So, shall we talk in 2001 terms?

Christian Americans, are you with us, your gay American brothers and sisters, or the terrorists?

Share
 

The Republican Party is now a de facto third party in California, behind progressive Democrats and somewhat less progressive Democrats. Loretta Sanchez advancing to the top-two general election with a massive 18% total shouldn’t necessarily be a tribute to her campaign skills (such as they are) but rather as a testament to the inability of the state GOP to perform even the most basic functions of a political party. Not that that’s necessarily news, as they basically failed to do this in 2014 and Karl Rove had to parachute in to keep them from nominating an open white supremacist in a write-off race. Crazy how things change so fast, huh?

Admittedly, this does raise the troubling possibility that Sanchez could run at Harris from the right and win by assembling a coalition of Republicans and less-moderate Democrats behind her, along with significant Hispanic support, which is the sort of possibility that could excite media pundits. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

Share

The Republican Party cannot ignore young people forever. It eventually will have to expand its base, and post Trump there aren’t going to be lots of unalienated possible blocs of older voters to appeal to, so going with people too young to remember your ugly recent chapters is a better bet. And while the Millennials are most likely lost to them for good, there will continue to be more cohorts of young people, and it’s fallacious to think of them as automatic liberals–fallacious historically and philosophically. But Republicans really don’t have a great plan on how to appeal to them. The new plan relies on one part co-opting liberal rhetoric (and some ideas), another part lecturing and technofetishism:

The authors stressed that their report was for all Republicans, and said young people should be educated about “freedom” because “they have no clue about ‘freedom’ in their own lives, no hint of why they need it, when they use it, or how to value it”.

The key, according to the authors, is to speak about freedom “in practice”, particularly through millennials’ “ability to connect with others and share information”: their phones.

“Our phones are not something ‘other’ than us. They are us,” they wrote. “We are one with everyone, everywhere. That connection expands what we can do, which necessarily expands who we are and what we can become.”

Typically, when your party’s comeback plan requires lecturing a group of people about concepts they just don’t understand, it’s not a very good plan. They don’t have Soviet-style control of the media to perform such an education, and even that can be overrated. (Just ask the Soviets.) And the tone of this is bizarre: it’s as though the GOP’s youth outreach team just realized that people like smartphones. “Ok, so our polling information says kids love their phones. That’s the ticket! The phones, yeah, the phones.” It reflects a level of with-it-ness unseen since perhaps the publication of Go Ask Alice.

The real problem here is that for each successive cohort of young people, race, gender and sexuality issues are likely to be less likely to be backlash-inducing. I’m not saying it’s at all certain, but definitely likely. Things that a few years earlier would have caused considerable discomfort–gay marriage, transgender issues–are now so completely normalized for young people I can hardly believe it when I interact with them. Not so sure that that’s going to be overcome with more past-its-sell-date Reaganite economics that young people in particular seem indifferent to, as do many members of the Republican Party itself. Obviously they’ll come back eventually, but it could take quite a long time of rebuilding first, and I’m okay with that.

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

I did something recently that I don’t normally do: I watched a new Marvel movie in the theater. Typically when one comes out that I have any interest in, I simply wait for it to eventually make its way to an inflight entertainment system near me. But this time, it was a family event, blah blah blah, and nothing else satisfied the requirements. So Captain America: Civil War it was.

In short, I found that it started promisingly but ultimately disappointed. I saw The Winter Soldier and generally liked it, couldn’t quite figure out why at the time. Now it’s apparent enough: it had a very un-Marvel movie sense of restraint. I disliked The Avengers for the same reason I suspect most people liked it, which is that I don’t like the kitchen sink being thrown at me. From a movie I want a strong story, a sense of mood, solid tension, intriguing themes, some sort of takeaway. I don’t want to be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of stuff going on. The Winter Soldier supplied all of what I wanted, and Civil War supplied pretty much none of it. It seemed initially as though it was going to go somewhere interesting by having the characters having to question the corruptive nature of power, and whether their attempts to do good might bring about evil. This sort of thinking, of course, underpins the progressive Christian ethos, many of our civic institutions, and pretty much none of our nation’s foreign policy at this point–difficult ideas, even contradictory ones, in other words–so the timing to explore the themes in a popular film could be interesting. But then all that stuff pretty much gets tossed aside for extended superhero-on-superhero fight scenes, which are quite entertaining at first but inevitably suffer from diminishing returns. The whole thing winds up being inconclusive, the plot mechanics take over, etc. Then at the end Captain America delivers a speech so close to Tom Joad’s from The Grapes Of Wrath that the Steinbeck estate may want to consider their legal options. For some reason. I never got as into them as some, but at least the X-Men movies turned around a palpable central dynamic between Xavier and Magneto that was open to multiple interpretations. The dynamic here is all on the surface. Only one interpretation is possible. There’s simply no depth to it, even by the standards of the genre. There’s no conflict of ideologies, no different philosophies on gaining or using power. Just punches and quips over an issue that could have been settled peaceably. That’s it.

