Forty-seven years ago, I traveled from Chicago to London for a two-week study tour of English theater. London, Chicago, and New York City were all at their peaks in the late 1970s, the best that Western Civilization had to offer.
The energy in those cities was palpable, alive. Perhaps my memory is cloudy about the real condition of those cities. After all, I was a 23-year-old, wide-eyed student who had lived a sheltered life in suburbia and matriculated at a school in Iowa.
But there was no mistaking the people who walked with a quick step and driving purpose. People weren't just wandering around aimlessly. They were going places. I immediately wished I could go with them.
London in 1977 was a shock. I had spent time in Chicago on day trips, but walking the streets of London was a totally new experience. I was staying in the West End, London's world-famous theater district. We were seeing two plays or musicals a day, and the crowds were incredible. A revolution was underway in the arts, marked by experimental theater, dance, and painting. The energy spilled over into the streets, bringing the West End to life with creativity.
London was also the center of finance and insurance, rivaling New York for supremacy. I haven't been back since, but from all I've read and seen, the energy has dissipated, the laughter has ceased, and the people are far less friendly and more sullen than they once were.
What happened? Great Britain's preeminent conservative cultural critic, Douglas Murray, fingers the culprit and worries whether New York City will follow London's lead into decline and fall.
Most Americans I speak to who have recently been to our capital return rather shocked. Not least among their observations is how wild the crime in London is. New Yorkers might risk being set on fire on the subway by a spice-addled illegal immigrant, but they are also used to being able to walk down a street with their phone in their hand. They do not have to hide their device for fear that it is going to be snatched from them by a youth on a bike. Every American tourist who does experience this aspect of London tends to tell their friends about it. So while Khan thinks that London’s bad reputation in the US is a result of Donald Trump’s occasional swipes at his mayoralty, it is in fact merely a reflection of Americans visiting Khan’s London and returning home with stories of the reality.
"The problem with 'diverse' cities is that they all end up monotonously resembling each other," writes Murray. Indeed, the deadening hand of socialism mandates that everyone is the same as everyone else. There is no "exceptionalism" lest someone who isn't "exceptional" gets their feelings hurt by not being chosen for a job, a slot at a prestigious university, or some other competitive endeavor.
Instead, there are places for those who had previously been left behind due to "historic discrimination" or "white privilege." Counting the color of noses replaces advancement based on merit.
The only "creativity" takes place in the narrow confines of what's politically acceptable. Of course, only "preferred" artists thrive.
The city that I visited 47 years ago exists only in memory.
Another line I hear plenty of people voicing in America is something along the lines of: “Whatever happened to London?” This would of course be dismissed as appalling, backwards racism by Khan and his PR team. But I have heard it often enough to know that it is an expression of genuine surprise. There was a time when you could tell American friends that it was all fine really, and that Downton Abbey and other popular dramas might have unduly raised expectations of what the average day in Britain looks like. But these American visitors are on to something.
Stephen Green's question is relevant today: "What should we call New York from now on? West London?"
London is a few more years advanced down the road to serfdom, so I expect New York City will follow unless something truly dramatic happens.
That's a pipe dream, of course. New York's course is set. It was set even before Mamdani was elected by an elite that views socialism as another means to manipulate the system and enrich themselves and their families.
Fifty-seven percent of voters who own an advanced degree voted for Mamdani as did 55% of voters who make between $100,000 and $199,000.
The poor and downtrodden did not elect Mamdani. Only 42% of New York voters who make less than $30,000 a year voted for the socialist.
The elites elected him. They will own him. And New York City will pass from history, to legend, to myth in most of our lifetimes.
