Daily Kos

Pandering To the Mythical Values Voter

Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:25:34 AM PDT

Certain Dems, it seems, are determined to prove that they can be just as screechy and moralistic as the ayatollahs of the right. And why not? Obviously, it worked for Joe Lieberman. I mean, sure, he might not be in the White House, but he is on Fox more than Michelle Malkin these days. That's gotta count for something, right?

Former Lieberman flack Dan Gerstein trumpets his arrival into the consultocracy with a Wall Street Journal Op/Ed column - surprise! - bashing Dems for showing insufficient sanctimoniousness to Middle America. Those of us who don't give a hoot about Spongebob's sexual orientation are sneering coastal "cultural elites," and John Kerry lost because he "openly embraced Hollywood and went on to lose married women voters by a margin of 55% to 44%."  
Continued below

Gerstein writes:

Part of this response is clearly motivated by profit margins. But it also flows from a profound aversion to making moral judgments. And that's the nub of the values problem for Democrats today. We don't hesitate to judge people's beliefs, but we blanch at judging their behavior. That leaves us silent on big moral issues at a time of great moral uncertainty, and leaves the impression that we are the party of "anything goes."

At Washington Monthly, Amy Sullivan rightly points out that if you wanna talk about holding businesses responsible for their actions, the Dems are the party of responsibility, while the GOP is the party of "Hot Tub" Tom. But Sullivan buys the Republican talking point that the Dems are out of step with the masses of Middle America:

The real concerns of Americans go much deeper than gay marriage or abortion--even if they have a hard time articulating them. Americans are very anxious about the idea that people will do whatever they can get away with, and their perception is that Democrats are the ones who let people get away with things. But Democrats can gain the advantage if they craft a consistent message. Some people certainly are opposed to abortion on principle; but many are simply offended by the idea that some people might rely on abortion as a means of birth control .... Tie these into a consistent call for responsibility and Democrats have a better chance of claiming some moral ground.

There's an honest-to-Gosh coastal conceit at work here -- one cooked up in rightwing Washington think tanks and eagerly promulgated by the precious, snarky, self-involved and hopelessly bourgie boarding-schools-then-Harvard-or-Yale-then-Columbia-J-School D.C. and New York media class. It says that all those Midwestern and Southern lumpens in their gauche sweatpants, flannels and crucifixes are slow-witted, pious, fragile and afraid. They of the patriarchal sky gods and the cult of the football just want to be assured that somebody's running things and will discipline anyone that gets out of line. The Dems just have to show that they can be stern in order to get right with rightwing voters.

This is just bullshit, as anyone who's ever been to a Harley rally in Milwaukee or a hunting lodge in the U.P. will surely know. Blue-collar Midwestern and Southern culture is as sacrilegious as it is sanctimonious and as libertine, if not much more so, as it is buttoned-down. Those suburban and exurban true believers in the Bush cause? We don't know them. They're friggin' pod people, those God people. But the Washington and New York cognoscenti look out on the hinterlands and see an undifferentiated mass of Passion-viewing, Terry-and-The-Babies-saving Rapture Christians.  

As TAPPED and Atrios point out, this is yet another case of "centrist Dems" chasing the right's unattainable market share instead of staking out a niche of their own, much as CNN and MSNBC lavish their awkward unrequited love on Fox's demographics like gawky high school science geeks staring longingly at the captain of the cheerleading team. This is nothing new, of course - Al and Tipper Gore cornered the market on liberal prudery with the PMRC two decades ago.

They won't win over "values voters" by bashing Hollywood, though they may well turn off larger numbers of their own potential audience. The youth vote? Kiss it goodbye if you want to be seen fussing about vulgarity in video games, movies and music. But what about their parents, who vote in much larger numbers? Won't they be touched by Holy Joe or Holy Hill's neo-Victorian prurience? Fat chance. Because loud as the "moral majority" might be, the reality is that they're a tiny minority, and they're deeply invested in the Republican Party.

Most Americans, whatever their degree of religiosity, accept that they're sinners, and like to relish in it on occasion, whether or not they scurry back to church the following morning to repent. We're a nation of furtive Skinimax watchers, porn downloaders and gangsta rap aficionados. We like our food fatty and our sex dirty. We play video games well into our thirties, and our favorite movies tend to involve fantastic chase scenes, explosions and gratuitious gore. On the whole, we seek redress for these indulgences in the pews or the gym - not at the ballot box. We are, in short, as profoundly libertarian in our outlook, shaped by our frontier history, as we are censorious, thanks to the dwindling influence of the Puritans.

So if the Dems wanna steal some of the GOP's market, they might start by revisiting the party's proud libertarian tradition. Remember? The party of JFK? The one that kept business in line but trusted the American people to take care of their personal lives? The party that spent its time trying to figure out how to better invest our tax dollars rather than handing them all to Halliburton and catching the Red Eye to Florida for the latest Passion Play? There's hay to be made here in Middle America - if the "safe and sensible" centrist Dems would only pull their drooling heads out of Jerry Falwell's ass. And the best part is, they don't even have to come up with their own talking points - just borrow the Republicans'. Tell them to get Big Guvmint out of their bedrooms and keep Big Business out of their wallets.

Tags: Joe Lieberman (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 99 comments

  •  To quote South Park (4.00 / 43)

    Durkle-Durr!

    Yeah, their snarky nihilism bugs me too, but they've got a pretty good feel for Hinterlands sensibility.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:22:03 AM PDT

    •  Flips a coin into the Jar. (none / 1)

      That was so well written you could have said anything and I would have been entertained. As it was, you made a lot of great points, too.

      It actually fits rather well with the other recent diary pointing out Kerry joining with Santorum to allow some pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions (as long as the pharmacy itself is able to do to - basically pass it to the next guy). This sort of thing is just another move to the centre, it's like Kerry never learned that we need to stake out our own territory. We don't win by moving to the centre, we just give them another victory and let them reinforce their message.

      •  Cheers! (none / 1)

        Yeah, Kerry birddogging the anti-choice pharmacist vote, and Clinton generally caving to the anti-choicers. They've been way out in front of Harry Reid (who's actually anti-choice) in betraying their pro-choice constituencies. It's really stupid politics, if you ask me. Maybe I've just been in decadent New York too long, but then, I think I'd be even angrier if I was still doing clinic defense in small town Ohio or Wisconsin or in Chicago.

        "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

        by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:37:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You know, that phrase really gets to me. (none / 1)

        Democrats can't "move to the center."  We are the center.  We are at this point in history the party of mainstream American values (one interpretation of what SepticTank's diary is saying, by the way).  The other party is the party of shrieking, lunatic extremists.  To move in their direction is not moving to the center.

        Kingman, Barstow, San Bernardino!

        by jem6x on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 06:53:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fucking dead-on! (none / 0)

      Thank God for the Schiavo fiasco because I think it might slap some of the apologists in our party to their senses. The majority of Americans do not want to be lectured to on their morals or give up any more of their rights.

      I live in a very red county in Florida and know quite a few people struggling under the poverty level. They're watching jobs being pissed away through outsourcing, gas and healthcare prices soaring, and endless war hovering over their heads. That is what matters to them. These are people that were previously uninterested in politics; they happily consumed trash TV, video games, and porn in their spare time between back-breaking hours of work.

