Hightower Retort - 9/26/2003

The Hightower Lowdown

YOU CAN'T KEEP THE EARL OF SANDWICH DOWN

Time to take another peek into the "Lifestyles of the Rich ... and Cranky."

We couldn't have populism without class warfare, eh? Gotta stir the huddled and downtrodden masses against the rich.

There's so much attention these days on the "new rich" -- those hotshots who became overnight millionaires -- that we too often overlook the "old rich," who live generation after generation on some fortune amassed in the distant, foggy past by Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather Greed. How're they doing?

Not so well, according to the Earl of Sandwich, scion of one of Britain's most upper-crust families, in a recent New York Times interview. "There's no real security in being from an old family anymore," says the Earl ruefully. What with the skyrocketing costs of maintaining mansions, keeping servants, and whatnot, even some of the landed gentry find it hard to make ends meet. I know you can feel their pain.

I'm going to assume Mr. Hightower means this article, as web-archived by the International Herald Tribune. In it, there is a distinct lack of any "ruefull" tone or anything resembling it. It's quite light-hearted in most places. And reading it is a direct refutation of any sort of "crankyness" on the Earl's part as described by Mr. Hightower.

I quote:

"Trading on one's family name is not derogatory anymore, at least not in my view," Lord Sandwich, 60, said in an interview in the House of Lords.

[...]

Since [the 4th Earl ate the meat between the bread at a gambling session], Sandwiches have always been inextricably linked with sandwiches. The earl's grandfather, for instance, was known (to his chagrin) as Lord Snack.

"We had a small joke that if one had a small percentage of every sandwich sold around the world, it would give us enough for a few years," Lord Sandwich said.

[...]

"If you're asking me, my preference is to have a sauce that doesn't fall out of the sandwich," said Lord Sandwich, who is tall and sharp-eyed, with the look of a large wading bird.

In 2001, the Earl of Sandwich (the company) began delivering upscale sandwiches, made with fresh ingredients from small British producers, to businesses across London. The company also sells sandwiches to Waitrose supermarkets; the packages bear the family crest.

The idea for the company was born in 1992 when Lord Sandwich's second son, Orlando Montagu - he has the right to call himself "honorable" but has no title - stumbled upon a snack bar in Milan that called itself the Earl of Sandwich and used the family as its theme (weirdly for him, it even served "Orlando" sandwiches).

"I said, 'Like it or not, the connection between our family and the food product has turned from being a story to a brand,'" said Montagu, who manages the business's day-to-day operations.

Early on, when Montagu was seeking financing, he wrote to the founder of the Hard Rock Cafe and of Planet Hollywood, who is named, coincidentally, Robert Earl.

"His first crazy notes to me about eight years ago were infringing on the crackpot," recalled Earl. "'Dear Mr. Earl, my father is an earl and you're an Earl; I'm an Orlando and you live in Orlando - let's go into business.' They were very posh, very stylized, with a beautiful signature and calligraphy, and they went right into the bin."

Nevertheless, Earl ended up investing several million dollars - he would not say exactly how much - in the venture.

Similarly, when Montagu, now 32, raised the sandwich-selling issue at home, he met resistance. "I should think I was a bit hesitant to begin with, as I have no personal experience of going into business," Lord Sandwich said.

I wasn't there at the interview, so it's possible the Earl was petulant about having to work for a living or believing he had to lower himself and the family name in order to survive. However, I really doubt Mr. Hightower was there either. He has no basis for his characterization of this piece other than his dislike of all people wealthy.

What I take from this piece is an olde tyme family who has had the government rug pulled out from under it over the years (rightfully) and is now trying to cope in ways it has never had to in the past.

And Mr. Hightower studiously avoided mention of this:

This autumn, the company is to embark on its biggest venture yet, when it opens its first café, at Disney World in Florida. The plan is to offer an unusual array of hot and cold sandwiches, fillings and accouterments that will be made on the spot amid decor that mimics that of the earl's home in England. Profits from certain sandwiches will go to charity. Other profits will go to the earl and his wife, Countess Sandwich, who together run a large country estate in Dorset, which they also support partly by charging a fee to visitors.

Couldn't say anything about his charitable plans, could we? Might make your audience dislike him a little less.

