(I have been wanting to write this for the last few months but have not sat down and taken the time.)
There is a polite debate among those of a more conservative political and/or religious persuasion.
Let me first establish the context for this debate. The premise? assumption? conviction? that popular culture is dominated by voices hostile to those of a more conservative persuasion. Or to put it another way by voices of a more liberal (using that term loosely) political and/or religious persuasion.
By popular culture I mean the popular music industry or television or movies or even the news. What point of view dominates? The point of view that favors the state/collectivism over individual responsibility/liberty. That prefers a “believe what you want (sort of) and do what you want (sort of)” approach to religion and morality. (The “sort of” alludes to that curious tension within liberalism. Believe what you want except these things and do what you want except these things. Frankly liberalism ultimately is much more restrictive.)
And what point of view is consistently attacked? With regard to religion the point of view that some religious convictions are more true/valid/correct than others. This includes traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christianity. With regard to politics the point of view that favors individual responsibility/liberty over the state/collectivism. (And one must concede this reflects a corresponding tension within conservatism. Government should be as small as possible but must prohibit those behaviors and promote these behaviors. But I submit that in general conservatism is much less restrictive.)
(Of course there is a problem with the above schema. Politics and religion are not so one dimensional as “liberal versus conservative”. At the very least there are two dimensions – The Political Compass offers “left versus right” but also “authoritarian versus libertarian”. Some “liberals” are libertarians and therefore against statism/collectivism. Some “conservatives” are authoritarian and therefore have no problems with using the power of the state to enforce their views on personal morality.
I suggest that the dominant ideology one finds in popular culture is generally more left than right and more authoritarian than libertarian. With regard to religion either atheist/agnostic or “pretty much all religions are equal except those who do not think they are equal”.)
Let me give a few brief examples of how this plays out:
- America is bad and the rest of the world is good
- Democratic party very good and Republican party very bad
- George Bush very bad and Barack Obama unqualifiedly good
- Elective abortion is necessary or even good
- Same-sex relations are morally and/or socially neutral
- Free market capitalism is bad – especially small businesses
- Government control of economic activity is good
- White people are bad and other ethnicities are good
- The American military is bad
- Conservative/traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christianity is bad and other forms of religion are good
- Wealth and property should be redistributed from those who have to those who do not have
- Equality of outcomes is better than equality of opportunity
- Good intentions are more important than good results
- Human is bad and non-human is good
- Sexual fidelity within marriage is not important
(I know the above items may appear simplistic. I am trying to be succinct. Oh and I do not necessarily agree with the “conservative” position on all of the above.)
I submit that one can find one or more of these themes in nearly every song every television show every movie every newspaper article every news program every play every art exhibition/performance. And 2008 was a significant watershed year in which popular culture/Mainstream Media more or less declared openly what they support and what they oppose and frankly do not care.
So how do we (those of the more conservative political and/or religious persuasion) respond?
Some believe that no matter how biased or hostile the media/cultural outlet – we must engage. So if Jon Stewart invites you onto “The Daily Show” and you know full well he is going to do everything in his power to hammer and humiliate you – you still go and do your best. If “Saturday Night Live” has been doing everything in their power to mock misrepresent and satirize you and then invite you onto the show – you agree to appear.
(By the way – I remember when Terri Gross interviewed a “Saturday Night Live” writer about this on “Fresh Air”. The writer threw Gross visibly off stride when he said that conservative/Republicans are usually much more pleasant and cooperative.)
You get the idea.
Andrew Breitbart made this case strongly after he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher”. Was it ugly – from Maher and from the audience and some of the other guests? Sure. But Breitbart did his best. He argued for engagement/participation on these grounds:
- we often gain the admiration/respect of people who disagree with our politics (assuming we present ourselves and our views with intelligence and grace)
- we “plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the groupthink liberals in our dumbed-down and activist media culture” and by extension
- we might actually get someone to (re)consider their views
He argued against withdrawal on these grounds:
- we “[cede] the popular culture debate to the other side”
- we “[allow] them to define us into a very distorted and ugly caricature”
Read the whole thing at the Washington Times. You do not have to register.
Without denying that Breitbart makes a compelling case I favor the opposite approach.
They are the enemy (or “opposition” to be more polite). Starve them.
Do not watch their shows. Do not buy their songs. Do not pay to see their movies. Do not purchase their magazines and newspapers. Do not attend their performances. Do not appear on their shows. Do not provide any information or interviews to their magazines and newspapers. Do not support or cooperate with them in any way shape or form.