      Let me tell you--they are pissed. They are completely outraged that the powers that be have shit themselves over Bible-thumpin' lunatics while ignoring the downward slide of the working class.

      What's nice is that most of them are under 35. They could be Democrats for life if we reach out to them.

      The Kool-Aid W Cult is very vocal. Our people are in the shadows and need a guide out.

  •  moral values voter here (4.00 / 8)

    young, evangelical and think pop culture and morality is in the toilet. agree with Gerstein's analysis of the permissive left. however, DISAGREE with the solution. i am sick of corporate monopoliies and the concentration in the media that produces this crap. i am sick of seeing hip hop--the art form i grew up with, now reduced to a misogynistic sambo show. and lots of hip hop headz are with me, it's just we don't blame the artists or want censorship, we blame corporate capitalism's love of profit. THAT is the message Dems can send. and i got no problem with Tipper Gore's campaign. i have no idea why so many liberals did.

    look, as a proud coastal elitist with ivy league degrees, i can say our worldview is out of touch. i think Friends at 8pm discussing threesomes is inappropriate. i think 50 cent on MTV is highly disturbing for young women of color. i think our culture focuses too much on violence, misogyny, materialism, etc. i don't think that makes me a moral prude or Ayatollah!! i don't think the solution is censorship either. i think it's alternatives to the corporate consolidation that controls our media right noww...

    •  That's close to the progressivism of a century ago (4.00 / 5)

      which Thomas Frank writes eloquently of in "What's the matter with Kansas?" And I basically agree with you on the state of the culture industry, even if I'm a lot less squirmy about vulgarity and sexual situations in programming (I second Atrios' take on that topic), particularly on cable.

      I don't think we can or should legislate it, though. We can -- and should -- legislate against media consolidation, selling that with a blanket message of encouraging competition and diluting the sewage coming out of the entertainment industry. I don't think, however, that we should appeal too narrowly to cultural conservatives on this score.

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:59:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...and that led to Prohibition (none / 1)

        SepticTank,

        I liked your original post, and while your prescription of legislation against media consolidation is well-received (if long dead), the 'sewage' coming out of the entertainment industry is entirely a matter of taste.

        I hate most of it, but then the stuff that aggressively insults me are the least 'edgy'. Deadwood might be the filithest work in media history, but I'd say its one of the most brilliant. And I'm not saying that this is what you are referring to, but I'd imagine that due to the language and unflinching content many, many would.

        But HBO, son of Time-Warner, corporate player all the way, deserves immense credit for putting it on the air.

        And so, if you're insulted by idiocies like whatever show Jim Belushi's that's also a matter of taste. I'd say you'd have it. But while it's infantile and stoopid, it's safe, reactionary and wholesome. And somehow, people like it.

        •  You say garbage, I say sewage (none / 1)

          I'm with you. When I say "sewage," I'm talking Britney Spears, 50 Cent and Alien vs. Predator (not to mention CNN, MSNBC, etc.). I'm talking about an industry that's gotten so centralized, so cautious, that it can't produce innovative material anymore. I could also be talking about swear words in prime time, but I'm not. My point is, we have our beefs with Hollywood, too. There is an opportunity for -ahem- synergy, but we shouldn't pander explicitly to bluestockings.

          "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

          by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:58:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm going to disagree a little with you (4.00 / 2)

            there, Septic.  I have zero problem with Britney Spears and 50 Cents beyond a personal aesthetic repulsion.

            I have a HUGE problem with a society that makes its kids so fucking stupid and ignorant that Ms. Spears and Mr. Cents are actually elevated to "role model" status.

            If we really educated our kids, strove to provide each and every one of them with some real opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society, would one-trick hustlers have much of an audience?  If a kid can speak four languages and is excited at the prospect of one day learning the genetic code, would that kid really see Spears as anything save a clown or court jester?

            We've got to prioritize education and opportunity in this country, or each corporation we dismantle to get rid of Paris Hilton will be replaced by two to fill the huge market share we cultivate by tolerating imbecility with our misplaced educational priorities.

            •  Gramsci (4.00 / 2)

              Paraphrasing badly here, but didn't he say something like: You can take away the state, but the people will still be Catholic? Which I take basically to mean that to a large degree we are the culture we inhabit, and cultural institutions (including, presumably, vapid bubblegum pop) will outlast governments every time.

              I do think that there will always be plenty of demand for dreck, regardless of what else is in the air at any given time or how well educated we are. Sucker born every minute and all that (and also, for some reason, we just tend to like really dumb stuff -- it's bad for us but fun, the way Ho-Hos are). But while I may just be getting prematurely crotchety, I don't think there's been a time in the past half-century or so when there was so much dreck and so little genuinely innovative or meaningful stuff out there. I suspect this has a lot to do with the distribution system (just as the golden ages of cinema have tended to coincide with structural changes in the studio economy, so should the broader culture industry, which is now pretty much consolidated).

              And hey, I like Paris Hilton. I think she functions in our society much the way the Queen does in England -- a doddering object of veneration for a deluded few and a caricature to be scorned by the masses. She's a cartoon representation of our undeserving overlords.

              "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

              by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:36:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Learning the genetic code? (none / 0)

              so at what point in all these bio classes do i get my magic decoder ring?

              Capitalism and Nationalism are not your friends. God? Maybe.

              by Ihowl on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:47:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  He's not attacking any particular content. (none / 1)

              He's saying that the drivel coming out of the entertainment industry is lowest common denominator because the content creation / distribution companies are so large. If they were broken up, we'd see far more innovative entertainment, and a lot less Britney - not because Britney is bad, but because if there were innovation, she would be a niche market. It's not at all about regulating content, it's about regulating market share - something the FCC's been beholden to do for a very long time.

              Seattle Transit Blog http://seattletransitblog.com

              by Bensch on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:24:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not out of touch at all (4.00 / 11)

      Look, if crap like 50 Cent and racy shows like Friends didn't sell, they wouldn't be around. What's the biggest hit show right now? Desperate Housewives.

      So I just don't buy the idea that a vast swath of the American electorate wants this stuff gone. Too many of them are buyin'.

      I've seen a bunch of good ideas for addressing this without bullshit Joementum-style pandering or censorship:

      • Policies that help parents spend more time with their kids (workers' rights, better pay, high-quality child care, family leave).
      • Educating parents of how to avail themselves of tools like the V-chip and cable TV locking. Really break it down and produce idiot-proof instructions.
      • Pushing for a la carte cable, where customers can pick and choose which channels they can receive (This one's a stretch. I can see it costing the cable companies jillions in customer service costs, what with irate, clueless people screaming about how they can't get Skinemax, when they didn't sign up for it.)
      • Re-tightening controls on children's programming so it's not all marketing for toys and sugary cereals (another longshot).
      •  All good ideas (4.00 / 3)

        As are most basic Democratic reforms with regards to healthcare, day care, labor law, etc. If they'd just embrace that tradition, they could blow the GOP out of the "family values" kiddie pool in a nanosecond.

        And it's true that people buy that stuff. They buy it because there's not much better that's accessible. I'm not against coarseness in pop culture -- that's not my beef with Britney. My beef is that she's boring, because our culture industry is soulless and thoroughly corporatized and needs to be broken up Teddy Roosevelt style.

