Conservatainment

The perennial right-wing plot to seize Hollywood from liberals

"I got worried about the future of the country," says country music singer and 11-time Grammy nominee Ray Stevens. As a musician, Stevens wasn't too sure what he could do about the problems he saw. But he had a thought: "Maybe I can produce some records that will help get across conservative points of view."

And so Stevens set to work recording an album he describes as "full of patriotic songs and songs of political satire." By February 2011, a video version of his anti-illegal-immigration sing-along "Come to the USA"—in which Stevens dons both a cheap sombrero and an Arab headdress that appears to have been made from a sweatband and a kitchen towel—had been viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube.

Stevens was in Washington, D.C., to perform and speak at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a yearly gathering of thousands of conservative politicians and activists. At a panel titled "Pop Culture: An Influence or a Mirror?" the singer most famous for his '70s novelty hit "The Streak" looked uncertain and unprepared, but he did have one clear point. "My idea," he said at the top of his remarks, "is that we need better censors out there." 

Conservative opinions about entertainment were bountiful at CPAC 2011, which also featured a panel on "Engaging Conservatives Through Pop Culture." Like Stevens, speakers often seemed confused about how to approach mainstream popular art—or, as many of them awkwardly called it, "the pop culture." They seemed simultaneously infatuated with its glamour, outraged at its moral and political leanings, drawn to its power, and jealously angry at liberal successes. Mostly, though, the right-wing culture mavens speaking before their ideological brethren seemed determined to reshape and repurpose the entertainment industry into a tool for conservative political evangelizing, creating not mere entertainment but conservatainment. 

Although some took on the familiar conservative role of cultural scold, many of the criticisms were focused inward, on spotty conservative efforts to compete in the entertainment marketplace. Kevin McCullough runs a conservative media business called Xtreme Media and has long partnered with Alec Baldwin's younger brother Stephen, a 45-year-old actor who runs a "skateboarding ministry" and has starred in a series of ultra-low-budget movies aimed at evangelical Christians. McCullough told the room, "We need to stop embarrassing ourselves in the pop culture format."

McCullough also warned attendees that conservative ideas should not to be confused with libertarian ideas. In a subsequent FoxNews.com column complaining about CPAC's increasingly libertarian bent, he warned that "libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation."

"Conservative comedy sucks," the self-described conservative comedian Steven Kruiser declared on one of the panels. This was not that hard to believe after listening to Jason Mattera, the 27-year-old editor of the archconservative paper Human Events, attempt to craft a punch line out of the phrase "pimp-slap them with the Federalist Papers." But Kruiser's complaint, like his larger interest in comedic conservatism, was more instrumental than aesthetic.

Pop culture, Kruiser explained, is "the way the message gets driven." It's all part of the public relations game, and conservatives have had a hard time figuring out how to play. "The left has been brilliant with using pop culture to market themselves for a long time," Kruiser said. That leaves conservatives with two options: "We can wring our hands and whine. Or we can do something about it. We're not taking Medicare from the old people. But I am going to steal the pop culture from the lefties."

For Mattera, part of the key is subtlety. "When conservatives try to make a conservative film," he said, "it's so blatant. It's in your face. When liberals do it, it's very coy." Mattera, author of a book titled Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation, has had trouble embracing such subtlety himself. At one point he described the president as "less popular than Mel Gibson at a bar mitzvah."

All of CPAC's culture panelists agreed that conservatives had a duty to engage the world of mass culture. Even for those who made their living in the fledgling world of conservatainment, it was first and foremost a messaging platform, not a business; a mission, not an art form.

McCullough said he would be happy to make lots of money in the conservative culture business. But even that goal has its limits. Unlike the entertainers that Stevens criticized, he understood his obligation: "I would rather change the culture than get rich at this time. In the end, I want to win." 

Peter Suderman is an associate editor at reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The problem with "conservative", "Christian", or "libertarian" pop culture is that evangelistic uses of entertainment are limited by the fact that they need to be entertaining. That is a feature, not a bug -- who wants to be lectured at by the silver screen? Most music and entertainment succeeds in spite of, not because of, its political or social "message".

    "libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation."

