My Favorite President: Jimmy Carter

My Favorite President: Jimmy Carter

On Presidents’ Day, we like to take some time out from covering current events and issues to look back at past presidents, their ups and downs, and how they shaped the United States. In 2017, we ranked the modern presidents (including Trump) and last year, we pondered which presidents might make up a Mount Rushmore of the worst leaders (including Trump). This year, we’re taking a positive turn to examine my favorite president; James Earl Carter (1977-1981).

Let’s address first the fact that Carter was not a popular leader and is not even that well regarded by Democrats or Republicans. With massive levels of inflation, long lines for petrol, an energy crisis, and a tense Iranian hostage situation dominating headlines in the late 1970s, it was only natural that his image would suffer. Besides these largely external factors however, Carter was perceived as a weak leader, indeterminate in his decision making and unable to inspire a nation brought down by a prolonged war in Vietnam and the controversial Watergate scandal. He was even challenged by the popular senator Ted Kennedy for the nomination in 1980 when he went up for re-election, going on to beat him before eventually losing to Reagan. So… I’ve got a fair amount to explain.

One of America’s biggest problems has always been its unmitigated patriotism. The idea that this is a superior nation where Government is always the problem, not the people, really got a burst of steam in 1980 when Reagan ran against Carter. This was an easy card to play against a president who once stated that “human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns.” Carter was not a man of bluster and pomp; at his inauguration, he demonstrated as much by getting out of the limo and walking towards Congress. Unlike previous presidents before he him, he would not be removed from the people. He would always do what was right and always be honest; a far cry from what we expect of any politician today.

The thing is people don’t like to be told they’re wrong or that they need to change their ways. On almost every measure he undertook, Carter had to face an upwards battle, be it with the return of the Panama Canal, passing energy bills, SALT II, and even a lost battle for national health insurance. With the latter, he was notably more conservative than the great liberal hopeful, Ted Kennedy, but not to the degree that he was senseless or insensitive. Rather, he was being somewhat measured and cautious with taxation, given the economic problems of the time. This was perhaps the Democrats’ greatest chance at a comprehensive health care scheme too up until the Obama administration, destroyed not by the president but by Ted Kennedy, who saw his last-minute withdrawal of support as an opportune moment to leverage his stakes against Carter in 1980. This has been leveled as a failure of the Carter administration despite the fact that Ted Kennedy undermined the bill for mere electoral purposes (when asked why he was running for president, the man could barely even respond).

Carter and Kennedy’s animosity towards each other had been building even before that battle. The reason was simple enough. Carter was an outsider. He was not a part of the traditional Democratic elite and his election had come out of nowhere for a party who had ran Hubert Humphries and George McGovern in 1968 and 1972 to no avail. In the wake of Watergate, the nationally unknown governor of Georgia was able to capitalize on the peoples’ disenfranchisement and rise like no other candidate before or since. In power, he comprised a cabinet of his own people (the so-called “Georgia mafia”) and adopted something of a middle-ground idealism between the Republican and Democratic parties. In many ways, the Democrats had much more trouble with him than the adversary party. Carter would not play ball with them on everything; upon taking office, he quickly axed several water projects that had been in projection for years and set about tackling goals they had no interest in. Kennedy’s opposition would eventually fracture the Democratic party and make it a lot easier for Reagan to win. Had the senator’s personal ego not gotten in the way in 1980, Carter’s success might have been a whole other story.

There were successes too of note. Carter was the only president to broker a lasting peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in the Camp David Accords, which stunned even his most ardent critics. He brought human rights front and center for all the world to appreciate and understand in a way that hadn’t been done by any president before. He established both the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He didn’t launch a single missile (the only president since WW2 to not do so). And, he tried to tackle America’s growing dependence on foreign resources. He even had solar panels up on the White House!

On paper or online then, it’s quite easy to make a case for the 39th president. A majority of people simply didn’t see him as presidential however. He wasn’t bold in his decision making; he didn’t rock the boat the way Reagan would with the Soviet Union. He didn’t deliver a multitude of triumphant speeches (although his Crisis of Confidence speech, which we looked at back in 2017, was one of the greatest ever given by a president) and he didn’t equate military might with strength as a nation.

