Once again, my poor brain found itself subjected to talk radio last weekend. I’ll spare you the debunking. I will instead focus on an issue that arose which has long troubled me: conservatives don’t understand what interests the public. This is vital to our turnaround.
I first noticed this issue in the 1990s. When Bill Clinton went on the Tonight Show, it was a brilliant move. It allowed him to connect with a part of the public that wasn’t particularly tuned in to politics but did still vote. It also let him craft an image that appealed to the public. In fact, it played into one of the most-loved of American caricatures: the loveable rogue.
Conservatives responded in unison by condemning this for lowering the office of the presidency, and they scoffed at Clinton: “Who could possibly want to see their president on a comedy show talking about his underwear? Harrumph!” Then they were upset the public “didn't get it”: “Why isn’t the public outraged? Hasn’t the public read Bill Bennett’s book on moral decay? What about Cal Thomas’s laments about the culture in which he spells God as G-d? What is wrong with people!” Then someone in the Clinton camp said that everything is political and conservatives laughed themselves silly: “Nonsense!!” I still remember Rush mocking this point for days.
See, it turns out that in conservative minds, politics lives in a box. Politics is speeches given by politicians. Politics is books written by pundits and treatises prepared by think tanks. Politics is what you get on talk radio and political talk shows. Nothing beyond that is real politics. Moreover, conservatives seem to believe that politics defines culture. Thus, Bill Clinton wasn’t reflecting the culture, he was warping it, and if only we could get rid of Bill and get people to read Bill Bennett’s book, then the culture would snap right back to Leave It To Beaver times.
That is fundamentally wrong on all points.
Books like those by Hayek or Milton Friedman are great foundations for our ideology. Reagan’s speeches are inspiring and insightful as well. But political books and speeches don’t penetrate the culture and they certainly don’t move the needle on culture. You could pass out every book written by Thomas Sowell or Bill Bennett or Glenn Beck’s monkey to every American, and not a thing would change... the public doesn’t work that way.
Culture is as the public defines it. They define it through their opinions about a vast array of topics. And their opinions drift according to any number of events. Movies make something seem more or less scary. An event occurs that shocks people. Wall Street inspired people to become stockbrokers and to get rich; Oliver Stone laments this. Close Encounters made belief in aliens acceptable to the mainstream. Walt Disney redefined American history through his television shows. Dirty Harry gave voice to the public’s desire to undo the liberalism put into the criminal justice system... no political book or speech did that, a movie did. All those monogamous, happy gay characters on television made people comfortable with gays. Rosa Parks exposed the perversion of Southern racism. The person in Tiananmen Square showed that dictatorships are helpless against a good cause. Rick Santelli’s rant about a second Tea Party was just a commentary on a financial show. A crying Indian taught us not to litter. Smokey and the Bandit taught us to embrace the New South, and country music did the rest. This is what really changes culture. Culture is changed by these lightening-in-a-bottle moments where someone does something that gives the public a chance to say they changed their minds. And here’s the key point: it’s almost never politics that causes those lightening-in-a-bottle moments!
This is something conservatives need to learn. Too many conservatives blind themselves to the culture because they wrongly think culture is a byproduct of politics. It’s not. The reverse is true: culture drives politics. And the only way to change culture is to engage it on its own terms... to start offering our own works for people to latch onto and be inspired by.
This was the point to my Fifty Shades article awhile back. Conservatives want to dismiss that book and the buzz around it as “just perverted porn.” But in so doing, they completely miss what is really going on. That book has been the catalyst which has let women everywhere declare that they are done with the peer pressure feminists have imposed that required them to compete with men. Conservatives missed this because they don’t grasp that people change the culture outside the political process. And since this book wasn’t written with a political purpose, they don’t grasp that it can lead to a political change. But it can. I guarantee you that Fifty Shades has broken feminism in ways that a million books by Bill Bennett or Christina Hoff Sommers never could have. Likewise, Kim Kardashian can sway more voters than all the talk radio hosts combined. One powerful movie about leftist hypocrisy would do more to break the left’s claim of moral superiority than every treatise or book written by every pundit, think tank or historian. Lament it all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that this is how it happens.
And there’s more. There are opportunities that conservatives completely miss because they have intentionally blinded themselves on this issue. Take the issue of rap music. Say “rap music” to a conservative and the results get pretty ugly and insulting. More to the point though, none of them will grasp that rap music represents an opening for conservatives: “What? How could it? It’s just rude black people being anti-cop!” No, it’s not.
Rap music should be siren song to conservatives. Not only does it tell us that young black males can be reached, but it tells us how to reach them. Rap is about independence. It’s about reclaiming manhood that has been stripped away by social workers and fathers who vanished into jails or welfare. It glorifies wealth and success. These are all things conservatives claim to support, and here are blacks listening to music that treats these things as the very thing they want. You couldn’t have a better roadmap for how to reach blacks. But conservatives can’t see this because they can’t get over the fact they don’t like it themselves and because they can’t understand what rap music has to do with politics.... it doesn’t fit in the box... “We need to get them to read Bill Bennett’s book about the effect of single-parenthood!” Yeah, right.
Not only do we, as conservatives, need to start embracing the culture on its own terms by writing songs and films and books that push our values without being political, but we need to learn to recognize trends and opportunities when they appear. More people pay attention to the issues surrounding black quarterbacks than the Voting Rights Act. The left uses black quarterbacks to talk about discrimination. How about using it to talk about the end of discrimination and that this was achieved through individual skill rather than affirmative action?
Rather than condemning the buzz around Fifty Shades as “perverted women reading porn,” how about pointing out the feminist war on women and demanding that women be given a real choice, including the choice not to compete with men? Harry Potter was written by a leftist, but why not embrace the books as highlighting the dangers of large, strong, invasive government? Why not tell blacks that we hear what they are saying in rap and that if they want independence... if they want success... if they want the good life... if they want to claim their manhood, then we’re the only ones offering that with our message of economic and personal freedom. You’re never gonna be a man with Uncle Sam wiping your ass.
This is how we win back the public: we grasp what they are thinking about and we talk to them on their terms. Forget hoping that another book by another talk radio host will finally save conservatism.
I first noticed this issue in the 1990s. When Bill Clinton went on the Tonight Show, it was a brilliant move. It allowed him to connect with a part of the public that wasn’t particularly tuned in to politics but did still vote. It also let him craft an image that appealed to the public. In fact, it played into one of the most-loved of American caricatures: the loveable rogue.
Conservatives responded in unison by condemning this for lowering the office of the presidency, and they scoffed at Clinton: “Who could possibly want to see their president on a comedy show talking about his underwear? Harrumph!” Then they were upset the public “didn't get it”: “Why isn’t the public outraged? Hasn’t the public read Bill Bennett’s book on moral decay? What about Cal Thomas’s laments about the culture in which he spells God as G-d? What is wrong with people!” Then someone in the Clinton camp said that everything is political and conservatives laughed themselves silly: “Nonsense!!” I still remember Rush mocking this point for days.
See, it turns out that in conservative minds, politics lives in a box. Politics is speeches given by politicians. Politics is books written by pundits and treatises prepared by think tanks. Politics is what you get on talk radio and political talk shows. Nothing beyond that is real politics. Moreover, conservatives seem to believe that politics defines culture. Thus, Bill Clinton wasn’t reflecting the culture, he was warping it, and if only we could get rid of Bill and get people to read Bill Bennett’s book, then the culture would snap right back to Leave It To Beaver times.
That is fundamentally wrong on all points.
Books like those by Hayek or Milton Friedman are great foundations for our ideology. Reagan’s speeches are inspiring and insightful as well. But political books and speeches don’t penetrate the culture and they certainly don’t move the needle on culture. You could pass out every book written by Thomas Sowell or Bill Bennett or Glenn Beck’s monkey to every American, and not a thing would change... the public doesn’t work that way.
Culture is as the public defines it. They define it through their opinions about a vast array of topics. And their opinions drift according to any number of events. Movies make something seem more or less scary. An event occurs that shocks people. Wall Street inspired people to become stockbrokers and to get rich; Oliver Stone laments this. Close Encounters made belief in aliens acceptable to the mainstream. Walt Disney redefined American history through his television shows. Dirty Harry gave voice to the public’s desire to undo the liberalism put into the criminal justice system... no political book or speech did that, a movie did. All those monogamous, happy gay characters on television made people comfortable with gays. Rosa Parks exposed the perversion of Southern racism. The person in Tiananmen Square showed that dictatorships are helpless against a good cause. Rick Santelli’s rant about a second Tea Party was just a commentary on a financial show. A crying Indian taught us not to litter. Smokey and the Bandit taught us to embrace the New South, and country music did the rest. This is what really changes culture. Culture is changed by these lightening-in-a-bottle moments where someone does something that gives the public a chance to say they changed their minds. And here’s the key point: it’s almost never politics that causes those lightening-in-a-bottle moments!
