager. The selection process is rigorous. Applications and demo tapes are screened by a committee that includes veteran MUNY performers. After whittling down the initial pool, the judges invite the remaining applicants for a five-minute audition in Grand Central — what Grissom calls “the cattle call.” Every year about 200 new acts apply to MUNY. The handful that pass the auditions are accepted into the program, where they’re welcome for as long as they choose to keep playing.
Grissom constantly competes for the attention of commuters at Grand Central. As he plays his set, he must ignore the booming train announcements and the incessant clamor of cell phone chatter and scuttling feet. To respect the sound space of the neighboring vendors, Grissom points his amplifier toward the wall. (Thanks to the station’s acoustics, the sound bounces off the marble and proceeds up into the arches, finding its way onto the other side of the vendors.)
Entertaining an audience underground is different than it is on any another stage — and yes, Grissom is adamant that his two- by four-foot space in Grand Central is a stage, just like Carnegie Hall. The main difference, he says, is that playing for a non-captive audience is even more challenging. “You have a ninety-second window to attract somebody — sometimes twenty seconds,” he says. “If you can learn how to grab their attention and distract them for ever a brief moment, then playing for a captive audience, that wants to be entertained, is that much easier. The energy is just there.”
The Cajun Cellist is approaching fifty. He wears his frizzy gray hair in a ponytail; rimless glasses are perched comfortably on his nose. But as he starts another long set at Grand Central, he attacks the strings with youthful gusto. He plays the James Bond theme song with exaggerated arm motions. With the Pink Panther theme, he shifts his torso to the “ba-dump” rhythm. Then, when he plays “America the Beautiful” a few minutes later, his shoulders sway to the same slowed pace of his bow.
Grissom’s set is three hours long, and he doesn’t like to repeat material.
A Cajun on a Subway, a Fiddle on a Cello
Sean Grissom was born in Texas in 1961. He grew up in a conservative household, in a particularly devout part of the state where, as he recalls, “a town wasn’t a town until it had a Baptist church.” When he was sixteen he moved to New York City. Grissom originally followed his cello teacher to New York, but a few years into his music studies, he began questioning his career choice. He enrolled at the Pratt Institute and earned degrees in painting, graphic design, and musicology. In college he would lug his classical cello outside Lincoln Center to play for change.
Grissom later enrolled in a graduate music program at Hunter College, part of the public City University of New York system. The program allowed him to work with teachers at other schools, and Grissom studied under Channing Robbins, a Juilliard professor. (“I got a Juilliard degree for a City price.”)
During his years in school, Grissom would return home to Texas on his breaks. It was then that he melded his Cajun roots with his classical cello education. “I found a fiddle teacher and I memorized more fiddle tunes in one summer than I had classical songs in my entire life,” he says. “Classical music for me was always notes on a page, whereas I had a knack for fiddle music.” Grissom was playing fiddle tunes on his cello — much to the chagrin of his teachers in New York, who told him to stick to the “three Bs” — Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven.
In 1983, Grissom got his hands on an old cello from the 1920s. “I looked at that thing, and I said … ‘I want to hotrod that.’ So I made it electric.”
Over the next two decades, Grissom played his electric cello as a member of numerous New York bands, including an Irish rock band. He did solo performances in the subways and at local hospitals. He even managed to bring his souped-up cello onto the grand stage of the New York punk scene. “I used to lay down bass lines and solo lines at CBGB,” he says, proudly.
Nearly twenty years later, Grissom still uses the same homemade instrument. Despite its sonorous qualities, his electric cello has an antique, rustic quality to it. Its oaky color has faded over years of use. Its uneven and beaten edges confirm its salvaged beginnings. But Grissom loves his instrument and even dresses it for the occasion. He adorns its belly with a large polka-dotted handkerchief — what he calls his subway shmata (Yiddish for “rag”), used to catch cello varnish before it smears his clothing. On top of the instrument’s scroll he places a coonskin tip.
Many commuters have no idea that the ramshackle piece of wood and strings he is playing is actually a high-functioning electric cello. They gape at his strange instrument and his outlandish clothing. At this point in his career, Grissom is unfazed by crooked glances. In fact, he openly welcomes inquiries from passersby.
