Are Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson really relevant to social security spending? (or how the media really annoy me when they do features on baby boomers and politics)

I recently criticised how the BBC covers the political and economic dimensions of the impending retirement of the baby boomers, so let's extend that criticism to Paul Harris writing in the Observer about the impact in the USA.

In a paragraph, Harris states boomers and the "elderly" are getting more powerful - mixing up two very different generations there but let's not dwell - he cites lots of star names from the worlds of entertainment (Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson), politics (John McCain, Nancy Pelosi) and journalism (Barbara Walters), in the process giving Observer subs what they want, an excuse to use lots of celebrity photos to go along with the article (how dare people say our press are dumbing down) - he also gives examples of why they are successful alongside stats on stuff like the annual income of the American Assocation of Retired People. Harris then goes onto write some alarming copy about the future costs of health and social care in the USA.

(Diane Keaton is doing alright for herself...great...we can slash health spending!)

Discussing how society responds to oncoming age transformation is a very good thing - here's my problem - but why do it by setting the scene and framing the big picture in terms of how well the rich and famous are doing, only then to go and discuss policy issues which matter most to ordinary citizens. Where are the human interest stories and the voices of middle and low income Americans...how do they feel, what's their opinion? Frankly, it don't matter what happens to social security for the likes of Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson, and their careers are totally irrelevant to the real issues at hand.

And where the issues are discussed it's done in a manner that exaggerates what is going to happen and joyfully fits in with right wing neo-con narratives. For example, Harris claims, with no indication of where he got the numbers that "By 2030 the costs could be as much as 75 per cent of the entire federal budget", which is strange really when George W Bush - who has a huge ideological vested interested in making future spending sound as large as is possible - claims in a state of the union address that "By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget."

It's all "blazing" new paths and "continuing boomer success" and not a single mention of the prospects for the majority of "ordinary" people. Oh yeah and the Guardian/Observer is supposed to be left wing.
 

Comments

[PooterGeek]

If you're going to have a go at the press for being lazy then please don't use boo-word combinations like "right-wing neo-con narratives". Insofar as neo-conservatism as a philosophy has had anything at all to do with domestic policy it's been characterized by a greater acceptance of welfare spending than traditional conservatism---so it's doubly inappropriate to use the term "neo-con" in this case.

[The Labour Humanist]

mr pootergeek, err, not sure I accept your point about "accepting" welfare spending. US conservatives have been targeting what they call "social security" for quite some time. There has been a narrative that began sometime in the 1980s developed by people like kotlikoff that has tried to get a narrative of inter-generational conflict going in order to get a more permissive public opinion environment for slashing social security. A key part of this strategy is to portray baby boomers as being less worthy of state spending than older people today. So, yes, J'accuse this piece in the observer for falling, probably unwittingly, into this narrative.

If they have failed, it is not for want of trying.

[tyger]

TLH,

Thanks for the podcast recommendation - enjoyed it.

Anyway, what's this about tygerland not being on your blogroll, eh?

[The Labour Humanist]

tygerland

oh go on then, you're on...

[PooterGeek]

"US conservatives have been targeting what they call "social security" for quite some time."

That might be true, but what has that got to do with neo-conservatism? Most US conservatives aren't neo-cons.

This is like saying that most UK socialists have been against the Iraq war for quite some time and using that to claim that the British anti-war movement supports "a Left-wing Blairite narrative". It's gibberish.

[The Labour Humanist]

You seem to be very animated about the tautology of the word "neo-con".

I used the phrase as a handy shorthand for the newer more radical strains in conservative thought since the 80s - as do thousands of other writers.

But we get the picture, you don't like it. (I feel the temptation to use the phrase more often from now on). But in the process, you have ignored all the substantive points of the post.

[tyger]

Why thank you.

[PooterGeek]

There are, as far as I can tell, two substantive points in this post: you object to the Observer article's lazy presentation of the issues---and, in turn, I object to yours---and you object to the article's conclusions.

I happen to disagree with you on the latter as well, especially when you use the phrase "ordinary people" to imply that the "ordinary elderly" or "ordinary baby-boomers" aren't, on the whole, doing very well nicely or haven't, on the whole, become extraordinarily powerful. Both of these things are easily demonstrated, though you are right to point out that a picture of Diane Keaton doesn't exactly make a compelling case.

Over eighty percent of the wealth of this country is in the hands of people over 50. The main reason younger voters are ignored by the main parties is that there simply aren't very many of them. I don't have time to run through more detailed statistics, but here's a recent article, from the not notably "Right-wing neo-con" *New Statesman*:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703050030

that makes the general case.