This is something conservatives need to learn. Too many conservatives blind themselves to the culture because they wrongly think culture is a byproduct of politics. It’s not. The reverse is true: culture drives politics. And the only way to change culture is to engage it on its own terms... to start offering our own works for people to latch onto and be inspired by.
This was the point to my Fifty Shades article awhile back. Conservatives want to dismiss that book and the buzz around it as “just perverted porn.” But in so doing, they completely miss what is really going on. That book has been the catalyst which has let women everywhere declare that they are done with the peer pressure feminists have imposed that required them to compete with men. Conservatives missed this because they don’t grasp that people change the culture outside the political process. And since this book wasn’t written with a political purpose, they don’t grasp that it can lead to a political change. But it can. I guarantee you that Fifty Shades has broken feminism in ways that a million books by Bill Bennett or Christina Hoff Sommers never could have. Likewise, Kim Kardashian can sway more voters than all the talk radio hosts combined. One powerful movie about leftist hypocrisy would do more to break the left’s claim of moral superiority than every treatise or book written by every pundit, think tank or historian. Lament it all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that this is how it happens.
And there’s more. There are opportunities that conservatives completely miss because they have intentionally blinded themselves on this issue. Take the issue of rap music. Say “rap music” to a conservative and the results get pretty ugly and insulting. More to the point though, none of them will grasp that rap music represents an opening for conservatives: “What? How could it? It’s just rude black people being anti-cop!” No, it’s not.
Rap music should be siren song to conservatives. Not only does it tell us that young black males can be reached, but it tells us how to reach them. Rap is about independence. It’s about reclaiming manhood that has been stripped away by social workers and fathers who vanished into jails or welfare. It glorifies wealth and success. These are all things conservatives claim to support, and here are blacks listening to music that treats these things as the very thing they want. You couldn’t have a better roadmap for how to reach blacks. But conservatives can’t see this because they can’t get over the fact they don’t like it themselves and because they can’t understand what rap music has to do with politics.... it doesn’t fit in the box... “We need to get them to read Bill Bennett’s book about the effect of single-parenthood!” Yeah, right.
Not only do we, as conservatives, need to start embracing the culture on its own terms by writing songs and films and books that push our values without being political, but we need to learn to recognize trends and opportunities when they appear. More people pay attention to the issues surrounding black quarterbacks than the Voting Rights Act. The left uses black quarterbacks to talk about discrimination. How about using it to talk about the end of discrimination and that this was achieved through individual skill rather than affirmative action?
Rather than condemning the buzz around Fifty Shades as “perverted women reading porn,” how about pointing out the feminist war on women and demanding that women be given a real choice, including the choice not to compete with men? Harry Potter was written by a leftist, but why not embrace the books as highlighting the dangers of large, strong, invasive government? Why not tell blacks that we hear what they are saying in rap and that if they want independence... if they want success... if they want the good life... if they want to claim their manhood, then we’re the only ones offering that with our message of economic and personal freedom. You’re never gonna be a man with Uncle Sam wiping your ass.
This is how we win back the public: we grasp what they are thinking about and we talk to them on their terms. Forget hoping that another book by another talk radio host will finally save conservatism.
83 comments:
I agree. Many black men are actually quite conservative. The problem is they don't vote.
I still don't get the draw behind Duck Dynasty.
Koshcat, That is a total mystery to me. 11 million people tuned in to the premier. I don't understand that at all. Perhaps it's a sign of the apocalypse? LOL!
Anyways, it's interesting to me how many conservative positions the blacks I've met hold, they just don't realize that they are conservative positions. I think we need to get better at spotting these things and seeing them as opportunities to engage people who don't normally vote for us.
I think we need to do this all across the board. We need to look for issues outside the political realm that help us connect with people.
"Harry Potter was written by a leftist, but why not embrace the books as highlighting the dangers of large, strong, invasive government?"
Funny, that is how I always read the book. I think of Joss Whedon the same way. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer they should the government to inept during season 4 with the Initiative and then came the show Firefly which all about personal liberty and the overbearing and intrusive big government.
And yet, they then advocate for Big Government in real life.
Shawn, That's the problem of not participating in the debate. Since conservatives ignore these things, the left is free to spin them however they want. Thus, anything bad becomes about conservatives and anything good becomes about leftists no matter how it plays out in the real world.
All it takes to change that is an ability to connect the ideologies to how they really behave and a willingness to see these opportunities to engage in the discussion. And I don't mean have politicians go racing in like blowhards, but use a lighter, snarkier touch which makes it impossible for the left to sustain their hypocrisy. Poke fun at their hypocrisy, point out how they behave like the bad guys. Then encourage millions of conservatives to start talking to their friends about these things and spinning them the right way: "Oh, you read Harry Potter? Isn't it interesting how incompetent their government is and how great the private sector is." No ranting or raving, but a light touch that doesn't seem political but is.
We also need to learn to hijack things more often. Reagan did it all the time. Look at Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA." That's a truly anti-American song. It talks about how rotten and evil and racist the US is... yet, Reagan neutered it and stole the hook and turned it into a patriotic anthem.
And then sometimes you do blast away on the hypocrisy. "You claim to be an environmentalist, yet you own three homes, five cars and you fly around the world for vacations? Liar." "You claim to hate guns, yet you push gun violence as a solution in all your films. What credibility do you have?"
We can control the culture, but we need to get out into it to make that happen.
Andrew:One powerful movie about leftist hypocrisy would do more to break the left’s claim of moral superiority than every treatise or book written by every pundit, think tank or historian.
I have to disagree. Before David Mamet declared he was a conservative, he had partial screen credit for "Wag the Dog", a perfect shot at the Clinton administration and their sappy media enablers. The effect could be characterized as "mouse fart in a hurricane". The term has even entered the political vocabulary, but it's effect on politics has been obvious nill. In fact the effect has gotten much worse.
I can see your overall point Andrew, but I don't see the likes of Boehner, Ryan, Christie or any other Republican having that kind of media credit. What you need is someone outside the party who can run a separate but powerful media operation.
The guy who originally made the Dems sexy was Hugh Hefner. I'm not seeing someone even remotely like that leading the country's youth towards freedom.
K, That's actually my point. When conservatives think about politics, they say, "Which of our leaders should address this." My point is that that kind of thinking is useless... we all need to do it.
Politics cannot shape culture. Culture is shaped by the people participating in it. Culture then drives politics. And culture is shaped by millions of people doing things like writing books, making films, releasing songs, etc. It's shaped by millions of people all talking about the same thing and sharing their opinions about what should or should not be. And they don't care what Rush or Clinton or Sowell or Obama says... they care what everyone else says and what the consensus is.
Unfortunately, right now, conservatives are largely absent from that by their own choice. And when they aren't, they fail to grasp the political implications. That needs to change.
You would be stunned by how many conservatives out there never bring up politics with their friends because they've been taught "never talk politics or religion," even as their liberal friends pound away with their views.
And look at the number of conservatives who simply can't see the political implications of anything that isn't defined as political.
Also look at the way conservatives respond to things like Hollywood or rap music. Tons of disdain, followed by dismissive behavior... "I don't like it, so I'm going to ignore it." How does that help to take yourself and your views out of the discussion?
And ask yourself how many conservatives you think would ever encourage someone to work in "culture industries." I've had a bit of insight on that because I've written some books and I've spoken with some of the original people at BH who actually worked in Hollywood. Their experience is identical to mine. The conservatives they knew poo pooed the idea of doing anything creative and then actively avoided supporting it. The liberals they knew not only enthusiastically encouraged them to do it, they supported them despite their ideological differences.
Conservatives have a real hangup when it comes to culture and it's killing us politically. And to hear Mark Levin's shill bragging that his new book would win the public over made me shake my head. That's a pipe dream.
By the way, as for Wag The Dog: (1) that point was hyperbole, of course it takes more than one film to change anything... but one film is still better than all the political books you can think of, (2) Wag the Dog wasn't a good movie, (3) Wag the Dog wasn't a believable movie to the public... outside of the far left and the far right who are both deeply paranoid, no one believes the premise, and (4) Wag the Dog was at best a single issue film based on fantasy.
