Why It's Hard to Be a Democrat

After watching Barak Obama try to describe his tax plan and alleviate the woes of Joe the Plumber, it dawned on me that being a democrat is a tough egg. 

Joe's problem was Obama's tax plan for businesses with incomes of over $250,000. Joe was going to buy the company he toiled over for 15 years. He wanted to know why he should pay more taxes for working so hard. Obama responded with compassion and insight but Joe wasn't convinced. And why should he? 

First, let's discuss the things that were created by the media to stereotype the modern day Democrat.

Pop Culture View

1. Traitor - Well not exactly like Benedict Arnold but the modern Democrat is viewed by the media and popular culture as a callow wimp because they generally don't want to go to war, especially with Iraq. This is one of the easiest reasons to hate Democrats and love Republicans. America is a nation of victory and the only victory that matters is in war. Sure, we'll get pumped for our son's win on the ball field but we'll have raging hard-ons if we watch some Central Asian wave a white flag from his cave. 
2. Hippie - Stereotypes are fun because they allow us to define someone in the most basic of terms. While I'm convinced that the hippie that everyone is familiar with doesn't actually exist anymore, many consider Democrats as  hippies. And it's not even about caring about the environment anymore (I guess they were right about that) it's really about maintaining the difference. If you don't support the war, then you're a hippie, mainly because we haven't invented a word to describe you and I'm not creative enough to do so. 
3. Elitist - The "Liberal Elitist" identity is one that really confuses me. How can someone who supports welfare be an elitist? It just doesn't make sense to me. But, to the average joe, in the stereotype encyclopedia Democrats are elitists. They are educated, they are rich, and they belong to a class above the plebeian. There aren't any Palin-esque Democrats. And that's the appeal of Sarah Palin and John McCain - they remind us of people we know. Most people know a veteran and most people have a mom and that's what McCain and Palin are - at least that's how the media pegs them. But what the hell is Obama? "Um, he was an attorney. A WHAT?! BOO! Does he even drink beer?"
4. Socialist - In the interview with Joe the Plumber, Obama's socialist persona was cemented by Fox News. His "spreading the wealth" rhetoric was translated to "we'll all be wearing the same shoes soon". The first thing people ask themselves when a democrat is running is, "Okay, how much is this going to cost me." And I understand the question because many people work very hard for what they have. But again, this viewpoint is really encouraged to further the divide, further the stereotype. It's a way to make Democrats different from Republicans. Democrats are Marxists communists while Republicans are hard-working small business owners. How can you argue with that? (I think I should note that this is essentially the modern Democrat's most altruistic trait but no one really sees it that way.)

And these are the things that people just think about when a Democrat goes on the air. Really, these characteristics aren't real. But when you think about the things that define a Democrat, it's hard to ask yourself, "Why would anyone listen to them?"

If a Democrat had some kind of bullshit detector or language simplifier, this is what one would say if running for public office:

• I'm going to raise taxes.
• I'm going to try to stop the war.
• I'm going to make abortions legal. 
• I'm going to try and save the environment.
• I'm going to make the government bigger. 

Intrinsically, why would anyone vote for such a person? Granted this is a wildly over-simplified vision (stereotype) of a Democrat, but it is the essential agenda of one. 

So the point of this post is that Republicans have the easiest rhetoric in the world of politics. You don't need to be a smooth-talking, hyper-intelligent, suave politician if you are a Republican. Everything that Republicans believe is agreeable:

• I'm going to lower taxes.
• I'm going to win the war.
• I'm going to save all the babies.
• I'm going to make gas cheaper. 
• I'm going to make the government smaller. 

Of course save the babies! How can you argue with that? Thomas Jefferson said that a government should never be bigger than the people it governs. Totally. Make gas cheaper? That's great! I drive all the time! How can you debate that? How can you say to "NO!" to any of that? How have we had ANY Democratic presidents? It's so simple. It's so easy to understand. 

But there in lies the problem. Life isn't simple. Maybe this is why stereotypes are bad. Everyone's had a moment where they witness a stereotype fulfilling itself and we say, "Figures," under our breath. But these stereotypes are misleading rather than enlightening. A Democrat is, if broken down into a stereotype, a horrible weakling traitor who wants to let people kill babies. And the Republican stereotype is a person who is the Uber-American Patriot and Savior of the World. There's no truth to it. Maybe this is why there are so many undecided voters for this election. The stereotypes we are feed aren't living up. 

The world isn't a stereotype - it's full of vastly different people and difficult circumstances and random events and tragedies and heartbreaks and hard decisions and ups and downs. Stereotypes don't work because they put a overly-simple thing into an infinitely complex system. It just doesn't work. 

So here's the problem - the media, and the candidates themselves probably, perpetuate these stereotypes. They want people to see them in simplified terms, not complex and organic, like the world they inhabit. 

Maybe they do it because it's easier for us, maybe it happens as a result of the mass media editing and shaping their identity, or maybe they are just lazy. Maybe it's to further the divide. Either way, it's definitely hard to be a Democrat. 

A Word About Sarah Palin and Conservatives

Over the years I've become so disenfranchised by bi-partisan debauchery that I really don't care about either political party. If I had to choose, I guess I would say I'm a democrat but only because they are the least traditional party. They are much more progressive than conservatives. Conservatives are very old fashioned which probably explains where the GOP title comes from. The transient world we live in has no room for traditions in my opinion. 

I wanted to get that out of the way, that our political system disgusts me. Now I'm not accountable for what I say. Just kidding. 

So the other week, I read an article about Sarah Palin and her reputation after her impersonation by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. Personally, I missed it but I heard it was funny on Fox News so it must have been gut-bustingly hilarious. I swear, they'll start a jihad on anyone who bashes a conservative even in the slightest, so when they said it was good, Tina Fey must have felt an air of accomplishment. 

