From a New York Times focus group with Americans in their 70s and 80s:
Though many of our participants pointed to their favorite decades in the past, there was also a general sense that the so-called golden years really are golden. “Freedom from worry, struggle — this is the best decade of my life,” said Eugene, 80, one of the participants. “People should look forward to the future,” said Francis, 83. “I’m just going to make memory after memory.” . . .
Asked whether politicians cared very much about the needs of Americans in their 70s and 80s, not a single participant thought politicians did. “They take one look at a senior and say, ‘He’s not producing a thing. He’s doing nothing good for the people.’ And it’s wrong. They just look at us like we’re numbers,” said Francis. “So they look at us as irrelevant, I guess is the word. That’s how I feel,” said Elaine.
Gee, I don't know, maybe the reason life is carefree for many people in their 70s and 80s is because the government spends a trillion dollars or so every year paying for their healthcare and subsidizing their retirements? Because politicians are actually obsessed with what older voters want? Could it be?
Plus, we have here another chapter in the long tale of "everybody feels invisible."
Sigh.
7 comments:
“People should look forward to the future,” said Francis, 83. “I’m just going to make memory after memory.” . . .
Francis began suffering from dementia later that week
@John
I suppose one could ask, what's the worst that could happen if people say they feel ignored, or if they have (or, if you prefer, indulge in) such feelings, or if saying one feels ignored becomes a sort of discursive trope or cliche?
I raise this issue, *NOT* because I think the answer is important, but precisely because I think it is not.
Utilitarian consequences are simply irrelevant to a discussion like this one (or the one about gaslighting female patients), because for you, I think, these are really matters of principle. Complaining in these ways is not something you like to see, and (it seems to me, or I get the impression) you think that it says something unfortunate about the people who engage in such discourses and about our society, to the extent that it becomes part of the general language of our society.
That's all well and good. It's a perfectly proper way to think about public language and a perfectly proper reason for expostulation.
It is also a reason that if someone else were to despise (and is that not the word, here and elsewhere?) something else as a matter of principle, then persons who do not share that contempt should not raise the issue of practical consequences if the real issue is, after all, that they do not share the same principles. Is that not the case?
One point to raise is that truly having principles (and, of course, "truly" is here doing "a lot of work," as they say) is, after all, one of the few things that humans can bring to a discussion that AI cannot (or at least it looks that way to me, so far).
Damn. I knew I used "after all" twice, but I didn't (even couldn't?) catch where until after I posted.
Wait till you're in your 70s or 80s. Salespeople in all sorts of retail establishments look past you because you're not likely to be buying much; this is the age where we divest ourselves of the "stuff" that has made up so much of our lives to this point.
When I wrote an email responding to a call for volunteers by two different community theatres (citing my acting and directing chops and linking to several productions as evidence), one said they could use ushers; the other didn't even respond. (Yes, I mentioned my general age range-- it affects the performance side if not the directorial side.) Having attended performances at both, I have realized that the plays they choose are for actors in their 30s-50s. However, directors needn't be "young."
Part of the cost of my Medicare Advantage group policy is paid by the CT State Teacher Retirement Board (because once upon a time, bennies were a hell of a lot cheaper than salary increases), but I also pay monthly (via deduction from pension). And as a result of having a teacher pension, my Social Security is reduced from what my assorted quarters would otherwise bring me (WEP and GPO reduce my SS benefits by 2/3 of my pension). Once my Medicare share is paid, I get a whopping $55/mo. Congress pretty much ignores us when we attempt to get WEP/GPO adjusted.
In lots of ways I am indeed happier. I do love being retired and able to "do what I want to." OTOH, my health is starting to deteriorate. And yes, I do feel rather invisible a lot of the time. Fortunately I have a big mouth and a loud voice; I can demand to be seen.
@David - Well, yes, I just disllike this kind of griping. For two reasons.
First, when everyone thinks that their group suffers more than other groups, that feeds ugly, oppositional politics. People think that "we" need to take control of the country because our needs are not being met, because you other people have all the power. Consider how many right-wing populists are mad because they think they government only cares about black people and immigrants and ignores their needs. Believing that your group is ignored seems to make people angry enough to vote for dangerous demagogues.
Second, because it destroys empathy. If you think that people like you suffer more than everyone else, why should you care about anyone else's feelings? There is in America a harsh sort of wokeness that says we shouldn't ever worry about white people or baby boomers or people from privileged backgrounds, that their suffering just doesn't count and we shouldn't waste any time thinking about it.
I think that if everyone tried to remember that in fact everyone suffers, and everyone has needs that they think are not being met, and everyone sometimes feels invisible, then we would have a kinder, better, less confrontational world.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. But one should recognize the right of others to "just dislike" things, too.
I note that, in the past, you've tended to cite the complaints of populists that they are being ignored as something that reflects real failings of liberalism, not contemporary Americans' love of describing themselves as victims.
One could say, well, the groups that make up MAGA have actually been ignored, in X number of specific ways. But surely other groups, including female patients and old people, can make similar claims.
One could also say, well, the left-right schism is dangerous and needs to be healed, and if that requires coddling MAGA a little, so be it. That may be true, but then why does it not apply also to the woke, or old people feeling like they're ignored?
I'm not saying I think the woke or old people deserve to be coddled, or that they don't. I am saying differential treatment is going to be noticed, will make things worse, and will delegitimize those who claim to want to heal things, if they practice it.
Of course, if one doesn't claim to want to heal things, then it's open season. One is free then to indulge one's principles, or preferences, or biases, or whatever one wants to call them. Perhaps that in fact would be bad--perhaps logical consistency would in such a case mean a kind of nihilism. All bets would be off, and we would become Corcyra. I'm serious.
I'm speculating, so here's another possibility: perhaps staking claims of suffering is how humans relate to power, full stop. To have power is, much of the time, to receive and judge complaints. And perhaps, to have social membership under power, is to have the right to complain.
If one with power ignores complaints (I am NOT here referring to observers like ourselves who may denounce complaints, but, now, to real power-holders), that makes that one with power not a leader, but an owner, or boss, who can fire anyone who complains, or a tyrant (left, right, monarchic, revolutionary, reactionary, whatever), who can deprive some of membership in the community (and hence the right to complain), perhaps after mounting a case for exclusion.
I would emphasize that that paragraph is still me speculating, not yet me declaring things I think are truths.
But surely part of the point of the common law is to make it as difficult as possible to exclude persons from the community (and hence, from the right to complain)? Of course, in the past and at present, the law often fails in this regard. But it often has difficulty doing that without conflict.
Post a Comment