        "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

        by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Feh (4.00 / 5)

          I'm all for busting up the telecommunications industry, but if you think it's going to result in some kind of artistic renaissance, you've got another thing coming. Crap sells, it has always sold, and it always will sell.

          In addition, this idea that the current state of affairs keeps good stuff off the market is dead wrong. It's always been out there, you just have to know where to look.

          The reason 50 Cent sells millions isn't because it's the only record in the store; people like that stuff. I've followed the music industry for 30 years, and I've seen plenty of heavily hyped artists flop miserably. You just can't brainwash millions of people into buying something they don't like.

          Similarly, I watch a lot of old movies these days, and the Golden Age of Hollywood wasn't all Citizen Kane and Casablanca. There was plenty of dreck around in those days, too. And some of today's most beloved oldies, like It's A Wonderful Life and Touch of Evil were total flops.

          •  And the real question is, (none / 1)

            why do we have a society of kids who are severely undereducated and underprioritized and who we plop in front of MTV?  Why have we nurtured a population of folks who view 50 Cent as anything more substantial than a clown?  This is our collective fault.

            People like 50 Cent only have a credulous audience by virtue of our societal decision to abandon education and continue to nurture a culture of imbecility while kids in other countries are taught two and three languages as well as advanced math and science.

            Shit in, shit out.  We want to educate our younger generations like baffoons, we want to act the fool when the property tax bill comes and settle for teachers making 20 grand a year, well, we had better not expect more than a population in which 50 Cent will become super rich talking trash.

            •  fifty cent is an Artist (4.00 / 2)

              I really don't get your line of thinking here.

              Are you saying that fifty brings no skill set? Well that's flat wrong. Would you say the same thing about Chuck D, or Ice Cube, or Eminem.

              Do you even know who these people are? Can you name one song from each off the top of your head?

              If you cannot, I'm suggesting that you are talking about stereotypes. That is wrong. 50's biggest hit is called "in the club." It happens to be one of the most popular dance songs of all time. It's still played in every nightclub in the US on a nightly basis. Know why?

              Because listening to it makes people happy.

              Nothing less, nothing more. You find something that makes people feel as good as "In the club" and you will be rich and famous, just like 50 cent.  

              •  I have to second this. (none / 0)

                  Many comments here have made a facile equation of Fitty Cent with the worst our culture has to offer and I'm convinced from listening with my son that 50 and G-Unit are actually expressing that generation's feeling.  Be very careful of judging this stuff from "on high." And know that there is plenty of irony and humor in the best of Hip-Hop.

                Bush - the New Hoover. He really sucks.

                by slick riddles on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 07:17:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, please (none / 0)

                  one of the rappers this commenter pointed out (Chuck D) was addressing the same rage and violence which permeates the African American community.  Wanna know the difference?  Public Enemy captured this rage and articulated the true root of it: oppression and poverty.  Rather than singing about "parties and bullshit," or worse, they sang about the prison system, the community relationship to the police, the self-destructiveness of the descendants of slaves.

                  Why folks persist in trying to pretend that there is much of anything solid and deep about most modern rappers (with a few notable exceptions: Nas, when he went by the name "Nasty Nas" had a lot of positivity to him); shouldn't be demand better?

              •  I just think he's predictable (none / 0)

                He may be predictable in a more sonorous way than some of his contemporaries, but to my ears, he's still predictable. Derivative. Boring. Just like all the other stuff on the dial, only a little more polished. Generally, I'd say the same of most any rap, rock or pop act to get major distribution in the last 10 years.

                That said, I'll quote Atrios, who very kindly pointed a lot of people my way today:

                a very big reason we don't get into soft or hard censorship is because we as a country don't actually all agree on what is good or bad culture. Concern about gyrating semi-naked teenagers or chatter about sex on Friends is motivated by the same thing as concerns about Spongebob's sexual orientation. There's no way to differentiate the two, because there is no standard - "I know it's bad when I see it" is what's in operation.

                "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

                by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:19:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hell no, I wouldn't put a (none / 0)

                rapper who continues to advocate violence in a violence-ravaged rap community in the same category of a Chuck D whose group was almost exclusively devoted to African American empowerment. Perhaps it is you who fails to differentiate between the artists and activists and the clowns.
              •  And by the way, (none / 0)

                please don't presume that someone who dislikes what 50 Cent and others preach to African American youth just doesn't know much of anything about rap. I know enough to dislike to industry which has transformed so greatly that these days, X-Clan would never get a record deal, but the next "Shoot-em-up" clown would be snatched up and promoted.
                •  You Know I Don't Get Classical Music (none / 0)

                  I don't understand why people get dressed up and go to these events at all. But that doesn't mean I can't respect the institution. I think it's great.

                  Furthermore, I don't listen to 50 cent. I know the "In the Club" song. It's catchy, and I can easily see how it became a huge hit. The lyrics really don't mean anything more than they do in "It's raining men" or whatever. Fact of the matter is that that song is what he's known for and probably always will be.

                  Point is that there's two ways to judge important works of art. one is certainly artistic merit. But the other is popularity. If people like it, it has to have merit, if for no other reason than because people like it.

                  Therefore, I can use my little fingers to type out: Classical Music Sucks Ass. But that wouldn't mean shit, would it, because it's just one ChanMan's opinion.

                  •  Not the point (none / 0)

                    I've clearly stated that the personal issue that I have with artists like Ms. Spears and Mr. Cent is (1) aesthetic and (2) particular to Mr. Cent, a personal disgust with rap artists who tap into the rightful rage of impoverished African Americans in an extremely non-productive fashion (as opposed to artists like Chuck D and the members of X-Clan).

                    The issue is the severe undereducation and undervaluing of our children.  Were there not a large population of children "lost to the streets" whom larger society could not give two shits about, 50 Cent would not be seen as a role model and would not enjoy the same prominence.  Were we not in a society in which kids can graduate high school and still be functionally illiterate, "artists" like Spears and Cent would not enjoy such wide audiences.

                    It is extremely unclear how your views of classical music contribute anything to this analysis.

                    •  The point is YOUR declaritive Statements (none / 0)

                      Who are you to tell us this:

                      Were there not a large population of children "lost to the streets" whom larger society could not give two shits about, 50 Cent would not be seen as a role model and would not enjoy the same prominence.

                      I'm not arguing that young people are being ignored. I am saying that this stuff would still be popular in a utopian society. That's why I compared it to classical music. You can't say because YOU don't like it that it must be counter productive. Explain to me why Sly Stallon makes 20 million a picture?

                      Fact is that the rap group NWA made a substantial impact on America. Its material is far more vulgar and sensationalistic than 50 cent. He doesn't even come close. Yet they had had quite the impact BEFORE ANY M.S. RADIO STATION WOULD DARE PLAY A RAP SONG. Both Dr. Dre (who produces 50 cent's records) and Ice Cube are now major entertainment mogels that do a lot for the black community--more than the goddamn government ever will.

                      In addition, I'd argue that the L.A. Riots had as much to do with the song "fuck the police" as it did the beating of Rodney King. People who listened to NWA recognized the dynamic immediately. It was vulgar but it was their truth. People who didn't listen to NWA watched CNN, fruitlessly trying to figure out why folks would burn down their own neighborhoods.

