Introduction
In "Glass House," Brian Alexander takes us on a journey through the history of Lancaster, Ohio, a once-thriving Midwestern town that has fallen on hard times. This book provides a compelling look at the complex factors that led to the decline of not just Lancaster, but many similar towns across America. Alexander's narrative challenges simplistic explanations for the rise of Trump and the struggles of the white working class, offering instead a nuanced exploration of how corporate greed, misguided economic policies, and the erosion of community ties can devastate a town and its people.
The Golden Age of Lancaster
A Quintessential American Town
Lancaster, Ohio, was once the epitome of the American Dream. In the decades following World War II, it was a bustling, prosperous community that embodied the ideals of small-town America. At the heart of Lancaster's success was the Anchor Hocking glass factory, which employed over 5,000 of the town's residents.
The town's appearance matched its thriving economy. Lancaster boasted a picturesque town center where neighbors would greet each other warmly as they went about their daily lives. It was a place where community ties were strong, and people looked out for one another.
The Typical Lancaster Family
The story of Herb and Nancy George exemplifies the typical Lancaster family of this era. Herb, like many others, found employment at Anchor Hocking after World War II and worked his way up through the ranks. His wife, Nancy, was deeply involved in community affairs, volunteering for hospital fundraisers and campaigning for new schools.
This pattern was repeated throughout Lancaster in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Husbands worked at the glass factory, while wives dedicated themselves to community causes. Whether it was attending city council meetings, organizing vaccination drives, or ensuring the sidewalks were repaired, the women of Lancaster played a crucial role in maintaining the town's social fabric.
A Close-Knit Community
Lancaster was characterized by its strong sense of community and social mobility. It was a place where class distinctions were less rigid than in many other parts of America. The vice president of Anchor Hocking might be found drinking at Old Bill Bailey's tavern alongside factory workers. It wasn't uncommon for an Anchor executive to hire a new employee from among the bar's patrons, illustrating the informal networks that helped people find jobs and advance their careers.
For young people in Lancaster, the future seemed secure and predictable. A teenage boy could graduate from high school on Friday and start work at Anchor Hocking the following Monday, confident in the knowledge that he would spend the next 40 years there before retiring with a comfortable pension.
A Comfortable, if Not Luxurious, Life
While Lancaster wasn't a wealthy town, its residents enjoyed a level of economic security that seems almost unimaginable today. People lived without constant financial worry and took pride in earning an honest living. The town wasn't perfect – it had its share of minor scandals, alcoholism, and pockets of poverty – but it came as close to the idealized version of small-town America as one could find outside of Hollywood movies. In fact, Lancaster's charm was so authentic that it was chosen as the filming location for the 1948 movie "Green Grass of Wyoming."
The Decline of Lancaster
A Town in Crisis
Fast forward to the present day, and Lancaster is a shadow of its former self. The once-prosperous factory town now grapples with widespread drug addiction, high unemployment rates, and frequent bankruptcies. The physical deterioration of the town mirrors its economic decline, with houses and buildings falling into disrepair due to neglect and lack of funds.
The social fabric of Lancaster has been torn apart by these economic pressures. Many parents have ended up in jail, often due to drug-related offenses, leading to a situation where it's not uncommon for children to be raised by their grandparents. The scale of the drug problem is staggering: in Fairfield County, which includes Lancaster, 58 percent of children in the social service program have parents with an opiate addiction. In neighboring Hocking County, this figure rises to over 79 percent.
The Human Cost of Decline
The human toll of Lancaster's decline is heartbreaking. For many residents, drugs seemed like an escape from the bleakness of their daily lives, but addiction only fueled more problems, creating a vicious cycle of despair and hopelessness.
The emotional impact of this decline is palpable even among law enforcement officials. When describing the numerous drug-related arrests he's had to make, the man in charge of the city's Major Crimes Unit broke down in tears. Many of those he's arrested are people he grew up with, some even former teammates from his high school football days.
Clinging to the Past
Some older residents of Lancaster still hold onto the ideals of small-town decency that once defined their community. However, these values now seem to belong to a bygone era, out of place in the harsh reality of present-day Lancaster.