Grissom repeatedly insists that he doesn’t play for the money. He likes it when his listeners put cash in his black tip cap, but he prefers when they take his business card. A pile of cards sits directly to the left of his tip hat, next to a stack of his CDs (Grissom has self-produced ten records, with a classic rock album on the way). He calls his business cards “seeds” — they are how onlookers find out how to schedule him for private shows. One time, a commuter took his business card on the subway. The man moved to San Francisco. Five years later the man returned to New York and happened to find the card, and hired Grissom to play at a friend’s birthday party.
Playing on the subway makes him a better musician, Grissom adds. He says he doesn’t measure his day by the content of his tip hat, but by the quality of his performance. Did he incorporate audience interactions into his set? Was his closing number as sharp as his opening piece? Did he work in new material? “If people aren’t into what I’m doing, then I can just practice for myself to maintain my level of play,” he says. “That’s why the subway is in between a rehearsal and a performance.”
This week, MUNY has assigned Grissom to play a noon to 3 p.m. set at the Union Square subway station, right above the entrance to the N, Q, and R trains. He is happy with the new venue. At Grand Central, which he likens to a more formal cocktail hour gig, Grissom prefers not to bring his electric cello, which is too noisy for the confined space and disturbs the surrounding vendors. At Union Square, though, he sees more possibilities for experimentation and funk. The greater socioeconomic diversity of Union Square subway riders makes a difference, he says. “Union Square has a rock-club environment. It’s more indicative of subway travelers, with the L-train hipsters. The crowd is much more spontaneous.”
As a nod to the less conservative atmosphere, today Grissom has added shiny purple shoes and a black-and-yellow bow tie to his outfit. His set list has also taken on a markedly different shape than the one he played at Grand Central the previous Friday. Now, with his electric cello, he jams away to a veritable classic-rock hit list. There’s “Baba O’Riley” by the Who, “Wish You Were Here” by Pink Floyd, and “Sweet Jane” by the Velvet Underground. The set is lively and leans heavily on Grissom’s fiddle background. At times he frantically bangs his bow against the cello’s body. Throughout the performance he bobs his head up and down with the beat.
As the Cajun Cellist plays his set in the subway station, a woman walks by warily, staring at his handmade instrument with a confounded gaze.
“It’s a cello!” Grissom yells out to her, over the screech of the train.
Video: Sean Grissom Plays in New York’s Union Square Subway Station
Eli Epstein is a freelance writer in New York City. His work has appeared online in the Atlantic, Fortune, and Esquire.
Dear Reader,In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
ITF speaks with Andrew Blackwell about his new book, Visit Sunny Chernobyl, a travel guide to the most polluted places on the planet. Even sites ravaged by radiation and industrial waste, he argues, can still be places of “nature, wildness, and beauty.”
Visit Sunny Chernobyl: And Other Adventures in the World’s Most Polluted Places By Andrew Blackwell
Rodale Books. 320 pages.
Journalist Andrew Blackwell traveled to seven of the most polluted places on the planet: from the nuclear disaster zone of Chernobyl, to the smog-ridden city of Linfen, China, to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. In his new book, Visit Sunny Chernobyl, Blackwell details his often humorously grotesque experiences hanging out in these past and present eco-disasters. In The Fray culture editor Susan M. Lee talked with him about his travels, the unique charm of the globe’s dirtiest corners, and the myth of pristine nature in an age of climate change. (Disclosure: Andrew Blackwell is president of ITF’s board of directors.)
You were inspired to write this book by a trip to India that you took years ago.
I heard how polluted Kanpur was supposed to be. It had just been named the most polluted city in India by the government. And it certainly lived up to that expectation. But I learned, after the fact, that I really enjoyed my time there — strictly as an interesting place to visit. So I had this flash: I just realized that, almost because they were polluted, there were all these places around the world that you would never really bother to visit, that you were missing out on because they had this stigma of pollution attached to them.
Did you have any expectations of what you would find, before you started out on your trips?
