Why Left-Wing Artists Should Not All Be Put to Death
Have the hills stopped screaming, Clarice?
“I often think it’s comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!”
This wonderful lyric from Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe is quoted in Steven Pinker’s fascinating book The Blank Slate. It illustrates the Harvard psychologist’s argument that there may be a genetic predisposition toward one political leaning or the other. Pinker writes:
The Right-Left axis aligns an astonishing collection of beliefs that at first glance seem to have nothing in common… Why on earth should people’s beliefs about sex predict their beliefs about the size of the military? What does religion have to do with taxes? Whence the linkage between strict construction of the Constitution and disdain for shocking art?
Pinker believes the answer may lie as much in a person’s nature as his nurture.
Both the Gilbert and Sullivan lines and Pinker’s book came back to me last week as I read this article in the movie trade paper The Hollywood Reporter about a poll they sponsored on the movie-going habits of Republicans and Democrats. The poll confirmed what many of us believe: Republicans go to the movies less, in part because they feel their values will be assaulted on-screen… which, of course, they will be.
Given how volitile human genetics actually are (well, all genetics, for that matter) I am disinclined to think Pinker’s on to something. Or, rather, I’m disinclined to think that we’re all stuck believing one thing forever; we inherit, for want of a better term, genes that have “been turned on” from our ancestors, but the environment we live in and the choices we make can turn those genes “off”, and our descendants get those genes start with those genes “off” as well. Epigenetics is weird like that.
If we’re on the topic of brains and art, pick up Jonah Lehrer’s “Proust was a Neuroscientist”.
Humans are the only creatures on Earth that can voluntarily deny their own instincts as placed in them by nature. We can force ourselves to not eat, not procreate, even go out into weather conditions that would kill us for whatever reason that may be.
On the other hand, often times it is this very ability that has prevented catastrophe, saved people’s lives, solved problems and allowed us, among other things, to go to the Moon.
The danger of this ability is that it can also create huge problems due to the application of morality. But morality and the careful administration of it, is the potential downside of having freedom of choice, as given by God. Thus, humans are subject to self-policing where the animal kingdom has an excuse not to.
Humans are social animals. Aristotle broke this story some 2,200 years ago, but people today largely refuse to accept it. The worst period of denial came after the Enlightenment (talk about misnomers!), when a bunch of eggheads decided that humans were unlike every other animal on earth, and had zero instincts. Men could operate strictly on the basis of reason. Now, the fact that nothing remotely like this had ever happened in 6,000 years of recorded history (and wasn’t happening anywhere at the time) didn’t slow these geeks down at all. Being a social animal requires that all members adhere to their society’s mores, religion, traditions, and speak the language. In other words, Leftists and Libertarians are inherently anti-human (as humans actually are). Infantile people often refuse to accept the constraints of being a member of society, just as they did when they were chronologically 2 years old. Healthy societies have ways of dealing with non-conforming members (see witchcraft, treason, usory, blasphemy). Like an individual, societies can suffer breakdowns in the immune system; but unlike individuals, societies cannot visit a doctor and take medication, so they usually dis-integrate when the immune system fails. When society breaks down, we have a ‘behavior-sink’. This is a slo-mo death-trip for former society members.
Some political theorists have distinguished between Right and Left on the basis that they represent a dichotomy. Right: abolish politics. Left: politicize everything. Based on greed; based on envy. My idea is that the Right is based on willingness to conform to the rules of society (adult behavior) while the Left cannot conform their behavior (infantile/mentally ill), and therefore attempt to destroy existing society. This can explain many things. The observation that Leftists don’t seem to be interested in what will replace the society that they work to destroy. That Leftists are pretty uniformly opposed to every form of conventional behavior (society’s rules). Leftists are atheistic, immoral, intolerant of any restrictions on behavior, rejecting of criticism. Anyhow, it’s a thought.
I think what you’re trying say is a grownup knows there is no free lunch.
In short, right-wingers are all the “good” adjectives that immediately sprung to mind, while those on the other side of the aisle are God-hating, hedonistic heathens who want to destroy Mom, Apple Pie, Chevrolet and Superman.
I think, Andrew, that you value truth, and although you are a very talented man, you also value humility and gentleness. As such, you would have to be on the right side, because so much of the left is about hubris and deceit. It is repulsive to us. Living surrounded by that would make one very sad, indeed. And angry.
The question over how we got that way, I have also always found intriguing, especially as I have six siblings who run the gamut from spoiled communist artist to gun toting wild woman of the mountains. We all grew up in the same house, our parents were there for our entire growing life, we’re all pretty smart. So, what caused the differences in adult behavior?