                      Therefore the value you claim to disparage for the reasons you give are precisely the reasons these artists are important, including Britney Spears (but in a whole other teenage girl type of way that I'll never understand).

                      And that is exactly the point, my good friend.

            •  Bullshit (4.00 / 2)

              There's not a culture on earth where cheesy pop songs don't sell. Never has been. All God's chillun love a catchy tune with a good beat you can dance to (hey nonny nonny), whether that dance is the Electric Slide or the Minuet.
            •  Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta (none / 0)

              I don't think we can attribute the appeal of Mr. Cent to anything unique to American culture.  I spent some time in Senegal a few months ago, and 50 Cent is HUGE over there.  "In Da Club" is like their national anthem.  In fact, the primary communication between me (not knowing French or Wolof) and many Senegalese consisted of naming various American rappers.  I won't soon forget the way their eyes would light up at the mention of Tupac, Snoop, Dre etc.

              My favorite encounter with a random Senegalese dude consisted of us naming rappers from my home state of CA, and seeing my (cursory) familiarity with hip-hop, he, in what was the most hilarious - and somehow poignant - bit of cross-cultural shared irony I've ever found myself caught up in, looked at me (a pasty white boy if ever there was one) and said "Whassup, nigga?"

              But, yeah.  Certain stuff just makes people smile.  It may just be that much of what constitutes pop culture finds itself in its position of popularity not due to a lack of options on the part of the populace or a corporate conspiracy to keep people distracted (not that the prospect of that particular side-effect keeps them up at night), but simply due to aspects of it appealing to the human race.  Sure, corporate media consolidation may artificially amplify the voices of some (thereby squelching the voices of others) and distort their true appeal, but I doubt much of what's popular really needs the help.  Good or bad, this is what free markets wring.  (er.. is there a present-tense of "wrought"?)

          •  I work for... (4.00 / 2)

            One of the biggest digital media companies on the planet, and I can tell you from experience that he's right. People really do only watch Desperate Housewives because there's very little else on.

            50 cent does sell because it's the only record in the store. Wal-Mart carries a few hundred titles - out of a catalog of tens of thousands. The titles that are positioned where more public can see them, the ones which have banners and MTV airtime and interviews - those are the ones that people know about, and that sell. Sure, some of these artists flop - but a much larger percentage of artists that don't get hyped flop as well. There aren't any absolutes, but there are trend lines to pay attention to.

            I suspect you live in a city - if so, you've likely got a few independent theaters, where you can see things like, say, House of Flying Daggers. If so, you represent about 20% of the population. Another 30% is suburban (and have never heard of that theater), and 50% is rural (with two screens in town, playing Terminator 5 and The Ring 3). Most of the country shops at stores like Wal-Mart, and most of the country doesn't have high-speed internet (many don't even have a computer).

            Go to the magazine rack in the grocery store in a city of under 10,000 people, and tell me what you see. If you can find anything other than 50 Cent and Britney in the one music magazine, I'd be surprised.

            Seattle Transit Blog http://seattletransitblog.com

            by Bensch on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:34:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I just don't buy... (4.00 / 4)

        ...that anyone with the money to buy a TV and subscribe to basic cable lacks any of the mental firepower or consumer tools necessary to know what is and is not appropriate viewing given their own moral compass and the values they wish to preserve inside their own family.

        You know who watches the most violence on TV?  The same people who rant and rave and froth at the goddamn mouth about T&A on TV.  If you don't believe me, watch who advertises on THE SHIELD, for example.

        TV content is and has always been a red herring of the highest order.  How can this be offensive and bribing journalists to control news content be somehow acceptable?  Shame on anyone who tries to paint themselves or their families as a victim -- save your breath for the real offenders.

        "I've waited all my life for a Republican Barack Obama. Now he shows up and he's a Democrat." - Frank Luntz

        by The Termite on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:23:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  BINGO! and I love The Shield... (4.00 / 2)

          but let us all remember that Britney in all her gum smacking beauty is a Bush supporter and that Big Porn is owned by Big (rully big!) Rightie Money.

          Anyone wants to smack down the "industry" should start with the captains of industry... at the Country CLub, the Harvard CLub the NY City Athletic Club etc...  Someone remind Lieberman and HillPac.

          Just sayin'.

    •  Oh, for God's sake... (4.00 / 12)

      ...if you think mentions of threesomes on "Friends" are inappropriate, then here's a suggestion that's sure to go in one of your ears and out the other:

      Don't watch "Friends!"

      As a parent and a consumer and a citizen, no one is holding my family hostage and telling us what to watch on TV.  No one tells me I can't turn it off.  The producers of those shows, the advertisers of those shows, and the creative minds behind those shows are not responsible for my reaction to their ideas, words or images.  I am.  Anyone who thinks that they're entitled to surf cable for hours and not encounter anything that offends their sensibilities needs to have his head examined.

      You know what's on TV that offends me?  Televangelists.  I want to strangle each and every one of those snake oil-selling grifters with their own polyester ties, but you know what?  I'm not a big enough idiot to think that it's the responsibility of government to keep their bile the fuck out of my living room and my little daughter's ear.  It's mine and that's a burden I gladly shoulder as a parent.

      Weak.

      "I've waited all my life for a Republican Barack Obama. Now he shows up and he's a Democrat." - Frank Luntz

      by The Termite on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:04:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Problem (4.00 / 5)

      The thing is, as a "proud coastal elitist with ivy league degrees" you're not only out of touch with the heartland but you're out of touch with most of the people who live on the coasts, as well.

      I grew up and live on a coast. I went to a private college (complete with ivy), albeit on grants and loans. Both my folks were college-educated, but my dad was a union machinist. Mom worked in a chemical plant. We were solidly blue-collar.

      In my blue-state city, most of the people in the metro area aren't college-educated. That doesn't mean they're all stupid, though, and that's the thing most of the "educated" people I went to school with and meet can't seem to get through their heads.

      There are far more pressing problems than pop culture. That was true when Tipper Gore stamped her little foot back in the '80s and it's even more true now. We've got two countries occupied, a health care crisis, homelessness that's worse than it was when people like Gore were ignoring it 20 years ago, and Republicans threatening to impeach judges (or worse) and the Democrats are supposed to come off strong by getting 50 Cent off MTV? Get a grip, people.

      •  Democrats would do well to (none / 0)

        That was true when Tipper Gore stamped her little foot back in the '80s

        remember Tipper from the '80s.  Over a decade later many those people who had been adolescent fans of what Tipper would ban had neither forgotten nor forgiven and didn't show up to vote for Gore.

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:53:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with part of (none / 0)

      your conclusion, but disagree with some of your sentiments.

      The real problem is lack of educational funding.  Period.  Were all kids engaged in schooling and numerous productive afterschool activities, MTV wouldn't really matter.  They'd be able to see 50 Cent as the two-bit, one step away from a pimp, whorish hustler that he is and listen to his songs in the same manner that one goes to the circus yet has no desire to emulate the clown.

      The problem is that many of us, particularly Bush voters, have actually misused our political capital to make the situation worse and not better.  Money that should be flooded into educational programs now lays in the coffers of consolidated corporations who trade politics rather than sound business plans.

