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

[steve]

richard, those scrap metal you're up in arms about on your blog were tagged before the war. in other words, they were going nowhere. the war made it possible for them to be moved. good strategy, pointless GI and Iraqi deaths plus unmonitored sales of dangerous materials in the open markets of the 'free world'. If I were a father of an 18 year old, i'd sure wanna send him to Iraq to die for such a 'cause'.

[Marc Cooper]

Richard.. I sneer at nobody. And I require no lectures on the "regular folks," thank you very much. But I stand by comments. The public slobbery I refer to has NOTHING to do with social class or background. Indeed, my experience is that poor people take these sort of cermonies rather seriously and probably dress better at them than the slovenly rich.
P.S. Don't kind urself into believing that most "regular folks" are Reaganites. Not by a long shot. Most regular folks don't vote, period. Those who do favor Democrats by slight majorities. May the Gipper rest in peace--- finally.

[Cynthia]

Re. the way people dressed over the past week. I'm wondering why Barbara Bush chose to be one of the few people in attendance at the DC cathedral who didn't wear black? Was that her way of snubbing Nancy, for all the slights Barbara is reported to have felt were made by the Reagans during the 1980s (e.g. not being invited by them to dinners upstairs at the WH)?

As for people in general, the post 1960s era has seen an ongoing rise in do-your-own-thing laziness and who-gives-a-damn etiquette. It's so sloppy & casual nowadays, that I read (I think it was in the Washington Post) that some young woman approached Bill Clinton at a restaurant not long ago and offered to do a Monica on him. Moreover, the writer and obviously the woman who was mentioned in that article dealt with the situation in a tee-hee, ha-ha, good-ol'-fun manner. Ahh, the age of Jerry Springer!!!

[steve]

has seen an ongoing rise in do-your-own-thing laziness and who-gives-a-damn etiquette

---not sure about laziness. the statistics don't show that. quite the opposite actually, increasing productivity on the part of workers and declining real wages. the girl approaching clinton sounds like Bush of the 1960's and 70's though.

> As is so often the case, the Left doesn't have much alternative

As is so often the case, bashers of "the Left" make idiotic and false statements.

> if ketchup isn't a vegetable, what IS it?

It's primarily a combination of tomato pulp, derived from tomatoes, which are a fruit, with fructose and corn syrup, which are sugars, and vinegar, which is a dilute solution of ascetic acid. Not only is it not a vegetable, but there's no vegetable in it, unless you're playing twenty questions.

> (Of course, A LOT must be eaten to get any vegetable benefit,

The more you eat the more you risk diabetes. No amount will give you "any vegetable benefit".

> but that's a different critique.)

Actually it's not, since Reagan's lie, which you see fit to try to defend, was made in the context of school lunch nutrition.

I try, I really do, not to think that every Republican and right winger is both a moron and completely devoid of scruples, but folks like you are a real challenge.

"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."

They were also virtually all white. See
http://www.blackcommentator.com/94/94_wise_reagan.html

[Andrew M.]

As for the thousands and thousands filing past Reagan's casket, I could only think of what George Jessel reputedly said about the huge crowd at Harry Cohn's funeral: "Give the people what they want, and they'll turn out."

[Richard Bennett]

With all respect, Mr. Cooper, when Reagan left office his approval rating was right at 70%. Thus, the regular people are in fact Reaganites.

One of the great delusions of the left is the idea that regular people are small-minded, hateful Bolsheviks, a counter-empirical notion if there ever was one; but given the Bolshevism in practice was more about lining the pockets of the Party bosses at the expense of the workers, the disconnect isn't surprising, it's just spin.

Capitalism is the greatest engine of social justice ever devised, Ronnie reminded us of that, the regular people loved him for it.

[steve]

One of the great delusions of the left is the idea that regular people are small-minded, hateful Bolsheviks, a counter-empirical notion if there ever was one;

--the people loved reagan's image, as sold to them by the media. but on policies, forget it, poll after poll showed great levels of opposition, be it foreign policy in central america, decreases in spending on poverty, cuts in public school funding, health care policies, etc.
-------------------------------------
Capitalism is the greatest engine of social justice ever devised, Ronnie reminded us of that, the regular people loved him for it.

--yes, how else could we accomplish declining real wages, increased work hours, and declining social benefits, pensions, etc.? It's a real miracle indeed, enough to make one believe in angels and devils even!