I have given it much reflection, and I think it’s this: all of us are born children. As we gain knowledge and experience, we learn that the world can be nasty, and cause us pain, if we do not take care. We learn, and grow to adulthood. I have never met a conservative who became liberal, although I have met many former liberals who went the other way.
I prior ages, there was enough misery for everyone, so the vast majority were conservative in their thought. Consider the philosphers of the 18th and 19th centuries. No farmers there. Just drawing room effetes, and look at all the trouble they caused. Our problem today, is that we have so many people who are never forced to deal with reality.
If the Wall Street goofballs didn’t make that clear this week, I don’t know what will. It’s not just them. Think of all the people who actually can’t make their lot worse. The banksters are just as bad. We gave them bailouts and lent them billions at no interest so that they could get multimillion dollar bonuses? Where do I sign up for some of that?
But, for some reason, I know not to waste my time worrying about it or protesting against it. I go to work, and try to do my best. You know…like a conservative.
Just a theory.
Okay, Julie Andrews can remain alive, despite Victor Victoria. The other left-wing artists, bye-bye.
American taboos mask some important factors that determine political orientation.
The Harvard psychologist asked great questions, but only a psychologist like himself is allowed to answer them. Or a shameless person can too… at the risk of inflaming people.
I appear to be much like you Andrew but the term left-wing “artist” appears to be some kind of tautology. As a guitar player and songwriter I’ve always refused the term. Is that what makes me a conservative?
In Catholic theology and moral teaching, there’s something to tick off people on all sides of the political debate (and I say that as a faithful and sometimes uncomfortable Catholic).
Reminds me of this quote:
“The two most potent post-war orthodoxies—socialist politics and modernist art—have at least one feature in common: they are both forms of snobbery, the anti-bourgeois snobbery of people convinced of their right to dictate to the common man in the name of the common man.”
– Roger Scruton, “In Praise of Bourgeois Art,” Untimely Tracts, St. 1987
… and the infntile, yet perenial attitude of “epater le bourgeois” -
If we can’t kill the liberal artists, can we ridicule and shame them, so that when they open their mouths to speak political “I know what it’s like to be poor because I played a poor person once in a movie” silliness?
Thought “The Sound of Music” was fun when I saw it (I was little), only saw “Bonnie and Clyde” last year and was repelled by the overt glamorization and the silly pseudo-socialist tone to the whole thing. My favorite quote of them (I can’t remember the exact words) comes from Dillinger, who said they were a pair of punk kids stealing grocery money.
My favorite argument about this sort of thing came in an article I read sometime ago, where the author was talking about Rick Perry and how the Governor of Texas raised an almost visceral hatred in his (the author’s) mind, just because he was from the same state as W and resembled him very slightly physically. At one point in the article he contrasted liberals and conservatives, telling you that liberals have “too many” books, while conservatives have “few or none.” You see, we conservatives are knuckle-dragging idiots who can’t read books, certainly not many, because our lips get tired. Yeah right…my wife constantly complains about how big my library is, and I’ve known other conservatives who are similarly bookish…
I’m definitely a conservative–but if anything, I’m too much of a nerd. Always was.
When I was a young child, my parents–concerned I wasn’t getting enough exercise–tried their hardest to interest me in playing sports. They would buy me all the paraphernalia and try to get me to play. I was just more interested in my books and my chemistry set.
“I really dig being part of the human race — not the human race as leftists (and some rightists) dream it should be, but real humanity, as it always has been and still is. I want to know us in all our inspiring brilliance and goodness, but also in our hilarious corruption, stupidity, pettiness, and insanity.”
Amen brother! For those of us who still can get past left vs. right, conservative vs. progressive, socialist vs. libertarian, the world is an amazing place and the range of human behavior is at once confusing, frustrating, and at the same time, enchanting and entertaining. Closing your eyes to the other side (or what you think is the other side) is diminishing. Like the man said, “Buy the ticket, take the ride”.
Cheers!
Once again, brilliant stuff from an exceptionally lucid mind. Love these insights. Keep ‘em coming, Andy. Or Drew. Or whatever you get called.
The Anglican church is a mess, as you say. I’m an Evangelical and have been living in Greece for 22 years. Long ago I ceased looking at the Eastern Orthodox church as the enemy- there’s just too much history there. Including the preservation of the Greek language and culture throughout 400 years of occupation by the Ottoman Turks by brave priests conducting secret schools in remote places at night. Including the Archbishop of Zakinthos declaring to the Nazis that he, too, was a Jew when the Nazis were combing that island for ‘Juden.’