I recall an article on a conservative website that warned against such wholesale boycott tactics. (Unfortunately I cannot remember and therefore link to it.) Do we really want to punish everyone for their political and religious views? A fair question.
But I am not talking about boycotting a grocery store because the manager is an Episcopalian or voted for Barack Obama.
I am talking about those who consistently and very publicly use their power/influence/platform to:
- promote a liberal-statist ideology – and more importantly to
- mock denigrate insult and ridicule the convictions and values of a significant plurality if not majority of the people
If a particular Hollywood actor is liberal – so what? But if said actor tells sixty percent of Americans that they are “narrow minded bigots” during an Oscar acceptance speech – that is rather different.
One key reason I resist the approach Breitbart advocates is I am concerned that any engagement or participation reinforces the status and credibility of that particular outlet. If Sarah Palin agrees to that interview with Katie Couric then guess what? People watch that interview. Ratings go up. Couric reinforces her image as a respectable “journalist”.
Another reason is that there is too much opportunity for the host/outlet to “stack the deck”. Jon Stewart talks with Jim Cramer for about half an hour – and Cramer makes several excellent points – but only the five minutes where Cramer looks weak and apologetic make it past the editing process and into the broadcast. Charles Gibson asks Sarah Palin an absurd question about the “Bush Doctrine” (which one? there are at least three) and there is nothing Palin can do except look silly. (That might not be the best example.) You get the idea. When they control the end result to such an extent that no matter how well you present yourself and your views – they can make you look as foolish as they wish.
Perhaps this is why Breitbart agreed to appear on “Real Time with Bill Maher”. If that show is broadcast more or less as is with less opportunity for you to be misrepresented through selective editing. But should one agree to appear on “The Daily Show” when Jon Stewart controls pretty much the whole thing?
One last option.
To create an alternative.
Andy Crouch in his book Creating Culture and during his presentation at Catalyst 2008 said that Christians historically have responded to our surrounding culture in different ways:
- copy culture
- critique culture
- condemn culture
But this is to misunderstand culture as well as our creational vocation as culture makers (particularly as one reads in the opening chapters of Genesis – this may be one of his book’s great unexpected contributions). Instead of complaining about evil nasty immoral anti-Christian liberal “Star Trek: Voyager-loving” whatevah culture – we should be creating culture.
Write books. Plays. Movies. Television shows. Paint. Sculpt. Draw. Compose. Perform. Invent. Organize. And so on. Create.
Andrew Klavan has published a significant piece entitled “Toward a New American Culture”. He offers the usual (and correct) conservative critique of current popular culture and mainstream media. And then addresses the question “so now what?”
So all right, now we know. The media are the enemies of the people and they are protecting the culture for the proponents of the state. And now that we do know, it’s time for us to fight back. By us, I mean artists, journalists, thinkers, foundations, investors—anyone who tells stories, makes music or pictures or reacts to them with criticism, ideas, money and praise.
We need to build a New American Culture, and turn our backs on the culture of the state. We need to stop according respect or credence to reviews and awards that are used as social engineering tools to force the culture into anti-American state worship. We need to build an infra-structure of funding, review attention and awards to give praise, purpose and prestige to those artists who stand outside the MSM’s climate of opinion.
Read the whole thing here at Pajamas Media. You do not have to register.
Now this is not entirely the same as what I think Crouch proposes. (Andy Crouch by the way is more politically liberal than I am. He was the only person to make a pro-Obama remark at Catalyst 2008. Which is fine and if anything to his credit given the audience.) Klavan seems to be saying “in a sense we do withdraw from current popular culture and mainstream media (?) – but in order to create our own (parallel/competing) structures”:
We need to build a New American Culture, and turn our backs on the culture of the state. We need to stop according respect or credence to reviews and awards that are used as social engineering tools to force the culture into anti-American state worship. We need to build an infra-structure of funding, review attention and awards to give praise, purpose and prestige to those artists who stand outside the MSM’s climate of opinion. …
If artists guided by this principle begin to create, if reviewers guided by it write reviews, if foundations give us grants and awards, if investors give us the funding we need, then the cultural infra-structure of the left will collapse of the rot and corruption of its bad ideas. We will take back the culture and if we take back the culture, we will take back the country too.
I could be wrong but Klavan seems to advocate a hybrid between Crouch’s “create culture” and my own(?) “starve bad culture”. There is no question in my mind that Andy Crouch is correct. At the very least we who are not happy with the surrounding popular culture (and mainstream media) must create our own. What is less clear to me is whether we should agree to appear on “Real Time with Bill Maher” or not.
What do you think?