[Richard Bennett]

Thank you for illustrating my point, Steve. Your claim that the commoners didn't have authentic perceptions of Reagan underscores the royal self-image of the American left, who see themselves as a divinely ordained elite cadre of intellectuals in sole possession of the truths hidden from the commoners by their false consciousness. The facts are, of course, that the Nicaraguan people never elected Daniel Ortega to public office, that welfare-to-work (an idea Reagan pioneered in California) was hugely popular with the common people, and much more successful than the elite plan that treated the poor as permanent wards of the state, and that capitalism has done much more to spread justice and opportunity than the bankrupt socialism that Reagan defeated in the Soviet bloc.

Even your idol Gramsci realized, upon visiting the Soviet Union, that the workers would never opt for such a system voluntarily, and in fact only trickery could make it attractive. Enter Katrina and her trust fund, and the sneering at the proles for their sloppy dressing.

You folks have no idea how transparent you are.

[steve]

Your claim that the commoners didn't have authentic perceptions of Reagan underscores the royal self-image of the American left, who see themselves as a divinely ordained elite cadre of intellectuals in sole possession of the truths hidden from the commoners by their false consciousness.

--not at all, my point exactly is that image wise they thought reagan was lots of fun, substantively they disagreed with his policies. that's not false consciousness, just clearheaded thinking.
------------------------
The facts are, of course, that the Nicaraguan people never elected Daniel Ortega to public office,

--uhm, actually they did.
------------------------
that welfare-to-work (an idea Reagan pioneered in California) was hugely popular with the common people

--not if it's welfare to mimimum wage, you're quite mistaken and probably have little in the way of empirical evidencce to back up your assertion.
-------------------------
and that capitalism has done much more to spread justice and opportunity than the bankrupt socialism that Reagan defeated in the Soviet bloc.

--really? shock therapy isn't exactly a model for development in the developing countries, even jeff sachs came to finally realise that. but hey, if ya think increasing hours and declining real wages are the way to go, i guess ya gotta point there.
-------------------------
Even your idol Gramsci realized, upon visiting the Soviet Union, that the workers would never opt for such a system voluntarily, and in fact only trickery could make it attractive.

--funny, i don't recall gramsci saying that. i thought he said socialism had to have its foundation in democratically run factory councils...

[Richard Bennett]

OK, technically you're right on one point - Ortega did win the sham election of 1985 held by his army of Stalinist thugs who seized control of Nicaragua by force. He's lost three presidential elections since then, so he wasn't really what you would call a "popular leader," was he?

The polling on welfare-to-work indicates huge support, dude, are you living under a rock? And yes, work starts at minimum wage, do you expect welfare mothers to immediately become brain surgeons? We all start and the bottom and work up, deal with it.

Show me a country where socialism has made everybody prosperous, if you please - and don't say Sweden, because it's not a socialist country.

And if you're not aware of Gramsci's views on the Soviet Union, you're not a good Gramsci-bot, and should stop pretending to be one.

[steve]

Ortega did win the sham election of 1985 held by his army of Stalinist thugs who seized control of Nicaragua by force.

--sham election? in what way was it sham? outside of eliot abrams and a few others of his ilk, most observers felt it was fair. certainly far fairer than death squad ridden el salvador or guatemala at the time.
--------------------------------
And yes, work starts at minimum wage, do you expect welfare mothers to immediately become brain surgeons? We all start and the bottom and work up, deal with it.

--well, if you want them to move beyond poverty, you'd better offer better than minimum wage. we all start at the bottome, unless you're noelle bush, then sloth, free loading, and criminal behavior are ok.
-----------------------------------
Show me a country where socialism has made everybody prosperous, if you please - and don't say Sweden, because it's not a socialist country.

---Sweden is capitalist, yes. i'd ask first to name a country where socialism was allowed to develop without being attacked from outside to the point where development was impeded for significant periods of time. that would be a more intelligent way to start such an inquiry.
or we could compare and contrast socialism in given instances, such as cuba or allende's chile, nicaragua before the contras terrorised the population and economy, with capitalist equivalents such as Haiti or Argentina, Honduras, etc. The record's not that bad when such comparisons are made.
---------------------------------------

And if you're not aware of Gramsci's views on the Soviet Union, you're not a good Gramsci-bot, and should stop pretending to be one.

--I'm quite aware of his views of the SU. You're evidently terribly unaware of his views on socialism.

[Tom Grey]

Sweet, condiment, fruit -- ketchup is all of the above! But tomatoes are generally considered veggies, like avocados. Yet the anti-Reagans don't have a cogent alternative, as much as they have certainty of critique. Let's bash Reagan with ketchup, or whatever else can make us laugh at him and NOT think about the big issue. Big gov't.

