Let Granny Eat Grass

[Guest guest]

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root & name=ViewWeb & articleId=9109

 

 

 

Let Granny Eat Grass

Frank Luntz may call them " personal accounts, " but we know better.

 

By Charles P. Pierce

Web Exclusive: 01.27.05

 

 

 

I'm following with some interest the argument about which adjective

we're going to hang on the president's plans for Social Security. (I

have yet to hear from the White House communications shop on my

suggestion -- " The Let Granny Eat Grass Act Of 2005 " -- and, I

confess, I am not optimistic.) It appears that we journalists are

failing in our important role as constitutionally sanctioned conveyor

belts if we refer to the administration's schemes as " private

accounts, " now that all the people who believe in such accounts, like

the president, have decided that they will use the word " personal "

instead. Which also means that the words I've come to use to describe

the notion -- " rat holes, " say, or " Enron-bait " -- also are right out.

 

I heard this argument just the other day from Frank Luntz, who is

famous for getting groups to say what he wants them to say by locking

them in a room in Secaucus with nothing but a cheese platter and his

own sunny presence. Frankly, I don't know why he hasn't been hauled

away to The Hague for doing this, but that is not for small minds to

ponder. Anyway, on the radio the other day, Luntz pointed out that

anyone who still uses the word " private " in reference to the

president's Social Security initiative is betraying a bias against the

plan solely because the president is calling the proposed accounts

" personal accounts " now and, therefore, we all should do so, too.

 

The two words are hardly interchangeable. To get personal is almost

always to violate privacy. Everything that is private is personal, but

not everything personal is private, as Madonna once explained to

Aristotle. For example, privates are always personal, but personals

are not always private. Some of them come with Post Office boxes and

advertise in America's finest alternative newspapers. And, anyway,

this is a startling development on a lot of levels. I believe it

bestows on the president a power undreamed of by our Founding Fathers

-- or, for that matter, by the Marx Brothers.

 

(It is legend now that the president regularly calls Karl Rove " Turd

Blossom. " I think that would have been a more appropriate test of the

new power that Luntz says is inherent in the presidency than this

whole personal-private wrangle. Editors at The New York Times, please

take note.)

 

I mean, if the president decides to refer to his vice president as

" Trigger, " or " Cheetah, " or " Charlize Theron, " does that mean everyone

has to do it? I'm no mass-communications expert, but I'm reasonably

sure that a caption beneath a picture of Dick Cheney in high snarl

that reads " Vice President Charlize Theron meets with reporters " isn't

going to do a lot for the tattered credibility of my profession.

Frankly, I don't think folks are going to believe us. OK, maybe the

Podhoretz boys will, but you get the point.

 

Back when I was a full-time sportswriter, I used to have to spend a

month every year driving around that part of Florida we like to call

Lower Mississippi in order to visit the various baseball training

camps. I was always struck by a huge sign along the road from Winter

Haven to Orlando that advertised " Goat Milk Fudge! " I mean, they

seemed so proud. At first, I thought it was some strange, local

exclamation -- to wit, " Goat Milk Fudge, Mother, don't that gator look

like Uncle Dud? " It turned out that it was exactly what was

advertised: fudge made with goat's milk. It wasn't bad, either.

 

Now, just suppose that, next week, Luntz manages to shanghai the usual

suspects into his customary dungeon in the Anastasia Room of the Nolo

Contendere Hilton. Desperate to be released, and with the tiny cubes

of cheddar dwindling to a tiny handful, the poor inmates decide to

tell Luntz anything in the hope that it will speed their release. So

70 percent of them say that they would be more in favor of the

president's plan if, instead of being called private accounts, those

elements were called Goat Milk Fudge. Luntz duly types this up and

runs it back to the White House, where the president's communications

gurus blast-fax the new talking points to thousands of tiny Hannities

across this great land.

 

Very soon, it is made clear to the major media that they will be

demonstrating actual bias if they do not refer to the most important

element of the president's Social Security proposal as Goat Milk

Fudge. No personal accounts. No private accounts. Just Goat Milk Fudge.

 

As in: " The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday

expressed doubt about the Goat Milk Fudge that is an essential part of

President Bush's ambitious attempt to overhaul Social Security. "

 

Or, " Republican congressional leaders yesterday accused House

Democrats of unwarranted partisanship in regards to the Goat Milk

Fudge section of President Bush's Social Security plan. House Majority

Leader Tom DeLay angrily accused the Democrats of `playing politics

with the freedom of young Americans to put their own money in Goat

Milk Fudge and watch it grow.' "

 

Or, " Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman yesterday announced himself

willing to work with the White House on what he called 'responsible

proposals, including Goat Milk Fudge,' but declined to endorse Goat

Milk Fudge that derived from existing benefits. "

 

The fact that it's easy to do doesn't mean we should do it. We are,

after all, professional political journalists, and when we say

private, by God, we mean private.

 

Ken Starr taught us that one.

 

Charles P. Pierce is a staff writer for The Boston Globe Magazine and

a contributing writer for Esquire. He also appears regularly on

National Public Radio.

2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation:

Charles P. Pierce, " Let Granny Eat Grass " , The American Prospect

Online, Jan 27, 2005. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or

redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written

permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to

permissions.