On this last point, it’s difficult to wholly absolve him of blame for the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The helicopter rescue was a disaster, if well meaning, and his decision to let the Shah receive cancer treatment in the US too was short-sighted (again, if decent). Carter was made to look foolish throughout the prolonged period in which the hostages were held (lasting 444 days) to the point that they were mockingly released mere moments into the Reagan administration. This episode however also speaks volumes of the man’s decency because the first thing he did, upon leaving office (having stayed up the whole night negotiating their release) was to fly and meet them. Carter might’ve been more successful had he launched a missile, yes (something Reagan would’ve had no hesitation in doing) but above anything, he was concerned what ramifications this might have had for the prisoners. That kind of humanity is often lost in those reaches of powers.

I don’t consider Jimmy Carter to be the greatest US president or even in the top ten but what he was, was a different choice who, given enough time, might have set the US on a much more noble path. They might’ve really had a shot at implementing renewable sources elsewhere (had Reagan not had the solar panels torn down) and might really have made further grounds with the Middle East peace process. Alas, in 1980, America decided to turn the other cheek and have the convenient microwave meal. Carter went on to inspire in his own way, establishing the Carter Center for Human Rights, tackling the guinea worm disease in Africa, monitoring elections, and going on to win a Noble Peace Prize in 2002. He’s one of the very few presidents in US history I believe who refused the easy short cuts and was willing to make the hardest decisions, because they were right and not out of political motivation.

Celebrity Endorsements & Activism

Celebrity Endorsements & Activism

The 2020 election’s in full swing and that means one thing; it’s time for the A-listers to have their voices heard. So, drop your shield and pick up your placard Chris Evans cause this time, you know it’s going to matter!

Okay, perhaps that’s a tad too snotty because really, celebrities can influence an election turnout by drawing attention to issues and candidates. Oprah’s endorsement of Obama, without a doubt, made an impact in the lead up to the 2008 election and certain groups can be targeted, that would otherwise be out of reach on proper news networks, like the Kardashian fan base (I’m not abandoning snottiness altogether). On the other hand however, celebrity endorsements and political proclamations can sometimes be a wealth of patronizing embarrassments. For instance:

That happened and we let it happen…

In all seriousness however, there was a lot of criticism to be drawn from the Hillary camp in 2016 as an endless deluge of pop stars and actors came forward at rallies to incite substance-less messages, achieving nothing really besides spectacle.  Maybe that was just Hillary, though. Maybe, not even the ghost of Sir Laurence Olivier could have inspired people to flock to her side. Maybe… just maybe, we don’t give the people enough credit in their own critical thinking. I suspect the latter notion holds true because while people may admire certain celebrities like Beyonce, they also understand that their life experiences are far removed from the working peoples’.

U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton joins Jay Z and Beyonce onstage at a campaign concert in Cleveland
“Here I am with my friends, Queen Bee and Jason Z!”

There’s another layer to this differentiation too; the cultural divide between liberals and conservatives has in recent years been amplified by the mainstream media, often courtesy of the latest woke trends / virtue signalling of celebrities. I’m not just talking about Gwyneth Paltrow’s holier-than-thou approach to good living. I’m talking about every celebrity that appears on the Colbert show with an anti-Trump message; every time a celebrity coins a weird hipster form of phrase (e.g. Emma Watson’s “self-partnered”, i.e single status affirmation); and every time we’re given some pandering new display of wokeness (e.g. John Legend’s new version of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”). These changes in the zeitgeist are, to many, welcome and sensible extensions of progressive thinking. To many others though, they’re tedious nuggets of preaching that detract from the actual substantive issues (economy, health care, job loss, climate change) and reminders that yes, you’re out of touch.

gettyimages-1186645822-1024x798
John Legend, among others, found the classic “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” to be problematic. So, he made a new version. Wait until he hears any rap song released in the last fifteen years.

I don’t think these celebrities have bad intentions, to be fair. Emma Watson has certainly gone above and beyond in her duties as a UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador, proving herself truly dedicated to her cause. Still, the perception remains and that’s what’s so important as we approach next year’s election; to present a noble and dignified front for the Democratic party, instead of exacerbating the elitist theatrics of a militant #cancel, PC faction.

