Popular Culture, Democrats, Policy

I'm in a hurry, so there's no hope of being creative on titling or extensive in references. Atrios (link above) refers to Amy Sullivan's response (link in Atrios) to Matthew Iglesias' response (link in Sullivan's response) to something Amy said (hellifiknow what that link is) about Democrats, popular culture, and public policy. [whew] Sullivan apparently thinks that Dems need to talk more about the broader community's concerns about the coarsening of popular culture to show how we identify with those concerns--even if there is no actual public policy solution to those concerns. A lot of folks pile on in slamming Sullivan's essay; Atrios and Iglesias essentially say that there are more important things to be talking about.

So I agree with most everything all of them are saying (even the slammers--though not with the ad hominem comments) to some extent--but not to the extent that I want to see Democratic office holders or candidates for office start using those evil Hollywood movies to distract people from the real issues that we need to be addressing in this country. The entertainment industry is, in general, a means of pacifying the masses and distracting them from those issues anyway; when we don't like the pacifier, complaining about it can also be a distraction if we use it as a way to avoid looking at the underlying problems.

What I think is that there is a lot of crap out there in movie theaters and on the airwaves. I don't watch it or listen to it--by choice. There are a few programs on television that I like to watch. Survivor I have already discussed (and wasn't last week's episode one to make you think a bit?). CSI (not the clones) is another that I like. I can pretty well tell when they are about to close in for one of the gory shots--and I literally cover my eyes so that I don't have to see it. These are "low culture" and widely dismissed as part of the "decline" of network television. On the other hand, I had little use for Frasier, which is said to be a fine show, because I just don't like wasting my time on sit-coms. I make the odd exception when I accidentally run across "King of the Hill" (I think that's its name) late at night. My car radio is tuned to either classical or oldies rock or NPR. The rest is noise. And the radio is usually off anyway. Most of the movies that we see are purchased, usually when they have been around for quite a while. We tend to like romantic comedies for joint viewing; tear-jerkers for me to see without the Prince. From this you can tell that the occasional flash of skin is not a problem, violence is. And we vote with our pocket books--to the extent that we contribute to commercial entertainment at all--to show that it's only the occasional flash of skin that is acceptable and never the violence.

There's still lots of stuff out there that we wouldn't watch or listen to willingly, but it's still there. Someone likes it. Someone is spending large amounts of money to support it. The market is voting. I don't much like their favorites. In fact, I actively disapprove of some of the things that I know are showing up on movie screens and on radio and television. I think the radical body makeovers are sickening and exploitive. I think the violent movies are disgusting. I'm not really sure how four-letter words can be musical and--while I am familiar with the F word and know how to put it to effective use--I really don't think it needs to be coming out of anyone's radio. Nonetheless, I know that to some people there is some artistic merit in this dreck. Or at least they find it entertaining. I don't see how criticizing their taste in popular culture or attacking those who provide it for them will address the underlying issues that are being met in the popular culture that they consume.

No time now to look at rap music, but let's consider for a minute the violent movies that are out there. Bruce Willis Hard Something movies. Things exploding. Bodies flying. There's probably a simple plot. Good guys versus bad guys. Good guys win, but first there's a lot of gore. The audience for this movie is more male than female. The audience is younger more than older. They're watching the movie because they've been well attracted by advertising that is geared to their demographic. They're watching the movie because there are no more attractive alternatives for their time, such as sports or family or community activities. They're watching the movie because there are fantasies of male success that cannot be fulfilled in other ways being played out on the screen.

There are precious few public policy solutions that would be effective in turning this audience away from this product. Maybe some more money to support sports or community activities would be helpful. More funds to help young folks go to college. But it's really up to the families to say what is good and valuable and what is not. The values that say it's pleasurable to watch people explode come from home, not from the movie producer.

I couldn't watch the first half of Saving Private Ryan. I believe that there were important messages in that movie. I believe that I got them. I just couldn't bear to see how all of them were portrayed. Not with my eyes. My mind knew those images from long ago. Bruce Willis has appeared in some really crappy movies. Tom Hanks has appeared in some great ones. Which ones should we censor? Which ones should Democrats complain about?

Nope. This is personal values and personal responsibility.