| By Ben Adler - Aug 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
In my review of The Simpsons Movie for The Guardian, I mentioned the libertarian impulse to falsely equate the harmless foibles of liberals with the nefarious proclivities of conservatives. As if to prove that point Michael C. Moynihan, a blogger for Reason, opines in response that the main argument of my piece, (that liberal Simpsons fans should be forewarned that though the movie is funny and worth-seeing it has a streak of politically conservative humor) makes me the equivalent Brent Bozell.
Having actually covered Bozell's shenanigans I seriously resent the comparison. Bozell, like most conservative media watchdogs, does much more than write light-hearted columns gently critiquing a little political message he does not support. Bozell leads campaigns to berate corporations out of promoting content he finds offensive for political or moral reasons. As Moynihan may have noticed I didn't call for a boycott of The Simpsons movie. In fact, I encouraged readers to see it. Apparently, though, in Moynihan's simplistic way of thinking all criticisms are equal, and all political/cultural critics are equally dim-witted and illiberal regardless of what they actually say. I suppose Moynihan thinks no one should write op-eds discussing the political implications of cultural products at all. That's very open-minded indeed.
cross-posted on TAPPED
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Politico did an interesting piece recently on why conservatives love the Simpsons--two-parent family, stay-at-home mother, church every week, Ned Flanders (somebody missed the joke on that one), and blah, and blah.
I also notice (ok, my dad noticed; I don't have a television) that HW, Clinton, Ford, Reagan, and Carter characters have all been on the show, but W has made no appearances in the entirety of his presidency. President Schwarzenegger? Please. California Republicans aren't real Republicans; they're social liberals with money. And they certainly aren't the new-style big government, Bush-is-the-decider Republicans currently in power. And why hasn't Martin Prince bought a talking Dick Cheney doll at the Wig Sphere on Spring Break??
Catholicism also gets left pretty well alone on the show, with a few rare exceptions (when the Pope hears that the angel in Springfield has foretold the apocalypse, he looks up from his newspaper and says, "Eh... keep an eye on it." Homer envisions Catholic Heaven as populated by brawling Irish and feasting Italians... count me in!).
I don't know that I'd call the show consistently right- or left-leaning. I just think the real question is about what they don't touch. And they tend not to touch the really powerful conservative bulwarks. So I think I have to respectfully disagree with the basic tenet of the review. But I don't think you're Brent Bozell.
They know the Simpsons just isn't really set up to "do" Bush that well. The Bush presidency coincides with the rise of South Park, a show far better suited to our times.
There are a lot of things they can't touch, such as scientology - many of the main voicers are scientologists and would walk out if it came to that.
I got to talk to Mike Reiss, head writer of the Simpsons, this spring. He said they love South Park, but they're secure in the knowledge that it's just not their role to push the envelope anymore.
They had some anti-Bush quipping in the relatively recent episode where Bart and Homer became Catholics, but it felt tacked-on.
I saw the Simpsons movie, and I thought the humor was overwhelmingly slanted in favor of liberals -- Lisa and her friend are portrayed as ultimately vindicated for their environmental do-goodery, etc.