Funeral Shlepping [UPDATED]

My full meditation over Ronald Reagan’s corpse remains posted at L.A. Weekly.

It still seems pointless to talk much about any other subject like the White House memos justifying torture, or the admission by the commanding U.S. general that he has failed to train an effective Iraqi police force, or how the Kurds –once again—got hosed by the new UN resolution on Iraq.

So it’s back to the new national past-time of reflecting on Reagan’s demise. Watching the crowds that snaked through the Reagan library yesterday and that lined the funeral route today in Washington D.C. I had the following epiphany:

Never before in human history has the funeral of any Head of State been attended by SO many people clad in tennis shoes, jeans or shorts.

I’m not being snide. I honestly believe this has some significance. If you wouldn’t dream of going to a second cousin’s funeral dressed as if you’ve just come from a midnight shlep down to the local 7-11, why on earth would you show up like a slob to mourn a former President of the United States? I have attended many political funerals in my life (mostly in Latin America and too many, by the way, as a product of the Reagan Doctrine). I have gone out of respect for the deceased. And I made sure that I fully and somberly demonstrated that respect. I didn't go while licking a candy apple or pulling up my running shorts.

I think it obvious that while a lot of folks have shown up for Reagan because they were sincerely moved by his passing, a whole lot of the other "mourners" shuffling before us aren’t, in fact, mourning at all. They’re merely cruising one more pop culture happening. They might as well be window-shopping at the mall. Or watching the O.J. chase roll down the freeway. Or tuning in to the Peterson trial blabberage. Or standing in line all night to catch a Lord of the Rings premiere. Or dragging their kids to a Gipper wake. What’s the difference?

Perhaps shlepper attire is the most fitting, anyway, for a Reagan funeral. The Gipper had his own difficulties at times distinguishing between facts and films. I suppose his admirers can be allowed to confuse his funeral for a day at the mall. Here’s the always worthy John Powers' new column on Gippermania:

Reagan is the only president who’s been a true child of pop culture — at once a performer and avid consumer. Pop shaped his consciousness whether he was quoting Dirty Harry’s “Make my day,” evoking Star Wars or entering into one of those Philip K. Dick–style alternative realities in which he claimed to have done things he’d actually only seen in movies — like helping open World War II concentration camps. Fittingly, perhaps, American popular culture orbited him as no other president. In the 1980s, seemingly everything reflected the pull of his presidency, be it Indiana Jones’ breezy retro-heroism, Rambo’s desire to refight Vietnam or Roseanne’s hilariously angry blue-collar riposte to The Gipper’s talk about America as a “shining city on a hill…
…Reagan’s lifelong flight from introspection offered relief to millions who rebelled against the soul-searching induced by assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate and the bummer presidency of born-again Jimmy Carter, who projected his own dismal sense of Original Sin onto the whole country. Untouched by a sense of sin, his own or America’s, Reagan offered the electorate the absolution of optimism, national greatness, Morning in America, forgetting.

Then again, if ketchup was really a vegetable, can’t we pretend that flip-flops and OP cut-offs are really formal wear?

UPDATE: I feel so smug being an official opinion leader. Both Matt Drudge and Wonkette have also now picked up on the flip-flop and flopping belly fashion parade around the Gipper's bier. (So at the top of this posting I picked up some of the pix from their sites). Here's some sass from Wonkette:

Most of the people there to view the casket are in shorts and flip-flops -- maybe they're Kerry supporters or something, but if we ran the Capitol, we'd be handing out jackets and ties and turning people away if they had a visible panty line. And, you know, putting a flag on an article of clothing doesn't make "nice." Sheesh. At least they seem to have left their beer helmet hats at home.

Amen.

Comments

[Bonnie Spolin]

Marc- Thanks for the chuckle in this very, very, long funeral week. Most of the mourners were obviously on their way back from Vegas and didn't have time to change their clothes!

[Marc Cooper]

Ha! The only missing accessories were the cottage cheese coin buckets and the 64 oz. plastic footballs of beer!

[Bonnie Spolin]

Don't forget the fanny packs!

[Tom Grey]

As is so often the case, the Left doesn't have much alternative: if ketchup isn't a vegetable, what IS it? Choices: meat, dairy product, cereals, fruits & nuts, vegetable. (Of course, A LOT must be eaten to get any vegetable benefit, but that's a different critique.)
Oh no, wait ... "none of the above". Of course, the usual Leftist choice; not on most ballots. (Some in Russia DO have this choice -- no need for Libertarians there!)

[steve]

This is an interesting observation Marc. I was thinking similarly when watching people go past the casket. I coulda sworn some knew they were on TV and were acting like they knew. But what struck me as interesting was how many seemed to not know what they should be doing, just kind of curious looking.

I wonder when the ratings focus groups will move CNN/FOX onto a new obsession.