Just because the Observer pads out a Sunday piece with a bunch of celeb crap, and just because there's some overlap between its conclusions and those of a bunch of ranting Right-wingers who want to smash the welfare state doesn't mean there isn't at heart some truth it it and doesn't excuse being similarly sloppy in attempting to counter that truth---indeed, apart from spotting one apparent statistical inconsistency from the piece, you don't offer a single piece of evidence to support your own position.

Concluding by saying that something appears not to be "left-wing" despite appearing in a supposedly Left-wing newspaper isn't an argument at all; it's just name-calling---like slinging the phrase "neo-con" without knowing what it means.

[The Labour Humanist]

Please enligthen us to what you know about neo-cons and its vernacular use that others don't. I don't really care, but it is clearly dear to your heart.

As for boomers and the generational conflict nonsense - a new post on this subject is about to go up.

[PooterGeek]

I'm not "animated about the tautology of the word 'neo-con'"---did you mean 'etymology'?---nor is the its "vernacular use close to my heart"; I just think that if you are going to criticise others for writing things that are "irrelevant" and for "exaggerating" then you shouldn't do the same things yourself. It fatally undermines your case (such as it is).

More generally, I recommend that you avoid using words you don't know the meaning of. Implying that lots of other people make the same mistake is no excuse. Thousands of people misuse the word "racist" every day. Like the word "neo-con" they usually apply it, apparently at random, to things they don't agree with. The result is that when it is truly needed to describe real evils its power has been diluted.

If anyone else is interested they can just look up 'neo-con'---as you could have done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Conservatism

"As for boomers and the generational conflict nonsense - a new post on this subject is about to go up."

I look forward to reading something of substance on the subject and to having my views challenged.

[The Labour Humanist]

my goodness, you hold yourself in high regard.

thanks for the wiki
"The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism."

Exactly!

[PooterGeek]

"my goodness, you hold yourself in high regard."

I suppose if you've lost an argument then resorting to a personal insult can be comforting---even if you have no evidence to back your abuse up with either. You should have called me a neo-con as well.

My blog is all about what a loser I am. Even my online CV devotes its introduction to pointing out that I am superfluous, ignorant, and under-qualified. (I'm not a bad photographer though.) It's exactly because I am so uncertain of my own knowledge that I always refer to a dictionary before I criticise other people's use of language.

And the quotation you cite is, depressingly, completely irrelevant to your original, and still inaccurate, use of "neo-con".

I don't understand why so many bloggers who've slipped up don't just say "It's a fair cop, guv" and move on to something more interesting. I do it when I make a mistake. So does Tim Worstall. It doesn't make your genitals any smaller and it can be genuinely educational. I've learned a lot from being wrong. Mostly I've discovered:

1) how little I know, and

2) how easy it is to look things up and avoid later embarrassment.

[The Labour Humanist]

You come on here, You condescend, You admonish, you attempt to patronise and be ever so sarcastic, you receive the mildest rebuke and start resorting to references about genitals.

The original post argues there is a narrative developing that seeks to turn public opinion against baby boomers in order to justify reductions in social provision for older people in the future.

Now are you interested in debate or just coming here to heckle and knock down aunt sally?

[The Labour Humanist]

I regret the tone of this exchange. Think I've let myself slip a little bit, and I apologise. I've had some recent experience of various invdividuals who have come here with the intent to personally abuse.

I think it may be time to have a policy on this one. Something like the following...

I know that some blogs thrive on vitriolic exchange and personal abuse and insults. If people want that sort of thing they probably know where they can find it. However, this is my blog and it's nice to get comments and debate. And subjects around politics and religion are bound to raise strong feelings, but it is possible to have strongly held views, indeed hate certain policies or beliefs, get involved in political banter, without resorting to personal abuse with anyone who comments - or posts - in support of something you don't like.

Let's keep it as friendly and constructive as possible.

Make no bitchy assumptions about the personal qualities of anyone you are debating with, stick to the issues.

Tackle hard, but play the ball not the man. If anyone crosses the line of debating the issue into digging, trolling and stalking another person who is commenting - or posting - then you will be suspended or banned, No complaints, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!

If you don't like certain types of post and are incapable of debating and discussing the points therein contained without crossing the line from issue to person, then STAY AWAY from those posts.

Any insults based on personal discriminations will be deleted.

[PooterGeek]

Apology accepted.

Yes, my "doesn't make your genitals any smaller" remark was flippant. I suppose I thought this discussion could have done with being a bit more lighthearted. Sorry about that. And, even if it seemed that way, nothing else I've written here was intended sarcastically, so I'm sorry if it came across that way.

[The Labour Humanist]

Thanks. Happy to move on.