I thought the destinations would be a lot grosser than they were. As I went along, I realized I was in danger of not getting enough grossness in, and doing my due diligence for a book about pollution. Fortunately, I ended up being fazed by the Yamuna River in northern India in the last chapter. There was no way to say that it didn’t smell really, really gross. But otherwise, the visceral sensory experience of the locations was not nearly as intense or offensive as I expected. But that might have something to do with my message, which was not to find the grossest place but to find places that were the ultimate examples of a particular kind of environmental problem. And that didn’t always line up with the place being unpleasant.
What did you enjoy the most on these trips? What were the highlights?
In almost every case, it was experiences I had with people I met. I think that’s often true either about reporting or about travel. It’s less about whether you saw this or that building and more about the kinds of people you met.
In Chernobyl, my guides Dennis and Nikolai and I are drinking and totally wasted. And I see they are thinking, “Oh, he’s not joking — he really wants to see what’s fun and interesting about this town, not just what the horror story is.” People do respond to your curiosity and sincerity. Like the time with the sadhus [ascetic, nomadic Indian monks]. I’m with these guys and they’re wearing robes and paint and we’re camping in the countryside and they’re completely taking care of me and feeding me. They were so friendly and solicitous, almost to a degree that they drove me insane. That was a special experience.
What were some of the challenges you encountered in writing about the world’s most polluted places?
Some of the regular problems of traveling, such as: I don’t speak Chinese and I don’t speak Portuguese. On a topical level, while these places are real and their [environmental]issues are all real — and I certainly don’t want to be thought of debunking these issues — they’re often hyped. Maybe not by serious journalists, but at a popular level. A lot of the time, I did go into each location expecting it to be more spectacular. What I realized was that the story was more subtle and much harder.
But I think it ended up making the book stronger in the end — that struggle became a theme in the book. For example, that popular image of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as a solid mass is not true. But it’s still a powerful image that persists, even in the minds of people fighting the problem.
In the book, there seems to be a recurring theme of problematic ways of viewing nature, even by modern environmentalists. Could you talk a little about these alternateviews of nature?
Inside the U.S., in the environmental movement, there is this foment right now with traditionalists, who draw their spiritual energy as it were from an idea of “pure nature” and restoring as much of the environment to a pure, pre-human phase as possible. That’s not the literal goal, but that is sort of the ideal that drives their entire enterprise.
Then you have these modernist folk, who believe that that is an impossible ideal: holding that ideal actually will leave you to miss out on all kinds of opportunities and will waste your time and energy on causes that aren’t worth it and harmful. They also believe that, yes, ideally it would be great to have that idea of purity and wildness at the center, but we are so far past that being the reality that there has to be something else motivating environmentalism. And what that is, is a recognition that human civilizations are part of nature and that there is no way of knowing what it means to have a pristine environment — and that it doesn’t exist anyway in an era of climate change.
Also, it’s just another form of separation. We’re still seeing nature as separate from human civilization, and that has been half the problem right there. And so the goal really is to find an integrated idea of what a healthy environment is.
So you’re sort of trying to demystify these polluted places as well as the idea of pristine nature?
Yeah, exactly. There are people out there doing some interesting work on showing ways in which places that are thought of as pristine aren’t. And I’m working from the other end, by finding places that are considered to be horror stories and “anti-nature” and saying it’s also still a place that has nature, wildness, and beauty.
Do you think that your background had anything to do with your desire to write about environmental and industrial issues?
I don’t know what comes from my family or what just comes from me. But my brother was trained as a scientist. Now he works doing visualizations at the California Academy of Sciences. My dad is an engineer. His dad was an engineer. And I have a cousin who’s a geologist. So science has always been special to me.
I grew up mostly in Seattle, but before that our family lived in Japan for three years. I lived in Japan for first, second, and third grade. And we also did a lot of traveling in the summer since we were in Asia. We went to Indonesia, Singapore, and a number of other places. That was a really formative, great experience. Just that a place can be bizarre and strange and can be welcoming and fun. I think Japanese culture especially, at least thirty years ago, was extremely safe — and people were friendly, probably because I was American and different and had blond hair.
If you could have included other places, which ones would they be?