    Truly, history's greatest monsters.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    BTW, explicitly leftist agitprop tends to fail just as badly as the stuff made by conservatives: The Motorcycle Diaries, any of a series of Iraq movies (besides the Hurt Locker), and a whole slew of lovingly-crafted leftist politician biopics have performed miserably at the box office. People don't like getting preached at -- a simple moral that many filmmakers don't get.

  • ||

    ""People don't like getting preached at""

    ^^This^^

  • Robert||

    Then why do they go to church?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Different social contexts.

  • ||

    Because their parents convinced them they would go to hell if they didn't.

  • Robert||

    So maybe they can be convinced they'll go to hell if they don't go to the movies.

  • ||

    Then you have Avatar which made a shitload of money, yet one had to gag down the moralistic leftist message.

  • Realist||

    Exactly.

  • Realist||

    Exactly

  • Realist||

    It bares repeating

  • ||

    Yet with Avatar and others the "shiny" caused many a good conservative to lap up Avatar. Does shoveling money into propaganda aimed directly at you count as "too stupid to survive?" If not what does?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    True, but I always do get a kick out of watching the big tree get blown up and seeing the overgrown smurfs cry when it happens.

  • ||

    Avatar was so annoying I went for the bad guys.

  • ||

    but it was the "noble savage" moralist legist message. this is a message older than rousseau, although he popularized it. think also: dances with wolves. i guess it's one of those treacly messages the public likes

  • JoshINHB||

    People don't like getting preached at -- a simple moral that many filmmakers don't get.

    That's why a lot of people hate AS.

    The trick is to slip the message in subtly, which the socialists are expert at. Although there have been a few conservative success like Knocked Up, Braveheart and Gladiator.

  • ||

    and groundhog day.

  • The Gobbler||

    Nice creases.

  • MNG||

    "The problem with "conservative", "Christian", or "libertarian" pop culture is that evangelistic uses of entertainment are limited by the fact that they need to be entertaining. That is a feature, not a bug -- who wants to be lectured at by the silver screen? Most music and entertainment succeeds in spite of, not because of, its political or social "message"."

    +100

    Whether it be Ayn Rand, Upton Sinclair or Harriet Beecher Stowe, when a work is over-politicalized it becomes boring, preachy, bad art (this is true for film directors, painters and such too, just thought books right away).

  • ||

    That's why nobody has ever read or even heard of Atlas Shrugged, The Jungle or Uncle Tom's Cabin, and why these books have universally failed to have any impact on American culture or politics.

  • ||

    Yet not a single entertaining film adaptation of any of those books exist.

    "Important" books sell well (mostly because of relatives buying them as gifts), but they typically make for shitty movies. Yes, I'm including the Bible in that generalization.

  • ||

    Not a single entertaining adaptation of The Jungle?

    ROTFLMAO

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    There will be in less than a week.

  • ||

    This reminds me of Christian rock music, and I suspect the results will suck just as bad.

  • ||

    "You're not making Christian music cooler, you're making rock'n'roll worse." Hank Hill

  • Zeb||

    That's a good one. Plus, all the coolest bands are affiliated with Satan.

  • Phil Spector||

    why does that prick always get credit for my work?

  • The Fringe Economist||

    Is Hank Hill a conservative entertainment figure?

  • Peter Suderman||

    The similarities are really strong. The CPAC panelists all talked about winning converts, talked in terms of faith and calling, etc.

  • ||

    U2 hasn't done so bad. But most wouldn't even realize they're a 'Christian' rock band.

  • e||

    so THAT'S why I can't stand their music. it makes sense now.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    There are two words that explain why I never really liked U2:

    THEY SUCK

  • ||

    Yeah, there is that.

  • ||

    Conservative (fill in the blank) sucks.

    I am no country music fan but I understand their icons are liberals - Toby Keith, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Dixie Chicks and Garth Brooks.

    Ray Stevens is scraping the bottom of the talent barrel - thus reinforcing this mantra.

    Conservatives are even stuck with the sucky Baldwin brother.

  • ||

    Don't forget Gallagher!

  • ||

    I always thought Gallagher was more liberatarian.

  • ||

    Nope. Not at all.

