Monday, August 25, 2008

Are We Really This Dumb?

Fred Crane died today, at the age of 90.  He was the actor who played the role of Brent Tarleton in the 1939 classic, "Gone With The Wind."  His character is remembered primarily for speaking the first lines of the film, "What do we care if we were expelled from college, Scarlett?  The war is going to start any day now, so we'd have left college anyhow."

I've often remembered that line as I've winced over George Bush's many gaffes and policy blunders.  Bush was a shining example of the "Gentleman's C" at Yale.  Having gained entry thanks to his legacy status (his father and grandfather were both Elis), he obviously didn't feel pressed to exert himself in the classroom.  As the family name opened doors in New Haven for W., so would they open doors in the world of business and politics to follow.

And now we're presented with John McCain as a candidate for president.  McCain's father and grandfather were both admirals in the U.S. Navy and, like Bush, he cashed in on his legacy status and followed them to the Naval Academy.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he, also like Bush, didn't exactly apply himself to his studies -- he finished ranked 894th in his class of 899 cadets.  Like President Bush, McCain is comfortable with his academic performance, capable of  joking about it on the campaign trail. 

Which is fine, I suppose.  History is certainly replete with examples of men and women who have gone on to great successes after indifferent academic careers.  But what's troubling is the thin, sneering veneer of condescension that the Republicans use so predictably every four years to smear their opponent as an elitist intellectual, as if being smart is a bad thing.  Troubling, not so much because they do it, but rather, that it works.  

I've been watching for some time now, and I'm pretty sure America is getting stupider.  Presidential politics aside, the lowest common denominator grows lower and commoner by the year.  In 2007, a study by the National Endowment for the Arts found that Americans between the ages of 15 and 24 averaged two hours a day watching TV and only seven minutes each day reading.  In 2002, only 52 percent of Americans read a single book voluntarily, down from a whopping 59 percent in 1992.  

Television is not exempt.  Always the cotton candy of popular media, today's prime-time fare has regressed to where it's positively drool-inducing.  "Your Show of Shows" "The Honeymooners" and "All In The Family" -- all smart, topical and popular shows of previous generations -- have been replaced by the current hits, "American Idol" "Deal Or No Deal" and "24" -- all dumb, fantastical and, yes, wildly popular.

And cinema's no better.  It has now completely surrendered to an audience still dreaming of obtaining their first driver's license.  Now, this is not scientific.  I'd research the exact numbers but it's too painful -- like watching Larry Bird steal Isiah Thomas' inbounds pass for the seven millionth time.  But, basically, a third of all tickets in this country are sold to films made by Pixar, a third are sold to variations of a romantic comedy starring Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey (or, if they're busy, Cameron Diaz and . . . oh, pick one), and a third are sold to Batman and other movies based on comic books.

The last type is the worst.  Not because comics are inherently inferior to bubble gum romance or Disney on steroids.  The problem is, somewhere along the road these superhero movies started to be taken seriously.  And not just as works of art but as socio-political statements.  

"The Dark Knight," the latest, and most commercially successful, installment in the Batman franchise, has sold around a half a billion dollars in tickets to date.  It has been been written about ad nauseum -- reviewed and deconstructed in every magazine, newspaper and blog this side of the Wall Street Journal.

Oops, scratch that.  The Wall Street Journal did, indeed weigh in.  On July 25th, Andrew Klavan wrote the single most preposterous review I have ever read.  It's not that he makes the comparison between Batman and George Bush, or "The Dark Knight" and the war on terror.  Those are obvious metaphors that even the director, Christopher Nolan, cryptically concedes were intentional.  

But Klavan goes off the deep end when he argues that the film should be a call to arms for conservative artists in their battle against the left-wing "realism."  He says,

"Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth?  Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "200," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight."

and,


"Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic.  Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex.  They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms."

and,

"The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love."

and finally,

"As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gorden says of the hated and hunted Batman, 'He has to run away -- because we have to chase him.'

"That's real moral complexity."

No, that's really dumb.  It's why we've lost over 4,000 men and women in Iraq.  It's why in Britain, our closest ally left in the world, 35 percent of the people now consider us a "force for evil."  (That's not Iran or Iraq, folks, that's frigging ENGLAND.)  It's why offshore drilling for oil is even a campaign issue.

America likes to keep it simple, stupid.  At the Saddleback Forum, Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama if evil exists and, if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?  Obama gave one of his typically nuanced answers, metaphorically conceding that he wasn't God and that evil would always exist.  The best we can hope to do is act as soldiers in the battle against it and confront it with humility, as often evil has been perpetrated in the name of confronting it.  That's a nice, subtle way of injecting the atrocities of the Bush administration's war -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Extreme Renditions, Black Site Prisons -- into the conversation without getting down on the ground and rolling around in the mud.  It was classic Obama, love it or hate it.

When his turn to answer came, John McCain replied, steely-eyed, "Defeat it," and promised to pursue bin Laden to "the gates of hell."   The crowd went crazy.

It was like being at the theatre, watching "The Dark Knight."  The Joker would pull some strings and the entire Gotham police department would rush to his proposed target, only to discover he was playing them.  At which point, they'd pivot and rush, en masse, to the next potential catastrophe.  It reminded me of nothing so much as a soccer game among eight year-olds.
  
And it made me tired.  My problem with "The Dark Knight" wasn't conservative vs. liberal.  My problem was that, ultimately, it was dumb.  It was often incoherent and it went on way too long.  After awhile, the explosions and special effects lost their ability to shock and awe.  I became unwilling, finally, to suspend my disbelief.  I spent the last half-hour waiting for the credits to appear.

Come to think of it, it did resemble the Bush administration after all.

So that's where we're at.  Batman's our foreign policy model and another cowboy's running for president.  Are we getting dumber?  Stay tuned. 