      Tipper Gore's campaign was rightfully not appreciated because it scratched at the surface of one symptom of these misplaced priorities thus diverting attention away from a real solution.

      For the same reason that abstinence-only programs have a higher rate of teen pregnancy than comprehensive sex ed coupled with afterschool programs, mere lashing out at the whores which our political decisions have fully produced will yield more societal pathology than identifying and addressing the education funding root cause of our cultural ills.

  •  They could go further back (4.00 / 2)

    So if the Dems wanna steal some of the GOP's market, they might start by revisiting the party's proud libertarian tradition. Remember? The party of JFK?

    If we're gonna talk libertarianism, we could go back to the killer Js, Jefferson and Jackson. The Jacksonians, in particular, offered plenty of rhetoric about suffering workers at the hands of corporate greed.

  •  Bizzaro world (none / 0)

    "The one that kept business in line but trusted the American people to take care of their personal lives?"

    The current administration is exactly the opposite.  They keep horning their nose into people's personal lives while looking the other way as big business continues to rape John and Jane Consumer.  Where have we gone so wrong?

    Since [2000] it's been a book you read in reverse So you understand less as the pages turn - The Shins

    by kissfan on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:50:59 PM PDT

  •  Ballot Box (none / 0)

    On the whole, we seek redress for these indulgences in the pews or the gym - not at the ballot box.

    But isn't that also part of The Problem, to the degree that there is a problem?  Part of the libertarian bent you describe tends towards not voting.  It's hard to get people to resist the system at the ballot box, because the fact of showing up at the ballot box to begin with is a kind of reinforcement of the system they want to resist.

    •  It depends (none / 1)

      A lot of Dittoheads and rightwing radio drones would safely fit in the libertarian box. They're very politically active, because they're immersed in this all-encompassing ideological feed which somehow drowns out the massive internal contradictions of the GOP worldview. They can be engaged. Where I'm originally from, they respond more to NAFTA and the decline of regional employment than to any other issue. Unfortunately, they (rightly) blame Clinton and the Dems for NAFTA, and Rush ensures they blame the Clenis for whatever else ails 'em.

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:18:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not so sure... (none / 1)

        Libertarians, in my experience, always find a way to not vote Democratic no matter how much they admit they've got in common with 'em. It's NAFTA, it's the War on Terra, it's that Kerry was a cheese-eating surrender monkey. They talk the talk of wanting government out of their business, but even with an administration as clearly indifferent-to-hostile to civil rights and keeping their noses out of personal lives as this one, they vote Republican even in the face of the part where Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than Republicans for a generation, and have had the better record on personal and civil rights since the mid-60s.

        So I would love to believe libertarians really, really want to vote Democratic, but I don't buy it. I think Libertarians want to vote Republican, and are hoping for the Moderate Republican Revolution I keep hearing is coming. Like Jesus, or possibly the hydrogen economy.

        They can be engaged, but when it comes to follow-through...

    •  Make voting mandatory (none / 0)

      It's the law in Australia and they regularly have 95%+ turnout. Australians don't actually have to cast a ballot - they only need to register and show up at the polling station on election day.

      It's the only sure way to increase turnout among liberals/libertarians. How can we say we live in a democracy when only a little more than half of the eligible voters exercise democracy's most precious privilege?

      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

      by thebes on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:57:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Damn! (none / 0)

    That is one class A rant, Septic Tank.
  •   Edgy can kiss my fly-over ass (4.00 / 3)

    As a consumer of culture, the "edgy" stupidity of things like that vacant undertaker show on HBO or the pompous mafia program does nothing for me. But each to his tastes. As a citizen, my problem  is that TV has almost nothing according to my taste. It's all advert suffused, weak, ignorant, crap. US TV is not quite as bad as Italian TV, but it sucks. The problem is not lack of censorship, the problem is media concentration. If there was someone showing level B pro-basketball without the endless TV interrupts for advertising, or Marget Cho instead of some asswipe who thinks saying bitch is the funniest thing since the fire at the women's shelter, or a fucking cartoon that had half the wit and erudition of the lamented Moose and squirel or maybe someone doing made for TV versions of some of the vast number of great children's books instead of that insipid crap from Disney or  anything that showed evidence of a sensibility DIFFERENT from that of snickering teenage boy wannabes, it would be a blessing indeed.
  •  Stereo at Atrios (none / 0)

    yep, you can read this diary here and over at Atrios. Snark loves a good snark, and good writing when it's seen!
  •  Kudos from Indiana (none / 1)

    Nicely done rant. I'm not the kind of Hoosier the hand-wringing type of Democrat is trying to cater to -- non-Christian, read Kos daily, etc. But, I've seen a bit of the coastal snobbery. Mainly because more of my fellow Hoosiers voted the wrong way rather than the right way. Just off the cuff, I don't think that happened because of the "value vote" or whatever they're calling it. My take is that Hoosiers were, in large part, were going for the candidate who seemed least wimpy. The GOP has the macho imagery down pat. So much so that, for people not paying much attention, the effete, draft dodging George Bush seemed more manly than the decorated John "did I mention I served in Viet Nam?" Kerry.  

    But, anyway, nicely done.

    I'm here to represent the needle in the vein of the establishment.

    by mhojo on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:20:34 PM PDT

  •  from Louisiana... (none / 0)

    an amen, a thank you, and a possible marriage proposal.  lol

    followed the link from Atrios --

    seriously, you said this better than i ever could.  thank you...

  •  nice (4.00 / 2)

    Great editorial. I particularly liked the last paragraph. Using the better parts of the Republican platform against them, and tying in Delay & Co. cash-and-carry politics can frame the Republicans as the Republiscammers they are.

    At this point I think the Republicans will have to dig their own graves and lie down in it before the Dems start attacking them full bore. Then the Dems will just be dancing on the grave when they should have dug it and pushed them in.

    Recommended.

  •  I say we get screechy and moralistic (4.00 / 2)

    about the right stuff.

    This is a great diary.

  •  Yes (none / 0)

    I, personally, am not a libertarian. I would eagerly outlaw pornography, violence in video games, etc if I thought doing so would bring us closer, politically, to universal healthcare and greater environmental regulation.

    But I agree with the basic thrust of what you've said. These people get on their pedestals and act as though their moralizing has merit. If bashing rap lyrics is worthwhile for its political benefit, heck, fine with me, but say that outright. Because the quasi-racist jitterings of exurban white moms is NOT, in fact, a legitimate political grievance.

    The waning influence of the Puritans is a sad but true byproduct of Republican government. Personally, I say, reclaim the Puritans. They may have burned a few witches, but the scariest aspects of Puritanism were shamelessly invented by Nathaniel Hawthorne.

    "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

    by Marshall on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:49:13 PM PDT

    •  Correction (none / 0)

      Witches were not burned, I believe.

      "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

      by Marshall on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:49:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Puritans = Unitarians? (none / 0)

      Someone told me once that most of the old Puritan churches in the Northeast are now Unitarian churches, and that most of their parishoners are the descendants of those old Puritans. I'm not too much on the whole higher power thing, but that's gotta be divine retributions for their excesses (among them, persecuting my Quaker ancestors).