Genuine social commentary and satire require a basis in fact.
The downside to all this, and I've kinda mentioned it before, is the over-politicization of everything... right-wingers pointing out how X can't possibly be conservative because it was written by Y, and left-wingers writing bizarre essays like "Deconstructing Post-Modernist Themes in My Little Pony." (That was an exaggeration, but only slightly!)
Both sides are ruining it for the rest of us. A cigar can't be a cigar anymore. Everything has to... mean something.
And this is also one area where some socons need to realize they may have lost the battle. Yes, you can have a movie that's conservative AND rated R. And sorry Ben Shapiro, but The Big Bang Theory isn't gonna ruin Western civilization because the characters have pre-marital sex.
(It'll ruin civilization because it's not funny!) :-)
(I realize that when he points out things like that, it's more the collective effect and not the individual show.)
And re: your point about the BH folks who work in Hollywood, you also need more conservative parents encouraging their kids' artistic endeavors. Don't be afraid to send them to art school, or film school, etc.
Oops, that should read "showed the government to be inept".
I agree with Andrew and ScottDS in that conservatives need to engage in Hollywood and make movies that are entertaining first, and have conservative values second.
If you are old enough to remember tv and movies in the 70s (or have watched nickelodeon in the 90s) then you know that gays were considered aberrant. But thanks to years and years of tv and movies showing them and "regular" people Hollywood normalized the behavior and helped bring about acceptance from the U.S. population at large.
I think Bill Cosby made some nice headway with race relations in the 80s with the Cosby show showing that Black people could be smart, funny and not a bunch of thugs and criminals.
I also think that a lot of that good will was pissed away by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Hollywood showing villians as being the evil, white conservative.
Andrew.....Your Star Trek original series deconstruction articles are a great example of finding a conservative point of view in what was considered the ultimate "one world" government society.
"Wag the Dog" is an example what not to do. Yes, it sort of attacks Clinton (so did Primary Colors, by the way) but it is an overtly political film. It is dark and bitter, more a tirade than a good story. That doesn´t work.
I generally like Mamets work (House of Games, The Spanish Prisoner) but Wag the Dog is the sort of film an anti-American Turk or a left-wing German would buy lock stock and barrel. It has the same audience a Michael Moore film has. It didn´t improve our culture, it besmirched it. Conservatives should feel insulted by it no different than the anti-Iraq epics that failed during the Bush years.
Now look at Firefly / Serenity, which is conservative, even downright Reaganite no matter what Whedon thinks. The point is not that Whedon, who I suspect is highly confused and wouldn´t last five minutes explaining his politics to me, is an Obama drone. The point is that Firefly makes you feel in your gut what is precious about liberty and swimming against the tide. It works because it is funny and romantic and you love being with the characters.
To this point; I worked on some advertising for a candidate (last year) that thought it would be more effective if he went door-to-door giving away copies of his book, rather than taking that money and putting it into TV and radio. Needless to say the airwaves were flooded with his opponent's accusations - and the candidate didn't have any money to respond.
This is one of the reasons I think if Republicans are ever going to win the big seats - they need to throw out the bums at the top of the party - maybe a little revolution would be a good thing. :)
I'm surprised the ultimate American culture changer didn't make the list: Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. Lincoln reportedly credited it with starting the Civil War.
I think Duck Dynasty has the same appeal as Smoky and the Bandit did in the 70s and 80s. Americans are once again very receptive to positive portrayals of Southern culture. (In this case, it's also mixed with entrepreneurialism, bunking the dirt poor hick stereotype.)
Things like Duck Dynasty and NASCAR are the reasons why Americans have collectively shrugged over SCOTUS's decision on the VRA. Willie Robertson and Dale Jr. are not hood-sporting racists.
And the panic from the left is palpable. They crucified one of their own, Paula Deen (yes, big-time Dem supporter) over it. The film The Butler, while probably a fine film--I haven't seen it yet--certainly wouldn't be receiving such lavish praise if the critics and pundits didn't think it could revive fears of racism. (Incidentally, it's also been criticized for being too optimistic about race relations.)
But the cultural zeitgeist is getting fed-up with victimology. If one wonders about the success of The Big Bang Theory, it probably has something to do with the way it satirizes navigating the turbulent PC currents through the experiences of its socially inept protagonists.
I tend to go along with Scott in this debate. I get what you're saying, Andrew, and agree with a lot of your points, but I think the problem conservatives have engaging politics in this manner is due to the fact that we reflexively don't want the political to be personal and liberals do. (That's why a liberal friendship is no big deal to us, but a conservative friendship is a very big deal - to the point of being considered immoral - to them).
Conservatives want relief from politics and we delegate it to a minority status in our engagement of life. We keep it like a Mogwai in a box, careful to keep it dry and unfed after midnight.
So, since liberals have been working assiduously to infuse all aspects of our social life with politics (achieving great successes in the past two generations), conservatives have been several steps behind at every stage because bandying politics in religious, social, leisure and work environments is uncouth and sometimes rude.
But, as you point out, Andrew, the Mogwai is out of the box. Our only recourse is to engage, but I think it's against our natural inclinations, so this will be one hard slog.
Btw, Duck Dynasty is awesome. Here's why: no matter how goofy these guys act, they are real men married to strong women embracing a well founded faith. How often do we see that?
Well, we see it on the actual (kinda) "reality" shows, like Deadly Catch, Ice Road Truckers, Swamp People, Dirty Jobs, etc. These shows are popular because they're the anti-hollywood. They show real people with big challenges and those people get treated with respect. They're not the stereotypical charactures or cartoons that hollywood throws at us - they're the vaccine for the very illiness we're discussing.
Now I'm going out and by me a camo ballcap at Bass Pro Shop.
KRS, the only thing wrong with your comment to Andrew is that everything always was political and conservatives at some point made the mistake of thinking it could be otherwise. Liberals didn't do it. The Mogwai came out of Pandora's Box, and that was opened a long, long time ago.
I think the problem nowadays isn't that conservatives don't recognize the importance of culture, its that most don't know how to engage it.
For example, iconic actor Clint Eastwood was invited to the RNC and rather than ask him to make a commercial or something (as Obama did), they had him give a speech.
Angry old man yelling at an empty chair went over fine with the convention delegates, but it didn't impress much anyone else and kind of drown out Romney's speech.
I think a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle have a poor understanding of what it takes to reach people. People can get sermons for free and most of them find sermons boring, so a movie that promises to make one a believer (or a disbeliever) is probably going to be a movie most people steer clear of.
Also, bending someone else's works to one's own purposes was probably a lot easier in the pre-internet age (before they could instantly respond). I'm not saying it can't be done, but its trickier when the creator is arguing against your interpretation (and their lawyer is maybe sending you cease and desist letters).
Well, I know one book by a pundit that changed the world. Al Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot".
It got Franken elected to the Senate and he was the vote that got Obamacare over the 60 vote hurtle. :(
Conservative pundit books? Not so much.
Scott, It'll ruin civilization because it's not funny! LOL! So so true.
Let me first say that I agree with you that this does suck. It would be nice if people weren't always politicizing things. BUT... they are. And if conservatives don't fight back, then they lose by default and they lose big.
Secondly, let me say that the issue I'm talking about here isn't a Religious Right problem per se, it's a conservative problem. Almost across the board, conservatives deride and dismiss the culture rather than engaging in it... "Rap music, yuck. Hollyweird, who cares about them. Why do you want to be an actor/writer?" They discourage other conservatives from going into it. They don't support conservatives. They dismiss and ignore things they should be seeing as political opportunities, like Fifty Shades and Rap, because they don't like them personally or don't understand the opportunity.
Conservatives need to open their minds to the world outside the box of politicians and engage their friends, their family, their neighbors, the people they speak with on the net, etc. about everything outside of politics that is political. They need to watch for opportunities that can be exploited. A dozen conservative thinkers should have been running with the Fifty Shades or Rap issues and telling women and blacks... "Hey, we hear you, we're on your side and here's how." A million conservative women should have been in that debate saying, "This is why I don't like feminists... they want to tell me what I can and cannot do." They should be sending their kids into these professions too. Movies in particular define the culture, we need more conservatives working in film.
Shawn, I agree.
On gays, what's even more interesting is that monogamy is not a gay male trait. They are infamous for having many, random partners and not settling down. Yet, what does Hollywood show? It shows gay males (lesbians don't exist on television) and it shows them as likeable, harmless, monogamous people. Essentially, they presented a false image which made people comfortable with them.
