America. F--- Yeah!
America unrestrained, exuberant, proud.
[Today's blog uses the F-word. Parental advisory. If you don't want to read the word, please don't. Delete and come back tomorrow, please.]
Polite culture? Hell with it! Go, America, fuck yeah!
Donald Trump caught a mood that was out there in the public mind. It was nearly invisible to people who are part of the general polite culture, especially urban-oriented educated Democrats and especially women. Polite culture is the widespread, public behavior culture. In it people don't swear in public, men don't scratch their balls in public, people don't say the N-word. People act with some care and empathy. They understand that other people have rights and feelings. They try not to offend.
Example: in polite culture a person would not shoot a shoulder fired rocket launcher at a presumed Muslim terrorist who is standing in a crowd in front of the Eiffel Tower, simultaneously killing the bystanders and the terrorist and toppling the Eiffel Tower so that it crashes into the city of Paris.
Example: in polite culture a person chasing terrorists doesn't casually destroy the Pyramids of Egypt, the Sphinx, and Mt. Rushmore.
In 2004, in the aftermath of the 9-11 shock, the creators of the South Park TV show made a high concept movie, Team America--World Police, a satirical look at the action film genre. The film was prescient. It predicted Trump, because it understood and celebrated the mood that Donald Trump that was out there and which Trump channeled in 2015 and 2016.
Polite culture may understand the social changes of the past decade as an improving America, a more tolerant America, an America that accepts gays and foreigners, one that could elect Barrack Obama. That changing culture brought backlash. Trump expressed it: Make America Great Again. It was backlash.
Polite culture may understand the social changes of the past decade as an improving America, a more tolerant America, an America that accepts gays and foreigners, one that could elect Barrack Obama. That changing culture brought backlash. Trump expressed it: Make America Great Again. It was backlash.
 |
| Rockets solve problems fast. |
The movie "Team America" celebrated the backlash and reveled in it. It projected a brash, careless, America. "America, fuck yeah! Coming to save the motherfucking day now. America, fuck yeah! Freedom is the only way now!"
 |
| American blonde. Fuck yeah! |
The movie was transgressive, without apology. It celebrated in a muscular, hyper masculine, teen age male orientation to the world. It liked beautiful blonde women, big tits, cheeseburgers, pornography, the NFL, destroying Muslims, shooting people, and proudly blowing things up: the all-American stuff that a polite, feminized world disapproved of.
It gloried in a patriotism of men, guns, and unapologetic expression of id. America, fuck yeah!
Here is a three minute sample: Click Here
Democrats and progressives can learn a lesson here, if they pay attention. Donald Trump adopted the role of an action hero, the big, bad, dominant guy. The GOP candidates in the early primaries had picked up the theme of a feminized, over-civilized, too-mild Democratic party, exemplified by no-drama-Obama and good-girl-Hillary. The various candidates called Obama weak, "feckless". Sarah Palin said he wore "mom jeans." Ted Cruz presented cartoon images of himself, all buffed up.
The lesson: A great many Americans like an action hero, a man of action, not a man of thoughtful empathy.
The lesson: A great many Americans like an action hero, a man of action, not a man of thoughtful empathy.
I believe the take-away lesson is the next Democratic candidate for president must appear strong. Ideally, smart and strong; courageous and strong; with integrity and strong. But strong in a way that can stand up to Trump in a political fight. And that strength demands that the person project fearless pride in what he or she stands for--not someone looking for approval. It suggests an executive, not a legislator. It suggest a fighter, not a scholar. It suggest a person with a plan of action.
Candidates for the Congress and Senate might take a lesson, too. A Democrat in a red state or district looking to outperform Hillary Clinton in the vote share of men may need to work against the feminine, restrained, civilized archetype that characterizes the big city/college town Democrat. Voters are impatient with the heavy burden of superego, with all the politeness and civility. It projects logjam. It projects weakness. It looks like a person who wants everyone to get along, not a person who will fight on ones behalf.
 |
| Jamie Macleod-Skinner (right), listening. |
This may create a unsolvable conflict inside the mind of a potential Democratic candidate. That candidate might genuinely believe that the grave problems with the world generally and with American politics is the lack of civility, the failure of people to meet and experience genuine civic dialog and to come up with community solutions. Legislators should work for common ground, shouldn't they?
The Team America movie is satire, a scene of over the top America-firstism, yet, improbably, it turned out that this is exactly what Americans elected as president. Americans wanted the action hero. The supposed gaffs--pussy grab, insulting Carly, insulting Mexicans, insulting Muslims--turned out to be qualifiers, not dis-qualifiers. They showed he really was willing to break the rules of polite company.
