It is very likely that you have already seen this link to the Young Curmudgeon (who by the way is a fun read all the time) since it has been making the rounds. It is technically a review of a very good "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" but it makes an important ancillary point:
So, the "Fab Five" took it upon themselves to completely redesign the couple’s apartment in order to give mom and baby a nice place to stay while daddy was gone serving his country and defending us all. (And these exact phrases were used multiple times by the different Queer Eye guys to describe what he was doing by going to Iraq.) But, there was an added wrinkle, which is what gave the show an especially heart-wrenching quality. It seems the couple had only gotten married in a small ceremony in Colombia. And so, in order for them to be legally, officially married in the US they needed to have another wedding before he left.
…
This background of a wedding to be followed by a goodbye completely reversed the usual template of a Queer Eye episode. Instead of the usual narrative of constant improvement; we have a narrative of happiness and life-improvement accompanied poignantly by loss. As each new gift from the shamanistic gay men is revealed: the beautiful new apartment, the beautiful, enormous honeymoon suite overlooking central park, the amazing wedding at Sky Studio, there is the knowledge that each new revelation brings us closer to the moment of parting, which is what made watching the episode so heart-wrenching.
…
But the most touching part of the episode wasn’t even really part of the episode proper. It was during those little "Queer Eye Hip Tips" or whatever they’re called which run at the end of the episode. Normally these bits are lame and silly; consisting of each member of the Fab Five giving some asinine tip accompanied by some really unfunny comedy. But in this case, instead of doing that Kyan and Jai earnestly explained to the audience what the best things were to put in a care package for their loved one serving in Iraq. It was like something from another world, another time. "Send a salami to your boy in the army", "Buy War Bonds", all of that.
One of the more valid criticisms of the Bush administration’s handling of the terror war – I think – has been that that they have done nothing to encourage people to feel that they are connected to it, that they’re sharing in the sacrifices of our troops somehow. Instead the message from on-high from the very beginning has been exactly the opposite. Get it out there and spend! Get back to normal! The more we consume, the more we act as if nothing changed on September 11th, or on the day we invaded Iraq, the better citizens we’re being. Or so we’re told. Now, however, because our troops are stretched so thin and we’re having to call up all reservists, millions of families, and by extension their friends etc. are sharing in the sacrifices. Are we entering a time when more of this will be reflected in our popular culture? If so, what does it mean that the first instance of these sort of traditionalist, patriotic (but, I might add, explicitly apolitical) feelings being reflected so strongly in popular culture is in a show which every hack Big Media writer would undoubtedly remind us is a “blue state” show?
I agree that one of Bush’s large failings in the past year is a failure to communicate how the common citizen really is connected to the war in the outside world. Considering his very real propaganda skill borrowed from Rove, I’m sad that he hasn’t tried to do so. I don’t think the disconnect between the common citizen and the war is serving us well in terms of national debate. (And I don’t mean he should be scare-mongering either, yes I see that objection coming.)
I understood (though didn’t necessarily agree with) the call to consume after 9/11, since there was presumably some danger of the attacks triggering an even deeper recession/depression. And of course the marketing of war was not really the time to expect Bush to mention anything about sacrifice, nor did either candidate dare to suggest it in the election season. But now would seem to be a great moment for Bush to do this — he’s safely elected, the danger of recession has past, there’s no new war to be sold soon (I hope!), and if he can generate a sense of shared purpose and effort, it might revive popular support for the war, at least for a while.
I agree that one of Bush’s large failings in the past year is a failure to communicate how the common citizen really is connected to the war in the outside world. Considering his very real propaganda skill borrowed from Rove, I’m sad that he hasn’t tried to do so.
But why would he want to?
One of the things about communicating with someone who really is in Iraq is how messy it looks from up close. The reality of the insurgency, the deaths caused by Bush’s failure to plan for the occupation, is people who regularly sell at the local market dying, day by day. The reality of the bombs caused by Bush’s failure to plan any means of disposal for those stockpiled weapons – a means of disposal that he claimed was his primary reason for invading – is very real terror. The reality of the profiteering going on by Halliburton is the awful conditions on any base provisioned by KBR as opposed to any base provisioned by the regular army.
Much easier to generate a generalised feeling of “support the troops” than try to make people feel a personal connection with actual troops actually in Iraq: much better in terms of Bush/Cheney popularity. After all, supporting the troops for real would mean expending resources in their direction that Bush and Cheney don’t want to spend.
I know that having a personal connection with a reservist in Iraq has made me see the war from an angle that had never occurred to me. I imagine it would do the same for anyone. I project that seeing the war from different angles is exactly what the Bush administration would rather no one did: see it from their angle alone, where there is nothing but good news.