  • ||

    Ah too bad. He was one of my favorites back in the day.

  • ||

    I hope that by "back in the day" you mean when you were six.

  • ||

    Who smokes pot when they are six?

  • ||

    If pot can make Gallagher funny, it truly is a miracle drug.

  • ||

    Bueller-Bueller guy...what's his name? Ben Stein. Ah, now there's Conservatainment.

  • Realist||

    A true jack off!

  • Realist||

    ...or should I say Onanist.

  • ||

    Anyone who can get a hold of the stuff?

  • RyanXXX||

    you exclaim too often

  • Gregory Smith||

    No! I! Do! Not!
    ;)

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    I am no country music fan but I understand their icons are liberals - Toby Keith, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Dixie Chicks and Garth Brooks.


    "Icons"?

    By the way, Ted Nuggent is a libertarian. Just for starters...

  • ||

    Uh, no. The Nuge is a conservative, flat out. I don't give a shit what he, or others like Glenn Beck call themselves. They're fucking conservatives.

  • ||

    The Nuge is libertarian in some ways, conservative in others.

    There probably isn't such thing as a "pure" anything...

  • An Objectivist||

    There is such a thing as a pure libertarian. I'm ok with Beck and Nugent being conservative, and that doesn't mean libertarians have to reject them.

    But libertarians believe the initiation of force is immoral. Full stop. If you support taxation, or any other initiation of force, you're not a libertarian.

    We got diluted out of the term "liberal", we need to hold fast to "libertarian."

  • cynical||

    You're assuming that "initiation of force" is a clear and obvious and agreed-upon thing. In the case of armed robbery or even taxes, the link between coercion and property is clear, but what if you lay your stuff on the ground and a guy nicks it while you're distracted?

    Many people would agree that you've been wronged, but "force" seems like an extreme word to use for an act which doesn't directly contact your body at all or necessarily impact it in any way aside from some hurt feelings. If it doesn't count as force, do you have any right to grab him or punch him or send guys with guns and badges to get your things back? And if it does count as force, how can you justify it in a way that doesn't sound like you're twisting language to suit your purposes?

  • zoltan||

    In the case of armed robbery or even taxes, the link between coercion and property is clear, but what if you lay your stuff on the ground and a guy nicks it while you're distracted?

    If you take the private property of another person it is theft. You are using force to take that person's property because you are violating that person's rights to their property. Force isn't just violating someone's rights with physical violence.

  • Robert||

    I don't care if they fuck conservatives, but what are they?

  • Thomas O.||

    Aaron Lewis of Staind is also a self-professed conservative. He's shown up on the Wilkow Majority show quite a few times.

  • ||

    Willie Nelson is a libertarian! Well, except for all that farm welfare (subsidies AND ethanol... yikes!) and prohibiting horse slaughter and supporting Dennis Kucinich and Kinky Friedman and, well, um... He wants to legalize pot!

  • ||

    If Texas had balls Kinky would be their governor and not that dipshit Perry.

  • T||

    Kinky is a fucking idiot and would have been a disaster as governor. Perry sucks, but don't think Kinky was in any way capable of running this state.

  • Robert||

    Didn't he die about a year ago?

  • Thomas O.||

    I voted for Kinky. He would've made a great (or at least interesting) governor. However, someone had to dig up a politically-incorrect parody song he made around 1980. And thanks to the Texas laws, you don't have to get 50% of the votes, you just have to get the most votes. End result: Rick Roosevelt's still in the governor's office.

  • ||

    Toby Keith a liberal?

    How you figure?

  • ||

    He is a lifelong Dem turned indie.

    (had to look at his Wikipedia quotes)

  • ||

    A lifelong "conservative Democrat" who supported Bush in 2004 and turned indie recently (assuming wikipedia is correct here). Nothing "liberal" there.

  • ||

    ""But now Keith insists his politics have always been on the more liberal side - even though many people have believed otherwise.

    He says, "(The biggest misconception about me is) that I'm some kind of right-wing nut. I've been a registered Democrat my whole life."
    ""
    http://www.contactmusic.com/ne.....a-democrat

    "Toby Keith singing Democrat's praises
    Barack Obama is getting praise from Nashville, courtesy of one big, patriotic country star.

