Howard Stern, Monday Night Football…What Happens When Social Security Gets Sirius?

Welcome.

Thanks to Arianna for giving me a little space in this little venture. My bio nearby tells you a little bit about me. It also informs you where else you can find me in the "real world" as well as other parts of blogdom. Since I am essentially the same person on both sites, obviously, there will be some similarities. However, with any luck, the postings here, though a bit longer than the average blog entry, will be be fairly linear, less ideosyncratic and more directly connected to policy and social issues under current discussion in the public square. With that said, let's jump right in!

Whether Social Security actually gets made over this year or not, it would undoubtedly be helpful if both sides of the debate realized a couple of essential facts about the world in which the public actually lives.

The anti-reform/there-is-no-crisis contingent (most ably represented in the blogosphere by Josh Marshall) might at least concede that one of the main reasons why the pro-reform argument – even absent specifics – appeals to a fair segment of the young public is not simply because there is disbelief that “Social Security will be there when I retire.” True, this is arguably the most successful government program in history (the military is pretty successful too). Yet, having been created in the 1930s, it basically stems from the same era as other inventions of the first half of the 20th century such as radio and television.

And what is happening in those areas? The “free”, public area is being trumped by the “private” technologies of satellite radio and cable (and satellite) television. Nearly 90 percent of all American homes have either cable or satellite dishes. In barely three years, satellite radio has gone from being non-existent to having 2 million subscribers. Last year, the “King of All Media” – or at least shock-talk radio – Howard Stern signed a multi-million dollar contract to defect from the public airwaves to sign onto Sirius, one of the two satellite radio giants. Meanwhile, XM Radio has signed a contract to become the home of national-pasttime Major League Baseball "broadcasts" (exactly what do you call them now, anyway?).

Even more of a threat to radio, of course, is the Ipod, which not only enables people to hear their varied musical tastes in whatever order they want at whatever time they want -- but the technology itself permits people to create their own amateur "radio" shows -- the Podcasting phenomenon. (Luddite disclosure here: I don't own an Ipod. As much as a music-geek/ex-DJ as I might be, I can't quite join the bandwagon. Then again, considering that a 512K flash-card gets me nearly 100 songs I can play on my Treo, am I really losing out?)

Meanwhile, the "elites" are pushing this movement forward by judging the product in the "paid" sphere superior to the free stuff. In recent years, cable shows such as The Sopranos, The Shield and Sex And The City have won major Emmy Awards in big upsets over broadcast dramas and comedy shows.

That particular trend may come to an end this season, however, as broadcast television has made a significant quality comeback with "Desperate Housewives", "Lost", "House" and other dramas bringing viewers back to free TV.

But, still, how free is even non-cable, non-satellite TV anymore? Not totally, given how technology is driving all kinds of consumer choices -- and vice versa. Tivo and other digital recorders essentially do for television what the Ipod does for music: Allows the consumer to decide when he or she wants to watch -- and whether they want to be bothered by advertising.

Entertainment Weekly, examining declining movie attendance in its current issue, reports (no link yet) that, "On April 29, Steven Soderbergh did what many figured was only a matter of time: The director announced that he will release six films in theaters, on DVD, and on cable simultaneously, as part of a new deal with 2929 Entertainment."

What all this means for the defenders of Social Security (and the Democratic Party, especially) is the realization that the greatest threat to their position is not necessarily political. (Indeed, the political argument hasn't necessarily been going the Bush administration's way.) The greatest threat to Social Security as it now exists is cultural. An ever-expanding part of the population is comfortable with devices/institutions/structures that offer flexibility, options and alternatives. One size no longer fits all.

The corollary to this view is that the pro-reform/fix-this-problem-now partisans must recognize that the technology-initiated cultural wave has a clear transitional component.

A subsequent post will examine the implications of what the the technological cultural imperative means in the context of the Social Security debate and what those committed to Social Security reform/privatization must also understand.

UPDATE: Fellow HP-er Hilary Rosen makes an even more substantial point about my throway line about being wary of iPods. The irony is that making Apple a proprietary platform is what helped make Microsoft's empire. Whoever makes a "better iPod" that works with everybody's song sources will have the ultimate "killer ap." But is there a "better iPod" around the corner?