To this end, it’s important to lastly examine why we, as a society, give so much clout to celebrities’ political opinions. Is it really as simple as saying they draw attention to important issues, where needed? That’s a pretty shallow response, if so. It suggests we’d rather an unqualified opinion that’s popular than an experts’ know-how. Therein lies the loss of nuance and the opportunity to present a false sense of validation for the virtue signaler who really doesn’t know what they’re talking about (e.g. when Ben Affleck called Sam Harris and Bill Maher “racist” over their criticism of Islam.) It’s a response, used among others however, to justify peoples’ greater complacency when it comes to avoiding actual research and reading on the issues. It’s a response, I think, that has effectively become default across the world too.

f075a349c827921d3e8696e5eff9f8674a4566f3
“You do know I’m Batman, right?”

Why else would we continue making celebrities UN ambassadors? In general elections and chat shows, I can compromise and allow for a bit of endorsements and activism but with an international institution? Am I purely curmudgeonly or is this just downright tacky? For that matter too, why does the Queen keep knighting ageing rock stars every couple of years? Is this really a way of honoring those who’ve made a significant contribution to the arts or just cheap publicity for the sake of relevancy?

Perhaps, this societal framework is all in contribution to raising awareness and encouraging charity and political activism. Perhaps, we all need our own “fight” song. It’s difficult to come down on those doing more than yourself to make the world a better place but in conclusion, I think it’s of great importance to remind people to think for themselves and not accept a cheap form of populism. After all, Trump didn’t even have the real Smash Mouth performing at his inauguration.

Scorsese vs. Marvel: Cultural Divides and Toxic Fandom

Scorsese vs. Marvel: Cultural Divides and Toxic Fandom

Earlier this month, Martin Scorsese compared Marvel movies to “theme park rides”, stating that they are not what he considers to be proper “cinema”. Social media reaction was, as you could imagine, well thought out and nuanced. LOL JK! For real, the shit hit the fan with many bemoaning this “hackneyed, old curmudgeon fuck-face” for not being with “it”. Okay, I’m paraphrasing but it was embarrassing to read the amount of comments I did with people unfavorably comparing his movies to Marvel’s. Don’t get me wrong! I enjoy all the Marvel movies. But Scorsese has directed Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, among many other original greats. In some cases, sure, it’s a matter of opinion but beyond this, what became apparent to me was how vitriolic and nasty these people were in their comments. This has become the norm, all too readily, when an unpopular opinion is shared, even in a matter as insignificant as this.

On some level, I think Scorsese was being picked a part for not speaking as delicately as he should have. I don’t actually agree with his opinion and would note that these Marvel movies are keeping cinemas alive, to an extent. Plus, there is some proper acting, directorial creativity, and emotion to be found in them. You could even argue that the magnitude of a shared, albeit commercially-driven universe, like the MCU, is a bold and ambitious experiment in modern cinema. On the other hand, I want to back Scorsese because his knowledge of cinema is second-to-none (or very few), he has helped restore many great movies, and has a point when he says we’re being “invaded” by these kind of movies. There are too many of them and on some level, it feels like a factory-churning process. For instance, Captain Marvel came less than two months before Endgame which was followed by Spiderman: Far From Home, just over two months later. We knew Spiderman was fine after the snap in Infinity War before we’d even seen its sequel. Furthermore, there seems to be no end in sight. Disney have already filled their calendar for the next three years with an array of shows, sequels, and new additions to the MCU. It really is an all-consuming empire.

So, you can go back and forth on this. You may not like Scorsese. You may think superhero movies are for children. What’s so desperate about this all is how hard it is to even have a conversation without great offense being suffered. That’s where I admire Robert Downey Jr., who simply left it at “appreciating” Scorsese’s opinion (which has been edified slightly since to acknowledge them as a different/new kind of “art”, if not proper cinema- I don’t know, it was kind of vague). Downey Jr’s latter-day career has been built on the legacy of Iron Man and he’s made a ton of dough from it but he’s not arrogant enough to disregard what one of the true greats has to say. Interestingly, he compared the Marvel phenomenon to a  “stomping beast [eliminating] the competition”. When things like that happen, as with the Westerns’ craze in the 1950s, there’s naturally going to be some push back. Sometimes, a spanner needs to be thrown into the works to get things interesting again. Punk did that for music in 1976 and the likes of Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola did that for cinema that same decade.