    Toby Keith, perhaps best known to noncountry audiences for his post-Sept. 11 song Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue, says he's a Democrat, and was impressed by the senator from Illinois.

    Keith has said in the past that the 2002 song was more patriotic than pro-war.

    " ... I think he's the best Democratic candidate we've had since Bill Clinton. And that's coming from a Democrat."

    http://www.chron.com/disp/stor.....54534.html

  • MJ||

    " ... I think he's the best Democratic candidate we've had since Bill Clinton. And that's coming from a Democrat."

    That's setting the bar extremely low. Clinton had charisma, but is an extremely small and petty man, and considering the other Dem candidtes were Al "I could not carry my homestate" Gore, and John "Mr. Heinz" Kerry, Obama is not being compared to the giants of American statesmanship here. Also, I'd be interested in just what impressed Toby Keith about Obama, since the only thing that impressed me was Obama's singular lack of credentionals.

  • ||

    Considering the Bush 43 nadir Clinton and Obama already belong on Rushmore.

    Graded to scale, of course.

  • nekoxgirl||

    With the way things are going, Obama is turning out to be even more ineffectual than Bush. He lets the UN take us into another war while he hangs out in Rio. There's no end in sight with the two wars he inherited. He's gone all Bush Jr. on the detainees at Guantanamo as well as civil liberties in general. And his one major accomplishment is wasting a year to get a Republican health care bill passed.

    Just today Obama admitted that he was just fuckin' around a few years ago when he voted against raising the debt ceiling. Bush set the hurtle a few inches off the ground but Obama seems to have accomplished tripping all over it.

  • ||

    Yeah, I've got agree here. Obama was going to close Guantanamo and then he punted. Same with 'trying the terrorists in NYC.' Same with his drugs-shtick. I mean, look at Mexico these days. More of the same.

    And he's not even really a good booster for the Democrats. Outside of sweetheart-backroom auto-deals he mailed it in on unions. They went from Card Check being in Committee to Wisconsigeddon in two years under Obama. And now have to apply for waivers to get out of getting their bennies taxed. Obama throws everyone under the bus when he needs to...and half the time he doesn't but he's not bright enough to figure out a better way even for his own goals. Just a moron.

  • ||

    S&P 500 up a record 530 points due to Obama policy - more than any president 1 0r 2 term.

    Iraq down to 50,000 non-combat troops - the Bush-induced disaster is ending. Libya a low contact regime change to be like Egypt - decidedly non-nation built like the Bushpugs prefer.

    Dickless Cheney - Mr. Deficits Don't Matter - thankfully out of power with his Torquemada attitude.

    FinReg in place to prevent another Bush coma-like disregard to public backed bank misdeeds. Capital standards (the basis of capitalism) now in vogue again.

    Bush's $1.3 trillion deficit now under control - Obama offered a budget to cut it in half.

    Much to be thankful for now that the Bushpigs have stopped butt-fucking the USA.

  • marlok||

    "Bush's $1.3 trillion deficit now under control - Obama offered a budget to cut it in half."

    HAHAHAHAHA (milk shoots out nose)

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    S&P 500 up a record 530 points due to Obama policy - more than any president 1 0r 2 term.

    Actually, it's up due to TARP giving Dimon, Blankfein, and the rest of the large banks a bunch of FRNs to pump up the stock market with. This is a bubble just as much as housing and dotbomb were.

    FinReg in place to prevent another Bush coma-like disregard to public backed bank misdeeds.

    Yeah, that's why Obama and Holder have been prosecuting bank executives left and right...oh, wait...

    Much to be thankful for now that the Bushpigs have stopped butt-fucking the USA.

    Yeah, like that roaring 57% employment to population ratio, which isn't even close to reaching the troughs of the 2000-2003 recession.

    Try again, sucker.

  • shrike||

    Other words I don't care what you say even if they facts point the other way. I want to suck Obama's black cock and I swallow also.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Graded to scale, of course.

    That scale must be Matchbox.

  • Zeb||

    I'm pretty sure TrickyVic is not in fact Toby Kieth, so I am not sure why you are arguing with him about the quality of democratic candidates.