The Team America movie is satire, a scene of over the top America-firstism, yet, improbably, it turned out that this is exactly what Americans elected as president. Americans wanted the action hero. The supposed gaffs--pussy grab, insulting Carly, insulting Mexicans, insulting Muslims--turned out to be qualifiers, not dis-qualifiers. They showed he really was willing to break the rules of polite company.
A Democratic candidate who fights for civility and bottom up consensus building may be exactly the right message to win a Democratic primary. It would be an un-memorable, un-remarkable, non-confrontational message, and there may be a segment of Democrats who believe that if we just had enough good, warm conversations then political conflict could be resolved. But such a message would be disastrous for the general election.
A local congressional candidate, whose announcement I examined three days ago, is apparently taking the empathy-lets-all-get-along approach, at least for now. She put up a website, introducing herself with a description of what she wants to do, and it is a case study in projecting the mood and goal of consensus building:
A local congressional candidate, whose announcement I examined three days ago, is apparently taking the empathy-lets-all-get-along approach, at least for now. She put up a website, introducing herself with a description of what she wants to do, and it is a case study in projecting the mood and goal of consensus building:
"Our region has a history of working together to create community solutions. We need a representative who supports those solutions. I’m traveling around the 20 counties in our District to talk with our neighbors about how we can build the best road map to our future. Hope to see you out there."
Click here: https://mcleodskinner4or.org
Click here: https://mcleodskinner4or.org
Look at the choice of words: "working together", "community solutions", "supports solutions". The action is travel, talk, build "road map". It is civic, civil, civilized. It is soft, open ended, leadership from below. It fits a stereotype.
It may be what Democrats want. But it ignores the lesson Trump taught. It ignores the fact that people in the district overwhelmingly voted for a transgressive action hero rather than a woman who began her campaign with a "Conversation with America."
It may be what Democrats want. But it ignores the lesson Trump taught. It ignores the fact that people in the district overwhelmingly voted for a transgressive action hero rather than a woman who began her campaign with a "Conversation with America."
The strong majority of people in my own red rural district did not want civility and consensus. They voted for Trump and they voted for Greg Walden, a man in the GOP congressional leadership who argued for ending Obamacare. At the presidential level they wanted pride and power, not care and empathy. They wanted a fighter for America.
They voted for the guy who projected the unapologetic mood of: "America. Fuck yeah!"
A great many people do not view the American polity as a great big family where decisions are made following a conversation and consensus building. The perceive it as a place where interests are in conflict. They saw Trump as being on the side of strength and power amid that conflict.
A Democrat does not need to look like he or she wants to blow up Mt. Rushmore. A Democrat can look strong without looking belligerent if he or she is an uncompromising truth-teller. There is a path for a Democrat, but it is a path of strength in the arena of conflict, not denial that there really is an arena. And the Democrat needs to turn the strength of the incumbent--his current power--against the incumbent. How? The GOP over promised and now they have to power to fulfill their promises, but they are failing to do it.
They voted for the guy who projected the unapologetic mood of: "America. Fuck yeah!"
A great many people do not view the American polity as a great big family where decisions are made following a conversation and consensus building. The perceive it as a place where interests are in conflict. They saw Trump as being on the side of strength and power amid that conflict.
A Democrat does not need to look like he or she wants to blow up Mt. Rushmore. A Democrat can look strong without looking belligerent if he or she is an uncompromising truth-teller. There is a path for a Democrat, but it is a path of strength in the arena of conflict, not denial that there really is an arena. And the Democrat needs to turn the strength of the incumbent--his current power--against the incumbent. How? The GOP over promised and now they have to power to fulfill their promises, but they are failing to do it.
1 comment:
Afganistan, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and others pose geopolitical problems for the United States that are complex and dangerous. The last couple of posts outlined some of the issues. The complexity baffles Regressives. It also humiliates them.
The militaristic cartoon vision of the U.S. as a global superhero has been proven to be absurd in the post WWII era, yet it persists.
The Allies defeated Germany and created the postwar reality that exists today. The war effort brought the country out of a depression and unlike most of the rest of the industrialized West, (excluding Russia) the U.S. continued its military economy after the war, and is now largely dependent on it, and fearful of even moderating an institution that overly influences domestic politics. Revering the military is necessary for recruitment and ongoing budgetary support. It's culture, through media and veterans organizations, provides a simplistic vision of the world that reassures Regressives they are both safe and righteous.
Neither is true.
Post a Comment