Column: Putting Lipstick on a Pig

After experiencing, shall we say, a few setbacks, Vito Corleone asked his associates,"How did things get so far?" Excellent question, rooted as it was in the comprehension that those concerned needed to understand the past before evaluating the present and then moving on to repair unhappy circumstances. With respect to current national policies, some of which are no less socially criminal in intent than Vito's undertakings, a few folks are asking the same question.

Much of what passes for serious policy proposals today would have been laughed out of the political barn yesterday. Privatize Social Security? You may recall that when Barry Goldwater in 1964 suggested something similar--making it"voluntary"--national reaction was unmistakably clear: the man must have a screw loose. Dismiss environmental ruin? By the 1960s the effects of toxic filth spewed into the atmosphere had become a major concern to the populace. From here on we'd not close our itching, watering eyes to it. Period.

Or ram through a hulking tax cut for the few at a time when the needs of the many can't be met and costly crises loom overseas? Even in Lyndon Johnson's most delusional moments the thought never would have occurred. And wage a"war," as Karl Rove has again promised, against estate taxes paid by dead multimillionaires, thereby shaving additional hundreds of billions in revenue for an already broke and indebted government? Tom Jefferson, no doubt, would have deemed such a war a true" colossus of stupidity."

But here we are, treating these particulars of madness as acceptable, run-of-the-mill politics. How, indeed, did things get so far?

A comprehensive answer would require whole teams of sociopolitical historians working around the clock on uppers for years. The short and fundamental answer, however, points in all its simplicity to a politically indifferent citizenry--one that, when it's paying attention at all, seems incredibly susceptible to incredibly superficial claims made by incredibly deceptive political leaders. Want more money in your old age? No problem. Simply divert part of those pesky Social Security taxes to a private account, which in no way will do injury to the in-place retirement system. (For heaven's sake dear colleagues, said a recent Republican Party memorandum, don't admit to"privatization"; that would play into"Democratic demagoguery" on the issue.) Don't want to posthumously risk losing your small family business to a freedom-eating government? Well now, that is a real problem, one cooked up by the old liberal crowd. The new kids in town will let you die in peace by wiping away that insidious death tax aimed straight at the heads of middle-class families.

And don't allow left-wing tree huggers, pointy-headed scientists, or wily foreign governments fool you into insisting that fossil-fuel utilities clean up their act. The air isn't so bad or its temperature so warm as to cause legitimate concern, despite what virtually all environmental experts say, including even a few in the contaminant-loving executive branch. Simply write off the silly debate over that which we can't even see as the leftist plot it is, hatched by Al Gore, naturally. As for any fuss over misdirected tax cuts--you know, the ones for the wealthiest 1 percent that exceed in individual tax savings the average American household income--don't you recall the $600"gift" our prudent national bookkeepers gave you last year? And there's another $200 in it for you--yes, each and every year, as far as your grateful eyes can see--you fortunate thing. So why sweat that third, fourth, or fifth carbon-monoxide-barfing luxury vehicle now affordable to some capital fellow in the lucky-sperm club, who sleeps well at night with his unearned, untaxed inheritance, far removed from pedestrian retirement worries?

Such is the lipstick put on the pig of public contrivances these days. Yet by and large the multitudinous targets of this elaborate hogwash seem to be planting a big wet one on it if in no other way, by letting it pass for sober politics. Public indifference to official recklessness has put the concept of an engaged, informed electorate to the flame. Just allow us our six-packs of suds, loads of fun-filled and distracting cable TV, another Walmart, and reams of guileful rhetoric on what a sturdy people we are. Permit us these things and we're yours to the wretched end.

As communications scholar Neil Postman put it in the title of his 1985 book, we're"amusing ourselves to death." Due attention to public-policy issues gets shoved aside in the scramble to catch a"Roseanne" rerun. It doesn't help that"the so-called mainstream press," as former political columnist Jack Germond wrote in his latest book, is"essentially powerless in debunking or rebutting big lies." It's powerless not merely because"Americans are so uninterested" in serious political matters, he added, but also because it chooses to be. The media find it easier and far more profitable to simply cough up whatever their market researchers advise. The product is bland reporting and deferential questioning, both of which benefit no one but the already powerful. Then the media call it a day.

What's the clinical prognosis for such an unvigilant society? You know as well as I it ain't good. The democratic pulse is irregular and fading. Since the patient is so apathetic about his condition, perhaps we should just call it a day as well. Besides,"The Weakest Link" is on--and as the sage Pogo said, it is us.