While I'm a LOT less against school lunches than many other programs (farm support, airline bailouts), Reagan's point was that government was too big. It was, it is, it prolly will remain so. Because, while most folks agree, in general, that gov't is too big, they don't want to give up their particular benefits.

It's not that hard, or expensive, for parents to provide sandwiches and fruit/ veggies for lunch for kids. The anti-Reagan big gov't folk want big, benign gov't -- the nanny state. Like France & Germany (better example than Sweden) are moving toward.

On the race issue, the pictures I saw of the recent pro-abortion march in Washington didn't show many blacks, either. I suspect a lot more support abortion, than Reagan, but in some future election, prolly not Bush 04 (unless Condi's on as VP?) the Dems are going to face a Rep who is attractive to blacks and really lose big. I don't think Marc covered Bill Cosby's NAACP remarks.

[steve]

Big gov't.

--wasn't that Reagan's specialty?
-------------------------
he Dems are going to face a Rep who is attractive to blacks and really lose big. I don't think Marc covered Bill Cosby's NAACP remarks.

--actually there are few repubs who think bush will attract more black votes than last time. you're original at least. as for cosby's remarks, if they're relevant, then the surge in employment of Blacks in the 1990's must have been due to a dramatic change in behavior by blacks and the recent unemployment problems that returned to Black communities must be due to their behavioral problems. a silly theory of course, thus only the cable networks took Cosby that seriously, since his remarks are designed to incite, but not make people think seriously about real problems like unemployment, last hired first fired, recession, etc.

[Richard Bennett]

outside of eliot abrams and a few others of his ilk, most observers felt it was fair

One piece of evidence supporting the view of impartial observers that the 1985 Nicaraguan election was a sham is the fact that Ortega has lost three elections since then, elections which were conducted against conditions more favorable to democracy than those created by the Sandinista Coup.

...well, if you want them to move beyond poverty, you'd better offer better than minimum wage.

Excuse me, but why is that my problem? I started work at minimum wage, and so did everybody I know, and none of us are still there. This delusion that welfare mothers are exempt from the same sort of struggle and diligence that we who pay their bills engage in every day is simply absurd.

we could compare and contrast socialism in given instances, such as cuba or allende's chile, nicaragua before the contras terrorised the population and economy, with capitalist equivalents such as Haiti or Argentina, Honduras, etc. The record's not that bad when such comparisons are made.

Or we could contrast the US with China or the USSR, or we could compare India under the socialist Congress Party with India under the BJP, or we could contrast the capitalist Dominican Republic with the socialist Haiti. The answer is perfectly obvious, and if the 20th century taught us anything it all, it taught us that the socialist command economy managed by an elite group of self-serving bureaucrats fails to deliver prosperity to the larger society.

as for cosby's remarks, if they're relevant, then the surge in employment of Blacks in the 1990's must have been due to a dramatic change in behavior by blacks and the recent unemployment problems that returned to Black communities must be due to their behavioral problems

The continuing employment problems in the black community fall almost exclusively on the backs of black males, who are only half as likely as black females to graduate from high school or college. The out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks was 10% in 1950, and it's 70% today. As the black family has disintegrated, black males have suffered the toll of fatherlessness and have become an ever-more-marginal group. You can thank liberal welfare policies such as the infamous "man-out-of-the-house" rule for that, and you can credit conservatives as the only group with a serious plan to correct this problem - the strengthening of marriage and welfare-to-work.

[steve]

One piece of evidence supporting the view of impartial observers that the 1985 Nicaraguan election was a sham is the fact that Ortega has lost three elections since then, elections which were conducted against conditions more favorable to democracy than those created by the Sandinista Coup.

--oh yes, in nicaragua, where, as in el salvador, the US funnels $ to its favorite Party, sends politicians down to warn the people against voting for the wrong person, etc. etc. , stuff that Americans would go crazy about if the happened here in return.
----------------------------------
Excuse me, but why is that my problem? I started work at minimum wage, and so did everybody I know, and none of us are still there. This delusion that welfare mothers are exempt from the same sort of struggle and diligence that we who pay their bills engage in every day is simply absurd.