  • ||

    What is a conservative Democrat or Blue Dog anyway?

    They are closer to libertarian than either a conservative or a progressive.

    Blue Dogs are small gov, pro-choice, pro-gun, free trade, pro-science, and anti-theocracy.

    Much more libertarian than that Wahhabi wingnut Jim DickMint for instance.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yeah, those Blue Dogs are doing wonders to stop spending on the Hill.

  • marlok||

    Uhhh, I'll agree with you on the pro-gun thing. Otherwise, they marry the social policy of the Republicans with a rubber stamp for every spending bill that slides across their desks.

  • ||

    Fascinating.

  • ||

    Barry, he's a self admitted liberal. I think it was a 60 Minutes interview.

  • Homer Simpson||

    My "Best of Ray Stevens - featuring the 'Streak' - Album"! So it was the dog who buried all our stuff!

  • Marge Simpson||

    Yes... the dog.

  • ||

    ""Pop culture, Kruiser explained, is "the way the message gets driven." It's all part of the public relations game, and conservatives have had a hard time figuring out how to play.""

    Conservatives don't want to be pop-culture, they want to be anti-pop. They have been trying to brand themselves as "outsiders". That's part of the "mainstream media" name they throw around. They don't want to be mainstream, yet they wonder why they are not.

  • Wargames83||

    Primus is conservative?

  • Thomas O.||

    "Primus is conservative?"

    +11 (off the Seas Of Cheese album)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A better line would be "less popular than Mel Gibson at a bat mitzvah." It adds in his reported misogyny.

    In any case, that subtlety will never come easy to would-be conservative jesters. The right seems more sure that they can persuade others with open debate than does the left. (The Air America debacle might just bear that out.)

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "...Stevens dons both a cheap sombrero and an Arab headdress that appears to have been made from a sweatband and a kitchen towel ..."

    I'd say that conservative pop culture hath made its masterpiece. You can't get any funnier than that!

  • ||

    I disagree.

  • ||

    Louis Black had a funny rant about this. Conservatives decided to have a video website to counter Youtube. Yet all the videos posted on that site were nothing but links to videos on youtube. So the conservative's answer to youtube, is youtube.

  • ||

    How in hell is YouTube liberal, or anything else?

  • ||

    You would have to ask the Rs about that one. My guess is that it's a mainstream outlet they the Rs have created a political target so they can be "outside" the box. It's basically what they do with all media they don't create.

  • Random Bob||

    See also the bizarre creation that is Conservapedia, the conservative alternative to Wikipedia. The article on dinosaurs gets rid of all that liberal science in favor of creationism, young earth folks, and other godless conspiracies. Truly it is a great resource for someone who doesn't want to be corrupted by facts.

  • ||

    Its a Teabagger Paradise.

    (c'mon Weird Al - you can do it)

  • An Objectivist||

    ANYONE who uses the term "teabagger" to refer to other people, is a fucking idiot.

  • ||

    Those assholes wandering around with the misspelled signs at Glenn Beck rallies who watch Fox News 24/7 get nothing but contempt from me.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Do those that slavishly watch MSNBC for the next dictate from Maddow/Schultz et al and, apparently, have better spelling skills get a pass?

  • shrike||

    Of course its easy for me to sit back and criticize when all I do is eat my mom's food and ass ream myself with a black dildo while watching kiddie porn. Oh and trust me there is no misspelled signs at liberal protests.

  • ||

    Bob that is funny. Here's a snippet from the dinosaurs entry.

    "Creation science proves the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation[3] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus debunking the Theory of Evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

    Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants[4]; that pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[5]; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[6]; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.[7]"

    Note the footnote markings.

    And they have the balls to claim, "The trustworthy encyclopedia"

    Perhaps they are not that bad at comedy afterall, but we are laughing AT them.

  • ||

    Have you heard the voice of the founder of Conservapedia? -- He sounds exactly like the Martian in the old Bugs Bunny 'toons!

  • ||

    With the notion that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, I'm hearing Fred Flinstone.

