Skip to main content

When Trump Streams Hamilton

Has Trump seen “Hamilton” yet? 

Does he even know that the blockbuster musical — whose cast openly dissed Mike Pence when he saw it on Broadway — is now available for streaming? We know Pence has seen it. But Trump? Maybe not.

There is much there for Trump not to like.

For starters, it’s written by Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose parents came from Puerto Rico, and who has been loudly unappreciative of Trump’s enthusiastic blindness to the plight of that hurricane-ravaged island.

Then there’s the show’s recurring theme, immigrants succeeding, which will not play well with Trump. He’ll wonder how Hamilton, the immigrant in question, was even able to enter the country, let alone become Secretary of the Treasury before Mnuchin took over. Why wasn’t he turned away at the border? Why wasn't he separated from his parents? And how did an immigrant get on the ten-dollar bill anyway? Does Stephen Miller know about this?

“Hamilton” is set during the American Revolution, a subject in which Trump has famously dabbled. Who can forget his stirring tribute to the Continental Army, whose brave soldiers “took over the airports” from the British? While the show gives a brief nod to Hamilton’s theft of British cannons from a Manhattan garrison, it makes no reference to air travel at all. Or Twitter, for that matter.

Trump doesn’t have much use for history. History is overwhelmingly about dead people, and we know that dead people — even in the hundreds of thousands — do not hold his attention. Not like Confederate statues.

So when the company sings “History has its eyes on you,” we can imagine him being fairly oblivious to the implications. Unlike Bill Barr or, say, Mike Pompeo — who might be more sensitive to their rapidly putrefying places in history — Trump may not care. As long as any eyes are on him, that’s all he cares about. But even so, he has to sense, albeit dimly, that history will be like fake news — very very strongly not fair to him.

And he will surely be offended by the show’s cast, which is made up largely of non-Norwegians, some of whom play big names like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Even Trump has heard of these guys. He knows they get huge ratings. He knows they get states, cities, and avenues named after them, a narcissist’s wet dream. But Black people playing them? Is that legal? Can we cut off their funding? Is Barr looking into this?

If Trump were curious (unlikely, I know) he would find much to admire in Alexander Hamilton. The show never gets into Hamilton’s Trumpesque fondness for monarchs and authoritarians. But it does cover, in detail, his extra-marital affair, including the hush money he paid to keep it from going public. And even Trump has to applaud Hamilton’s founding of the New York Post, which he must’ve made a bundle on when he sold it to Rupert Murdoch.

But for Trump, the star of the show would have to be King George. As white as they come — in stark contrast to the rest of the multi-racial cast — George sings love songs to the colonies, which he considers his personal property. These are, of course, the love songs of a serial abuser, but Trump wouldn’t give that a thought. And when George sings a line like “I will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love,” how could Trump’s heart not be warmed?

While the parallels between that time and our current circumstances are striking, metaphors are as lost on Trump as his daily security brief. Still, “Hamilton” is, above all, about “the world turned upside down.” A world marked by threats that must have at times felt existential.

The British invasion of the late 1770s was terrifying and lethal. It spread through the population, tanked the economy, exposed broad failures in governance, and did not disappear with the summer heat. It was not a hoax. It could not be downplayed or gaslit.

Real leadership was called for, and real leaders stepped up.

That was then.

 

Berkley MI

Tuesday 07/10/20

 

Comments

  1. Trump hates losers. Dead people, historical people, are losers. In his mind perhaps Andrew Jackson is still alive

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I