Bush doesn’t want to know about the bad news, and my guess is, he’d rather his supporters didn’t want to know about it either. And if you know someone personally who is in Iraq, it is impossible to avoid the bad news.
Oh, and lets not forget the most extravagant
inaugurationcoronation the country has ever seen happening in the midst of a war.I do wonder at the crocodile tears the right seems to be dripping with lately.
Jes, certainly Bush doesn’t want Americans to feel the full extent of the pain, but I think that what he could profitably do would be to come up with some little sacrifice that average Americans could make in order to feel like they were supporting the war effort. Personally, I think a “use less gas” sort of message would be a good choice, but somehow I don’t see that happening.
I project that seeing the war from different angles is exactly what the Bush administration would rather no one did: see it from their angle alone, where there is nothing but good news.
I suspect the whole point, from a PR level, is that they want to keep “supporting the troops” as an abstract proposition because if they make it explicit, they run the risk of having people come to understand at a visceral level what the Iraq war means. Nothing kills vague fair-weather patriotism faster than having to face the reality of the casualties, the chaos, and the complexity of fighting a messy, messy war.
[I want to stress that I don’t know whether the majority of Americans are “fair-weather patriots”, though I suspect not. My read on the situation is that the Bush Administration thinks they are.]
That said, I hope this Queer Eye ep puts the stake in the heart of the myth that “blue-staters” are somehow less “patriotic” than “red-staters” — and, for once in my life, those really are Scare Quotes — so that maybe we can stop bludgeoning each other with BS rhetoric and start facing up to what’s really going on. I don’t think it’s going to happen, mind, but we live in hope.
this is a classic. our reliable righty is mourning the fact that the president does not call for sacrifice.
Sebastian, I challenge you to find ANY president who called for LESS out of the american people than the present one.
Post 9/11 — go shopping!
war in Iraq — a cakewalk!
Soc Sec Reform — at no cost!
Deficits — not a problem!
Taxes — Will Be Cut!
This is called a party. And while parties are fun while they last, inevitably the piper must be paid.
Which is why I wonder about the abdication of responsibility of what DeLong calls the “grownup” republicans.
Some smart and thoughtful people post here. Do you all really believe that this country is on a sustainable path?
Let’s set the war aside. We’ve all argued about the war enough on other posts. I’m curious, though, how people feel about the following two problems which, to me, are the largest societal problems facing us:
How much longer can our health care insurance system stagger along?
and
How much longer can we expect the rest of the world to send all surplus capital to the US Treasury?
Francis
How much longer can our health care insurance system stagger along?
It has staggered along for the last fifty years and will probably stagger along for the next fifty, US infant mortality rates will go up relative to the rest of the world, US Life expectancy will go down relative to the rest of the world; Insurance Companies, Big Pharma & Private Hospitals will make money like it’s going out of style, and the Middle class & the poor will go broke the first time they have any major health problems and anyone who has the guts to call for a rational system will be called a commie.
How much longer can we expect the rest of the world to send all surplus capital to the US Treasury?
for the next fifty years, give us your money or else…
“US infant mortality rates will go up relative to the rest of the world, US Life expectancy will go down relative to the rest of the world”
Statistical note, insofar as that has to do with places like India approaching our standards, this would be laudable.
Sebastian, first of all, I don’t think that’s what was meant, but rather that our statistics will continue to get worse vis a vis the rest of the Western world (and I think you know that, too); and two, shouldn’t the goal be to improve our own quality of life factors rather than stand pat and let the rest of the world come to us? Isn’t that an extremely cynical way of looking at things?
For my part, I only care in an extremely abstract way what happens to India’s infant mortality and life expectancy figures, but I care quite concretely about what happens to ours.
I was pointing out that statistics which show a declining difference in mortality are not the same as pointing out a declining life expectancy. And that is an important distinction because people use those types of statistics all the time.
I am responding to: “It has staggered along for the last fifty years and will probably stagger along for the next fifty, US infant mortality rates will go up relative to the rest of the world, US Life expectancy will go down relative to the rest of the world;”
This suggests that the situation now is much the same as it has been over the last 50 years. This is problematic for the argument because US absolute infant mortality rates have been way down over 50 years and life expectancy has been up. Infant mortality statistics are tough to compare anyway, because many European countries (France and Spain to name two large ones) count babies who die within 24 hours of birth as stillborn (not part of IM rates) while the US does not, even if the child is born well before term.