  • Random Bob||

    The most widely viewed, and weirdest articles on there are about homosexuality. It's sort of like those old Pliny the Elder descriptions of animals where ostriches burst into flames at will and camels and leopards have sex to make giraffes. Conservapedia will set you straight and explain that homosexual behavior leads to nothing but murder, insanity, and gay bowel syndrome.

  • dunkel||

    ...Pliny the Elder...

    sorry, I thought we were talking about beer.

    carry on.

  • JoshINHB||

    Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants[4];

    When the fuck did Christian conservatives go all vegan?

    Meat eating was one of the few things they got right.

    that pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood

    How fucking big was that ark anyway?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I think someone did the math and it was like 30 miles wide. The Bible's dimensions are way off.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    What the hell is "creation science?"

  • ||

    I went to that link. Found 'global warming' entry and minutes later was here: http://www.conservapedia.com/C....._Old_Earth

    Holy shit.

  • ||

    Conservatives created GodTube for themselves.

    (no kidding)

  • ||

    You crack me up! Keep the zingers coming...

    You are the one who told me our top capitalists (Buffett, Soros, Gates, Brin, Page, Ellison, etc.) were all really communists.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Christ, I actually agree with GREGOOOOO here. Leftists do tend to congregate in the creative and media arts fields, whereas I tend to find conservatives in what could be termed more "practical" fields, such as engineering.

    And yes, explicitly Christian/conservative, non-violent films really suck.

  • ||

    Passion of the Christ was pretty successful, though.

    Oh wait... You said non-violent.

  • Gregory Smith||

    You can't make a Passion of the Christ every year, Barry.

  • MNG||

    "Leftists do tend to congregate in the creative and media arts fields, whereas I tend to find conservatives in what could be termed more "practical" fields, such as engineering."

    Has this always been so? Why? It strikes me that there is nothing inherent in art that would repel conservatives and attract liberals, and one would think liberals could like engineering (the progressive movement loved science, they thought all political problems could be solved like an engineering problem).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It could goes back to religious limitations on art -- bans on ikonography and limitations of the creative medium are more prevalent in religious circles than bans on economic activity, at least since the Reformation and Calvinism.

    I'd also be remiss if I didn't note the conservative attraction to genres like fantasy and the western, at least in the US. It's not a uniform and clean division, certainly (I know plenty of physicists who are really progressive), but it seems to be a tendency.

  • MJ||

    "...and one would think liberals could like engineering..."

    Except that in engineering, your results matter and your intentions do not. Physics is a harsh,cold hearted, bitch of a mistress. Scares those sensitive lefty types to death.

  • Southerner||

    What, you never heard of Unobtainium, the glittery metallic mineral that's anti-gravity because James Cameron says it is?

  • Dumbass||

    how did that movie make so much money?

  • Hooha||

    In fairness, I think it was the little display stand that made the rock float like... you know what? Never mind. The movie sucked so bad, it probably WAS supposed to float like that.

  • PACW||

    Well stated.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It strikes me that there is nothing inherent in art that would repel conservatives and attract liberals,

    In mordern times, social elitism and government-dependent funding.

    The "Bourgeois Buffoon Snowman" strip from Calvin and Hobbes parodied this mindset quite nicely.

  • Calvin||

    What do you want me to do, starve?

  • Southerner||

    Yeah! Yeah!

  • Zeb||

    I find plenty of liberal (or at least fairly main line Democrat) engineers and programmers. The fact that people working in the arts are largely liberal does not mean that liberals tend to go into the arts, just that people who succeed in those fields tend to be liberal. Most liberals I find to be practical people who just happen to have differing views on the effectiveness of government and appropriate uses of force.

  • ||

    ""Conservatives need to think more South Park, less Left Behind.""

    And they won't becuase,

    "Even for those who made their living in the fledgling world of conservatainment, it was first and foremost a messaging platform, not a business; a mission, not an art form."

    No one gives a shit about the conservatives' mission, or message except for themselves.

  • Jim||

    I think you're correct; they need to think of it as an art form, through which they can convey some sense of their worldview, instead of taking their worldview as a starting point, and then trying to craft something "entertaining" around it.

  • AU H20||

    I do stand up (not that I make any money on it, but one day if I'm lucky)and I have to agree.

    I never go out and try to make "libertarian" jokes, but rather funny jokes.