Thanks to social media, cults of fandom have been given a voice most people used to ignore. We can all, in some sense, be producers of the franchises we love and consume. For instance, notice how the trailers for The Rise of Skywalker are steering things back from the divisive reaction to The Last Jedi? Disney listens because Disney has a product to sell. That doesn’t mean their movies lack artistic integrity but it does color the picture, if only a little bit. It’s gratifying for fans to have their voices heard but when you pay too much due diligence to popularity, you appropriate credibility in turn. That’s why there’s such a sense of entitlement in these fans’ expectations of these franchise movies and why more unique, original projects are so lacking today. I suspect the directors of old, like Scorsese and Coppola, feel this way, which is why they are so hostile to the way industry has gone recently. The culture has changed.

Now since, we’re here- my top five MCU movies:

  1. Avengers: Infinity War
  2. Captain America: Civil War
  3. Spiderman: Far From Home
  4. Thor: Ragnarok
  5. Avengers: Endgame

and my top five Scorsese movies:

  1. Goodfellas 
  2. Taxi Driver
  3. Casino
  4. Raging Bull
  5. The King of Comedy

 

Alienating Centrists

Last week, I took a political profile quiz to determine which camp I belonged in. Somewhat to my surprise, I was labelled a liberal with ideologies not so dissimilar from Gandhi’s. Strange, I thought, I’m far too stubborn and curmudgeonly for that kinda stuff. The quiz, for all its comprehensiveness in the issues addressed (and actual issues at that too, such as health care and education) was flawed though. Firstly, it was based on the rather limiting agree/disagree dichotomy (with the somewhat unnecessary “strongly” accords), which doesn’t pave way for much nuance. Secondly, it failed to grasp the actual tone of liberalism/conservatism so rampant in today’s media and social landscape.

I consider myself a liberal of a vague and tepid persuasion; sometimes a centrist for kicks (though on a couple of occasions, people have charged that that’s what conservatives always say???). I believe in universal health care, a good measure of gun control, tackling climate change with the utmost expense, free speech, and equal rights. In fact, I think most Republican measures in the last thirty or so years have been reprehensible and guided by mostly terrible leaders. With that said, I admire President George H.W. Bush a lot, I think a balanced budget is important, and in certain cases, Democrats do over-legislate (e.g. in 2017, there was a proposed law to fit alarms into cars to prevent children being left in hot conditions; this is really a parent’s responsibility in my opinion). These are to many, minor concessions; an olive branch of a feeble sort to the other side. Increasingly however, these considerations have become all the more necessary, if toxic.

It’d be foolish to fully comply with the notion that you can’t be a Republican who believes in gay marriage or that you can’t be a liberal who wants to protect the 2nd Amendment. For one, it’s inherently stupid and two, you’d always find some smart-ass commentator picking a part your language specifically. But at its essence, I think most people are finding a conversation between both sides increasingly frustrating and pointless. Conservatives think liberals promote a decaying state of morality whereas liberals think conservatives promote every kind of prejudice with every sentence they utter, etc, etc. To a degree, we’ve come to expect this from the GOP with their arsenal of attack ads, in play since the Reagan era. What’s so disappointing is how bad the left has gotten in recent years.

What do I mean by this? I mean the manner in which certain peoples’ opinions are smeared across every edifice of our culture. We can’t watch the new Joker movie without some question mark wavering over whether it’ll inspire alienated white men to grab up arms. We can’t cast a new film or TV show without accounting for a strict diversity quota. We can’t watch old films without a moment of silence for the lack of wokeness at play. We’re told to hold certain opinions over certain matters because they’re politically correct, before examining whether they’re intellectually sound (indeed, reports have shown conservative students reluctant to speak out in their liberal universities). And if you disagree and think, Caitlyn Jenner’s not a hero or that female-reboot of Ghostbusters was lazy pandering, the chances are you’ll be called a trans-phobic or sexist individual by someone in the comments section, no matter what the argument.