I’ll never be Orthodox- I’m an ex-Catholic and can’t handle the prayers to saints and the Virgin Mary. But for those who like liturgy, it’s pretty interesting stuff, full of color, and the Bible. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t have the political baggage of Roman Catholicism, either, although it’s true that the Catholic Church has produced some brilliant theologians including the current pope, and Catholic schools continue to be exceptional educational institutions.
You might try the E. Orthodox Church, if you haven’t. The president of your current publishing company Thomas Nelson, Michael Hyatt, is an elder or deacon in an Easter Orthodox church.
I like the Eastern Orthodox Church also but prefer the worship style of the Western-rite Orthodox Church.
Andrew if you like the Anglican Church but don’t like how liberal it has become, have you ever looked into the Continuing Anglican Church? (continuing “the faith once delivered to the saints)? It’s like the Anglican Church was when it was still doing God’s will instead of becoming so humanistic instead.
Rhonda
I think Republicans don’t watch movies because they are careful with their money– who wants to waste it on the crap Hollywood’s been putting out lately?
I mean, come on… I heard there’s a “Mr. Ed” remake in the works…
For every one “Lord of the Rings” there are 50 “A-Teams.” It’s bad enough “G.I. Joe” wasn’t a Real American Hero anymore, but a script written by a halfway intelligent chimp could have made me overlook that.
Hollywood is just like the Left… politically they recycle the same thing with more explosions and brighter packaging– it’s as if Michael Bay got together with David Axelrod to make “Obama, the Sequel: This Time the Change is Real On the Dark Side of the Moon.” Cue exploding robots full of hope and change in 5… 4…3…
Mr. Klavan concludes: “To take a strictly leftist or conservative approach to culture is to live half blind. Trust in God and affection for mankind demand, it seems to me, that we allow every life that is not vicious to live itself out in its own way.”
I don’t think it’s profitable to take a leftist-conservative approach to the arts, either, although what he claims is the “conservative” perspective is perplexing. Klavan cites “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Bonnie & Clyde” as excellent films, but they are both vicious. The Stewart movie is better made, and for that reason is more vicious than is the latter, which is pure leftist propaganda that obviously glorifies criminals as “rebels” against the supposedly capitalist establishment (thus the lingering, slow-motion ambush of Bonnie and Clyde), at a time when FDR’s socialist programs were being implemented and perpetuating the Depression. The Stewart movie, however, glorifies selflessness and the “community” and surrendering one’s ambition to the needs of others, and ends with an eerie “bail-out” of George Bailey and the Bailey Savings & Loan, eerie because it presages the Obama-Democratic economic policy, with everyone “chipping in” to save George from financial ruin and being arrested for embezzlement.
So, the conflict is not primarily political, but moral, and as a novelist myself (and an atheist), I am at odds with both leftist and conservative artists. In strictly moral terms, Mr. Klavan shares the moral values that leftists tout in literature and on the big screen. It also explains why Republicans are ineffectual when going toe-to-toe against Democrats on any issue; the Democrats want a selfless, “community” oriented society NOW, with the “rich” soaked with taxes and industry burdened with onerous regulations and “essential” services provided free; the Republicans say, yes, that’s fair, but not so fast.
“The Stewart movie, however, glorifies selflessness and the “community” and surrendering one’s ambition to the needs of others, and ends with an eerie “bail-out” of George Bailey and the Bailey Savings & Loan, eerie because it presages the Obama-Democratic economic policy, with everyone “chipping in” to save George from financial ruin and being arrested for embezzlement.”
It’s been quite awhile since I’ve seen the movie but as I remember, there is one BIG difference between what they did and what Obambi does. The people in the movie were coming together to help a neighbor of their own free will, Obambi just takes to “help” those he thinks need it more than we do whether we want to or not. As I remember, the banker was set up because he had been helping his neighbors during bad times. He was not making loans knowing they wouldn’t be paid back but was making loans to people he knew would pay them off as soon as they could when bad times turned around.