--uh, well, you're just plain wrong. the minimum real wage was much higher 20, 30 years ago than it is today. and not it's not absurd, welfare mothers carry burdens that the lowly minimum wage today is not enough to carry one out of poverty with. not even close. real wages earned by workers two, 3, 4, decades ago were much higher than those earned today.
---------------------------------------
r we could contrast the US with China or the USSR,

comparing the US with them would be silly, since they have such radically differfent histories. By the turn of the 20th century the US was far ahead of both of those countries developmentally. However, comparing China with Russia would be relevant and the obvious benefits to China of not going the naked free market route is obvious. calling Haiti 'socialist' is silly of course.
----------------------
The continuing employment problems in the black community fall almost exclusively on the backs of black males, who are only half as likely as black females to graduate from high school or college.

--so then your argument is that the increases in the black male unemployment rate in the last few yers was due to behavioral changes? no recession, no last hired first fiered issues, just bad behavior, eh?
-------------
You can thank liberal welfare policies such as the infamous "man-out-of-the-house" rule for that, and you can credit conservatives as the only group with a serious plan to correct this problem - the strengthening of marriage and welfare-to-work.

--really? they don't seem to be working in the midst of a recession. funny theory you have there richard. nor in the period of "recovery".

[Richard Bennett]

OK, genius, you're going to play your victim card no matter how many facts I pile up on my side, so let's make this real simple for you: why has the social engineering of the past fifty years helped African-American women so dramatically at the same time that it's hurt African-America men equally dramatically?

For bonus points, who's responsible?

[steve]

K, genius, you're going to play your victim card no matter how many facts I pile up on my side

--facts you haven't provided i'm afraid, just a lot of conjecture. you talk as though "out of wedlock" marraige is something unique to Blacks, a bizarre notion, and then link it to poverty.

---------------------------
: why has the social engineering of the past fifty years helped African-American women so dramatically at the same time that it's hurt African-America men equally dramatically

--social engineering? whatya talking about, they took the money for the great society and threw it away on the Vietnam War, or have you forgotten? and actually you're wrong, as bad as things are for african american men now, they were far worse off decades ago. now, going by your theory, the way to explain that is by looking at the improvement in male blacks' morals, forget little things like the elimiation of barriers to political activity, sysetmatic terror, increased job opportunities, public education opportunities, etc.

[Richard Bennett]

Steve, you're increasingly incoherent. Why don't you collect your thoughts and try that last response again.

[steve]

Steve, you're increasingly incoherent. Why don't you collect your thoughts and try that last response again.

--powerful rebuttal there Richard.

[yfb]

> Thank you for illustrating my point, Steve. Your claim that the commoners didn't have authentic perceptions of Reagan underscores the royal self-image of the American left

No, it underscores the point that Steve knows the facts and you don't -- about what the polls showed, about welfare, about race, about everything.

[yfb]

> Sweet, condiment, fruit -- ketchup is all of the above!

It's a sweet and a condiment; it's not "fruit", any more than you should eat cow dung when on a high fiber diet just because it contains some.

> But tomatoes are generally considered veggies,

But ketchup is not generally considered a vegetable, and is not what health professionals have in mind when they talk of "5 servings of fruits and vegetables". Thus, it is significant that Ronald Reagan claimed that it was one.

> like avocados. Yet the anti-Reagans don't have a cogent alternative,

Well yes, they do -- "ketchup is not a vegetable". It's an alternative, *and* it's cogent.

> as much as they have certainty of critique. Let's bash Reagan with ketchup,

Let's bash Raegan with his lies and corruption -- and the ketchup policy was part of that.

> or whatever else can make us laugh at him

It wasn't a laughing matter -- it was a matter of a lie that undermined nutrition for schoolchildren.

> and NOT think about the big issue. Big gov't.

Indeed, you should think about the fact that Clinton (Gore, mostly) shrank the federal government while Reagan grew it, and Bush is outdoing him. But "the big issue" to think about is not "big gov't" -- that's a mantra used by people who mouth slogans in place of thinking.

[Richard Bennett]

...about what the polls showed, about welfare, about race, about everything...

Oh really? If the public was opposed to welfare reform, why did Clinton make "ending welfare as we know it" a centerpiece of his 1992 campaign? And why is it that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than double the white OOW birthrate?

Facts are stupid things, indeed.

[steve]

If the public was opposed to welfare reform, why did Clinton make "ending welfare as we know it" a centerpiece of his 1992 campaign? And why is it that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than double the white OOW birthrate

--he did many things that the public opposed, no different from his predecessors or today's president.
on the increase in so-called 'OOW' births, irrelevant to the poverty issue. rates have increased across racial groups, it's not really the big deal you make it out to be. recessions, deindustrialization, decreased investment in public education, soaring health care prices, tuition skyrockets, etc. are far more influential.