This is by no means a rallying call to be politically incorrect for the sake of it or rude or sexist/racist/transphobic, etc. I’m not trying to provoke anyone in saying these things. For the most part, these liberals have admirable intentions. The problem is, in their plea for open-mindedness, they fail to open their own to the possibility of reproach; because racism is so entrenched in society and so historically destructive, they aim to stamp out anything even approaching intolerance. But it’s not that easy and it’s not that clever because when you try and enforce your values on somebody, no matter how sensible or decent they are, you push them away. Calling someone an idiot does not make them change their mind, it only paints you in a negative light. You want to get Trump re-elected in 2020? Start promoting the most pious and patronizing Democrat available.

The Democrats have the right ideas and a good chance of winning in 2020. Let’s not squander that opportunity by alienating centrists or soft right-wingers who don’t agree with us on everything or perhaps liked an off-color joke back in 2004. Let’s get back to focusing on the important issues which should define our political persuasion, as in that quiz, and not the petty minutiae of woke culture. It seems a redundant statement but people aren’t good or bad, left or right, liberal or conservative. They’re a blend of various factors and while I personally thought The Last Jedi was the worst Star Wars made, that does not mean I hate women in power (#warren2020).

On Rotten Tomatoes

On Rotten Tomatoes

There’s something rotten about Rotten Tomatoes. The film review aggregate has dominated the face of recent film criticism with an air of unwarranted legitimacy that needs challenging. Why? Because a) it’s reducing complex opinions down to simple yes’s and no’s and b) it may not even be doing so without some front or agenda on the part of its so-called “top critics”.

First and foremost, let’s be clear because I don’t think a lot of people know this. A movie with a 90% score does not indicate an A-grade consensus on the part of its critics. It means 90% of the certified critics eligible to be granted inclusion gave it a positive review of 60% or more (3 stars plus); therein deeming it “Fresh”. This, in turn, means you can make a pretty decent movie and get close to 100% without making anything particularly phenomenal, especially so, if you touch on the hot issues of the today which critics lap up greedily. Thus, you can market it with its score which so many producers have taken notice of recently.

But wait? Isn’t it just a case that if you make a bad movie, the people will then know about it and if you make a good one, albeit without much budget, you can build a prospective audience? There’s no denying RT has its advantages and for the most part, I’d say even the critics’ scores align with my own (even though the metric, as stated above, is sometimes misunderstood). Art, however, is not so easily digested and that’s where the problem lies; in the simplification and homogenization of such criticism.

For instance, Darren Aronofsky’s Mother! (2017) was given an F grade on CinemaScore, affecting its box-office performance on release. While it’d eventually climb to 69% on RT, the damage was done because of reports of audience members walking out, perturbed by the uncomfortable imagery of the movie. The director intended it to be a challenge. Anyone, with any sensibility, could tell this was something different and yet, a broad picture was painted before it was given a proper chance. Martin Scorsese, in a 2018 op-ed for the Hollywood Reporter, lamented the rise of this form of criticism, writing that “[they] rate a picture the way you’d rate a horse at the racetrack… They have everything to do with the movie business and absolutely nothing to do with either the creation or the intelligent viewing of the film.” We should always pay heed to Martin Scorsese. He’s a proper director. And he has a good point too. There was a rush to judgment on a movie that needed a bit more time for reflection. Has anyone else’s opinion of a movie they’ve seen changed over the course of a week, a month, or even a year?

MV5BMzc5ODExODE0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDkzNDUxMzI@._V1_

Of course, film criticism cannot be wholly objective. Meryl Streep had a good point when noting the disproportionate representation of male opinions clouding viewership of her film Suffragette (directed primarily at a female market). There are other cases too where certain markets are targeted; where broad critical praise is not mandated. That’s where RT audience score comes in and where the gulf between snobbery and entertainment value becomes apparent.

I refer now to Dave Chappelle’s new Netflix special, Sticks and Stones, a title reference completely lost on the 12 critics who gave it 25% on RT. The problem, they saw, was in its “nastiness” and its mean-spirited treatment of the Michael Jackson accusers, “cancel” culture, equality, and the LGBT community. They weren’t happy because it wasn’t “woke” enough and although Dave Chappelle is a comedian, tackling controversial subjects, they couldn’t appreciate the comic value of it. Does that make me narrow-minded like him? Well, the 25,000+ audience reviewers who certified it 99% Fresh on the Audience meter would disagree.