Perry1949: “It’s a Wonderful Life” is one long ode to altruism and living for others. Every time George Bailey is about to escape Bedford Falls and into the wider world, something keeps him there, and in every instance it’s his feeling that it’s his “duty” to surrender his life to others’ needs. So, he never did what he had dreamed of doing, and the question is open whether or not he was just dreaming and didn’t really mean it, or if he was a true victim of his own mixed premises. His mother is a piece of work, too, literally pushing him in the direction of Mary (the Donna Reed character), a homebody (home from college) whom she knows will probably kill whatever chance he has of escaping. The “evil” Potter character is merely a caricature of capitalism. Most of the principal characters do get to escape Bedford Falls, but return to live banal lives. And the moral of the end of the story – depicting all the town citizens “volunteering” to help George – is that this is what everyone, everywhere is supposed to do. What isn’t depicted is that if they prospered at all, it was at the expense of George’s life and values. So, that’s why I say the film is insidious and vicious.
You may want to see the movie again. George Bailey tried to kill himself. An angel, Clarence, rescues him. George wishes he was never born and in order for Clarence to get his wings he grants him his wish. The rest of the film has George gradually discover the consequences of this bizarre turn of events. In the end he realizes he has a wonderful life.
You need to learn how to clearly describe whatever you are viewing or reading or listening to first rather than force the object to conform to your own emotional needs.
Long ago when Saturday Night Live was still funny, they did a skit based on the movie. In the climatic scene at George’s house when everyone is coming to his aid, the uncle remembers that he had the money when he visited Mr. Potter. The mob then goes and tears Potter apart.
OK, that doesn’t sound all that funny but I laughed when I saw it.
The central message of the movie was the power of one good person to affect the lives of many others. It’s a feel good Christmas movie starring the remarkable Jimmy Stewart, a man much respected for many reasons.
Personally, I think “The Best Years of Our Lives” is a much better movie from about the same time.
I wish I had your poit-of-view in life. I find nothing amusing about the guy who’s living in the White House or what his policies have done to our economy. Maybe after the 2012 elections, when he is thrown out of office, I will be able to laugh agin.
This great piece reminds me again why I love Flannery O’Connor’s works. She wrote real people in all their beauty and ugliness, did so from a decidedly religious perspective, and yet was able to transcend those boundaries winning the right to be heard by the literary elite-who more often than not are left of center.
The vast majority of the world population do not construct their worldview due to the heavy lifting required to investigate philosophical, religious, scientific, and other claims. We capture it through popular art. All the more reason for the right to engage more fully in that arena and do so with an awareness of the aesthetic nature of all art be it dramatic, literary, or visual. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, Flannery O’Connor, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and a host of others understood this truth which is why they did not produce dreck. So much of what I see in the films coming out of the religious right is just this. I know this sounds harsh but I have trouble respecting art that begins and ends with the goal being comfortable to a specific audience. At this juncture of our history I believe we need art that slaps us in the face that makes us come to terms with the world as it is and not as we would want it to be.
Leave it to a Harvard Prof to write this: “The Right-Left axis aligns an astonishing collection of beliefs that at first glance seem to have nothing in common… Why on earth should people’s beliefs about sex predict their beliefs about the size of the military? What does religion have to do with taxes? Whence the linkage between strict construction of the Constitution and disdain for shocking art?’
To rephrase, a non-Harvard someone might write this:
The Left-Right axis aligns a collection of beliefs that may not seem to have a lot in common. Should people’s beliefs about freely having sex with anyone of any age or sex or even any animal species predict their beliefs about the size of the military or how it should not be used to fight wars? What does atheism have to do with increasing taxes? Whence the linkage between disobeying an oath to protect and defend a clearly written Constitution and love for shocking art?
You know, it is possible to admire artistry even if you disagree with the art’s message.
Here are some movies with a left-wing slant that I, as a conservative, thought were fine and always worth seeing:
1. Doctor Strangelove: The best antimilitary movie ever. Kubrick proved that satire works better than preaching to the choir.
2. WALL-E: Its environmentalist message was obvious, but kids will love it, and its romantic subplot between the lonely WALL-E robot and his female-looking counterpart is touching.
3. Chinatown: An intriguing mystery, despite its message of how greedy evil capitalists turned L.A. from a sleepy town into an urban-sprawl megalopolis.
4. Who Framed Roger Rabbit: A delight for kids even with all the recent advances in animation. Despite its conspiracy theory (greatly favored by the Left and similar to the one in “Chinatown”) that evil capitalists deliberately destroyed the L.A. mass transit system in order to make profits off of automobiles.
