A NEED FOR BETTER NARRATIVES! Social Security comes back center stage. Can our side explain how it works? // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 2011
A very familiar novel concerning a very familiar novel: Should Huckleberry Finn be taught in a cleaned-up version, with its many N-words replaced? This seems like a shaky idea to us.
That said, weve been struck by the novelized way the pundit corps has reacted to news that one publisher hopes to do this. A string of scribes have swung into action this week, typing the worlds most familiar narrative. One such scribe is Michiko Kakutani, in todays New York Times:
Everyone can write this familiar old storyand pretty much everyone has. Theres just one problem with this narrative, which drives the bulk of Kakutanis piece. The current attempt at fumigation doesnt exactly come from the right or from the left (from conservatives or from liberals). It comes from someone who says the book isnt being taught in public schools because of its many N-words. The gentleman says the book might be taught more often if this term is replaced.
Does this claim, and this proposed solution, reflect a conservative or a liberal impulse? Wed have to say that it reflects neither. But Kakutani fell to typing a familiar old tale about bowdlerization, a tale which was largely built around those familiar old polarities.
Journalists can type this tale in their sleep; this week, quite a few have. But as theyve displayed the joy of recitation, weve been struck by a question which hasnt been asked:
Whats it like to teach Huckleberry Finn in public schools these days? More specifically, how do teen-age public school students respond to all those N-words? What happens when this usage is confronted in all-black schools? In all-white schools? In schools where a few black kids may be found among a white majority? Does this create a problem for studentsfor black kids, lets say? It doesnt seem to occur to most journalists to wonder or to care. After all, these overseers possess a magic solution:
It sounds so easy when Ole Massa says it! That said, that is a very strange construction. Kakutani is concerned that children are being deprived of exposure to a classic work. But shes more upset by something else. To her, its even worse to think that teachers are being relieved of a fundamental responsibility!
Good lord, but thats a strange reaction! Its bad that the kids dont read the book. Its even worse that those lazy proles are getting away with a fast one!
The condescension of our press elite is one of the worlds greatest wonders. Here at THE HOWLER, were actually curious: Does it create a problem when children are exposed to this ugly emblem of centuries of unspeakable conduct? More specifically, does it create a problem for black kids? Were picking on Kakutani here, but we havent seen any writer this week who has seemed to wonder or care. Most often, theyve done what Kakutani has done; theyve launched a familiar old screed about bowdlerization, without stopping to wonder if an actual problem is lurking.
To us, sanitizing this famous old novel seems like a strange idea. On the other hand, Kakutanis disinterest in the children at issueand her contempt for their lazy prole teachersreflects the way the upper-class press has covered most educational issues over the past many years. There has been an astonishing lack of curiosity about what really occurs in our schools. Instead, journalists defer to the lamebrain ideas of a moneyed elite (for one example, see below), especially to their incessant, deeply foolish teacher-bashing.
Fawning respect for the moneyed elite? Contempt and disdain for the under-class? Where in our tortured American history have we ever seen this one before?
The rapid return of a novel: The New York Times fawns to Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein in ways Butterfly McQueen would have refused to put on the screen. On December 26, Javier Hernandez published a long, loving piece about Klein, long-time head of the Gotham schools. It started with this pitiful glimpse at the way this universe works:
Its great to be so chummy with the people youre assigned to cover. The real astonishment followed:
Back in the summer of 09, Klein wanted to talk about the citys rising test scores? We have no doubt that he did, of coursebut uh-oh! One summer later, the state of New York renounced those test scores, announcing that they had resulted from tests which had become artificially easy.
In a rational world, this would have been treated like what it wasa major statewide scandal. On the local level, Klein and Bloomberg had spent years boasting about those rising scores; in a rational world, they would have been grilled about why they didnt know what was going on within the statewide program. (The warnings had been widespread, for years.) But that would be a rational worldand this is the world of the New York Times, which runs on $23 yogurt and chit-chat about favorite operas.
Early in this long, loving profile, Hernandez restores the iconic claim that Bloomberg/Klein did wonders with the citys test scores. At no later point do readers learn that Klein had been bragging, in 2009, about the results of a statewide scam. And when Hernandez presents a series of Q-and-As, he asks no questions about this scandal, which broke just a few months ago. He did find time to ask questions like this:
To learn about Kleins favorite pizza places, just consult this interview.
The novel about those test scores is back, without a word of correction or challenge! But so it goes when a billionaire mayor and his clueless or dishonest aides hand out bowls of expensive yogurt, thus earning the love of the Times.
