Skip to main content

Fattening up the idle rich

If the rest of us are sweating through a wretched climate-change-seared August, it's a good bet the super-rich and powerful are calm, air-conditioned and happily summering in the world's most posh retreats.

Of course, to paraphrase the late great Molly Ivins, most Americans do not employ the word "summer" as a verb, because such usage implies an annual season of luxury that the typical prole can only dream of during his few days off at the local state park (if he's lucky to have a vacation and lucky enough to live near a state park that hasn't been shuttered by budget cuts). But summering is what the wealthy do -- and when they do it so ostentatiously in such a pulverizing recession, it all but screams "Let Them Eat Cake."

So, too, does the rhetoric of a presidential race beginning in earnest. As the 2012 candidates now romp through primary-state hamlets, they are already road-testing a carefully sculpted type of "Let Them Eat Cake" rhetoric that somehow makes them sound simultaneously like populist Huey Longs and loyal mouthpieces for their biggest corporate campaign contributors.

With that as a preview, let's look at this month in "Let Them Eat Cake." (David Sirota, “‘Let them eat cake!’: Summer edition,” Salon, 17 August 2011)


We're not exactly shoving this exulted pap down their throats, but ...

Let's admit it to ourselves. Many of us wanted these kinds of stories to circulate, for they make us, by way of contrast, in our poorness, insecurity, and perpetual striving, more honest, noble, and good. The rich, though they know it not, are mostly our delegates, playing the part of the unconscionable bad "guy" so we can begin to feel ourselves more worthy after having selfishly partaken of so many riches we really hadn't the resources to afford.

Further, they are playing the part of the self-absorbed, their-children-ignoring parent, who must ultimately not be dethroned lest the child impinge on her/himself the psychologically untenable realization that their parents, not ultimately somehow themselves ("I must have been disobedient," the child concludes, after his father demonically beats him with a belt; "I must have been noisy," the child concludes, after his mother left his father.), were responsible for their ill-treatment. It's psychologically untenable, because this realization puts you beyond ever proving yourself now finally worthy of receiving their love.

The rich have their part to play in this completely unnecessary depression, and though we're going to hear just as much or more about the noble American suffering their way on through, they mostly won't be touched. Our narrative, our immature emotional needs, demand it.

Link: “Let them eat cake!”: the summer edition (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...