I wanted to go to the oil fields in the Niger Delta. Two things kept me from doing that. The two or three people I talked to sort of were cautious. You want to make sure you’re in safe spots. And also I didn’t want half the book to be about oil-related locations. I wanted a better spread.
I really wanted to see ship breaking in India or Bangladesh — these incredible beaches where they tear ships apart. The world is just a candy store for this stuff.
Interview has been condensed and edited.
Susan M. Lee Susan M. Lee, previously In The Fray's culture editor, is a freelance researcher and writer based in Brooklyn. She also facilitates interviews for StoryCorps, a national oral history project. In her spare time, she maintains the blog Field Notes and Observations.
Dear Reader,In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
The stories now featured on the site touch on many issues, but one theme they have in common is the role that religion plays in driving people to get passionately involved politics and activism — and how difficult it is to find secular ways to kindle the same fire. In Saving Souls, Benjamin Gottlieb profiles an enterprising humanitarian group that is busily educating poor children in Delhi’s slums. But the work of COI and other evangelical Christian groups continues to draw controversy in India, a once-colonized nation now booming economically and working mightily to assert its own cultural identity. In Losing Zion, Rob York reviews the book The Crisis of Zionism, which argues that the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dying, ruined by extremism in Israel and the apathy of the liberal American Jews who could help bring about a broad-based peace movement.
Religious groups have been almost unmatched in their ability to train activists and build social movements. In America, the most obvious recent example is the pro-life movement and the cultural warriors it has drawn from the pews of evangelical, Catholic, and other congregations. But the civil rights movement, too, acquired its power and breadth by filling the streets with churchgoing protesters, and filling its rhetoric with the biblical language of freedom, struggle, and redemption.
Wherever people congregate, they organize. Social scientists talk about how churches (and other houses of worship) serve as reservoirs of social capital — the web of relationships that connect people and bring about various benefits, including the ability to rally around political causes. Generally speaking, this is great for democracy. And many religious groups have managed to find a balance between doing God’s work and respecting views that diverge from their own. But in America, Israel, and elsewhere, it seems the people getting inspired and engaged come from the extreme, intolerant ends of the political divide, trapped in their own dogma and their own sets of facts.
I used religion as a jumping-off point for my comments, but really the problem is not religion, but fundamentalism of whatever kind — religious or economic or nationalist or otherwise. The Tea Party, for example, is crusading on behalf of an uncompromising economic fundamentalism that verges on religious fanaticism, with its own patron saints in F.A. Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat, and Ayn Rand — ironically, a mirror image of the earlier cult of communism. But religion appears to motivate many of these true believers, too, and may help explain the movement’s success in organizing. On the question of Israel and Palestine, too, the same dynamic seems at work: the more devout and dogmatic speak louder.
Perhaps the recent wave of global protests against corruption and austerity — for example, the indignados demonstrations in Spain, or Occupy Wall Street and its related movements in America — will help balance the scales. Churches and synagogues have been heavily involved in the organizing of the Occupy actions across this country, reminding us that the religious right is not the only voice of faith in the streets and on the megaphone.
That said, younger Americans seem to be turning awayfrom religion, while the secular ways that ordinary people have traditionally gotten involved in politics are in decline. Labor unions have been dwindling away in America for decades — the one bright spot in recent years was public-sector unions, and the recent failed Wisconsin recall election may have been their Waterloo. Political parties rely increasingly on big donors and independently wealthy candidates, while the old political machines that groomed leaders out of local wards are disappearing. Young people continue to rally to various causes on college campuses, but it will be hard to fill in the hole left by these institutions, which could organize in a sustained, concerted fashion and appeal to broad segments of the population.
This is yet another reason that we can expect politics to become more partisan and extreme in the coming years. The hard-liners are hungry for power, while more reasonable men and women stand by and watch. It brings to mind words by the Irish poet W.B. Yeats: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”
The center cannot hold, as Yeats wrote. And things didn’t end too well in that poem.
We use cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the site. Cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser, as they are essential for the working of the site’s basic functionality. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this site. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent, and you have the option to opt out of using them.
Necessary cookies are essential for the basic functionality and security features of this website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that are not necessary for the website to function and are used to collect user personal data via analytics or other embedded content are termed non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to using these cookies.