I found it interesting that Holly Golightly seemed to embody that which was important in New York in the 1940’s. She oozed with charm and elegance, focusing on being viewed as sophisticated. In the upper classes during this time period, appearances were everything. Furthermore, her affinity for running from her problems also was telling of the time period; during this era in New York, this obsession with appearances seeped into the idea of pretending no problems were there instead of facing them as one should. She cares completely for herself and cares not when other people are indisposed; this self-importance has always been prevalent in the higher classes of society, but the 1940’s were a peak of it. The post-industrial era was in favor of living a luxurious lifestyle, if it was possible, and leaving behind that which was not up-to-date or luxurious (such as Holly’s old life being married to Doc in the south). Money, to her and to society at this time, was everything.

In the second part of City of Ambition, there is much focus on the New Deal and Roosevelt’s plan to emerge from the Great Depression. It’s interesting to note the way in which La Guardia wove his administrative ideas into the projects involved with the New Deal. Similarly, the situation created by Roosevelt’s plans enabled La Guardia to “expand the organizational bases of his coalition beyond the fusion movement.” It seems that were it not for the tragedy of the Great Depression, progressive ideas posed by those such as La Guardia or Roosevelt would have fallen on deaf ears. Though it’s no secret that the Depression devastated the country, it may have also bettered the country in the long term (or rather, it allowed for progressive thought to be heard and seriously considered). I wonder if any other times in history have allowed for such progressive ideas to be considered – or if any other situations in history allowed for thoughts that usually wouldn’t be considered to be so.

Also, it was very intriguing that La Guardia appealed to multiple minority groups (Jewish community, Italian immigrants, black men and women, etc) instead of trying to appeal to the white male majority. I wonder if this caused him to have many enemies in the political pool; also, I wonder if this was partially the reason for such tension amongst party lines and the challenges he faced in that vein (being that he wasn’t only a democrat but also a more liberal democrat than others in his political party).

I found it quite interesting that it was the Great Depression that “moved La Guardia from the margins to the mainstream” by creating a forum for more progressive thoughts. This is most striking because one doesn’t associate what is commonly considered a tragedy with the opportunities created by Progressivism. It seems that without an event as drastic as the Great Depression, La Guardia would never have had a situation well-enough suited to make moves in Congress such as having his ideas for anti-injunction bills finally passed.

Concerning the Great Depression, I also was very intrigued to find that Roosevelt had believed so firmly in betterment through the relocation of the masses from urban areas to those that were more rural. I find this most interesting because though it makes sense, I don’t understand how he would have chosen who to relocate and who should stay in the city. I feel this theory, though hypothetically sound, would have failed if executed to its full potential. As the text cites, there is an inherent “practical difficulty” in the governmentally-driven relocation of a large group of individuals.

The most striking part in “American Moderns” was, to me, the drastic rise in public admittance of sexuality as bohemia and new ideas arose. Obviously, sexuality has been around since the first multi-cell organism came to existence, but the openness about human sexuality was previously unheard-of. However, the bohemian lifestyle advocated the breaking of these social norms in favor of radical new thoughts, some people even going so far as to promote, “nudism, vegetarianism, and the simple life.” These ideas were so out of the realm of normal society that bohemia became the center for all sorts of progressive ideas.

Possibly tied to the rise in feminism and embracing the differences between females and males, talking about sex became acceptable in these social circles. Perhaps the most drastic example of this was the account by the progressive Emma Goldman of her sexual relationship with a man named Ben Reitman. The letters she composed were of a brazen nature and nigh-unacceptable, as it was rare to read “sexually explicit language outside pornography in the early twentieth century.” This newfound openness surrounding subjects of a more sexual nature contributed heavily to the broader definitions of what was acceptable to speak of in those times. The freedom to speak of such things aided the broader freedom to speak and the greater amount of what was “permissible” in society.

Throughout the article, there is repeated reference to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – namely how the disaster was aided more through private efforts than through public institutions. That Americans were so willing to help the devastated area rebuild through private means (for example, via church organizations and individual charity) reflects the American system that values privatization over working for the masses. If this kind of mentality persists, most institutions will increasingly become private; this will aid the wealthy whilst punishing those who are not so fortunate as to have the ability to buy their way into comfort. Institutions such as those that offer health services or educational opportunities unfairly lean in favor of the wealthy already; people who are richer can afford better health care and more esteemed colleges. Privatization of these institutions only serves to widen the already-gaping gap between the upper and lower class. In a country that should aim to be classless, privatization has allowed wealth to control much of the government and social institutions. Perhaps this is the way our nation best works, but unless values are reconsidered this unfair lean toward the wealthy for the sake of privatization will cause severe social unbalances throughout the nation.