I find the discussions on Catholicism very interesting. I was born into an immigrant family which was devoutly Catholic. My early education was steeped in a Church which was confident and proud of its heritage and had existed in America which is without a doubt the Protestant empire and still manages to remain so. So I have always had the attitude of the outsider and I have been sensitive to the attacks on my Church which are the life blood of the American ruling class whether it is democrat or republican. Unfortunately in the sixties when I was going through college the rise of the modern Americanized Catholics came of age with the Kennedy thing etc. Catholic colleges and universities became the worse threat to the Church’s magisterium; priests, nuns, and bishops suddenly turned on everything that they previously taught; the American Catholics were left leaderless. Today the rise of Benedict XVI has given hope; his orthodoxy and spirituality is reviving the Church. Unfortunately there are many in the Americanized Catholic Church who are fighting him. The answer I am finding in reading St. Augustine who lived at a similiar time; the Church was beseiged by heresy and the greatest empire of the world, Rome, of which he was a proud citizen was crumbling. Augustine wrote the City of God to explain to us that the social and political world around us will never bring us the peace of Christ but only the Church which he founded will give us the way to holiness. A lesson which was there all along but was lost when religious people, priests, nuns, laity decided they wanted to aspire to being American college professors rather than live the life that they vowed to live;then all hell broke loose. Today many disillusioned protestant are entering the Church in America; the primary example is Doctor Scott Hahn the leading Catholic biblical scholar and former presbyterian minister. There is hope for us still if we manage to accept God’s grace.
Excellent article and well said. I find myself very much in the same boat.
Good article. I’ll add my two cents if you don’t mind. Every artist before about 1907 was a racist, sexist or homophobe. All artists were “conservative” before western intellectuals (i.e., smart people without power) politicized “capitalism” and “the workers” and later learned how to exploit race, sex and adolescent alienation. In a slightly similar fashion, some artists implore Apollo the god of reason while others are followers of Dionysus the god of drunkenness and insanity, – the bacchanntic choir and maenads who tear apart any male in their path. The Greeks understood the muse.
Or how about Ezra Pound: “Culture is what’s left over after you forgot what you tried to learn.” In other words, arts are fundamentally instinctive but they are learned instinct.
Today, the followers of Dionysus were able to grab the trappings of the mystery cult. They are now the high priests, dressed in black, speaking a distinct language, using words like “deconstruction,” “site-specific,” Dada, “fluxus” and waving them around to enhance power. But its power at its core which is nihilistic, cold and inhuman. These artists lack grandeur.Their work requires reams of words to explain and mystify. They are, in a word, petty, like the bureaucracies they spawn.
So, as Scruton has said, artists should learn how to re-enchant the world.
And, I might add, the elites have to want to be re-enchanted. No easy task when they don’t think they have a soul.
Feel exactly the way you do Mr. Klavan. You expressed it beautifully. Can’t stand the Sound of Music, by the way. Too treacly and always thought the voice of Julie Andews was waaay overrated.
Andrew: if you aren’t already praying about where to worship I have found that God cares about where you attach yourself. He knows where you are, what you need, what He wants for you, and what church most needs your gifts.
Andrew I get your point, but I suspect one reason you can see all this with such clarity is because Hollywood is a different animal from the world of fine art where any idiot can smear anything on a canvas and make a statement (as well as money). The film industry, based as it is on box office revenue, still has enough smarts to know that they can’t get away with the kind of crap that the world of canvas can, so we’re stuck with some leftward leaning films that must of necessity include some nugget of truth somewhere. The underground films that drag us through someone’s own personal hell don’t make a blip outside the filmmaker’s inner circle of likeminded losers.
Do you perchance have an axe to grind? The only difference between someone like Damien Hirst and Quentin Tarantino is the ultimate consumer. Hedgefund wives buy diamond encrusted skulls and formaldehyde cows. Everybody else buys breast implants, smug moralising and Brad Pitt. Don’t blame artists for human nature. They give ‘em what they want. Right?
Only the conservative mind could come up with such a topic for a article.
andrew: What’s your feeling on artist and comedian Roseanne Barr, who has called for the death of bankers?
I don’t want to see the leftist artists put to death, I just don’t want to be forced to subsidize them at gun point.
The writers that Klavan describes should not be viewed as leftists, unless that ideology covers populism and progressivism, which is our dominant ideology in culture today. I compared these to Marxism here, commenting on the unnoted and very vague demands of the OWS movement: http://clarespark.com/2011/10/10/populist-catharsis-on-wall-street/.
I think the conscious ego sometimes interferes with our natural genetic predispostions. For instance I have known “natural conservatives” with a strong work ethic, strong moral beliefs, instinctive frugality etc., who, for various reasons, believe that they should be “liberals”. You can sometimes even see them re-interpret and re-direct their instinctive responses to fit liberal paradigms. These types are relatively easy to convert to Conservatism once you clarify a few basic principles.