2 comments:

The Haggis said...

Wow... I couldn't disagree more. Oh, by the way, your piece is clever and quite well written, but this is where smart and wise part ways my friend. I fiercely believe in the two party system and everyone's right to be wrong. I also have the perspective of one who holds both parties in equal contempt, an approach that I would recommend to all partisans.

Nonetheless, I'm sick of the world pissing on the US because if they do something they're unilateralists and should stop sticking their noses in other country's business, and if they don't, then they are "disengaged" and not doing enough to represent the world body.

I get it though, I really do... because even I hate the Dallas Cowboys still... why? Well, because they were an arrogant dynasty and almost everyone wanted them to lose because of it. It is human nature to want to see the giant stub his toe and to tweak the nose of the bull. That's just the role of whomever is in power.

Every country in power has abused it, and I think the US (for the most part), is the exception so far... someday, when the US is bumped from the big chair, and the Chinese have the number one on their jersey, all those pontificators will rue that day and wish old Uncle Sam was back.

There are a lot of American graves and graveyards tended to around the world in countries that care for the soldiers' sacrifice and the ultimate price they paid for others' freedoms. There is no other country in world history which has had such a commitment to global freedom, period. And they are not just some ignorant knuckle dragging enforcers ready to drop the gloves on the ice with anybody- unless they need to... they have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined... they have 23 of the world's 30 best symphonies, they are the world's technology, and medicine, and innovative music, and the premier country of sports, and economic strength, also astronomy, physics, mathematics, and we have 20 of the planet's top 30 universities. The US's higher education is coveted by the rest of the world... and it is given away freely, as is a whole lot of our money! Americans are the number one donor, in terms of aid, to every single country in the world. That is truly remarkable.

They are 40% of the world's aid to developing nations. They are the most diverse country on the planet racially and ethnically. It is their intellectual property rights that are stolen... and it is their Navy that keeps the world's shipping lanes open. They are responsible for creating or saving the democracies of Great Britain, Japan, Germany, France, S. Korea, let's toss in some Baltic states and a few former Soviet satellites, Poland, Italy, the Czechs, Taiwan, Ukraine, Spain, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many others...

The UN has been around for about 60 years and during that time there have been over 200 conflicts which could be deemed as "war". Only one country has ever asked the UN for permission. Guess who? And the US has asked four times so far. Of course they are imperfect, but they are giving noble virtue and clear moral imperatives their best shot.

They are the loathed Dallas Cowboys (literally and figuratively now) to the world; they are the giant, and they are the bull. However, they are clearly the only responsible power in the whole jungle right now, and they are trying to do something.

"Do"... it's a verb. It's not just some interesting conundrum to be analyzed in eastern ivy halls and the cloistered clubs of journalistic dissent, but rather, US foreign policy is a consistent use and pattern of diplomatic, then coalition forming, and then military approach to the very real question of interventionism. This phenomenology is working, and has been for about 100 years. The rest of our world is devoid of ideas, and imbued with ideologies. This world's issues are not just some philosophic debate over a bottle of Merlot or a cappuccino my friend; the poor, and the hopeless, and the repressed feel the fist of terror and totalitarianism every single day that the talk goes on.

To the rest of the world, it's just a sniping approach to whatever the Americans do, but to offer no solutions. It's a great tactic for academics, debaters, theorists, and ideologues, but who the hell is doing a damn thing but the good ol' USA? Start learning Mandarin... make sure your grandchildren learn it...

"Doing", it's also a verb. Who else is actually doing something in the world but the US? The UN, EU, NATO, and all the other impotent monkeys prove repeatedly that there is no such thing as rule by consensus. That may be why there was no movement in Bosnia for years though it was in the Euro's backyard. So much for the post WWII "never again" vow when it comes to ethnic cleansing. It took Bill Clinton and good old US unilateralism to get the mean Christians off the butts of the poor Muslims in that troubled part of the world.

Bill didn't ask the UN for permission; he didn't ask congress, and he didn't care what the Europeans wanted. He just got the job done with 79 days of bombing Belgrade.

In Darfur, Rwanda and Somalia, there is a lot of not doing anything going on because neither the US, nor the world, have the political will to do a damn thing as there is no economic value accorded to these sad places.

Instead, there are the "blame the US first" morons who seem to skip any finger-pointing at the rest of the self-serving world bodies. After WWII there were about 20 democracies on the planet. Now there are 122, and the good old USA has stuck its fingers in the batter of almost all of them. Sure we burned a few cakes, but what would the world look like without our interventionism? Ugly my friend, ugly.

Here's my favorite piece of the Japanese constitution, article 97-
"the fundamental human rights by this Constitution guaranteed to the people of Japan are fruits of the age-old struggle of man to be free; they have survived the many exacting tests for durability and are conferred upon this and future generations in trust, to be held for all time inviolate."

The anti-US whiners are the same guys who thought 12 years and 17 sanctions weren't enough for Iraq, they "needed more time"... but now they want social, economic, religious, tribal, and governmental change within 5 years. That's mighty fair. They should wake up and smell the freedom, and maybe they can rescue the next 4 years by just sitting quietly and eating their bisque.

Chris Kaul said...

I am not a proponent of that whole Winthropian "America as a shining city on a hill" model -- there are just too many instances where this country has fallen far short of its ideals. But you certainly can (and have) make an argument to support the position.

It doesn't speak to the point of this post, however. This post is about the increasingly anti-intellectual bias in this country and its troublesome effect on the political process. It's about the danger of applying comic book logic and morality to geo-political issues that require an understanding that reality exists in between black and white. I never thought I would fondly remember the complexities of Kissinger's realpolitik, but the neo-conservatives have accomplished the deed.