Cosby was a great example of how television helped to make whites comfortable with blacks after the turbulent race relations stuff of the 1970s. And while Jesse Jackson was busy setting the cause of acceptance back a generation, television and sports were making people comfortable with the idea. I would say television won out.
Culture can absolutely define things and shape opinions. We should be out there making great movies and books that just happen to include our values and the things we believe... not in an overbearing political way, but as common themes throughout films. Conservative values are consistent with fantastic story telling. We should be using those.
Patriot, Exactly! Now imagine a hundred television shows or two dozen films a year which come across as just Sci-Fi or drama or cop show, but which use the same kind of ideological foundation to teach people conservative values at a fundamental level while appearing just to be entertainment.
Imagine the next time a Democrat says, "We need to tax the rich!" and the first thing people think about are all those movies where someone tried that and it blew up on them.
El Gordo, Agreed.
Wag the Dog came across as a bitter, conspiratorial, anti-American politicized film. It is exactly the kind of thing Michael Moore did with Fahrenheit 911. Being seen as political, a film like that has no chance of influencing the general public because they automatically put up their ideology filters and see it as trying to sell them something.
Now compare that to Three Days of the Condor, which feels like fiction and comes across as just a great film... but leaves you with a plausible belief that the CIA is out there toppling countries. That's a much stronger film that Wag The Dog precisely because it pretends it's not being political, even as it is.
Totally agree about Firefly. I don't think that what the author intended matters, what matters is what comes across to the public. And that show has caught conservative/libertarian attentions precisely because it screams "individuals standing up for freedom against an oppressive federal government."
Kenn, The problem isn't just at the top, it's a mindset.
Think back on Big Hollywood. People would write about something conservative in Hollywood and they would be flooded with three times of people: (1) almost immediately you got the "Hollywood is a cesspool, we don't need them... let's all live in a cave" comments; (2) then came the "We need to focus on Obama and a film isn't going to do that!"; and (3) then came the "This is just a film, you are reading too much into it" crowd. They were always there competing with those who actually grasps the point that we need to engage.
Think about talk radio. Spend some time listening critically and you will hear them denigrate anything they don't approve of, including going into professions like journalism, writing, Hollywood and law... the culture shaping professions.
Then think about your candidate and realize that he's no different than thousand of others making the same decisions. The Republicans are constantly behind the innovation ball because they don't think outside the box. They are obsessed with remaking the box every time, and the only way they grow is box is when liberals do it for them first.
Conservatives tend to be dismissive of things they don't personally like ("Why would anyone like rap music?"). Because of this, they think they can win people over using only the techniques that would appeal to them. Thus, I will hand out my book and ignore the fact that only 1% of voters will read it. I will count on Mark Levin or Bill Bennett to change the culture and ignore the culture machine in Hollywood and Madison Avenue, because that's who I listen to. Etc.
We need to open our minds to the rest of the public and pay attention to what makes them tick. They like sitcoms. They like television. They don't read political books. They watch sports. And they talk politics/culture during all of this, just not as obviously or as openly. We need to see that and join in.
tryanmax, Yep. Add Uncle Tom's Cabin to the list.
What you say is exactly right. Things like NASCAR and Smokey and the Bandit and football etc., which show blacks and whites living side by side or cheering for each other and which show the South as modern and non-racial, have gone a LONG way to breaking the idea that it's still the Jim Crow South. I think that makes it impossible for the left to maintain the idea that blacks are one Republican election away from a return to slavery.
Again, no amount of conservative political books caused that and no amount of liberal political books can undo that. It's all driven by the public seeing these things and saying either "Yeah, that's not what I thought" or "Whoa! Nothing has changed." That's why I think the left pushes things like Zimmerman/Martin whenever they happen in the South (but not generally in the North), because they want to sell the idea that the South is still racist. But the culture doesn't seem to accept that anymore.
As for Deen, the left is never above sacrificing their own when there is a point to be made. And the idea of presenting a modern, southern businesswoman as an open bigot was probably just too tempting to pass up.
On Big Bang, there is a lot of evidence that political correctness is losing its power. I don't know if Big Bang is contributing to that as I don't watch it, but that is entirely possible. If so, then that is precisely the kind of thing conservatives should be talking about with fans of the show.
KRS, It does go against our instincts, but we need to get over that. I can point out issue after issue where I've seen the public's opinion drift left over the years and films have been the ones pushing it. The longer conservatives wait to get into the fight, the worse the damage will be.
That said, I think the idea that this goes against our natural instincts is of recent vintage. When you look at history, conservatives have been involved just as much as liberals in culture. It's only been since maybe the 1970s that that began to change. In fact, if you look at old Hollywood, you will see that a vast number of the biggest stars were openly Republican. They supported Republican candidates, they sponsored Republican causes, they included conservative messages in films. People like John Wayne and Howard Hawks specifically made films to counter liberal films. They turned down roles they thought were immoral or demanded changes. Clint Eastwood and John Milius made Dirty Harry as a political statement.
Conservative and liberal authors competed for hundreds of year. And if you go even further back, look at Fairy Tales. They serve up conservative values on a plate to kid. The left hates them for that very reason. Our whole history, conservatives have pushed their values into the culture and fought the fight. It's only been in the last couple decades that we've gone the other way and abandoned the institutions that create culture.
KRS, LOL! I loved Dirty Jobs. What a great look at the people who make America run every day. And I was definitely enthralled by Ice Road Truckers. Duck Dynasty hasn't done it for me, but clearly it works for a lot of people. So more power to them!
tryanmax, I agree. Everything has always been political and conservatives used to realize that. I think the turning point happened somewhere in the late 1970s or early 1980s. That's when conservative actors, directors and authors started to go underground about their beliefs. That's also when you started to hear a lot of disdain on the right for professions like law and journalism... perhaps a response to Watergate and then-recent Supreme Court decisions? By the 1990s, it was common to hear conservatives denigrate actors, Hollywood and writers.
That's what Breitbart wanted to fix. And while I think he did great when he started, his death changed everything. By now, Breitbart actually goes the other way and pushed the "culture is a cesspool, stay away" line.
Andrew, I honestly think the points you make about old Hollywood could be used in support of my position. In old Hollywood, conservatives could feel comfortable with political sponsorship - keeping Mogwai in the box dosen't mean we don't address politics, we do, we just keep it in it's place.
Conservatives could express political views because the politics wasn't personal and they didn't pay a social cost. Today, I'm sure you will agree, there are heavy social, personal and professional costs to be paid when 'coming out' conservative in Hollywood. I don't think we left: we were driven out.
As to old Hollywood conservative messages, I think the principles expressed were mostly just commonly held American culture messages, so their existence is expected. Many of those messages were also embraced by the predecessors of today's liberals who damn them. That's not to say there weren't liberal and progressive social messaging, but just that it was all taken as fair play.
I remember having robust debates in my youth with people of all opinions, and it was all good fun, but the Vietnam era seemed to change that. When I went to college, I went as a liberal, but I rapidly found my fellow liberals to be an intolerant, hateful bunch, almost to a man and woman. That is what actually drove me to check out conservatism - I figured if my beliefs were shared by such awful people, a serious self assessment was required. I was right, and a better man for it.
Btw, Ducks rule!
Andrew, Please check out Swamp People. They're alligator hunters in Louisiana and a bit rough, but I have not seen a more charming group of toughs.
Also, despite my log post, I agree with you that we have to find a way to engage the culture. The foundational principle will always be good storytelling.
And maybe a secret identity.
Anthony, I think the problem is fourfold.
1. A big chunk of the conservative world simply wants nothing to do with the culture. They hate it and they wish it would go away. They are the ones who think that it is the responsibility of politicians to change the culture.
As an aside, I met many of these people on Capitol Hill in the 1990s. They were staffers and they would sit around and brag about not having televisions ("pure filth"), not paying attention to sports ("unimportant to the country"), and not reading "fluff." Basically, they read only Hayek, the Bible, Sowell, and biographies of famous politicians. And yet, they felt qualified to speak on behalf of Americans about what Americans "really want." Is it any wonder these people are clueless?
2. A vast number of conservatives are incapable of connecting political points with non-political events. These are the people who don't understand that the argument about black quarterbacks is a national debate about race, that rap tells us something about how to reach young black males, or that movies can sway public opinion. They can spot open liberal bias, but they can't spot anything subtle.