      I don't think they burned "witches" (most of them widowed old women with some property the town fathers coveted), but they did kill a few hundred one way or another, if I recall correctly -- which is absolutely nothing compared to the witch crazes of Europe.

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:23:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hm (none / 1)

        The religious groups called "Puritan" are now Congregationalist and Unitarian. But the religious history of the eighteenth century is convoluted enough to make that lineage a bit opaque. What do today's Unitarians and the seventeenth century puritans' share? Good question.

        I don't think the witche trials can be explained as easily as you intimate. Six of the twenty executed were men, and they spanned both the income and age distribution. Some of the wealthy ones could have been fingered for reasons of venality, but then there was the town beggar, two or three slaves, etc.  They were all hanged except one man, who was pressed in the manner memorialized by the Crucible.

        It's true that the Mallus Maleficarum has more blood on its hands than any other book.

        "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

        by Marshall on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:41:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Amen! (4.00 / 5)

    I think there are some distinct Southern values, but there's nothing holier-than-thou about them, despite the region's proclivity towards religion.

    Southerners know well and good that what folks do on Saturday doesn't necessarily match up with what's said on Sunday. But, contrary to what some people think, calling them (or church-goers anywhere) hypocrites doesn't exactly win them over.

    To counter the more dubious right-wing "values," here are some "Southern values" that progressives can get behind and steer in a direction for good:

    -- Mutual aid and neighborliness
    -- Sense of place and history
    -- Healthy populist suspicion of unaccountable power
    -- Love of the land

    Get some good policy issues that match up with these values and frame them right, and you'll be surprised how fast we make inroads in the South.

    Read more on this theme here and here.

    Blogging for a Progressive South // www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth

    by ProgressiveSouth on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:51:33 PM PDT

  •  Didn't Gerstein mention that Michael Moore (4.00 / 2)

    ... was fat and unattractive?

    How did he miss that target?

    •  And I'm sure Gerstein's a regular matinee idol (none / 0)

      That's why he's in backroom politics, right?

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:57:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank You!! (4.00 / 3)

    Fabulous commentary.  I think you've hit just about every nail squarely here, and I'm heartened so many more people are feeling muscular enough to say what has been apparent from the start.  

    Planting both feet on the ground and exclaiming, "I stand for something and that something is not what those guys stand for" is exactly what the Dems need to do.  The cringing hand-wringer that worries about offending the quasi-religious voter wastes time and energy.    The "values voter" doesn't exist in any large measure and is, exactly as you suggest, a carefully crafted conceit that is designed to distract highly distractable Democrats.      

    I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

    by lightiris on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:57:27 PM PDT

  •  tell the people what they want (none / 0)

    then sell it to 'em.
    p.s. dan gerstein is auditioning for his new masters. obviously.

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:58:19 PM PDT

  •  Oh, Jesus, we've got (4.00 / 3)

    yet another one of these fools hypothesizing that "morality" cost the election. Have any of these equivocating DINOs considered that perhaps there is something incredibly sick and pedophilic about anyone who can look at Sponge Bob and see sex?  Like, "keep my kids the fuck away from this lunatic" sick?

    The GOP hasn't got that "religion thing" nailed either.  Witness the Schiavo disgrace at which they totally screwed up their latest cynical religious hustle.

    The best thing that Dems can do for this country is to relegate religion right back to where it belongs: in the heart of the worshiper.

    Let's leave the anticonstitutional "theocratic state" to the GOP, please!

    •  Agree (4.00 / 3)

      I can turn my own TV channel; discontinue cable if I'm really upset. Mainly, I just want freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. I want the rights stated in the Bill of Rights.  I do not want a theocracy, and I don't care if we don't win 10 more elections, I still don't want to pander to theocrats. Let them move elsewhere and make their own country. This is still my country. I like it.

      War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

      by Margot on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:30:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dahmer Joke from My Hometown, Milwaukee (none / 0)

    What's worse than zits on your face?

    Black heads in your refrigerator.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:13:03 PM PDT

  •  let's stand for real morality (4.00 / 8)

    It's easy for middle-aged heterosexual men to be against abortion and homosexuality.  It's great to have moral issues that don't require a person to change.

    Real morality, though, would mean digging down below the cheap-and-easy moral issues that only apply to other people and tackle the moral issues that face us as a culture.

    Item:  Economic inequity has been growing in the United States for the past 20 years.  The very rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  A fellow called Jesus had a lot to say about a moral person's duty to the poor, and how the accumulation of vast wealth was not an acceptable goal for a truly moral human being.

    Item:  Environmental degradation is on the rise, and it harms all of us, particularly children.  If we are the stewards of the Earth, we are morally called upon to do a better job. We need to protect the least among us from ills like cancer and mercury poisoning.

    Item:  War is the wholesale slaughter of human beings.  There is nothing in the least bit moral about dropping bombs that kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.  There is nothing moral about destroying the infrastructure of other countries so that their children die of starvation, disease, and exposure.

    Item:  Working conditions in many parts of the world are little better than slave labor.  Slavery is abhorrent to any moral human being.

    I'd like to see Democrats put some moral punch behind these and similar positions.  It is wrong to pollute the Earth and endanger the survival of future generations. It is morally indefensible for our government to serve the rich at the expense of the poor.

    As Americans, we are morally called upon to create a freer,
    more equitable, more humane world.  We are called to fight inequity and injustice wherever we see it, and to create a world that gives more than lip service to the idea that all human beings are created equal.  We are called to make things better for our fellow humans, to free the oppressed,
    and to right the wrongs.

  •  You said it Septic... (4.00 / 2)

    Great Diary! The damned fundies have a pretty good gig going dont they? They have us pretty much believing that there's a shitload more of them than there really are! I guess that's part of their strategy. Let's keep exposing how truly fringe, non-mainstream, and few of them in numbers there really are.
  •  2004 Calling... (4.00 / 4)

    They won't win over "values voters" by bashing Hollywood, though they may well turn off larger numbers of their own potential audience.

    And guess what? This is exactly what happened in 2004. The vast majority of Democratic candidates - Kerry included - refused to take a stand in favour of gay rights, or in favour of women's rights, or against the Iraq war... Or, in fact, anything that could endear them to their base. For the most part, their campaigns consisted of a single, simple attack: "I'm not Bush."

    Turns out that, after four years of Bush, the progressive base doesn't just want not-Bush. They want someone who will actively work to make things better, instead of just not making things worse.

  •  Warped (3.85 / 7)

    their perception is that Democrats are the ones who let people get away with things.

    My people call that "freedom".

    Support Our Troops: Send the Commander-in-Chief to the Front!

    by eodell on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:50:00 PM PDT

  •  I think 50 cent is popular for the beats (none / 0)

    I don't think that people are reacting to the message in this particular artist. In terms of catagorizing music, you really have to make these kinds of judgments I think. Artists like JayZ and Eminem are about lyrics. Fifty is about beats. It has to do with how his voice is perfectly suited for rhythmic expression.

    "In the club" is what made him and that song is all about dance beat.

    As for Britney, Paris, Christina, etc...don't blame anyone but marketing for that. What this is is capitalism plane and simple. No one stops the making of money.  

  •  hey (none / 0)

    We're a nation of furtive Skinimax watchers, porn downloaders and gangsta rap aficionados. We like our food fatty and our sex dirty.