Dave-Chappelle-Sticks-and-Stones-Netflix-thumb-700xauto-215716

This led me to reconsider whether the “haters” of years gone by had a point in saying Marvel gets a degree of favoritism from critics that the DCEU crowd do not. Then, I remembered how bad Batman v. Superman, Suicide Squad, and Justice League were and I thought, okay… no, the critics were right on those ones. A part of me suspects though that they are afraid to criticize the Marvel movies. Like Captain Marvel, that’s a pretty meh affair all in all and yet 78% of critics gave it a “Fresh” score (against 54% audience). Are they afraid to criticize it, I wonder, because it’s a female-led superhero movie, which is something we feel we should be encouraging as a society? Similarly, there’s a bit of a contrast in the 69% vs. 45% critic-to-audience dichotomy of Ocean’s 8 and 74% vs. 50% of Ghostbusters (2016 female reboot). Maybe the critics are just more progressively-minded than the audience reviewers (who are a majority male).

We can find ourselves in complex and controversial territory here, considering the male-majority influence on criticism in both aisles and to that end, there may be no solid conclusion. In recent years however, I have noticed an increasing trend in reviews focusing on the subject matter rather than the entertainment value of a film however. For example, with Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, most the reviews I read started with an essay on the depiction of Bruce Lee (5 minutes of a nearly 3 hour long movie) or lack of lines given to Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate or the explicit use of violence, as if to dictate what they felt should be the movie. Similarly, this year’s best picture winner, Green Book, was widely evaluated for whether it was culturally appropriate or revised enough for today (despite being set in the 60s).

It’s not a case that these critics are stupid or ignorant of good art. They just seem to be afraid to speak their mind at times, wary of a social media audience that will tackle them on each and every transgression less they commit the crime of not acknowledging how great and inclusive some recent films have been. For all this clambering, the lack of authenticity is becoming crystal clear to audiences though. You can tell someone what they should like all day long but in the end, nobody’s going to stop loving Love Actually because the Prime Minister gets with his PA or The Breakfast Club because Judd Nelson chases Molly Ringwald around or Psycho because its treatment of the mentally-ill is problematic. 

On Talk Shows

On Talk Shows

At the Washington Walrus, we usually focus on politics and the more immediate issues concerning government. Every now and then however, we like to dip our toes in the murky waters of culture and entertainment; in this particular case, one of the more shallow bodies of such water.

It’s not that I dislike talk shows (or chat shows) or their hosts. It’s not that I even bemoan the format, rather what it’s been reduced to in this day and age. You see, there was a time when these shows didn’t desperately grasp for whatever little nugget of attention was left out there, lost in the cracks of YouTube and Prime and Netflix. There was a time when actual proper conversation was involved, unburdened by pre-rehearsed garbage and bit jokes resulting in a pie in the face. There was a time when it wasn’t all so juvenile and pandering, when Americans tuned in for a bit of humor, yes, but also out of genuine interest.

Johnny Carson was of course, the “King of Late Night”. He hosted the Tonight Show from 1962 to 1992 and became an icon in the American world of entertainment. If you wanted a movie plugged, you wanted his show. If you were looking to get your big break as a comedian and possibly bag a sitcom, you hoped to impress Carson himself. Even politicians like Ronald Reagan found their way onto the couch, though Carson, himself, never declared any political allegiance (a far cry from the suitors of today). By the end of his tenure, he garnered north of 10 million viewers a night on average, which is over three times what Colbert did in 2018. He had the business at his command in many respects and he did it with great timing and affability, that never gave way to piousness or crude frivolity. He had the numbers and the respect of the masses.