[William Meisheid]

Marc, there are lots of reasons for the casual dress, including that this is not a funeral, just a public viewing. I was disappointed, however, to see that you used what could have been an interesting take on an observation that appears to have been missed by everyone else to make one more snide putdown of Reagan. I expected better, but then I am an optimist, hoping for the best, but frequently getting the worst from my fellowman.

Yes, many people dressed casually. And yes, you couldn't resist being just as disrespectful as you claimed they were by your approach this week. You couldn't wait until after the funeral to get your putdowns in print; you couldn't tone down your vitriole until then. One learns a lot about a person's character in the way they treat those whom they call their enemies. This past week has revealed a considerable amount about a large number of people, including you. I am disappointed.

[Bonnie Spolin]

Steve, Saturday the media will be back to Peterson. Have you also noticed the O.J. revival going on in the background on Fox?

[GMRoper]

Marc, the disparaging remarks about the mourners may be on target, but are still regretable. As a child returning from Germany in 57 I went to a ball game with my dad. Most of the men had suit coats and ties on. Over the years, I notice that more and more people dress more and more casually, even slovenly. One counselor applied for a job with my agency dressed in a Tee shirt and cutoffs, sneakers without socks goes without saying. Needless to say, he didn't get the job. Do you suppose the advent of Casual Friday morphing into Casual Wednesday and Friday has anything to do with it? Marketing? Or are people just less concerned with how they look?

Just a few thoughts.

[Eli]

page A16 of today's SF Chronicle has a picture captioned 'Mourners line a Ventura County road as the hearse carries Regan's casket from Simi Valley to Point Mugu Naval Air Station'.

Three of the ten standing there have their cameras out....

[steve]

Or are people just less concerned with how they look?

--I think, if I read correctly, the point is that this is basically a big spectacle with little or no real deep meaning. for fox/cnn folks it's a mechanism to drive up advertising ratings. of course that is all better served by nostalgic and myth informed versions of Reganomics and Reagan's "ending the Cold War" etc.

[steve]

and i forgot to add, it's also an opportunity for Bush to morph into a person who actually had to work to get where he got (i.e. Ronald Reagan), which is about the only positive thing i can think of to say about Reagan's accomplishments.

[GMRoper]

Steve writes: "--I think, if I read correctly, the point is that this is basically a big spectacle with little or no real deep meaning."

Spectacle yes, but I doubt if anyone can guestimate what a person may be feeling based on nothing more than photographs of the clothes they are wearing. We live in a much more casual age (which I'm not sure is good or bad - see my posting above about ball games in the late 50's) I'm sure the comment you made violated some PC "-ism;" perhaps clothes-ism or wealth-ism or perhaps just plain old judging a book by its cover-ism

[Marc Cooper]

Roper, my friend: As always thanks for posting. True u can't read a book by it's cover. Equally true that this is very informal age. But you must admit that there is defintie pop spectacle aspect to this prolonged and excessively politicized pageantry. And --equally-- concede the point that if one wishes to show a deeper level of respect it's still possible to change out of one's gym shorts and put on adult clothes... and shoes.

[LYT]

Tom, you forgot one food group -- sweets. Ketchup is mostly sugar, so there you go, it actually was none of your above. What remains -- tomato -- is technically a fruit.

[steve]

Groper, you are right, my comments violated a PC . My comments were not Patriotically Correct. I apologise and will try to be more PC in the future. Patriotic Correctness, especially after 911. Let us all try to be more PC. War is Peace.

[steve]

How much ya wanna bet someday Reagan supporters will claim that as they went to mourn the Gipper they were spat at by hippie protestors. That would one up the myth of the vietnam veterans spat on returning from Nam...

[Michael J. Totten]

Ketchup is not a vegetable. It is a condiment. Tomatoes are vegetables.

[steve]

ketchup is to vegetable as the US media is to anti-war.

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve,

The media is more hawkish than you but, with the exception of Fox News, is considerably less hawkish than me. The media looks "pro-war" to you, but it sure doesn't to me. You could say we're both biased (which is true), but you know as well as I do that reporters are more likely to be liberals and Democrats than conservatives and Republicans.

I think charges of liberal bias are both true and overblown. Editors are more conservative on average than reporters are, and reporters can compensate for bias, even overcompensate. (Look at what they're saying about Reagan. It must be making them crazy.)

Besides, the "liberal" bias in the media is a very specific type of liberal bias. They are a lot more in favor of free-trade, for example, than the average person who thinks of him or herself as liberal. What I'm really not seeing right now is a media staffed with liberal hawks. I know a liberal hawk when I see one because in a sense I am one myself. (Although truth be told I'm more of a centrist these days, but I come from the liberal hawk tradition.) I did see plenty of them during the conflict in the Balkans when Clinton was president, but it's a very different story now.