I’m in your category too Andrew. I love edgy, morally convoluted films. I consider myself a fiscally conservative independent Catholic who is firmly against coercive collectivism in all of its guises.
I think it’s easy to get sloppy and say “modern Western art & culture” when what we really mean is “the majority of American-produced TV and movies since 1970 or so”. There is certainly a lot of overlap, but they’re not synonymous.
That said, if I had to pick one big divide between left-leaning and right-leaning storytellers, it would be this:
Leftist artists believe the happiest endings are when the hero can find a way to fulfill his passion without having to compromise his principles, but the noblest endings are when he breaks or defies his principles for that passion rather than give it up.
Rightist artists believe the happiest endings are when the hero succeeds at honouring his principles without having to sacrifice his passion, but the noblest endings are when he willingly gives up or lets go of that passion rather than betray his principles.
In other words, ‘be true to yourself’ vs. ‘self-sacrifice’. There are great, truthful and moving stories to be told in both themes. The biggest mistake politicized artists make is to denigrate the preferred theme of opponents, rather than accept and incorporate it.
The real test is can the West afford lefty art? Cheers.
Really incredible.Steely Dan video
Actors especially should be accorded the same social status that they earned in 18th and 19th century England, which was on a par with prostitutes and barristers.
Other than that, and with perhaps a certain amount of liberal progressivism tax to keep them properly focused on the few things they actually have expertise in, I don’t think it will be necessary to shoot any of them.
Well, maybe a couple. Like the ones that made agitprop movies for the Turks a few years back. Outright disloyalty should always be rewarded.
Sir,
I am very much impressed by Andrew Klavan. His talks “on the culture” is replete with humor but is straightforward and unbiased. I owe gratitude towards him.
Thank You.
I don’t know if it has to do with genetics, exclusively, but the simple differences in lifestyle can account for the results of the survey. A conservative sees the moral/behavioral code that has been established and seeks to conserve it and reap the benefits it provides. Often one of the ways this attitude manifests itself is through raising a family, so it makes sense that movies and entertainment that nourishes traditional values would be preferred.
A liberal rejects the values of the past(can’t even enjoy Thanksgiving anymore because “we were exploiting the Indians”), and seeks new ones constantly. They do this through strict intellectualism, working and thinking towards the way things ‘should’ be as determined by their philosophical position of choice(real life consequences be damned). So it seems logical that their entertainment choices would point more to where the traditional morality is twisted or eschewed outright.
But, as Andrew points out, good storytelling(via movie, book, song, etc) is it’s own reward. There are two basic ways in which we do not like a story, 1)The storytelling was low quality or 2)Dislike with the story itself.
Side note: One thing I have noticed in my recently graduated friends, there seems to be a lot of them living a pretty conservative lifestyle but vote and talk like extreme progressives. It’s quite odd.
Read David Mamet’s book, The Secret Knowledge, where he talks about realizing that he was talking Left but living Right. The hypocrisy finally became apparent to him, and is the theme of the book. I think this contradiction is very common among the limousine liberal crowd, especially those in Hollywood.
‘shocking art’? The phrase you’re looking for is self-involved cr@p.
I am a proud right wing bullethead, former Marine. If you cut me I bleed Jackson Pollock. If you sniff me, I smell of pancake. Most leftists have mere pretentions and I don’t allow them even those, I crush their empty little pretentious skulls, rhetorically, like ticks. Of course we should not put all left wing artists to death–the hot ones can live.
How very Taliban-y of y’all. Why don’t you move to Afghanistan where you you don’t mind your hard-earned tax dollars being spent and where your moral values will fit right in.
Reading this from an outside position (I’m not a conservative, and I’m not particularly interested in the “left” OR “right” movies you speak of (examples of movies I like are Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton movies, W.C. Fields movies, Alfred Hitchcock movies, Italian NeoRealism, the French New Wave)–anyway, what I have to say is that there is a disjunct between the intelligence and decency of the article itself, and the bizarre nature of the title. Did you not have a Better Angel at your shoulder that suggested that you title the piece something like “Why We Don’t Have to Boycott All Left Wing Art?”, or for more right-wing pizzazz, something like “Why We Don’t Have to Shun All the Creepy Leftwing Artists?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Sometimes by engaging in debates with far-leftists, we help the leftists move the overton-window further to the left.