3. Those that do get these things typically don't know how to engage because they've been told over and over "don't talk politics in mixed company."
I have a funny story on this. I had a conservative secretary who had four friends who would get together for lunch every week. One of them was a liberal and just went on and on and on about her views. The others said nothing. My secretary was annoyed at the liberal. I asked what the others are. She said she didn't know because none of them had said. I said, "Why don't you speak up and see what happens?"
One day, she did. Lo and behold, they others were conservatives who had been taught not to speak about politics, so they let this liberal push them around. When she started speaking, they joined right in and the liberal shut up. From that point forward, the liberal stopped talking politics.
4. There is a strong element in the conservative mindset which gets conservatives to tell others not to go into the culture industry and which keeps them from supporting other conservatives.
Those are the problems we need to overcome.
K, Minnesotans electing a liberal has nothing to do with a book. It has to do with them all being liberals.
Andrew.....I like the point of 'inadvertent' conservative thought in popular films. One of the best examples of this was in "A Few Good Men." Rob Reiner, who would proudly wear the title of Hollywood's most democrat friendly director, had no idea what he was doing when he had Col. Jessup on the stand, articulating what it is about the warrior ethos and code that Marines live by. Just look at these lines coming from one of the most leftists directors ever, in a movie meant to show the lunacy of the USMC:
Col. Jessep: "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
KRS, I've always been conservative, but I never thought of liberals as bad people until I saw the way they treated Reagan. That told me all I needed to know about their good faith, and they've continue to prove their lack of good faith year after year since.
On driving conservatives out of Hollywood, as counter-factual as this may sound, I think that might not be true. In all the times people have spoken about conservatives being blacklisted, they've never been able to name a single one... just rumors of some D-list actor claiming he never got a call back because he insulted some liberal icon. Moreover, there are well-known conservative stars and producers today. One of the most successful producers, Jerry Bruckheimer, is a conservative, and I can name about three-dozen "named" actors.
I think the real problem is that conservatives stopped going to Hollywood, and thereby reduced their own numbers, stopped helping each other out, and stopped talking about their beliefs.
And I attribute that last part to several factors. For one thing, it is easier not to speak up when you are in the minority. For another, conservatives do tend to believe that you don't talk politics in mixed company. For another, it's become clear to me that being openly political in Hollywood can hurt your career -- no matter which way you go. So it makes sense to hide your ideology. And fourth, I've spoken to a lot of BH people by now and seen this myself: conservatives don't support conservatives.
So if you announce yourself as a conservative actor/writer, you will lose the ideological liberals, you will lose the part of the general audience that doesn't want to hear politics, and you will not gain any conservative support... in fact, conservatives typically hold other conservatives to a higher standard than they hold liberals. So why do it?
On old Hollywood, by the way, there were fierce ideological battles with enemy camps and everything. And both sides made highly ideological films. Most of those ended up being a waste, but some are classics now.
I'll check out Swamp People. For some reason I thought that was a logging show, which I didn't really like.
Patriot, I laughed my butt off about that scene when I saw the film. It was obvious that Reiner wanted the audience to see this as "insane," like Gen. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove attributing his impotence to Soviet trickery. But I knew right away that the vast majority of the public who saw that film would side with Jessep because he's right. He's not right about the killing, but he's right about all the rest of it... the part we're supposed to see as insane.
Liberals struggle with propaganda because good storytelling is inconsistent with the points they want to make.
Andrew, Easy mistake, because there is a Swamp Loggers, and I didn't last past one episode of it either.
Here's a link to Swamp People. The first season is on Netflix.
http://www.history.com/shows/swamp-people/episodes
Apropos of little: Don't forget that in the 90s it was Tipper Gore leading the charge against rap music. She's a big part of why those "Parental Advisory" stickers on CDs even exist. And being a teen in the 90s, I can tell you that there was nothing "cool" about the Democrat party in the minds of me and my friends. But the thing is, the Dems weren't tone-deaf about it. They were able to tap into a real concern parents at the time had and capitalize on it. Once they took it as far as they could go, which was not all that far, they dropped it. Republicans, late to the game on that as with everything, haven't let it go, yet.
Thanks KRS, I'll check it out.
"conservatives don't support conservatives."
Unless its a crappy, sub-par Christian film (cough-Left Behind-cough).
tryanmax, The Democrats have long led the charge into stupid nannyism. But they are typically smart enough just to extract the benefit of being seen to "do something" and then they run away and pick and choose which parts they will claim credit for and which they will try to blame on the Republicans... i.e. they put their finger in the wind and only claim the things the public likes.
... violent lyrics, Amber alerts, sex offender registries, seat belts, helmet laws, 16 oz. drinks, etc. etc. etc.
Unfortunately, Republicans get on-board with these things ("for the children") and then run with them obsessively even as the public turns against them.
I just read a fascinating interview with Camile Paglia in which she talks about porn. She notes that 60's feminists were puritanical and they opposed sex. They teamed with the Religious Right in the 1980s to get porn banned from convenience stores and the such... I actually still remember this alliance in the 1990s trying to zone dirty book stores out of existence in Virginia.
Well, she notes, the internet has blown that plan away as porn is now much more widely available and both men and women are embracing it. In fact, she correctly notes that it would be impossible to regulate it or stop it now. This, she says, has resulted in a shift in feminism where the puritanical group was put out to pasture and pro-sex feminists took over.
She does not talk about what happened with the Religious Right, because that wasn't the point to the discussion, but note that in 2012 a big push on the Republican platform committee was to censor the internet to stop porn... an impossible task that the public opposes.
That's a real difference. Liberals are quick to embrace what the public wants, at least rhetorically but typically in other ways too. Conservatives keep on trying to force ideas upon the public, even when they simply can't work.
In effect, liberals are half-assed nannies and too many conservatives are strict nannies... when the public doesn't want a nanny at all. But the liberals are smart enough to bail out once the public turns against them.
All very, very true, AP. Sadly, in all my dealings with far too many in the conservative world for the last decade, far too few of them understand the right’s role in shaping the culture, not the other way around … and the ones who do get it are usually too uninterested in making an investment in the bands or actors/writers/directors who are willing to put their products out there. Even worse, the entertainers they choose to support are usually ones who write lowest common denominator, pound you over the head “rah-rah America” dreck.
Andrew Breitbart got it, though, and while he’s missed on many levels, it’s his embrace of wanting to steer the entertainment culture instead of allowing the left to exclusively peddle their moral decay products which I miss the most.
AlfonZo Rachel gets it, too, and I encourage anyone who digs rock and roll with a solid, but non-brow-beating, conservative message to check out his band 20lb Sledge.
Fun political tunes in the Army You Have catalog, too.
Kit, I think that religious people supporting religious films is a different issue than conservatives supporting conservatism. That's more akin to conservatives buying books on conservatism.
I'm talking about other aspects of this. For example, things I've seen (and heard) involve (1) conservatives discouraging the idea of going into the cultural industry at all, (2) being dismissive and disinterested in the works of conservatives, (3) avoiding the works of known conservatives, (4) refusing to "help out" by doing things like buying tickets, leaving reviews, spreading the word, and (5) holding conservatives to a much higher standard than they hold liberals.
These are all very common complaints I've heard and I've seen it myself as well.
Eric, That's what I've seen too. Conservatives really seem averse to helping other conservatives make it in the culture industries, and then they sit around lamenting the fact that the culture is against them.
I've actually asked quite a few: Have you bought something from a conservative? The answer is always, "No. If the thing is any good it should sell on its own." In other words, somehow, it should sell without conservatives buying it.
Have you told anyone they should write a book or film or go to film school? "No. Why would a conservative want to work there?" Ug.
Then I ask how they know it's no good if they haven't bought it. The answer that comes back is essentially, "I know it's bad because a conservative did it."
Those are hard attitudes to get past and I can see why most people in Hollywood don't want to be openly conservative if they are facing this. If you say nothing, then no one hates you and liberals and conservatives buy your stuff. If you speak up, then both liberals and conservatives abandon you. The best choice is obvious.
BTW, Eric, you raise a really great point. Conservatives seem to want a contradiction when it comes to culture. They only see the value in the "hit-you-over-the-head" stuff because the political message is obvious, but then turn around and say they don't support it because it's not a good film because the focus is on politics. That's a Catch-22
Andrew,
I'm not disputing you, but could you give specific examples of points 2, 3 and 5, for clarification?
Backthrow, Sure.
