Nicholas Lemann and Judith Shulevitz
Dear Nick,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponHaven't you heard the expression, success has many parents, failure is an orphan?
Which reminds me, I must compliment you on how discreetly you alluded to another effect of the coming recession: our own diminished employment. Yes, we too are workers "in the luxury-sector, discretionary-spending part of the economy." How many prestigious magazines must fold, how many book review pages must disappear from national newspapers before George W. Bush sees the wisdom of your suggestion? My many parents are likely to disown me when I show up on their doorsteps begging for handouts. Perhaps I should note at this juncture my extreme fondness for your parents.
I notice that in Richard Stevenson's thumbsucker on the budget in the Times today, the possibility of deficit spending--as opposed to raiding Social Security--never even comes up. The subject has become taboo, thanks, I guess, to Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. But your theory of why Bush in particular wouldn't do it, focused as it is on the actual mechanics of presidential budget-making, strikes me as overlooking two even more obvious reasons. First, didn't you yourself write in The New Yorker that Bush's tax cut expressed a bedrock Republican principle--that it's good to starve the federal government so it can't grow anymore? Bush said as much the other day. If so, what need has he for more money, other programs? Why not just let them all wither away--or at least express the courage of his convictions by choosing to operate within very, very tight budgets? Like Loic J.D. Waquant, I detect a contradiction. Are these guys against federal spending, or are they for it, as long it goes to the programs they like?
Second, of course, there's public relations. The Republicans may be responsible for the greatest deficits of the past quarter-century, but that doesn't mean they can give up their image as the party of fiscal responsibility. The minute they do, they're screwed. Just today, Vermont's Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat gearing up to run for president, observed, "I've made my mark as a fiscal conservative, and I'm appalled that it has taken President Bush only a few months in office to basically squander the surplus."
Howard Dean seems like a great guy. I know because once, a long time ago, when I worked for a newspaper in Burlington, Vt., I met him, and that's exactly what he was. And he has a great record, especially when it comes to cleaning up Vermont's financial messes. So tell me: I've heard you argue that governors have the edge on senators when it comes to running for president--but does the governor of a teensy state like Vermont have the dream of a prayer of winning?
Speaking of running, my favorite story in the paper today was the one about Daniel Ortega declaring that Jesus was his inspiration. Two cheers for Jesus, the savior of all quick-change artists. He is the philosopher not only of the reformed no-goodnik who is our president but also of the reformed revolutionary who wishes to become Nicaragua's next president. From being the very essence of stuffy bourgeois morality, part of the great deceit practiced on the trusting, innocent people by the lackeys of capitalism, Jesus has become the guarantor of personal transformation. Do you really think Ortega has embraced free markets? I liked it when he said that socialism was a "wrong vision of reality." Yes, and mistakes were made. Thanks be to Jesus that we now understand our material conditions more correctly.
Love,
Judith
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
How Do You Know Whether a Sleepwalking Murderer Was Really Asleep?
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Reader Comments From The Fray
:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Don't like restaurants? Then let's discuss home cooking, and get some ideas for tonight's dinner, in this thread here. One of the cooks, Will Allen, has this to say elsewhere (context not really important, but he had been accused of pre-judging people): "I nearly always allow someone to clearly display their banal, wooden-headed, nature before denouncing it." There was an interesting thread on prison officers, the word 'perversely', and insults, starting here. Everyone was in cheerful mood in the Fray: Ex-Fed was able to start joke threads here and here (warning: this one was considered tasteless by another poster.) Ex-Fed also proposed marriage to one of the Breakfast Tablers, here: we're being a little circumspect because this involved being rude about the other BT-er. And there was a fan letter from Zeitguy to Judith Shulevitz here.]
If there's anything "unique" about American society, it's the amazing extent of our ability to think that we're somehow different from every other civilization in history. Maybe it's because our particular culture has only been around for a few hundred years, in a land where we are cut off almost completely from the ancient civilizations that have been around significantly longer. I don't know. But bored, whiny rich people? That's nothing new
--Mangar
(To reply, click here.)
It's not the self-pity that bothers me so much, though it's bad enough, but the truculence and righteous indignation and desire to grind the faces of the poor it seems to lead to.
To put it another way--what, exactly, are the rich and powerful so pissed off about? What is it that they want that they're not getting? 100% of the wealth instead of a mere 90%?
--Kassandra
(To reply, click here.)
(9/5)