Certain cable TV news programs have promoted the idea that the blame for Lancaster's troubles lies with "freeloading outsiders." This narrative has found fertile ground among some residents who are looking for simple explanations for their town's decline. However, the uncomfortable truth is that the real trouble came from within, stemming from decisions made by corporate leaders and politicians rather than from any external threat.
The Beginning of the End: Corporate Raiders and Bad Management
The Icahn Raid
The decline of Lancaster can be traced back to the 1980s when the Anchor Hocking factory began to suffer from a toxic combination of poor management decisions and the predatory actions of greedy private-equity financiers. This shift was fueled by the unregulated free-market capitalism promoted by the Reagan administration.
At the forefront of this change was corporate raider Carl Icahn, who employed a tactic known as "greenmailing." This involves buying up a significant portion of a company's stock and then demanding a seat on the board to push for changes. The target company's only escape is to buy back the shares at a higher price.
Anchor Hocking fell victim to this tactic, paying Icahn between two and three million dollars to go away. While this was a significant sum for the company, the real damage was in the signal it sent to other corporate predators: Anchor Hocking was vulnerable and ripe for exploitation.
The Buyout Carousel Begins
Following Icahn's raid, Anchor Hocking entered a period of turbulence and uncertainty. In 1983, an executive at the factory organized a buyout of part of the company and relocated the container division to Tampa, Florida. This move forced many executives to choose between their jobs and their community, and left the workers at the Lancaster plant in a precarious position.
From this point on, Anchor Hocking was passed from one investment firm to another, each purchase financed with borrowed money, pushing the company closer to bankruptcy with each transaction. The new owners all had the same goal: to flip the company for a quick profit, with little regard for the long-term health of the business or its impact on the community.
The Impact on Workers
These corporate maneuvers had a profound impact on the lives of Anchor Hocking's workers. Cost-cutting measures became the norm, and the union was forced to accept concessions. Necessary renovations and repairs were deemed too expensive, leading to outdated facilities that prevented Anchor Hocking from producing state-of-the-art products.
Perhaps most significantly, the company's commitment to its employees' long-term welfare was eroded. Fixed pensions were replaced by 401(k) retirement plans, which required employees to invest part of their salary towards their pension. While the employer was also supposed to contribute to these plans, their contributions grew smaller over time. For the workers of Lancaster, the promise of a comfortable, secure retirement – once a cornerstone of the American Dream – began to fade away.
The True Culprits: Misplaced Blame and Real Responsibility
Blaming the Victims
Despite the clear evidence of corporate mismanagement and predatory financial practices, some commentators have chosen to blame the residents of Lancaster for their town's decline. Kevin D. Williamson, a reporter for the National Review, characterized the white working-class people of Lancaster as selfish and crude, suggesting that they turn to heroin to forget their sorrows. In his view, the local residents bear full responsibility for their town's suffering.
However, this perspective fails to take into account the decades of financial exploitation that Lancaster has endured. After 35 years of being treated as little more than a source of profit for distant corporate entities, is it any wonder that the town and its people are struggling?
The Real Culprits
The true responsibility for Lancaster's decline lies not with its residents, but with the private-equity firms and corporate raiders who saw the town and its primary employer as nothing more than an opportunity for profit. By relocating the company headquarters, they effectively removed the invested leadership that had once been an integral part of the community.
In the past, Anchor Hocking executives had socialized with factory workers and contributed to the town's tax base. Their wives had been leaders in community fundraising and infrastructure improvement efforts. The loss of this local, invested leadership had a profound impact on Lancaster's social and economic fabric.
Exploiting Desperation
As Lancaster's situation worsened, it became increasingly vulnerable to exploitation. In 2003, for example, the town offered tax incentives to keep Anchor Hocking from moving more jobs away. This decision cost the town $50,000 that had been budgeted for public schools. However, the only ones who truly benefited from this were the executives, who already enjoyed private jets and million-dollar apartments in New York City.
Local politicians, desperate to stem the tide of job losses, often made matters worse. They borrowed funds from predatory short-term lenders and took out loans with exorbitant interest rates, sometimes as high as 636 percent. These decisions, while perhaps well-intentioned, only served to deepen Lancaster's financial troubles.
