My Tiny Little Theory About Truffaut

This may be wrong. If it's right, it may be old hat to the film experts. But it was fun to discover on my own.

François Truffaut's third movie as director was Jules and Jim. I remember hearing that he picked the name "Jim" to express his affection for America. But why "Jim" in particular? I've heard the names Mac and Joe used as generic American names, but Jim? Jules and Joe would have been a perfectly good title.

Then, not long ago, I read a novel from the Library of America collection, Crime Novels: American Noir of the 1950s. The story begins with a wounded man on the run. He runs blindly into a telephone pole and falls down.

He got up slowly, dizzily. There was a big lump on the left side of his head, his left eye and cheekbone were somewhat swollen, and the inside of his cheek was bleeding where he'd bitten it when he'd hit the pole. He thought of what his face must look like, and he managed to grin, saying to himself, You're doing fine, jim. You're really in great shape. But I think you'll make it, he decided, and then he was running again, suddenly running very fast as the headlights rounded a corner, the car picking up speed, the engine noise closing in on him.

We soon learn that the man's actual name is Turley. That "jim" functions like "Mac" or "buddy" or "pal" as a generic.

First time I've seen that.

Here's the interesting thing. The novel is Down There, by David Goodis, published in 1956. Truffaut adapted the story for his second film, which was released in 1960: Shoot the Piano Player. Thus the origin of "Jim"?

"Socialism!"

In the past few years, Republicans have found "socialism" to be the go-to word when they want to put a scare into their fellows. The word is sloppily defined; it tends to mean any government program Republicans don't like. (Recently Jonah Goldberg wrestled with the term; here is Jonathan Chait's assessment of Goldberg's effort.) With respect to this socialism-phobia, I divide the Republicans into three groups:

1. The true believers. These folks are frightened and furious about the turn our government has taken. The health care bill is the biggest abomination, but the automotive and bank bail-outs probably also fall within this category. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security also get the "socialist" label, when the true believers are being honest with one another. And anything carrying that label is a horror which must be exorcised from our nation. I suspect the largest group of Republicans fall in this category.

2. The cynics. These Republicans find the word "socialism" is a dandy way to keep the troops fired up and to keep themselves in power.

3. The go-alongs. These are the politicians who are happy to ride on the coattails of the first two groups.

We can safely ignore the third group. The other two groups take four approaches to the programs tainted by "socialism":

1. Kill. This is the only truly satisfying approach for the true believers. These bad programs must be repealed!

2. Poison the well. If the programs can't be repealed, additional provisions can be enacted to make the programs cumbersome or unattractive. Exemptions can be carved out for one's allies.

3. Defang administratively. Put the programs in the charge of people who will ignore the law or come up with regulations to make the programs ineffective.

4. Make lemonade. If a program can't be abolished, it can at least be privatized. One of the galling features of government agencies is that they can't make campaign contributions. However, if you turn a program over to your friends in private industry, two wonderful things happen: Your friends get to peel off a sizable bit of taxpayer money and put it into their own pocket as administrative cost and mandatory profit; and a bit of that profit will make its way back to you as campaign contributions. The idea of soaking the taxpayers to keep themselves in power is sweet nectar to the cynics. The true believers should find the idea unpleasant; they won't want to see themselves as parasites of socialism.

The depth of passion against "socialism" today means that the next time the Republicans are in power, we should expect each of the programs mentioned above to be attacked in one or more of these ways. In other words, you should vote Republican if you are comfortable saying goodbye to universal health care, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security; otherwise, you really should consider the Democrats (or some other alternative). This will be bitter for some, but it's where we seem to stand today.

How long will this mania last? We can get an idea from looking at the Democrats. A few decades ago, those on the left went comparably berserk at the mention of the word "nuclear," whether it referred to energy production or weaponry. Today there's still a strong anti-nuclear sentiment on the left, but it's no longer monolithic. True, there are still politicians who use "nuclear" as a scare word. But at least with respect to nuclear energy, a fair number of Democrats are ready to endorse new plant construction. So with respect to the "socialism" phobia, I wouldn't advise electing Republicans again until around 2030 or maybe 2040.

Third-Degree Cool

An example:

1. "There's this web site called wikipedia.org where I can find out all kinds of stuff. I'm cool."

2. "Wikipedia has all sorts of inaccuracies. I sneer at the fools who rely on it. I'm cool."

3. "Sure, Wikipedia has its flaws, but as long as I don't slavishly swallow or reflexively discount what I read, I'm cool."