As for the quote he does mention, here it is in full:

With the government trying to devise a way to eject the rest of the hereditaries from the House of Lords, Lord Sandwich knows his days there are numbered. He tries to relish it while he can, while also moving forward.

"There's no real security in simply being from an old family anymore," he said. "Today people recognize that you're wasting your life if you're not making the best use of all the advantages you've been given."

Copyright © 2003 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved

This is merely a recognition of reality and an acceptance that nobility can no longer proceed with the way things have been done for hundreds of years. What's so wrong with that? He's acting like any other rational person trying to survive and live happily.

But you can't eat history and, alas, today's Sandwich family needs to make a living. So, in an entrepreneurial burst, the 11th Earl recently decided -- eureka -- we'll start a sandwich business! He notes that he has long been bothered by the poor quality of British sandwiches (the food, not the family), and who better than he to set a proper standard? Hence, a new line of fresh, packaged sandwiches (upscale, of course) bearing the family name and crest on the package. He's even planning an Earl of Sandwich Cafe in Disney World. How appropriate.

Mr. Hightower's arrogant dismissal of the 11th Earl's attempt to bring back some financial security to his family is what's really "appropriate" in the sarcastic sense here. Anything classed as "upscale" is automatically marked for derision, whether it's the people, ideas, or material behind it.

DONNING THE MASK OF CORPORATE REFORM

Oh, joy -- the sweet song of democracy will emanate from the closed boardrooms of Corporate America for the first time!

Or so the headlines led us to believe when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently proposed new rules to change the way that members of corporate boards are chosen. Change certainly is long overdue, for these private fiefdoms that rule our land are more secretive, autocratic, and ruthless than the Mafia. Despite slogans like "shareholder democracy," no democracy is tolerated within these iron-fisted hierarchies.

Corporate boards rule our lands and are worse than the Mafia. Who takes this guy seriously? There's no doubt money from businesses play a huge role in our political system...but that is because that money can have an effect on the system and change it towards someone's benefit. Take away the ability of the system to affect the markets and it becomes pointless to attempt to change the system in your favor.

Meaning, if you want to get rid of "corporate rule" and "corporate welfare" then the only effective solution that doesn't wholly trample on individual freedom (i.e., the Freedoms of Speech and Assembly) is to deregulate those markets and remove the government from involvement.

Yes, the boards of directors technically are elected by shareholders -- but these "elections" are Kremlin-style, with shareholders getting only one slate of candidates hand-picked by the CEO. Even if a majority of shareholders vote against these chosen ones, the shareholders are simply ignored, and the incumbents stay on the board.

If the shareholders agree to such a system once they become shareholders, then the system is legitimate. They decide for themselves if they feel the company's shareholder system suits their needs.

In the wake of Enron and other corporate calamities, however, the public demanded reform, and now George W.'s SEC is responding with rules to allow shareholder opponents of imperious corporate management to put their own board candidates on the ballot and vote the incumbents out. Sounds good -- vote-'em-out is the essence of democracy!

I must assume Mr. Hightower must have agreed with the results of the California gubernatorial recall then. I looked around and couldn't find his opinion on the topic.

But we've learned that a Bush "reform" almost always is an imposter wearing the mask of reform. The powerhouse CEOs who finance and essentially run the Bushites' government are not about to let the SEC mess with their power, so they made sure that these so-called reforms are nothing but silky shams to protect the status quo.

For example, only very large, long-term shareholders will be allowed to nominate an opposing candidate, and even this would only happen under extraordinary circumstances. But the real klunker is that outsiders will be allowed to elect no more than one or two members of the board -- even if more actually win. The controlling majority will still be hand-picked by the CEO.

This isn't reform, much less democracy -- it's a fraud.

It may be a fraud if it's being marketed as a large step towards shareholder democracy. For that, I can't say because I haven't been following the issue. I have no problem with (and would encourage) the government weakening it's restrictions on corporate management, allowing businesses and shareholders more freedom to deal with each other. That freedom should be expanded far beyond what is already in place. So in that sense, I agree with Mr. Hightower.

But the job of the executives of a company is to run the company and they deserve broad discretion in the hiring and firing of it's employees.

Posted by Drizzten at October 11, 2003 11:59 AM