So what went wrong? Carson may have dominated the late night sphere for the longest time but he was not the only talk show host out there. Day-time hosts like Oprah, of course, made more than a splash in the 1980s and in the decade before, Dick Cavett interviewed some of the world’s biggest stars and directors, including Orson Welles. But just as the news networks began to multiply, so did the demand for content in the talk show format. You didn’t need 10 million viewers every to become a success. You could be a Leno or Letterman fan or after that, someone who watched Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, or a splash of all. Some unique talents came about in the 1990s and 2000s who just wouldn’t have had a shot before like Bill Maher, Conan O’ Brien, and Craig Ferguson. For awhile, it all worked out quite well… before TV began to matter less and less.

Jimmy Fallon may not have been the first to recognize the value of “viral bits” spreading across social media and YouTube but he was the most diligent host in the late 2000s and early 2010s to capitalize on this trend. His show, today, barely resembles a chat show at all because of this, successful though he may be. And like him, Jimmy Kimmel, James Corden, and others have become increasingly reliant on bits like “Carpool Karaoke”, “Mean Tweets”, etc. for gaining viewership/followers/subscribers.

It’s a different market in many ways and not one without its plaudits. Some of these bits are funny. I enjoy watching the Matt Damon-Jimmy Kimmel feud. I like the odd “Wheel of Musical Impressions”. I may even have chuckled at one or two Corden sketches (the Shape of Water one, though I felt pretty guilty afterwards… cause it’s Corden.) The problem (okay, not a real problem) however is that most these bits are desperate and stupid and bringing what could be an interesting format right down to the bottom of the barrel. When actual conversation is conducted too, it’s painfully rehearsed, concerned with the most trivial schlep (did you actually eat a pizza at the Oscars???) and disingenuous/cringe-worthy ass-kissing to the point that I contort and fold in on myself, much like the Witch King of Angmar’s death in Return of the King. Especially with Fallon and Corden. Especially with Corden to further that bracket.

D_yeSgqU4AMs93W
Why do I dislike Corden the most of these hosts? To surmise briefly, he’s everywhere. He hosts the Late Late Show four nights a week, does A League of Their Own in the UK, and still manages to dress up as creepy cat for the upcoming movie Cats. His laugh is also annoyingly fake.

I also agree with the mega-chinned Jay Leno who believes too many hosts are “one-sided” nowadays. In 1993, when Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher aired, the host opining their political persuasion was pretty different and bold. Today however, every dumb comedian with a desk goes for the low-hanging fruit that is Donald Trump with the result being sheer weariness among viewers and a decrease in general intellect. Undoubtedly, we inhabit a far more outrageous political climate than any in recent memory but is there anything to be gained in the preaching-to-the-choir mantra of Stephen Colbert or Seth Meyers? It all seems so trite and easy for such clever comedians. If that wasn’t enough too, even the likes of Fallon, Kimmel, and Corden are going after the president despite their complete lack of political “wokeness” five years ago. It’s not challenging and it’s not funny anymore. Part of me even suspects it tilts those on the fence in a rightward direction, just as that “Fight Song” (for Hillary) did in 2016… sigh…

Today, people are looking elsewhere for a decent interview, on the radio with Howard Stern or on podcasts with the likes of Joe Rogan (though everything leads back to MMA with him). The decline of the chat show is hardly a crisis, given all the other actual crises we face today, but it is something which sheds a rather depressing light on our cultural mindset today. Our attentiveness is shorter than ever. We need jokes and we need them now. Celebrities are awesome. You were hoping to hear about Tom Cruise’s filmography? Well, too bad cause his dog did something crazy! I know you’re running for president but what is your favorite flavor of ice cream? Is it strawberry? How did Trump’s latest foreign visit affect the premise of the new Pitch Perfect movie… etc.

We can do better than this. We can plug a movie or album and have an actual conversation with a celebrity without forcing them to play hop-scotch. Call me a crazy optimist but if general broadcasting’s going to die in the face of streaming services like Netflix, at least do it with some dignity and not on all fours in a ball pit with James Corden.

 

 

.

Can Democrats Win On Gun Control?

“Thoughts and prayers” has become synonymous with inaction and insensitivity in America today. With the advent of yet another cycle of half-clout wills and hollow debate in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, people skipped ahead to the numb realization that no, nothing would be done and what was worse, their president couldn’t even pretend to consider this issue seriously, much less get the names of the places right.