I’ve come to a conclusion, which is this: I don’t hate superhero movies. I think I really just hate The Avengers and movies that try to copy its template, which Civil War assuredly does. The Winter Soldier, though, did not: in spite of the big action setpieces and CGI effects, it set about its goal with a relative lack of distraction and embellishment. That it was so successful apparently led the suits to decide that what was needed were a bunch more characters, the casual bickering, bloated runtime and nerdgasm cameos, you know, the stuff that the original movie avoided and that got it noticed. Marvel simply cannot resist the bug of excess, and it’s working for them now. But people tire of that sooner than later, and if every superhero movie going forward is going to be of that sort, well…

Share
Lev filed this under: , ,  

Now that it’s going to trial, I have to say that I’m really gratified that Bill Cosby had his downfall while he was still living. It’s very easy to imagine a scenario where Cosby dies in, say, 2010, and none of this stuff ever becomes more than whispers. I remember well when Michael Jackson died and people decided (for a time, anyway) to engage in the uncomplicated hero worship people seem to want to engage in with beloved entertainers. While the Cosby stuff was “out there” it hadn’t been picked up by the media, and had he died before it happened, that silence would no doubt have continued. It’s easy to imagine that happening to Cosby. If they ever had come out–and it’s hard to imagine all those women going to the trouble of getting their stories out there about a dead man–they would have been vastly easier to ignore for all the people who grew up on his shows and loved him with the sort of precritical attachment that one finds among many fans of, say, Star Wars.

 

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

As he is popping back into the limelight again:

Perhaps a bit on the nose but still.

Share
{ 1 comment }
 

Aside from Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles (you remember the Simpson-Bowles committee, don’t you?) and the trying-too-hard-to-be-nice post-midterm choices of Bill Daley and David Plouffe* to run the White House, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the worst personnel decision that Barack Obama ever made as president. Granted, in substantive terms she’s the least damaging. She didn’t talk Obama into some dumb obsession with a debt deal, or try to bond with Republicans about hating regulation (!), or to convince him to make a deal when Republicans threatened default. She didn’t come up with a deficit-reduction deal that included tax cuts for rich people and Social Security cuts, and then provided Republicans with years’ worth of talking points about how Obama was rejecting “his own plan” that they opposed too. Those were not good things. But while DWS is the least harmful she’s also the most useless: someone who for some reason was given a fairly important job and has made a hash of it from day one. I’ve criticized Bernie Sanders for some of the ridiculousness of his self-contradicting message of “fairness,” but he has a point in that it really is a problem when the head of the national party isn’t credible as an honest broker in a nomination fight. Presidential nominations are one of the few times the DNC is actually meaningful aside from fundraising. It’s extremely important in fact: it essentially sets up and runs the whole process, and is at the center of mediating disputes between the candidates. Or at least, it should be doing that. Instead it does stuff like this. Or this. Schultz fucking this up is like the Secretary of Commerce fucking up the Census. You have one thing to do. Just one. And if you screw that up, what good are you? So I heartily agree with Atrios here, long since time for her to go. I sort of wonder if this isn’t Clinton trying to sidestep a sticky situation in having to decide to keep her on or not. If so, clever thinking on her part: it looks bad dumping her or keeping her, after all.

*Interesting that all these people (including DWS) got their jobs in 2011, isn’t it? He really was messed up in light of that midterm loss, huh?

Share
{ 1 comment }

Gillian Anderson would make a pretty awesome secret agent, but I’ll never understand the argument of why James Bond specifically should be played by a woman. One really has to wonder why people think that it would be some feat of social justice to have an antiheroic libertine violent sociopath played by a woman at last. So far as I can tell, the reason why you hear this about Bond and Doctor Who is basically because they’ve been around a long time and only men play the character, and women don’t really anchor equivalent tentpole franchises. Which is wrong–those should exist! But making the character of Bond female (or a gay male) is basically chucking out the source material altogether and starting from scratch with a brand new character with the same name, which is fine–you’re perfectly free to deprecate Fleming’s work–but it should be so identified, is all, and it’s not as though “I like it as it is” isn’t a sufficient counterargument to this. (On the other hand, I see no particular reason why we couldn’t have a black Bond. It could provide a different take on the character’s essential outsiderness.) And if we’re going to chuck Fleming’s character anyway, why not just create a new character altogether and start a different series of films?

As for the franchise’s depiction of female characters, it’s certainly spotty (though much improved over the years), but it has created more compelling women than conventional wisdom would have you believe. And, also, Christmas Jones and Jinx. Yeah.

Share
Lev filed this under: ,