Rememberits all the teachers fault! Bloomberg and Klein? Theyve been marvels!
PART 4A NEED FOR BETTER NARRATIVES (permalink): Our public discourse is a howling messhas been so for many years. The source of this disaster is clear:
On the one hand, skillful, well-financed conservative think tanks push poll-tested disinformation into the public sphere. (The Social Security trust fund is an elaborate accounting tricka pile of worthless IOUs! The money isnt thereweve already spent it! The left hand has been borrowing from the right! By 2037, the program will be bankrupt!)
In response, the mainstream press corps flounders and flails. It proves unwilling, or unable, to deal with the massive public confusion produced by this onslaught.
Surely, liberals and progressives know how these two sectors will continue to function. If we hope for a better public discourse, its plainly up to us to create it. But alas! Our major progressive organs have never been up to the task of repealing and replacing the bogus narratives which come from the right.
With Social Security center stage once again, consider the way two (very smart) liberal bloggers framed the discussion this week. For starters, consider a fleeting construction offered by Josh Marshall:
Does Obama plan to call for cuts to Social Security? We have no idea. (There are various kinds of possible cuts, of course. Cuts in payments to upper-end earners would be one thing; a general rise in the retirement age would be quite another.)
As a general matter, we largely agree with Joshs presentation. That said, we were struck by that highlighted construction. Do we really want to say that Social Security is currently subsidizing the rest of the budget? To our ear, its a short walk from that construction to a familiar, misleading claim: The money isnt thereweve already spent it! This is a minor point in a short post, but we were struck by the use of that term.
The other side tests language carefully.
That very same day, we were struck by a more detailed presentation about Social Security. Digby is one of our smartest, most influential progressive bloggers. But we have no idea what point she was making in the following passage, where she discussed Pete Petersons position on Social Security back in 2000, when the federal budget was in surplus:
Presumably, what happened then includes Bushs tax cuts. But we were puzzled by Digbys account of Petersons position in 2000. In fact, Candidate Gore advocated using the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt. And this wasnt presented as an alternative to shoring up the Social Security program; this was presented as the only way the surpluses could be used, under federal law, to accomplish that task. (The theory: By paying down debt, the government would be in a better fiscal position in future years when the boomers began to retire, with the attendant drain on federal resources.)
In our view, Marshall made a shaky word choice; on the same day, Digbys presentation didnt seem to make any sense at all. But then, when have major liberal and progressive organs ever created a standard response to the well-known, highly familiar assault on Social Security from the right? Many voters can recite those pseudo-conservative assaults in their sleep; the standard claims are grossly misleading, but they are skillfully constructed, fiendishly persuasive and extremely well-known. No standard narrative has ever emerged from major organs on the left. Alas! In the face of a carefully-constructed disinformation campaign, our side have basically gamboled and played. More precisely, liberal organs have gamboled and played for 25 years, producing a world in which voters hear a familiar, orderly, misleading narrative from one sideand nothing much from the other.
One side is organizedone side isnt. This makes it hard for liberals and progressives to argue in the public square. Consider what happened on Monday night when the wastrel Chris Matthews tried to explain what will happen if the federal government fails to extend the debt ceiling this March, thereby engaging in government default.
Matthews spoke with Mark Meckler, of the Tea Party Patriots. Heres how the exchange started:
What consequences would follow if the government defaults? Meckler painted a benign picture; wed have to shut down certain programs, he saidwed have to cut spending. In fact, the consequences would be vastly more severe, a fact Matthews seemed to understand. But as he continued, it was fairly clear that he couldnt describe those consequences. This produced a type of fumbling exchange quite common to this awful program:
The conversation went on from there. But at no point did anyone answer Matthews serious question: What would happen if the government cant make payment on its obligations? (For the full transcript, click here.)
As long-time Matthews-watchers, we would guess that Matthews wanted to shoot Meckler down in this instance, but he simply wasnt preparedwasnt prepared to explain the consequences of a government default. But then, would you as a liberal know where to go for a clear explanation of what would happen? What liberal or Democratic Party organ has ever created a digest of reliable informationa set of narratives which might be described as public affairs for us dummies?
In the new year, its all up to us! No one else will ever be fixing our discourse. But our side has failed quite badly at this task in the past. Mainstream journos will never create the simple, coherent, accurate narratives which can inform a disinformed public. Liberals and progressives never have.
Such a task is up to us. In this new year, we will focus on some of the ways our side fails to accomplish this lingering task.
Matthews will always flounder and flail. Why cant progressives do better?