Tina Fey really emphasized Palin's pension for identifying with working-class people, aka hockey-moms and Joe Six-Packs, and her annoying little Wisconsin-esque-Fargo-inspiring housewife accent and sayings. 

But what this article said was that Palin's reputation may be in jeopardy after the impression. And there are two possible outcomes of this: 

1. Tina Fey is a comic genius and master impersonator of CIA level skills and should win something good like a dump truck filled with gold bricks or a unicorn or something. 
2. It actually turns out that Sarah Palin's reputation/credibility was always in jeopardy. 

The article cites Gerald Ford as a classic example of pop culture determining political culture. Ford was, during his time, known as an athlete and an intellectual. But because of Chevy Chase's impression on SNL, he is forever known as an uncoordinated fool. 

So Ford and Palin both were made fun of on SNL. The difference was that Ford's reputation was never really harmed because of it. That's probably because he already had some kind of integrity or credibility. I mean he was only really president for two years after Nixon resigned and he won his party's nomination for the next election. And he lost to Jimmy Carter by a small margin. One thing to note about Ford in terms of his reputation and his credibility was his pardoning of Nixon. He had a solid, albeit short-lived, presidency and no amount of mockery can take that away. 

If Palin or her advocates are worried that an SNL skit will ruin the Republican ticket, refer back to the two possible outcomes mentioned earlier. 

If anything, this article really highlights the insecurities of the Republican party which can be added to the parties allegations that Barak Obama is a terrorist. It's kind of pathetic if you think about it. It's just really poor and obvious defensive PR. 

On another completely different note, the article also says that political culture takes it's cues from popular culture. And if that's true, then God help us all. Soon we'll be taking political cues from Laguna Beach whores and Real World douchebags. 

Here's the link:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/65952/Fey-blamed-for-ruining-Palin-s-reputation

The Hypocrisy of Fanboys

If there's one thing that really pisses me off about the internet, it is the ubiquitous presence of the ultimate scum of the universe - the modern fanboy. 

And while I'll mainly be talking about movie adaptations, I think a lot of this idea I have can spread across other platforms. 

For the uninformed, a fanboy is someone obsessed with some form of media, usually a video game or comic. And I only say obsession because that is the only word in English to describe their behavior. It's much worse than that unfortunately. I'll have to make up a new word. They are obsedeadarded. This is a clever amalgam of obsessed + deadly + retarded. Obsessed because they need whatever gets them wet, deadly because they would literally kill for the thing, and retarded because it's usually over something trivial like a video game or a comic. 

If that is not reason enough to hate fanboys, there is more. There is the Hypocrisy of Fanboys to be had. 

So fanboys are obsedeadarded over comics and/or videogames. To the average person, media is something that is to be consumed in one way or another - video games are to be played, comics read, movies viewed. They are to be enjoyed, with the possibility of having some longer lasting impression. It may even be considered art. Plenty of comics have risen to the level of high art in our post-modern world. The evidence for this is the explosion of comic book and video game movie adaptations. Ten or fifteen years ago, any regular guy who claimed to read comics would be immediately ostracized and possibly stoned. But then X-Men came out, it became cool to be into it. Good. 

Now enter fanboys. Where as a normal person can read a comic or watch a movie or play a game and say, "You know what, maybe this is more than just a game. Maybe it has some kind of significance", a fanboy will say, "This is the end-all-be-all of comics. This is the Alpha and Omega. This is my new God." 

Fanboys put things on pedestals. Batman is no longer just a comic but something to be deified. And any deviation from the source material, the thing that made it so powerful to them, is the anti-christ. It must be burned, purified, or in some way destroyed. 

Just look at the IMDb boards for Frank Miller's The Spirit adaptation. 

So fanboys deify whatever it is they love and consider it high art and they worship everything about it. And here's the hypocrisy: they are just consumers on crack. And art is not something that we aggressively consume. Well it is, but not in the purest sense of it and that's how fanboys see what ever it is they obsess over. Sure you can buy a print copy of the Mona Lisa for $10 but the original, which ostensibly looks the same, is priceless. And that's what fanboys do. They obsess over the Mona Lisa and buy a print copy and hang it on their wall. If you really think about it, it kind of loses it's meaning. 

The thing that they consider art and important is really just something that they buy, consume, and repeat. It's still all about feeding the masses. All those thousands of Will Eisner fans are bashing The Spirit remake for deviating from the source material but those same people will be lining the theaters opening day to see it. 

The main differences between a normal person and a fanboy is the license to hate something before they actually consume it and the speed and quantity of consumption. They can judge a movie from a trailer because they have devoted their lives to the source material. And while they say how much of an abomination it is before and after they see it, they still see it. It's the addiction. 

The fanboy also feels that movie adaptations, because it is crossing into new territory, should be very strict to keeping with the source material. What it really comes down to, in their minds, is consumer respect. They feel that because they have devoted and invested themselves so deeply into the comic or video game, the adaptations should respect them. But they don't and they don't have to. This is what really upsets the fanboy. They average consumer isn't looking for respect though, they are just looking for something to fill the consumer appetite. So they won't get bent out of shape because Denny Colt's suit isn't blue. They don't care. 

And this brings me back to my original point - fanboys are just consumers on crack. They need to be fed. But most of the time they aren't satisfied because of this feeling of disrespect. The art that they saw in the source material is gone because movie studios don't really need to satisfy a consumer's respect, only their appetite. They are in it for the money, not to make people happy.

So in a nutshell, being a fanboy means living an empty existence from never being satisfied by the thing that you have devoted your life to and having to sit through movies that you knew from the beginning you weren't going to like.