2. Dismissive/disinterested
Let me give you a personal example on this one first. When I wrote my first book, I did it to see if I could write a good crime novel following certain rules I set for myself. I did this part-time too... not as my day job and had no intention of becoming a full-time author. Basically, it was a hobby.
When people found out what I was doing, the responses I got were stunningly uniform:
EVERY conservative I knew gave me a doubtful look and said, "Why do you want to write a book?" as their first question. Then they offered a couple reasons why the book would fail and they tried to talk me out of it -- this was before they even knew what the book was about and despite the fact this was just a hobby, i.e. I wasn't quitting my job or doing anything reckless to write the book. Finally, they made it clear they wanted no part of it. After that, they avoided ever mentioning it. If I mention it, they change the topic. Even after I published it, none of them have bought it or left reviews or ever asked how it did. This is despite many of them claiming to love the legal thriller genre. The book was also extremely successful, yet they dismiss it as "Well, it didn't sell as much as Steven King."
So here are people who claim "We need more conservative writers" and "we should support conservatives" who are doing their best to let me know that I should not go into writing and then do their best to avoid supporting me in any way, and treating the book like it was a failure when it wasn't.
By comparison, EVERY liberal I know was completely enthusiastic when they heard about it. They wanted to know if they could get a copy and they volunteered to leave reviews. They told me they couldn't wait to read it, etc. etc. They asked about it all the time. After it was published, they all bought it, read it and came back to tell me how much they loved it. They also keep telling me about all the people they've told about it. And they rave about how successful the book has been.
So here are people who conservatives claim want to silence conservatives, and yet they are doing their best to encourage me to be a writer and to support me.
Conservative: "You'll never be Steven King."
Liberal: "You're the next Steven King!"
It's possible this has some other cause, but the uniformity of responses by ideology tells me ideology is the cause, especially as I see this as a pattern of behavior repeat itself in other instances time and again.
Moreover, when I spoke with several of the BH people, they said the exact same thing. They said that their conservative friends were skeptical of them being comedians, writers, etc. and tried to talk them out of it. Then they basically refused to talk to them about their career choice. They don't go to their shows. They won't help them spread the word. They don't want to hear about it. And they offer nothing but an attitude that is essentially, "I'm waiting for you to admit you failed."
Meanwhile, the liberals they know are all very enthusiastic for them.
(continued)
3. avoiding the works of known conservatives and 5. holding conservatives to a much higher standard than they hold liberals.
Let me tie these together.
Again, on a personal level, the book I wrote is not political. Yet, the conservatives I know avoided it. The liberals didn't. And I believe ideology is the cause.
When BH plugged my book, it didn't add a single sale. I've seen similar results from at least four other authors... zero sales by advertising through conservative sites. On the other hand, one of those authors used the same plug that failed at BH at a liberal site and got bunches of sales. In other words, the conservatives at BH didn't support these books at all, but liberals (even knowing they were written by conservatives) did.
When American Carol and then Atlas Shrugged came out, many of the conservatives I know outside the net never saw either -- they still haven't. And when I asked why, the most common reason given was, "Oh, that's just some conservative thing, it's going to be crap. I would rather watch something else." Yet, these same people paid to see Fahrenheit 9/11 "to see what the buzz is about," even though everyone knew it was "some liberal thing."
In other words, they are holding conservative and liberal works to a different standard.
I also can't tell you how many times I've heard conservatives say, "I'm not seeing XX just because YY is a conservative," even though no one asked them to. You never hear that from liberals.
On quality, the conservatives I know tend to be low-graders when giving reviews and if you look at their histories, they tend to go even lower for conservative works. I won't, but I can point out conservatives who think nothing of giving most everything a 4/5 score at Amazon and then hand out 2/3 to works by conservatives. They will also say things like "It was ok for a work by a conservative," as if that somehow puts it into a special category.
The same double standard holds true with conservative reviewers. They seem to feel that a conservative film must reach the highest levels of quality or it should be angrily denounced as not good enough. Yet, they turn right around and praise Horrible Bosses 17: Back In the Hot Tub.
Andrew -
Conservative: "You'll never be Steven King."
Liberal: "You're the next Steven King!"
Perhaps you need a better class of conservative friends...;-) /Actually, you equate the "Debbie Downer" syndrome with political viewpoints. I think there is jealousy and general crankiness from both sides and both sides can be reactionary without thinking.
As for me, I do understand when conservatives in the arts/entertainment industry complain about being shut out or frozen out if they are too open with their political beliefs. That can be real and one learns to be discreet.
And Backthrow, Let me be clear, none of this stopped me because I tend to do my own thing no matter what anyone thinks. But most people do succumb to peer pressure. And lots of people don't know a bunch of liberals and conservatives -- they just know their own group. So the conservatives are under intense peer pressure to not do this. And I suspect that this wave of negativity from conservatives is way more than enough to stop most people from ever becoming writers or actors or whatever.
In fact, when I was young, it was interesting because I knew some kids who wanted to "make movies." The ones with liberal parents were told to "chase their dream." The ones with conservative parents were relentless pounded to "stop fantasizing and get a real job."
I suspect that's a very common thing across the country.
Adding fuel to the fire, I've also seen too few conservatives in the BH world (and by few who aren't me, I mean one) buy Jack Marino's "Forgotten Heroes." I realize it's not the greatest movie in the world (and Jack admits as much), but it's still a solid piece of b-movie material and a nice antidote to the anti-war swill Hollywood peddles, plus it features the mighty Bill Smith in a lead role AND received a letter of appreciation from President GW Bush.
Nope, nope. Almost all of the Hollywood conservatives want it for free from Jack, even though 20% of every sale goes to the American Veterans Disabled for Life, the same foundation Gary Sinise supports. Phonies almost all of 'em.
If anyone's interested: http://www.forgottenheroesthemovie.com/ .
P.S. AP, as mentioned before, I'm an amazingly slow reader, and currently distracted by a revived interest in vinyl, but I will have a review of your "How Conservatism Can Rise from the Ashes" up at Amazon ASAP.
Eric,
How much does it cost? I did not see a price tag on the website.
"The ones with liberal parents were told to "chase their dream." The ones with conservative parents were relentless pounded to "stop fantasizing and get a real job.""
I must be the odd one out. I had conservative parents who told us kids to "chase our dream."
Bev, The conservatives I know are a wide ranging group -- people I've met in high school, college, various jobs as an attorney, relatives and friends of relatives. Ditto the liberals. The uniform split by ideology is what struck me.
And absolutely there is Debbie Downer syndrome on both sides... but it's for different things. And what I've found is that there is a very clear personality difference between liberals and conservatives, and it hurts us in this regard: Liberals over-encourage, conservatives over-discourage.
As for there being blacklisting, I'm sure there is some. Just like I know there's open racism... seen it in W.Va. But the lack of examples tells me that it's not widespread. Also, I suspect that the blacklisting has more to do with distraction than politics, i.e. the "open" part rather than the "conservative" part. Someone who doesn't want their film distracted/derailed isn't going to hired Sean Penn anymore than they would hire Sean Penn's evil right wing clone. So, since you have choices in who you hire, you hired the people most likely to make things run smoothly.
That would be my guess.
Eric, Thanks for the link! LINK. I haven't actually heard of that!
Interestingly, one of the first times I noticed this issue was an article at BH in which one of their early writers implored people to help out and buy tickets or copies of things. He made the point that even a small percentage of people buying these things could help launch careers. He left BH a short time later because he got hundreds of comments about "Yeah, we need to support conservatives" but not a single ticket sold.
I spoke with a couple others after that who got the same results. Then I started watching Amazon sales ranks and talking to some authors there about what worked and what didn't when it came to books. These were people who stated openly they were conservatives, but they said advertising through conservative sites was a waste of time.
(No problem on the review. :) )
Kit, In my experience, that's really rare. To a one, the conservatives I've met talk about doing something "practical," "useful," or "real."
I've actually told some of them that films and books are what passed on to the future and that a film has a greater impact on society than balancing an accounting sheet every will. That's usually when they look at me like I'm Satan.
Kit, the price is $19.95, which you unfortunately don't see till you click on the "Buy Now." I'll mention something to Jack. I also erroneously reported 20% of sales, too. It's 25%.
AP, funny you mention Sean Penn nearby the word "blacklisting." As learned at a meeting of the Friends of Abe, the worst kept secret of Hollywood Conservatives who inexplicably seem to enjoy living in the shadows, ol' Spiccoli confronted an FOA member, asking if he was a part of the group. Rather than incur any backlash, said FOAer denied membership. One of the many reasons I'll never pay to see a Penn movie again. F'in bully.