    Take that camera out of my apartment, immediately!

    Be tolerant with others and strict with yourself. --Marcus Aurelius

    by arb on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:33:34 PM PDT

  •  We could own this issue (4.00 / 5)

    For my money, if anyone is going to raise the issues of Hollywood and culture with any degree of integrity, they are also going to have to raise the issue of unfettered capitalism and corporate greed. Because if something can sell, it'll get sold. If conservatives were really serious about stopping sex and such from hitting the airwaves, they would go after that businesses that profit from doing so. A $500k or $1 mil fine against a network might seem like a heavy fine, but most of the networks are smaller pieces of a much larger whole. So while they won't like paying it, it is chump change to the mutlinational media conglomerates that own them.

    IMHO the worship of the market is where the DLC has really transformed the Democratic party, and it needs to be pushed back into a proper balance. Not just on the values front, but on environmental and workers rights fronts as well. Since the Dems sold those down the river a long time ago, we have to use whatever levers we still have to wedge them back into the Democratic agenda. Values is a political opening we should take; if we don't it's going to happen anyway, but only as defined by the other side. And that's what gets us into the Schaivo messes of the world now.

    As I noted elsewhere, if congress seriously wanted CBS to never show another boob again, they'd go after GE. If the wanted to make sure that the FX channel never aired another "shit" or "asshole" again on The Shield, they'd go after Rupert Murdock's Newscorp. I think a progressive communitarian position would work to splinter the right by pointing out that if they were truly serious about cleaning up the airwaves, porn producers, etc., i.e. the things that conservatives claim are destroying "traditional values," they'd go after the corporations that profit from them. In the scheme of things it would be a rearguard action, since capitalism itself is the engine under the hood of the machine that is destroying their so-called traditional values.

    If I were a smarter populist lefty candidate, however, I would tie Enron economics and Exxon pollution in with GE and Newscorps' production of "Hollywood filth". To balance first amendment concerns, I would recommend chasing everything into the walled gardens of cable, with the more grownup stuff on channels like HBO. We could argue about whether that would be a hardship for the poor, who wouldn't be able to get their so-called Hollywood filth as easily as the rich, but politically who's going to make it? I also think it would put the right in a difficult position, since it hammers a wedge into one of their most vulnerable fault lines, at least from a values perspective. As the cherry on top of the cake, Fox is well known here in the entertainment industry for pushing hardest against the traditional values envelope. I often wonder if Fox News isn't actually just a genius business move designed to keep the GOP's hands off of Newscorp's other, far less family-friendly assets.

    In other words I am more than anything interested in the politics of this debate, because I am firmly convinced that we have the policies on our side. However, I think we have in part been beaten several times now because we don't have an effective political answer to the rightwing values message. I agree that we don't join their team to try and win, a la the DLC and Lieberman. But we do have to field an opposing team with an opposition plan, on the same field. That's where my interest in this debate really lies, and the point I'm trying to make.

    They want to scream about Hollywood filth to in effect hide the coffins of returning servicement? Ok, let's point out that these big corporations they claim are destroying our families are owned and operated by their biggest contributors. If it were me in charge of the message, then every Dem on every talking head show that gets into one of these "values" debates should say "Well if [Newscorp or GE or evil corporation X] wasn't such an important contributor to your [party or campaign or majority leaders defense fund], maybe we could fix that. And if [evil corporation Y] wasn't a big contributor of your [party or campaign or majority leaders defense fund] we'd be able to fix [health care,  Social Security, military and teacher pay, schools, etc.]"

    •  The crazies have gone after Disney (none / 0)

      For all the wrong reasons, of course. But at least they're capable of a basic understanding that companies place profits over values, and that that's not always in our best interests. Now if only they could be persuaded to apply that analysis to, oh, say, air pollution or outsourcing jobs or progressive taxation...

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:05:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another Great Diary (none / 0)

    I think the Daily Kos community is on a roll.  After the election, there was a terrible dearth of good writing.  We're back.

    "Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.

    by bink on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:49:09 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman -> Fox, great idea (none / 0)

    open up that seat, Joe!
  •  Goldberg (none / 1)

    Ex record exec Danny Goldberg (now Air America CEO) knows a thing or two about the intersection of politics and pop culture, seeing as how he wrote the book. No, really. It's called Dispatches From the Culture Wars: How The Left Lost Teen Spirit.

    "You Hostile," TAP:

    Ralph Nader is not much better on the subject of popular culture. In December 1999, The Nation recounted a speech in which Nader said that television teaches children "that violence is a preferred solution to life's problems, they are taught to value cheap sensuality in everything from sex to self image to food, and they become addicted to entertainment that shortens their attention span." When I complained about this outburst, Nader told me he thought kids would grow up better "if they performed their own versions of Eugene O'Neill plays or Romeo and Juliet instead of watching movies or TV." I answered that given the depressing themes of those works, I was much happier that my kids have memorized large sections of Austin Powers. It was clear from the dead silence on the other end of the phone that Nader had no idea what Austin Powers was.
    •  That may be (none / 1)

      but Goldberg is also an avowed admirer of Dubya, so I think he's more interested in retaining his hard won status in the millionaire's club than anything else.
      •  What the fuck are you talking about? (none / 0)

        He's written for The American Prospect and The Nation. He's the CEO of Air America. His book is about helping the left.

        Are we even talking about the same guy?

        •  Check this out (none / 0)

          http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21649/

          Maybe it's just bad static or poor reception, but isn't the new CEO of liberal radio network Air America soundbiting like a Republican?

          Sure, he thinks Al Franken is a "genius," but he admits listening regularly to Rush Limbaugh "because I was fascinated by his ability to be so entertaining." He says Air America won't take its cues from the Democratic National Committee, "because I hate to see people just lockstep following a political party." He believes people in Hollywood should be "supportive of politicians, not a replacement for politicians, unless they actually want to run for office like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I hope we produce one of those in my lifetime." He sees American media becoming more like "the European media now, where media is admitting who they favor, and I think that trend is not all bad because I think there was a bias anyway." And he says his most immediate goal is to "make a lot of money for shareholders."
          -------------
          "There's a lot of attention to the fact that Clear Channel has done it because of the perception of Clear Channel. It's from Texas, and some of the people there are friends with George Bush," says Goldberg, picking his words carefully. "But it's not just Clear Channel. The new stations in Texas -- Dallas, Austin and San Antonio -- are not Clear Channel stations. What simply happened is that the ratings have been good enough to demonstrate that there's a frustrated talk-radio audience that's not right-wing. So, faced with an underperforming AM station, this is a much better business decision for an owner than the other alternatives. And that's where we're getting the stations from."

          I'm just saying while I'm sure he's sincere about "helping" the left, he seems to also be a businessman first.

      •  Oh, and one other thing (none / 1)

        ...he's more interested in retaining his hard won status in the millionaire's club than anything else.

        When did you learn to read minds, Mr. Amazing Kreskin?

