In fact, when I think of the federal government’s brand now, I think of Schlitz beer. Schlitz was once a top national brew. But, in search of short-term gains, it began gradually reducing its quality in tiny increments to save money, substituting cheaper malt, fewer hops and "accelerated" brewing for its traditional approach.
To which I can only ask: Schlitz was ever a good beer?
Further, it is odd metaphor to make his point (which is, I think, that the US government’s brand is tarnished), because a) it has been a long time since Schlitz was a major competitor, and b) when it was I don’t recall it being some sort of gold standard for beer. Indeed, my recollection from the 1970s is that it was a fairly cheap beer.
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: Beer, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
March 7th, 2024 at 7:33 pm
You need to be older. I remember 1960 with my dad before he left and Schlitz was a high class beer.
March 7th, 2024 at 8:08 pm
I can’t even hear or read “Schlitz” without recalling the ultra-hilarious Schmitt gay beer skit on SNL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWcW6_OGeDk
March 8th, 2024 at 8:12 am
Schlitz was ever a good beer?
Well, it was pretty dominant in the 1890s. You can drive around Milwaukee & Chicago and still see the famous Schlitz globe logo ensconced on taverns that the company built during the late 1890s.
It is hard to vouch for the quality, but Joseph Schlitz was undoubtedly a market leader about a century ago.
My personal favorite of the the cheap beer was Schaefer–”the one beer to have when you’re having more than one.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrRlXlbWCU
March 8th, 2024 at 8:22 am
Of course, when it comes to beer, I am a beer snob
But, in terms of metaphor, if to understand Reynold’s point one has to go to 1960 (or the 1890s), then perhaps it was a poor choice.