Eric, I hadn't heard that one, but I've heard other stories. He is a real bully. Not a nice person at all.
"Kit, the price is $19.95, which you unfortunately don't see till you click on the "Buy Now." I'll mention something to Jack."
Do that.
The first thing people look for is a price tag.
I'll probably buy it sometime between now and Christmas.
As one who has had the displeasure of meeting Penn in person, I concur.
You nailed it when it comes to which books count with the public, Andrew. It always struck me as nonsense that people on both sides think their side's books would influence culture, though I've seen it more with conservatives than liberals mainly from the circles I travel in. Those books always struck me as things that people only read once they've gotten a firm interest in politics, not the sort of thing that reaches casual observers.
I think I remember you or some of the other commenters on BH mentioning the opportunity rap presents as well as your article on Harry Potter as well and those are excellent points. Even before I started reading political blogs the Ministry of Magic struck me as somewhat bungling in Prisoner of Azkaban, willingly blind in Goblet of Fire, and flat-out sinister in Order of the Phoenix and beyond (especially Umbridge, who I regard as one of the nastiest fictional villains I've seen). I didn't consider the point about Fred and George's entrepreneurial spirit until I saw it here, though. It's a shame that so few people grasp that, much less know what to do with it.
The discussion about conservatives sabotaging other conservatives definitely provided me with a few puzzle pieces as well. For all BH's talk of blacklisting you'd think they'd have had no shortage of incidents to report and blacklisters to shame, yet like you said it was all talk without any real examples, and that always struck me as odd. Instead what I mostly saw was tabloid-style outrage whenever known leftist stars stuck their foot in their mouth and that got old fast.
I don't know what it is that causes this sabotage, but it's sickening to see. This site is really the only place I've seen where conservatives encourage other conservatives in their creative endeavors, which is refreshing to see. I can see what you mean about friends of differing ideologies wanting to support others' creative works. I don't doubt any of my liberal friends who I've worked with in the past would find some way to play my game should I find the means to get it made, but I don't see plugs on any conservative site other than here generating anything.
As far as discouragement goes, this got me thinking on what I've seen in my own life... I was never flat-out told not to do anything creative by anyone in my family. A lot of my family members have always had some kind of artistic inclination (my mom, aunt, and one of my cousins play piano, my other cousin is an actor and has his own special effects business, and I've always been the storyteller), but there still seemed to be some sort of unspoken pressure around me to get into something practical. Several of my high school teachers encouraged me to develop my storytelling, however, quite a few of my college professors said my writing was high-quality, and several people at my old church encouraged me to keep at it as well. I suppose my problem is mainly being unsure how to go about making a living out of it, especially with all the mess I'm saddled with. Hopefully I can figure something out and add a bit of variety to the gaming world...
- Daniel
Maybe it's just BH or maybe not but there seems to be a dividing line between jobs held by "real 'Muricans" and creative jobs. If you're a filmmaker or an actor or a novelist, somehow you're considered a lesser human being than, say, a farmer. I'm not gonna get into which occupation is more valuable (we need farmers!) but this kind of thinking needs to stop.
It's interesting how some conservatives will nitpick everything that an actor says - and f--k, it gets old fast - but if you tell them that YOU are an actor, it's like, "Why?" Along with all the pre-conceived notions that come with it. Movie-making is actually HARD WORK and if conservatives want to take it seriously, they should treat it as such. It's not a lark, it's not kids on the playground (there is that aspect, though)... it's an American industry that employs tens of thousands of people in all kinds of positions.
Scott,
"Movie-making is actually HARD WORK"
Yep, how many jobs do you have where you often wake up between 4 and 5 in the morning.
Its all kind of ironic, though, for a party that lauds as its greatest president a man who was an ACTOR!
Thanks Daniel!
On the political books, I think you're absolutely right. By the time someone reads a book written by a pundit, they have already made up their mind about what they believe and they are looking for depth or confirmation. That's a tiny percentage of the population. I would bet that 95% or more of the public will never crack open a book by a pundit. To reach those people, you need to go elsewhere.
In fact, let's put it this way. In 2011, 1.3 billion tickets were sold to movies in the US and Canada. Da Vinci Code the book sold 80 million copies. Sarah Palin had the second highest selling political book ever at 2 million copies. Levin's last book sold around a million copies. So Levin sold 1.25% of what Da Vinci Code did and .07% the number of movie tickets sold each year. Where are you more likely to reach people?
On not recognizing things in Harry Potter, that is something conservatives should be pointing to each other, so conservative parents know the lessons within these books and how to talk to their kids about them.
On BH, the blacklisting story makes sense, but the lack of proof is disturbing. You would have expected many of them would have stories of being told "we don't want your kind here" or having friends who say, "They dumped you because you're a conservative." The lack of those stories made me question that.
On BH itself, yeah, they've kind of lost their original mission. In fact, I would say they've reversed it. The original idea was to get conservatives to engage Hollywood and to start pushing back. But when Andrew died, it really changed and now it's more about screaming at celebrities and talking about how unAmerican Hollywood is. Basically, they've gone from saying, "Go to Hollywood and engage" to saying, "Yeah, it's the cesspool you thought... stay away!"
I'm glad you got encouragement. Hopefully, you'll figure out what to do with it and get your game made! :)
Scott, That's the intermixing of populism with conservatism. Populists like to claim that "reel" people are manual laborers and everyone else is "elite." From the leaders, this is a form of manipulation to get the lower-classes to follow them. For the people in those classes, it a reflexive inferiority complex given voice by a political movement... "See, he thinks he's so smart, but he's not better than me 'cuz he don't work with his hands!"
And it's not just Hollywood: lawyers, journalists, writers, teachers, professors, scientists... anyone who uses their brain is considered morally inferior to "hard workin'" people like union labor.
Interestingly, populism actually started on the left, but drifted to the right because the Democrats embraced people the populists don't like -- blacks, Mexicans, gays, women. But it doesn't fit intellectually on the right because at its core, populism is fundamentally socialist. Their goal is to invert society and force people to pay more for labor than brains. That doesn't mesh with conservatism, which believes in free markets.
In any event, this is something we need to wade through in getting conservatives to start sending their kids into the culture industry.
Kit, LOL! Shhhhhh. Reagan was never an actor! :P
On "hard working," populism isn't actually about what you do, it's about the class you are in.
Daniel, I can totally relate. When I was young, I was very often praised for my creative ability (writing, drawing, music) by friends and teachers alike. But buried in that praise was an undercurrent of "It's nice you'll always have a hobby. But what are you going to do?" Unfortunately, I let that sink in more than I care to admit. Going into graphic design and marketing seemed like a way to straddle the fence, and it's worked out well for me. I have no complaints that anyone working doesn't have. But sometimes I wonder where I might've taken myself if I'd made some bolder decisions.
On a separate note, it's kinda funny to think that a couple centuries ago, the artists (who were generally starving) were considered a part of the proletariat. Now they are considered generally bourgeois except for those at the very top who shill for leftist causes.
I suspect that's always been PR and the artists wouldn't consider themselves working class much after the birth of Marxism. Until that time, it's probably more to do with income than anything.
tryanmax and Daniel, BTW, let me clarify. I know many conservatives who want their kids to learn some artistic skill -- play an instrument, draw, write, etc. But the difference is the word tryanmax uses: hobby. These things are seen as a nice addition, but not as career-worthy.
Andrew, those statistics illustrate your point wonderfully. Pundit books just don't interest anyone who isn't already a believer. People want to be entertained, not preached to, and the numbers for all the overtly political films in the past decade, among other things, bear that out.
The lack of evidence in the blacklist thing, among other outrages I hear about now and then, has been tripping my suspicions a lot more frequently now than before I started reading this site. It's always been one of those things where something doesn't sit well with me when either side did it on other sites, but I didn't fill in the blank until I saw you deconstruct a lot of the various myths in politics and culture by getting into it. Thanks again for the lesson, Andrew!
Breitbart's death really seemed to shoot his sites to Hell, which is sad to see. He was one of the very, very few activist types who really understood how to reach the public and stymie the left and without him they've degenerated into the same old crap that's causing conservatism more harm than good. I wonder what it'll take to snap these idiots out of this, or perhaps who the next person who really gets it and is willing to do something about it is.