From where I sit it looks very different to me than it does to you. I remember conservatives complaining that the media was on a pro-military "crusade" over Bosnia and Kosovo. I appreciated that "crusade" because I thought Slobo needed an ass-kicking and it wasn't going to happen if we didn't know what he was doing. I'm seeing no such "crusade" now at all from the "liberal" parts of the media. Only from the right, on a few center-left blogs, from Christopher Hitchens and a few other *individuals*, and from The New Republic. There's been a huge shift, and to me it couldn't be any more obvious.

[steve]

The media is more hawkish than you but, with the exception of Fox News, is considerably less hawkish than me. The media looks "pro-war" to you, but it sure doesn't to me.

--speculation. when you look at the stances on war in the media, it's obviously prowar. i don't know how much more hawkish they could get really without becoming FOX outright.
---------------------------------------
You could say we're both biased (which is true), but you know as well as I do that reporters are more likely to be liberals and Democrats than conservatives and Republicans.

--I also know that's a meaningless statement,(as your followup paragraph shows) since on economic issues reporters tend to be in the right-center of the spectrum. on social issues they're more liberal. further, and more important, their editors (i.e. those who have the power to decide how articles are framed, headlines, what stays in, what is out, etc.) are far more likely to be conservative, not to mention the corporate boards of the media industry. serious study after serious study show this plainly, how else could it be in a privately owned capitalist media after all?
------------------------------------------
I remember conservatives complaining that the media was on a pro-military "crusade" over Bosnia and Kosovo. I appreciated that "crusade" because I thought Slobo needed an ass-kicking and it wasn't going to happen if we didn't know what he was doing.

--'ass kicking', yeah, real macho, only americans seem to enjoy talking about war like this. actually your ass kicking got the same results that no ass kicking would have produced, ironic eh?
----------------------------------
I'm seeing no such "crusade" now at all from the "liberal" parts of the media.

--you're seeing questioning from all but the sectors of the american political spectrum that remain in denial about the disaster in Iraq that unecessary war brought. bloody noses tend to bring the urgency of rethink to armchair warriors spouting macho war rhetoric.
you wrote quite a bit there, but nothing even remotely providing any evidence that the media in the US are "anti-war" or close to 'antiwar'. maybe against wars that end up bringing too many pointless deaths, but that's about the extent of the post-war 'antiwar' sentiment one will find in the US media at this point. And at all costs, no left critics of the war are allowed into the discussion on war, be it in Iraq or elsewhere. Now, that's pretty odd for a media that is supposed to be "anti-war". When's the last time you heard Scott Simon interview an antiwar critic from the Institute for Policy Studies? Or Michael Klare, etc. Anti war...yeah, kinda like ketchup is a vegetable I suppose.s

[bite_me]

One more thing to be grateful to Ray Charles for is that his passing away took for a little while the focus away from RR. But the porno saga of faux bereavement continues. I wonder if they'll have a daily grave-watch TV broadcast to show us live the moment when lilies sprout from his hallowed remains.

Pass the jelly beans.

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve,

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I'm just saying I saw a huge shift and can understand why you didn't.

If you told me the media was "pro-war" in the mid 1990s I would have agreed with you, even though our views of that fact would have been different.

[steve]

If you told me the media was "pro-war" in the mid 1990s I would have agreed with you,

--I would just note that there has been no substantial change since the mid-1990's, at least not one that can be shown with any evidence. In fact, the evidence in the newspapers with the largest share of readers points in the opposite direction.
in fact, the model journalist in the leadup to the war was none other than Jeff Goldberg, whom you seem to admire. His reporting on Al Qaeda's 'connection' with Saddam was entirely the stuff of fantasy, no less than his confreres at the NY Times. I find it amazing you can take someone like that as a serious journalist. If your lament is we have to few of his type, I can only say Praise Zeus for that!

[Richard Bennett]

(Beware the media bias tarbaby, boys, once you start punching it you'll never get out.)

Mr. Cooper, you know how folks on the left are always carrying on about the little people, the working people, the regular folks and all that? The people you're sneering at in this blog entry, well, they're just those very people that y'all are supposed to be so concerned about. Which brings us to our little question: does the left want to elevate the standing of the downtrodden masses so they can have more people to pick on, sneer at, and feel-superior-to?

If you were bullied and robbed of your lunch money as a child, I'm sorry for you, but at some point you really do have to get over it.

Cheers.

[steve]

the regular folks and all that? The people you're sneering at in this blog entry, well, they're just those very people that y'all are supposed to be so concerned about.

--are you sure? did you take a poll of the class background of the average person at the funeral? walking by the casket? one caller called to minnesota public radio and asked, "is this an all white funeral? i notice i don't see any black people at this event." It's interesting too to note that the media largely avoided the race angle. guess it wouldn't push up advertising ratings as much as endless discussions about what a great communicator gipper was and how he brought everyone together.