• about
• flockers
• categories

January 15, 2009

Change we can taste?

Mike Steinberger (a name I don’t know which probably means he isn’t a hack) argues that with a change of Presidents should also come a change in White House wine policy (via  Stephen Schenkenberg):

Even more dismaying, though, was what Shanks revealed about the process of choosing wines for state dinners. He told McCoy that because only 55 minutes are allotted for the actual meal, it is essential that the wines served on these august occasions “have presence.” And what did he mean by “presence”? “A perfectly aged cabernet may be great in the glass,” he explained, “but it can’t stand up to the intense atmosphere of a White House state dinner. You have to have something with youth and vigor.” Delicate wines will be overlooked; only strapping, assertive ones have what it takes to be “noticed in the context of the White House experience,” as Shanks put it. In other words, the desired effect is shock and awe, achieved not with cruise missiles but fruit bombs.

We, Americans, are often accused for our simplistic palates, so Steinberger reminds us: “…the rap on us is that we only like ‘em young and obvious” (like our women?).  The counter perspective, of course, is that the European palate is sophisticated by preferring more “mellow” wines which is an idea as ridiculous as it is totalizing. Regardless, all the discussion about “shock and awe” versus the “conviviality” of mellow wines is ridiculous.  It elevates wine to a cult status, or a coporate trading card, used to impress guests either with power or sophistication. I suggest, instead, that we see wine as a useful tool to help augment and accentuate a meal or social gathering. Wine should bring joy, not prestige.