American Politics Journal

"Stewpid Is As Stewpid Does"
Why America Is Down in the "Gumps"
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Nov. 19, 2001 -- MT. SHASTA (ZeppNews/APJP) -- When "Forrest Gump" came out, everyone agreed that it was so popular because most people saw themselves as being somewhat like Forrest -- a bit slow, good hearted, needing only a lucky break to get ahead.

It was kind of telling, in a way, that so many commentators would jump to the conclusion that the mass of the American public would identify with a guy who was a bit dim because he was a bit dim. There's been an assumption, and one that wasn't particularly tacit, among advertisers, businessmen, entertainment executives and conservatives that Americans, by and large, were dummies, and if you wanted to sell them stuff, you needed to allow for that.

So, starting in the thirties, advertising and entertainment, and then politics, was geared to what was openly called the "lowest common denominator". If the average level of education in the country was tenth grade, then you didn't aim for tenth grade acumen; you aimed for sixth grade. That was low enough to capture about 60% of the people on the right hand side of the bell shaped curve, and wasn't so low as to alienate 60% on the left hand side.

For conservatives, it was a godsend. They merely spent billions convincing the public that politics and current events and news was dull and boring and ate up a lot of time while gaining you nothing, but they would be happy to present the information you need in bite-size, entertaining chunks. Not only is Rush Limbaugh funny, but he doesn't use a bunch of big words that you have to look up, and best of all, he doesn't talk down to you. No-sir-ee-bob!

And of course, if you treat people as being stupid, they have a way of meeting your expectations. Ironically, the right wing coined the phrase, "the soft bigotry of low expectations," and they are the main beneficiaries of those low expectations. People who have been convinced that politics are dull and government is bad aren't going to think about issues, or even where their own best interests lie.

But there's one little problem: the public may not be as stupid as the marketing execs and wannabe leaders think. Maybe all those people identified with Forrest, not because he was stupid, but because he was the underdog, up against powerful, sneering forces who assumed that stupid meant easy to control.

I have some of those Calvin and Hobbes collections, and I was leafing through one the other night. I came across one declaration by Calvin, the six year old title figure:

Hobbes: How are you doing on your New Year's
resolutions?
Calvin: I didn't make any. See, in order to
improve oneself, one must have some idea of
what's "good." That implies certain values.
But as we all know, values are relative.
Every system of belief is equally valid and
we need to tolerate diversity. Virtue isn't
"better" than vice. It's just different.
Hobbes: I don't know if I can tolerate that
much tolerance.
Calvin: I refuse to be victimized by notions
of virtuous behavior.

Of course, fans of Calvin and Hobbes will recognize that in that particular strip, fairly sophisticated dialogue like that wasn't uncommon. Bill Watterson liked to have his creations speak in such fashion--for one thing, it amused him to have college-level parlance coming from the mouth of a six year old -- and he often had Calvin's views on art expressed through his innovative snowmen construction, his views on existence through his wagon and sled rides (which usually ended catastrophically) and his views on education, of course, through school. Calvin's hilariously humorless father was usually at hand to either bore Calvin through moral pontifications, or puzzle him with his contempt for the consumer culture.

Watterson never hesitated to preach to his readers, but he never, ever spoke down to them. Day in and day out, he would hit his readers -- newspapers comics readers, a group considered a few neurons short of the intelligentsia -- with collegiate-level dialogue, sophisticated concepts, moral conundrums, and frequently, sneers at mass culture.

As a result, and against all expectations, Calvin and Hobbes became one of the most popular comic strips in history.

The West Wing is a show about politics, and it's about liberal politics, at that. It's fast paced, intelligent, and thought provoking. It's one of the most popular shows on television, and has a following with an intensity not seen since the days of M*A*S*H.

The other night, we rented "Shrek". I expected an entertaining animated movie, and I got that. I also enjoyed a wry, intelligent, and sophisticated streak of adult humor that made a movie meant for children absolutely hilarious for adults.

With all the Harry Potter foofoorah going on, I broke down and got a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and read it. It was a well-written children's book, and while it didn't pretend to be anything more than that, I was struck by the careful attention Rowling took in keeping the characters--human and otherwise--as well-rounded and credible as possible, while working with a plot which, while thin, was cohesive and carefully thought out.

Even in comic books, the same phenomenon appears. The most popular comic book in recent years is the Sandman, by Neil Gaiman. It combines a vast plot with some of the best characterization and character interactions seen anywhere in literature.

What "phenomenon" am I talking about?

Calvin and Hobbes, West Wing, "Shrek", Harry Potter, and Sandman all stood out because they were noticeably deeper and more intelligent than other programs in their respective venues, and all were and are immensely popular.

The common masses, it seems, like entertainment that is intelligent and of high quality. They like it a lot. In fact, they seem to be seeking it out.

If America survives the putsch -- something that is by no means certain at the time of this writing -- it will be interesting to see where the public goes with this. You see, we're supposed to be perfectly content with the standard rubbish out there, the Blondies, the Survivors, the Tom Swifts, the "Joe Dirts," the Richie Riches.

And yet, here's clear evidence that the public wants to see stuff that isn't just more right-wing, heh-heh-we're-all-bozos-on-THIS-bus noise. They are looking for something better, and they are willing to go out of their way to find it.

Boy. That's subversive. Any right wingers reading this better turn Rush up a notch and pretend they never read this.

A final note: one right wing journalist, one Peter A. Brown of the Orlando Sentinel, wrote to complain that The West Wing was not credible because no President could lie about a serious medical condition, be forced to reveal it, and not face serious consequences, ending in being laughed out of office. Quite aside from the absurdity of the claim that the fictional President Bartlet wasn't facing consequences for concealing his multiple sclerosis, Brown tossed his credibility out with an opening whine about Hollywood being "a hotbed of liberalism." This allowed me to enjoy a right wing rant without any of the irritation that the belief this was a legitimate piece of news might have caused. Brown, in writing that no President could "get away with it," utterly failed to mention that we currently have a drunken draft dodger who stole the election, and who is blatantly taking away rights to due process and freedom of speech in the name of an entirely hallucinatory "war" against one of the weakest and most defenseless nations on earth and who lied about every significant campaign promise he made.

Perhaps Brown meant that no DEMOCRATIC president could get away with such things. But with the crawling pseudo-journalistic minions of the right, a Republican president can get away with anything -- after all, they keep covering for the nearly-dead Dick Cheney.