Elite Illusion at the Rose Garden Ceremony- Critique of Decadence /  by ALT Magazine

By: Olivia Austria-Kemble

I remember the dire days of August 2020 in the midst of our country’s “first wave” of COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci, our nation’s leading disease expert, was shown on television pleading the public to wear masks and emphasizing the need to limit group gatherings and stay socially distanced if there were any hopes of controlling COVID-19’s raging path. It seemed people were beginning to heed Fauci’s warning after seeing the consequences from July’s celebrations. Yet, a month and a half later, I turned on the television to see 200 people collected on the lawns of the White House with few efforts of social distancing and seemingly little care for masks as well. Smiling senators, governors, journalists and other prominent figures gathered in their polished attire as former POTUS announced Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Unfortunately, Trump’s Rose Garden ceremony, thrown in efforts to celebrate Barrett’s nomination and provide his campaign with newfound momentum, resulted in something less ceremonious – a superspreader event. About 200 attended the lavish Rose Garden ceremony. Twelve went home with COVID-19, including Trump himself who was hospitalized due to the virus’ complications. What’s interesting is the fact that Trump hosted this event in blatant contradiction to his appointed disease advisor, Dr. Fauci. While Fauci was speaking to the nation on the importance of protective measures, the former President was acting in direct opposition. This gives the impression that Trump and those who attended his party believed the regulatory rules of safety outlined by Fauci didn’t apply to them. It seems that in this case, these people were living under the illusion that they are untouchable by the virus. And I can only predict that this illusion stems from their powerful stance within our society. To them, the COVID-19 pandemic is something that the mundane must deal with; the country’s leaders don’t have to worry about it. 

But on the contrary, the leaders of our nation should be practicing the most safety during a global pandemic as they hold the stature of being the most “important.” Perspective governmental workers aren’t abundant. Current positions aren’t easily replaceable, which means their positions must be protected from impending threats--including raging viruses. Yet gathering in groups of 200 is completely reckless given the context of a pandemic. Additionally, these bureaucratic figures are meant to serve as role-models for the people they govern--especially so of the President of the United States. But as seen in this situation, our nation’s role-models are demonstrating irresponsible behavior by celebrating, gathering, and disregarding the use of masks. They are giving citizens the impression to live with little regard or concern of the devastating pandemic. 

Events like the Rose Garden ceremony clearly draw a divide between; those in power who have the illusionary privileges which make them believe they are untouchable from the pandemic; and the common population who must deal with the multiple disruptions caused by COVID-19. Irresponsible indulgence by these decadent few who believe they are unburdened by infectious diseases prove detrimental to the public morale. Their actions only perpetuate national sentiments of disunity and polarization over the “proper” response to the COVID pandemic. 



The (Weak) Roar of 2020- Critique of Decadence /  by ALT Magazine

By Panagioti Tsiamis

As the election of 1920 approached, a global pandemic was sweeping the nation, only barely tapering off toward the end of the year. Some people wore masks and whole cities, such as San Francisco, were put under strict quarantine. Other US cities including Detroit, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Minneapolis and St. Louis were hit particularly hard, with death rates higher than all of 1918, the peak of the Spanish Flu. Due in part to a lack of preparation and precaution, more than 600,000 eventually would die. As the U.S. comes to terms with the election of 2020 and battles through another global pandemic, COVID-19, it’s easy to ask whether history will repeat itself. As vaccines are rolled out, will the roar of 2020 rival that of a century prior?

A theory was proposed in 1926 by economist George Taylor that linked hemlines and economic progress. The hemline index suggests that the skirt length of women’s dresses tends to rise along with stock prices. As the market recovers and the miniskirt comes back into style, it's a struggle to disagree. The fashion of the 1920s continues to be characterized by an abundance of glamor. Movies like the Great Gatsby feature glitter, gold, and plenty of booze. The flapper dress in particular was composed of expensive fabrics with plenty of embellishments, like beading and fringe, with an addition of pearls (a trend slowly but surely coming back into vogue). Evening wear was fashioned from fabrics such as silk, satin and beaded textiles. Art Deco style was reflected in the geometric shapes used in clothes – in the forms of bead arrangement or as color-blocked patterns. It’s not a stretch to see these themes mimicked in upcoming fashion, with absolute decadence finding a home at events like the Met Gala. Even controversies of the 1920s meet their match in contemporary discourse. The rise of trousers in womens wear, started by Chanel, can be easily compared to the spotlight on Harry Styles in his Gucci dress on the cover of Vogue. The strides made a century ago have failed to cease.

The novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald is said to have called the 1920s “the most expensive orgy in history.” The prosperity of the decade, however, was arguably a cruel illusion. Even during the most fruitful years of the Roaring Twenties, most Americans lived below what we today would define as the poverty line. During the decade, there was a pronounced and undeniably shift in wealth and income toward the top one percent. Between 1919 and 1929, the share of income received by the wealthiest of Americans rose from 12 percent of the national economy to 19 percent, while the share received by the top five percent jumped from 24 percent to 34 percent. A century later, new research indicates that our country’s ultra-rich haven’t held as much of the country’s wealth since then. The income inequality of today resembles more of those freewheeling times before America’s finances collapsed than any other decade.

Perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from the 1920s, however, is the peril of isolationism. In only four years, Trump symbolically revived isolationism, even resurrecting the “America First” motto that Harding campaigned on in 1920. Today America remains what it was it was over a century ago: its own worst enemy.