In other words, if life expectancy and infant mortality rates go as they have in the US, it is a darn good thing. Which makes the rest of the comment, well rather odd unless you are trying a worldwide comparison. But if you are, my objection is in full force.
i’d be thrilled to see 3rd world infant mortality drop. yet sustainable clean water programs are funded by USAID at a pathetic level. shocking.
speaking about a disconnect between intent and message, what is the conservative objection to soc sec? what, precisely, is so galling about a universal guaranteed benefit plan?
Francis
“what, precisely, is so galling about a universal guaranteed benefit plan?”
In general, the government shouldn’t do things without a point. The point of Social Security is to keep old people from being impoverished.
My problem is that it is hugely wasteful to pay rich people a safety net benefit. Since they are part of a ‘universal’ plan, I think that aspect of it is bad.
“i’d be thrilled to see 3rd world infant mortality drop. yet sustainable clean water programs are funded by USAID at a pathetic level. shocking.”
Yeah and the rest of the world wants to spend more money on Kyoto than on clean water–for a treaty that has, at most optimistic guess from its proponents, a moderate chance of slowing down global warming by less than 3 years. Welcome to the wonderful world of political games.
But that has little to do with the fact that our health care system has been increasing longevity.
Nicholas D. Kristof: Look to Cuba for some tips
Please see my message on infant mortality statistics above. The main tip to be picked up from Cuba regarding infant mortality is to abort or allow miscarriages for borderline fetuses instead of delivering them, trying to save them, and having them die.
You’ll observe that US rates are headed in the wrong direction. Now I know that one year does not make a trend, but considering that damn near every social indicator has gone in the wrong direction since George has been in Office, I would watch these stats very carefully!
re: hugely wasteful.
1. Providing a minimal safety net should be encouraging the middle class to invest in more risky investments. Put another way, removing the SS safety net will depress venture capital investing even further.
2. The EITC is, apparently, a difficult program to administer with significant fraud problems. It is also pennies on the dollar compared to soc. sec. Any program which requires people to disclose both their income and their wealth will make the problems with the EITC appear like a tempest in a teapot.
3. Your evidence that the program is hugely wasteful is pretty thin. The most recent number I saw was that 2/3rds of retirees relied on SS for 1/2 or more of their monthly income. The latest statistics on wealth distribution show a massive accumulation in a very small tail. This suggests that the number of people not adversely affected by the loss of soc. sec. would be pretty low.
4. You’ve argued that the current cohort (over 50?) shouldn’t lose their benefits. But those of us in their mid-40s would like to know what the future holds.
Is there going to be a wealth test? If not, then people will be selling income-producing assets just before qualification, then flipping back. I could see a burgeoning business in selling gold or diamonds to retirees who would like to get ss payments. Do I get an unlimited home equity exemption? This suggests I should trade up just before retiring, then trade down.
5. Even liberals are willing to discuss fixes to the SS program which address the “hugely wasteful” complaint. 2 easy fixes are: (a) raising the cap on qualifying salary; and (b) taxing ss distributions as ordinary income. Neither fix requires disassembling the program nor mandates the creation of private accounts.
6. I note with approval that you’ve dropped your complaint about the young poor paying taxes to the rich old. Since you argue that the entire SSA is a legal fiction, including the bonds held by the SSA, then payroll taxes are just part of the general fund’s income. Now, you might argue that payroll taxes are unfair or regressive, but that would be a different argument from the ponzi scheme/wealth transfer argument.
Francis
“Your evidence that the program is hugely wasteful is pretty thin. The most recent number I saw was that 2/3rds of retirees relied on SS for 1/2 or more of their monthly income. The latest statistics on wealth distribution show a massive accumulation in a very small tail. This suggests that the number of people not adversely affected by the loss of soc. sec. would be pretty low.”
No, that suggests that when you have a benefit people learn to plan to have it available. That says nothing about what people will do when we slowly phase out SS for the rich over 30 years.
“Is there going to be a wealth test? If not, then people will be selling income-producing assets just before qualification, then flipping back. ”
Like income taxes it can be tested yearly.
“Put another way, removing the SS safety net will depress venture capital investing even further.”
I have not even once proposed the removal of the safety net function.
“I note with approval that you’ve dropped your complaint about the young poor paying taxes to the rich old. Since you argue that the entire SSA is a legal fiction, including the bonds held by the SSA, then payroll taxes are just part of the general fund’s income. Now, you might argue that payroll taxes are unfair or regressive, but that would be a different argument from the ponzi scheme/wealth transfer argument.”
I reserve the right to use this argument against those who still believe that it is not a legal fiction. 🙂
SH:
Are you seriously proposing that potentially qualifying taxpayers would have to disclose WEALTH annually?
or are you proposing an alternative which is so intrusive and unmanageable that you hope that the imposition will result in the death of the program?
Francis