    •  Can you really sign up for that? (none / 0)

      You think Austin Powers is better than Hamlet or McBeth? And when those kids grow up and have to understand a Dick Cheny, they won't be able to use the inights obout the character of Macbeth's lust for power or Willy Loman's sales techniques, but can make superficial jokes about it. And, believe me, I'm no stranger to superficial facile entertainment - I'm certainly not above it. But if Danny Goldberg thinks that Shakespeare is depressing and 50cent is uplifiting, he's a dumbkopf. Nader may be an easy target, but Austin Powers for God's sake - what a tool.
      •  But Goldbergs article is otherwise smart (none / 0)

      •  Yes, I can (none / 1)

        And you're part of the problem that Goldberg is talking about. You missed the point entirely. He didn't mention Macbeth, it was Romeo and Juliet, which is hella depressing. And O'Neill will make you want to slit your wrists—if you're mature enough to figure out what's really going on.

        And what the fuck is wrong with Austin Powers? I'm sorry, but those movies really strike a chord with me. I'm about the same age as Mike Myers, and I had that same fascination with Euro-mod/Cold War spy culture, which has stuck with me all these years. Roger Moore as The Saint, Charade, Topkapi, 8 1/2, James Bond, Get Smart...I'm so there. And he nailed it. Those movies display a meticulous attention to details of period and genre that elevates them to high camp.

        And it obviously appeals outside Mr. Myers's and my childhood fetish, or it wouldn't have spawned two wildly successful sequels. Compare them to The Avengers movie, which was a total flop.

        But really: Who has the best one-liners? O'Neill or Myers?

        Don't sneer at pop culture, man. It's the people's art, after all. And it's important to remember that in his day, Shakespeare was pop culture. But it's interesting to note that Nader didn't pick a fun comedy like The Taming of the Shrew.

        •  What most people don't get... (none / 0)

          ...is that pop culture is the gateway drug to so-called high culture. Start with rock and roll, get to blues, find jazz, end up with classical. My mom teaches kids at risk in a performing and fine arts high school. That's her method and it works.

          So you are dead cold right once again hamletta--knocking pop culture misses the power it has on its own, and where it can lead for those so inclined.

          •  You're too kind (none / 1)

            But you're onto something. I have some stark contrasts in my parents. My dad tended to prescribe certain books and music, while my mom was more of a come-along type.

            My dad all but forced me to read Tom Sawyer when I was 6, while my mom gave me a copies of A Tree Grows In Brooklyn or The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe for birthdays and Christmas because she loved them when she was a little girl.

            My dad wised up after a while, and gave me stacks of great books a couple of years later, but I still have this wigginess about Mark Twain, even though I'm a lifelong student/lover of American humor.

            Oh, and I remember one great moment in The Great American Camping Trip with my mom, when I was forcing my 10-year-old self through my Scholastic edition of Jane Eyre.

            She said, "hamletta, just because it's a classic doesn't mean you have to like it." This was a revelation.

        •  Austin powers bored me (none / 0)

          Two issues: taste and politics. For my taste a little "high camp" goes a long way - probably, I'm too crass to appreciate the subtleties and, you know, a wry homage to go-go-boots is just wasted on me.  Shoe styles are not what I noticed about the girls in the Bond movies. And I've never liked O'Neil either. So each to his or her taste. But politically, Nader is right: the media presents a unpleasantly limited range of options. The 60s is just fashion, tough guys are mafia or soldiers or cops, working people don't exist, and the message of consume/consume is never-ending.  Is pop culture the people's art? Hip-hop on the streets is sure different than hip-hop with Warner Brothers. There's a difference between the people's art, and the "what we sell the people."
  •  Try fielding some candidates of color (4.00 / 2)

    while we're at it. That'd go a long way towards overcoming the so-called "values" voter (read White vote).

    Let's just admit the racial component here for a second. Say what you will about black and latino evangelicals going rightward. The fact is the Values cabal is a product of white suburbia. Minority voters are not engaged as much as they could be. Why? They are telling the world they want candidates they can relate to. They are not content to send nice white folk in to fight their battles anymore.

    Our track record in this area stinks with the exception of Obama. The friggin' guy was a neophyte, yet won in a landslide virtually unopposed. Did that send any flags up? Maybe we need more populist, attractive candidates of color? Are we recruiting any? Are any stepping forward? Let that be the story of 06 and 08. I'm tired of the color blindness.

    •  From Missouri, (none / 0)

      I think that Obama and Moseley Braun won for the same reason. Two guys who were better known were destroying each other in the primary race, and did not really appeal to voters. Obama and Moseley Braun were able to slip through. Obama was unopposed because his opponent presumptive went up in flames because of the sex scandal and Keyes is too conservative for Illinois. Democrats should think about candidates of color beyond the "ghetto" Congressional districts because it is justice, and has been delayed since Reconstruction.

      -4.00, -5.33 Strange Bedfellows Money Bomb: August 8, 2008 Civil liberties is not a purity issue.

      by 4jkb4ia on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:22:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (none / 0)

      But are we recruiting any attractive populist candidates of color? Lately, we've been having trouble finding ugly old reactionary white ones.

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:09:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All of what you have written (none / 0)

    is so painfully obvious and has been for the past few years to so many of us that it begs the question of why are DC DEMs and consultants unable to grasp this, particularly after the last two elections?  They aren't stupid.  They don't like losing.  So, why can't they see that doing more of what they have been trying to do for the past few years is a loser?

    Could it be that the right of center moral values formulation not only wins elections for the GOP but reflects the personal views of these politicians -- views that as Democrats they are not supposed to hold -- but if they present them as merely means to put DEMs on a winning path, they can?

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:05:34 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps there is some truth here (none / 0)

    They of the patriarchal sky gods and the cult of the football just want to be assured that somebody's running things and will discipline anyone that gets out of line. The Dems just have to show that they can be stern in order to get right with rightwing voters.

    I actually think there's some truth to this line. Some conservatives do have a need for someone to tell them what's right and what's wrong. It makes them feel like they're on the right track. And I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that some people seem to need religion for an explanation of all which they don't understand.

    That said, it doesn't mean that we should start telling people what they can and can't do. Afterall, it's difficult to teach people to think critically when you're telling them what they should do. But, I do think this is a point that the gop understands well and frequently capitalizes upon.

    Democrats -- Progress for the Working Class

    by rogun on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:31:58 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, it's out there (none / 0)

      And that's where the Daddy/Mommy Party dyad makes some sense (or Lakoff's Daddy/Parent Party). I don't think the yearning for daddy is quite as intense in the heartland as has been suggested in the national news media, and I don't think you can win it by trying to embody Daddy, which is what I see the Dems doing (and very badly).

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:10:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  who are these people? (none / 0)

    Some people certainly are opposed to abortion on principle; but many are simply offended by the idea that some people might rely on abortion as a means of birth control ...

    Who are the people that "rely on abortion" as methd of birth control -- hmmm, eyah, "I'll take the invasive, surgical procedure for $600 Alex" - instead of the condom or pill.

    And, who are these morally sanctimonious fucks who have the audacity to lump anyone in such a category.

    If such a person, or group of people exist, who are serial aborters, they deserve something other than our contempt.  And, on the outside chance that my sepculation is correct -- that these "serial aborters" make up a ridiculous minority (if they exist at all) of the overall population of women who need to seek an abortion, its hardly something to pin one's overal policy decisions on.

    FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.  This shit drives me nuts.

    John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

    by MRL on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 06:38:03 AM PDT

Permalink | 99 comments