Misplaced Blame on Unions
Some critics have attempted to pin the blame for Lancaster's downfall on unionized workers, arguing that their demands for wages three times higher than those of some foreign workers made the company uncompetitive. However, this simplistic explanation ignores the broader context of corporate mismanagement and financial exploitation that truly drove Anchor Hocking's decline.
Lancaster as a Microcosm: Lessons for America
A Swing State Story
The story of Lancaster is not just about one small Midwestern town. It's a narrative that helps explain broader political and social trends in America. Lancaster is located in the important swing state of Ohio, which played a crucial role in the election of Donald Trump in 2016. In fact, 61 percent of Lancaster's Fairfield County voted for Trump.
Understanding the despair that drove Lancaster and many other similar cities to vote the way they did requires looking beyond simple explanations like drug addiction or racism. It's crucial to identify the root causes that gave rise to these issues in the first place.
The Irony of Free Market Worship
One of the most striking aspects of Lancaster's story is the irony inherent in its current situation. Many people in struggling Midwestern towns like Lancaster continue to celebrate figures like Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, who promoted the supposed benefits of a free market economy based on a survival-of-the-fittest philosophy. Yet it was precisely this philosophy that led to the financial practices that devastated Lancaster and towns like it.
The politicians and champions of personal responsibility that many Lancaster residents admire are the very ones who set the stage for financial predators like Monomoy Capital Partners, Cerberus Capital Management, and other firms that drained Lancaster's resources. These firms were led by executives who were only looking out for themselves, charging exorbitant fees and focusing solely on extracting as much money as possible from Anchor Hocking, with no regard for the consequences to the town or its people.
The Trump Connection
It's worth noting that Carl Icahn, the corporate raider who initiated Anchor Hocking's troubles, is one of Trump's key economic advisers. Icahn is also the founder of Cerberus Capital Management, one of the firms that profited from Anchor Hocking's demise. This connection underscores the complex and often contradictory nature of American politics and economics.
The Power of Denial
Perhaps one of the most remarkable aspects of Lancaster's story is the degree to which many of its residents remain in denial about the true causes of their town's decay. This denial is fueled in large part by conservative media outlets like Fox News, which have succeeded in obscuring the reality of the situation by promoting alternative narratives that blame outsiders or government overreach rather than corporate greed and mismanagement.
The Death of the American Dream
The story of Lancaster, Ohio, as told in "Glass House," is ultimately about the death of the American Dream in small-town America. Once a vibrant example of what hardworking people could accomplish, Lancaster has become a cautionary tale about the devastating effects of unchecked corporate greed and misguided economic policies.
While it's tempting to blame the residents of Lancaster for their own misfortune – pointing to drug addiction, lack of education, or a failure to adapt to changing economic realities – the true responsibility lies with the financial predators and politicians who made one bad deal after another, slowly but surely dismantling the economic and social foundations that had made Lancaster prosper.
The decline of Lancaster and towns like it across America is not just a local tragedy. It's a national crisis that has profound implications for our politics, our economy, and our society as a whole. Understanding what happened to Lancaster is crucial if we hope to address the root causes of America's current social and political divisions.
Final Thoughts
"Glass House" serves as both a eulogy for a lost way of life and a wake-up call for America. It challenges us to look beyond simplistic explanations and easy scapegoats, and to confront the complex realities of modern capitalism and its impact on communities.
The book reminds us that the American Dream was once a reality for many people in places like Lancaster. It wasn't just a myth or a marketing slogan, but a lived experience of economic security, strong communities, and faith in a better future. The loss of this dream has left a void that, so far, nothing has been able to fill.
As we grapple with the political and social upheavals of our time, books like "Glass House" are essential reading. They help us understand how we got here and, perhaps, point the way towards solutions that can rebuild our communities and restore the promise of the American Dream for future generations.
The story of Lancaster is a reminder that economic policies and corporate decisions have real, lasting impacts on people's lives. It's a call to action for more responsible corporate governance, for economic policies that prioritize the wellbeing of communities over short-term profits, and for a renewed commitment to the ideals of fairness and opportunity that once made America a beacon of hope for so many.
In the end, "Glass House" is not just about the past. It's about our present and our future. The questions it raises – about the nature of community, the responsibilities of corporations, the role of government, and the meaning of the American Dream – are questions we must continue to grapple with if we hope to build a more just and prosperous society for all Americans.