Tryanmax, I do remember one high school teacher clearly telling me I wouldn't be happy doing anything that didn't involve creativity, but beyond that if there was that undercurrent I didn't pick up on it. Still, I did fall into the "you need to do something practical" mindset and regarded writing and game concepts more as a hobby than anything and decided to go for a business degree in college. I figured that if I couldn't get in st a gaming company I'd at least have a decent degree to get into a different kind of company and hopefully make a decent living.
Unfortunately a mix of large university bureaucracy, losing credits at a small college, and family financial and health problems pretty much shot all of that, leaving me about one semester away from finishing, severely short on the means to pay for it, and the whole thing looks like it'll finish at least 10 years past the point when I should have graduated. I made my share of mistakes along the way, admittedly, but I still feel a bit lost and wonder how the hell I'm going to turn this around, whether my game getting made is involved or not.
Regardless, I'm glad things more or less worked out for you. Your career has definitely given you some insights that I've learned a lot from and the cover for How Conservatism Can Rise From the Ashes was pretty kickass! Hopefully things will go well.
Andrew, on the thoughts about people encouraging artistic endeavors as a hobby more than a career, on the parents' end I wonder if it's more fear than disdain driving some of this discouragement. If nothing else there's a strong perception that an artistic career is an extremely risky one as opposed to a more mundane job and I wonder if parents think they're protecting their children that way. This doesn't explain conservative disdain towards established conservative artists, admittedly, but it might just be one part of the puzzle.
- Daniel
Daniel, You're welcome. I do think those statistics really make the point well, I just wish I'd thought to use them before I finished the article! LOL!
On the debunking, what's interesting is that in the past, I glossed over this stuff as well until I started writing about it here. It's very easy to believe if you don't really sit down and try to think your way through it. But once you start doing that, as I've had to do since I've been blogging, a lot of it suddenly hits you as simply not true. And when you realize that, it kind of exposes our entire political discourse in this country of late as fictitious... which is rather troubling.
Yeah, it's frustrating what happened the Bigs after Andrew died. He had this great ability to not only wade into any aspect of the culture and connect it to his ideology, but to then explain himself in ways that the left simply couldn't deal with. Ultimately, I don't think what he did was that hard, but it takes a mindset that sees the bigger picture and isn't ideologically bound while simultaneously being ideologically principled. In other words, it takes knowing your ideology, being able to explain it in any number of ways, being confident in it, and being able to spot it in any context... all without being upset when others don't "get it."
The Bigs today really are awful. They spend their time spreading conspiracies, agitating people for no reason, and attacking conservatives everywhere they can find them. They are what I would expect HuffPo would be if the Huffers set up a concern troll site.
On the parents, that is certainly part of it. But the point is that liberal parents don't evaluate the risk the same way. They seem to value their kids doing something that will make them happy more than conservative parents who value their kids doing something that will increase their chance of having a sustainable job. And ultimately, neither is actually the correct choice. It's easier to get a non-brain job. BUT brain jobs provide much more stability, better pay and great resilience in the economy. So it is just a value judgement, which you think is better.
Modern political discourse being fictitious is an excellent way to describe it, Andrew. It really does seem like both sides are stuck fighting the same old battles with the same old arguments that, upon real examination, turn out to be false. The health care issue as you described it in How Conservatism Can Rise From the Ashes is a prime example of this. Both the left and the right seem stuck in viewing the issue through the lens of big medical insurance while you took a deeper look at it and realized that big medical insurance itself was the problem and came up with good, sane ideas to fix it. That was one of the things that really stood out to me when I read it.
That's a good description of how Breitbart was, and why he's missed. It's that mindset that's so hard to find these days, and now's a time when someone like that is seriously needed. I just don't know who it could be. As far as the Bigs go I started drifting away from them around the time you, Larry, and Bev founded this site. I could only take so much angry ranting and trolls per day and the quality of writers went downhill too. I liked a lot of Nolte's articles, always found Charles Winecoff to be thought-provoking, and both Gary Graham and Adam Baldwin were always a pleasure to read. Having played a few games where he did some voice work it was interesting and cool to see Spike Spencer write for them as well, and same for Dwight Schultz.
I got the impression it was going to degenerate around the time of the rap debates, actually. I'm not really a rap fan, more because its sound just doesn't appeal to me (I'm more of a classic rock and metal fan) than anything, though I can see why the lyrics and themes would bother people. The people complaining came off like cranky senior citizens while people like you who pointed out the opportunity here actually got me thinking. By the time it completely devolved into "X said something leftist! OUTRAGE!!!one!eleventyone!" I lost interest in it, especially when Film Fridays started here.
That's true about how they see risk as well, and how neither side really gets it in that regard either. I guess all any of us can do at this point is work on our own creative stuff and encourage others to do the same, supporting them with reviews and such.
- Daniel
Thanks for the compliments, Daniel.
Daniel, Thanks! That was what I wanted to do with the book, was to think everything through fresh and see what I came up with. When I did that, it really became obvious to me how so many of the things left and right argue at each other just compound the problem rather than fixing it. The insurance thing was the perfect example: both sides are arguing for different ways to make the problem worse.
On the Bigs, I liked the same people, but the site slowly but surely got overwhelmed with trolls and crazies. It got to the point that I couldn't even read the comments because I knew it would just depress me. And then the quality of the articles just completely imploded when they switched to the new format. Suddenly, instead of talking about some conservative angle to Hollywood, it became dozens of articles slamming D-list celebrities who said something desperate to get attention.
I'm not sure when it started, but the rap stuff kind of exposed a rift. And I think the shooting of the abortion doctor was a problem too because they let a LOT of angry stuff get posted which I know drove a lot of people here. In any event, when Andrew died, the place really went in the wrong direction.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of rap either, except for a couple songs, because it's just not a style of music I like. But other people are and I know that in this world, if you want to win people over, you have to do it on their terms, not yours. And knowing what other people like is key to understanding them.
As another aside, I've love the Film Friday articles. Those are my favorite articles. They also take the most time by far to write -- several hours to write even after I know what I'm going to write. I just love taking the films apart and thinking about how to make them better.
In terms of getting it right, there is no right answer, but that's what makes humans so great. We need people who want to cover all angles. If we all thought the same about every risk or what we should or shouldn't do, the world would be a dreary place. All I can say is do what works for you and make sure to encourage others to do the same. :)
Andrew.......Here's a "rap song" that is currently in my rotation. I prefer when rap is infused with a good backbeat and in this case, blends well with the original song. Whaddya think? (Sorry I can't link to it!)
"I'm No Good (Mix Factor 78) Amy Winehouse feat. Ghostface"
Patriot, I do like some. I like LL Cool Jay, Will Smith and a few others here and there. I do like Eminem's more popular stuff, though not his darker album work. But I'm not a fan of the genre over all.
But again, when it comes to politics, it's not my tastes that matter, its the tastes of the people you are trying to reach that matter.
I come way late to this...
Two things struck me...
Calvin Coolidge raised a lot of hackles when he vacationed in South Dakota for the Summer of 1927. He fished. Good God he posed with an Indian head dress on and a 10-gallon hat!!! He's the last Republican President willing to look ridiculous. There are great shots of Reagan and Bush clearing brush, riding horses, etc. Very manly... also not broadly applicable (though great images).
Warren Harding campaigned from his porch -- a relatively humble porch. Republicans haven't been able to touch the pop culture in nearly a century -- capture imagination.
Two: Joss Whedon and inconsistency. That is a product of the compartmentalization in our culture. During the late 19th century education no longer cultivated the formulation of consistent world view and thus you get the schizophrenic politicians and voters we have today. In their gut almost everyone is conservative. No one likes wholesale radical change -- it is upsetting. Even the bluest of blue liberals is disappointed when their son is gay. They may suck it up and soldier on but I'd bet Andrew's house the disappointment is long lasting and deep. People know -- the law "written on the heart" as it says in the Bible right from wrong and thus they feel injustice even if they don't have a coherent view of what Justice or Beauty or Truth is.
I wager Whedon has a nice pat liberal answer for the meaning of Firefly.
Floyd, I would bet that Whedon can explain the contradictions to himself as well. I think that liberalism in particular thrives on compartmentalizing and then judging on intent rather that effect. So everything good is liberal, everything bad must be the other guys, and they never need to think anything through to see the contradiction.
And I agree with you about liberals and their disappointment. The ones I know personally absolutely do not apply their ideology to their own lives. They would be very upset if their kids turned out gay or whatnot.
Ian Somerhalder has finally responded to rumors that he's a favorite to play this role in 50 shades movie
Anastasia Steele
Post a Comment