In Defense of “Hamilton”

This isn’t really about Hamilton. This is about the ideas espoused by left-wing postmodernists and how they lead to the misery of American audiences everywhere for no good reason. The star of Hamilton is merely a ruse in my story—just as he is in this recent Rolling Stone article—which was a little late in jumping in on the Hamilton cancel craze that started with a fury back in July.  The craze has included, notably:  O, The Oprah Magazine, Vanity Fair, The Wall Street Journal, Marie Claire, The Hill, and, oh so many more from Men’s Health to the New York Post.

Postmodern left-wing critics and thinkers seem to expend a great deal of energy finding flaws in all things that are bigger than they are, and very little in trying to bolster or even recognize progress. On a good day, this type of critic might expend 0.001% of their energy trying to ish out a compliment to an obviously failed citizen who made a solid but flawed effort at sharing their problematic creativity with the world. They might say, well, it’s bad, but someone got paid and it wasn’t just a white dude. Or they might say, well, it was simplistic, but it happened, so I guess it’s good if you’re an idiot. Or, if they are being honest, even if it’s worth something, we all have to admit it was awful anyway because my own personal, unrealised perfect version hasn’t been written yet.

The true blue postmodern critic will only perform the shallow dive of it wasn’t that bad during the temperature-taking period, while they remain unsure as to whether or not their peer group is willing to pile onto a person or that person’s art and take him or it all the way down to Cancel Town. The critics will dance around a thing like Hamilton, expressing heavily slanted, yet mild criticism for a while, but if someone utters the statement this reeks of an unforgivable vileness that we’ll probably never recover from, they’ll jump on board and relish the takedown. Then they’ll spend hours shit-posting on social media, hoping to bury the person, idea or artwork in everlasting embarrassment and shame. Then, once the previously adoring audience has capitulated, thrown away their ticket stubs or deleted their now embarrassing soundtrack purchase, the postmodern critics will feel wonderful because they have won a battle, even though that battle required nothing more than a shitty attitude—which is the easiest thing in the entire world to achieve.

We tell stories to teach, to share our perspectives, to provide entertainment, to upgrade our ideas, to share some history (not all history—that would be impossible).

Hamilton has been boiling in the problematic stew for some time now. But, like so many other things, it’s been gradually edging closer to cancelled status. Because—in case you haven’t been paying attention—almost everything is becoming problematic because some unreasonably critical folks—who show no signs of understanding nuance or context—have been taking up too much space. Many of us are having a hard time watching the fall of the creative and the brilliant, but we don’t want to seem unkind, we want to seem good, so we say nothing about these unfair takedowns. Some of us will even hit the like button on articles such as the Rolling Stone piece and all the others, so that all our friends can see that we too stand up against the sheer filth, the mistakes, omissions and transgressions committed by ghastly evil-doers like Lin-Manuel Miranda. The supposedly best of us will read articles like these and proclaim, that offender didn’t cover this! and that offender didn’t cover that: how dare he? What’s sad is that this is often the reaction of people who don’t know much history to begin with—or they wouldn’t feel half as disheartened by the modern-day as they do—or they simply don’t actually understand which things actually move the needle forward in powerful ways, even if only as a side-effect of their entertainment value.

There is a reasonable set of factors—time, context, focus, nuance, perspective—one might want to consider when a story is being told about a particular period of time, but these critics don’t seem to care about them. They’d rather you be perfect, both now and in your retelling of history, or take a seat.

Take a seat: the phrase now being used to shut up anyone with an opinion, idea or thought that isn’t masterfully woke.

Take a seat: the phrase that the once open-minded people have decided they’d like to unify the world with, even though it’s anything but unifying.

Take a seat: The phrase heard around the world when the world stopped, because everyone was seated.

We can all find something bad in anything and everything if we want to: that’s as easy as it is unhealthy. We can always find flaws, but we should remember that these flaws can safely be accepted, if the end result is positive. The overly critical and demanding perspective of the woke crowd, with their insistence on perfection, simply won’t end well if we remain on our current trajectory.  Nothing and no one can survive the white dust-glove critiques. They will come for you, too.

A musical is not a full history course. Also, a history course can never be full.

I hope that people with cooler heads and wider perspectives start pushing back against this immature and unprincipled way of thinking. History and people are as complicated as the totality of all the woke’s unrelenting modern-day grievances—and then some. It’s obvious that a story told from the perspective of Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers isn’t going to have women at its forefront. We all know women weren’t officially in politics at that time, though many did plenty of both good and terrible things with their own power and access, by using their creativity. We should all know the differences between title, position, power and leadership. Did you miss the part in the show about the first private orphanage in New York and the people who created it? It’s a great tidbit of history.

Most humans are not fully evolved. Probably none of us are. Any musical, book or show is going to be a bit like a couple’s argument: there’s one person’s version and the other person’s—and then there’s the truth.

Because I am a critic myself, I can see why some of the negative critiques exist. I criticize the same issues all the time: e.g. the use of the boot strap narrative, the failure to include BIPOC in historical stories, etc. I don’t expect all stories to provide representation for all people and all views because that’s not possible—that would be contrived as fuck and terrible writing.  Stories can only be told by the person creating it, who, if we’re lucky, gets some shit right and moves us forward somehow. The storyteller isn’t God.

A good person will do her best to break down barriers for herself and others whenever she can. She might just need help or a reminder to broaden her perspective. And, sometimes we just need to sit back and hear hers. If someone ever gets any of this wholly correct, we can all go home. In other words, we’re never going home.

I hope we are not going to cancel Lin Manuel Miranda and that the artists in the USA don’t lose or throw away their creativity because they simply can’t meet the standards of perfection being set by the woke warriors, who, I might add, are themselves very far from perfect. Progress involves a series of movements, not an overnight transformation.

If the liberal side of the country is going to win overall control over the future, the tactics used to get there need to be viable. A person’s or group’s vision of what can be won’t be enough to win the war—just enough to start it. I get it: many folx just want to  burn the existing structures down.  But, if someone actually means that in any sense beyond that of a metaphor, then either they do not know what would be in store for them if they actually tried to do so or they are prepared for the tragedy that will befall them. Introducing abrupt and serious changes in a prevailing culture without a fuller level of citizen buy-in causes severe disruption for all of us—and occasionally all-out wars.

Those who are ready to pull the trigger on this society’s collapse—and, yes, I now mean more than just canceling entertainment because many of the postmodern ilk would like to burn ALL our systems down— have no realistic idea what they would replace it with, other than good ideas—which is exactly what the Founding Fathers would have said they had, if you were able to ask them. No society in history has toppled an existing power structure overnight and replaced it with utopia. Every story since the beginning of time has demonstrated that when you topple a structure that is up and running too quickly (and without the plans or ability to rebuild), the end result is not only worse than what was there, but way worse than what was already there.

Dreams take work, not theories. Those who literally want to burn it down without anything to put in its place, demonstrate their ignorance because that would be the makings of a truly disastrous, immoral, chaotic and violent society.

Celebration and reward are incentives that spur people on to continued success. Take note. Thank the advocates and crusaders who have given their blood, sweat, tears, minds and bodies to the cause of making a better, shared society, even if they’ve done fucked up at times. Trust and believe: the agents of postmodernism will come for you too, unless we change this path of destruction we’re on. Nothing can satisfy those with delusions of grandeur.

If you want a specific kind of story, write it. May you receive gratitude for your efforts and a healthy dose of criticism. Luckily for you, we live in a country that has progressed enough that if you’re personally capable, regardless of your gender, race, or sexuality, you can do it. Yay you.