At least one president had some constructive advice to lend however. Bill Clinton called for the reinstatement of the 1994 “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act”, which lasted for a decade before its failure to be renewed. This bill has been reassessed a great deal lately, since Sandy Hook in 2012, as at least a partial means to assailing the sales and production of assault weapons which do the bulk of damage in these massacres. Citing a 2015 study by Everytown for Gun Safety, Clinton pointed out that 155% more people were shot and 47% more killed in shootings that involved assault weapons. The Dayton killer, himself, fired 41 bullets in 30 seconds. It would seem common sense to most that time is of essence in these attacks and that police response measured against the type of weapons being used calls for some restrictions.

bill-clinton-assault-weapons-column-social.jpg
Bill Clinton signing the act which came into effect before the midterms of 1994 and was said to have cost some supporting Democrats their seats.

Even that matter can’t be closed so easily however because the 1994 bill wasn’t perfect enough: only 18 types of assault weapons were listed under it; Columbine occurred in this era; there were loopholes; people couldn’t quite figure out what defined an “assault” weapon, etc. So was it prone to a system bent on ignoring it; a nation not willing to give up its guns under the banner of that richly invested 2nd amendment? Or was it possibly too mild to inspire anything effective to begin with?

The solution’s not easy and Democrats are fighting for the soul of their country in many avenues. If they felt too meek in 2004, another election year in which the act expired (even though 2/3 Americans supported it), do they really have the guts to stand up to the gun lobbyists in 2020 when so much else is at stake? Like it or not, politics will undoubtedly be at play on this issue.

The funny thing is (in the least funny way imaginable) that the people are on the side of the Democrats. In A Quinnipiac poll in 2018, it was found that 67% of Americans (including 53% of gun owners) favored at least some partial ban of assault weaponry sales. Time and time again, Gallup has also shown a majority backing stricter laws too. There are naturally fluctuations to the specified questions but what’s more interesting and crucial and ultimately sad is that the peaks of support follow crises like Parkland (67% for stricter laws- Gallup) before dropping a few months later (to 61%). People forget too quickly. Why? It’s difficult to determine but political lobbying undoubtedly plays a key role.

The NRA, founded in 1871, has a history of questionable spending. In 2008, they spent $10 million against Obama alone. In 2016, they spent over $400 million on various political activities. They hold a lot of sway and they pick their targets well. In 2012, for example, 88% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats in Congress were found to have received an NRA PAC contribution at some point in their career. Taking that into account, it’s hard to imagine the Republican controlled Senate wanting to do anything. They’re bought out.

Of course, some Democrats have become emboldened in an increasingly liberal party. Joe Biden has proposed a national buy-back program, which echoes Australia’s 1996 plan (although they had 600,000 guns bought up, whereas in America, there’s over 200 million on the market). Cory Booker has a plan for federal licensing. Elizabeth Warren has a more comprehensive plan, which would aim through executive action and legislation, to reduce gun deaths by 80%. This seems optimistic but with incentives like raising taxes from 10% to 30% on guns and 11% to 50% on ammunition and a $100m research into gun violence, she has at least conveyed some specificity.

elizwarren
Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren

With the increased polarity of the Democratic party itself between the new “woke” liberals and moderate dinosaurs like Joe Biden, I think it should be remembered that compromise isn’t always a dirty word. Yes, it would be a moral failing of the umpteenth degree to not get as progressive a ban passed as possible but what’s more important is that something needs to be passed to get the ball rolling. The 1994 Act could be a great stepping stone; one which could be built on by eliminating the old loopholes, expanding on the number of weapons banned, and incorporating some level of taxes, even if not as much as Warren’s.

The issue of gun violence will not be resolved so simply of course. It’s embedded into the fabric of America across many lines, including the normalization of White Supremacy and racial hatred under the Trump administration. A modest proposal of sorts could lessen the impact of these attacks, as Bill Clinton noted, even if it doesn’t decrease the number of them. Naturally too, you might consider the obvious solution of reaping the rewards of a possible Democratic majority in 2020 by going as far as possible with gun control but then there would also be the possibility of a major pushback if the Republicans gained back control. Compromise, of a kind, is best built on both party’s shoulders. It’s a more stable, if less desirable, foundation.