    A lot of comedians seem to forget that when it comes to liberalism, but few last long. I mean, for all the crap Jon Stewart gets, he's no Garafalo.

  • ||

    The students who go into the Arts, humanities, or journalism are often in this cocoon of false reality in which the only people they encounter are lefties and they never get challenged. Thus they stay left.

    The big deal about "conservative art" isn't that people want to preach (or at least it shouldn't be), its that we are sick of one religion out of many, one set of political beliefs, one part of the country, and one set of moral values CONSTANTLY being derided, while other sets are not to be even remotely questioned for fear of not being seen as being "good", what ever the current label for "good" is, "culturally diverse", "tolerant", or some other buzzword.

    Its one thing for a movie to insult Christianity when also insulting other religions. Its quite another to see JUST Christianity take the hit.

    Its one thing to see all the parts of the country mocked, its another to see just the "big square states in the middle" taking a hit.

    What we want is to be treated like all the other people and not mocked. Give me a good plot, competent acting and directing, and no bashing of people like me, and you have enough "conservative" in it for my $.

  • AU H20||

    I agree, but I do think that it is important to note that media fails hardest when it tries to be preachy, or goes, "YEAH, FLYOVER COUNTRY, M I RITE?"

    Case in point, while I find it vaguely amusing, I do not understand the critical love of 30 Rock which does quite a bit of this kind of humor through Jack and Kenneth.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It makes a lot more sense if you look at Kenneth as a SWPL version of a minstrel show.

  • Southerner||

    They also need to remember that family-friendly movies suck. People like violence, torture, killers, some sex but not too much, bad language, etc. Conservatives need to think more South Park, less Left Behind.

    Well, no; if you ask Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks, family-friendly fare sells just fine. The trouble is that its main market is kids under 13. Of course, the definition of "family-friendly" has always struck me as rather dubious. Mom and Dad are family, aren't they? Where's the stuff that's friendly to their interests?

    As to sex, violence, and bad language, you've got what people like about the film backwards; it's not any of these elements that make people like the film, but rather the story which happens to require them. Two fairly successful films from a Christian and conservative perspective, respectively, are The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson (which is about the only R-rated Christian movie in existence) and Red Dawn's head-for-the-hills anti-Communist story (which, let us recall, helped introduce the PG-13 rating to people). The former has lots of violence, but not much sex or bad language, the latter lots of violence and just a little sex and bad language.

    These two films, I would contend, were very family-friendly, just not in the way that Hollywood means. I'm sure the controversy surrounding The Passion didn't hurt, but what really sold the tickets is--believe me, I was there, I saw this with my own eyes--not only did Christian parents come flocking to the theater, but they brought their kids! The movie was nothing less than a three-handkerchief performance for them. As for Red Dawn, it can hardly approach The Passion for sales figures or popularity, but it does have a lot of the makings of a nice solid Summer movie for teens. It's a story about the kind of thing teens dream of doing: staying out late, killing the bad guys, and impressing the girls.

    The real way to make Conservatainment that actually is entertaining is not to load it up with sex, violence, and nasty language; Hollywood is littered with movies full of that crap that didn't sell. What we really ought to do is take stories similar to the ones in Hollywood's more successful movies and turn the various left-wing subtexts from those movies on their heads. Left-wing movies are always demonizing big corporations; so make the evil exploiters of your right-wing movie a bloated government bureaucracy. Rich white corporate guys are always the villains in a left-wing movie--so make them the heroes in the right-wing movie (Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, anyone?). Left-wingers are always portrayed as victims, and right-wingers as oppressors--so make a movie in which left-wingers are the oppressors and right-wingers are the victims.

    On the Christian end: portray happily married couples having great mind-blowing sex, and portray promiscuous swingers as a bunch of hollow and pretentious losers who treat their partners as masturbation aids and can barely get it up even while engaging in S&M or some such vague depravity (and make those leather masks look really dorky while you're at it). Also, indicate that violence does solve a lot of problems, multiculturalism is evil, and tolerance is for spineless cowards. Show militant atheist perverts passing out leaky taxpayer-funded condoms to five-year-olds and advocating bestiality, homosexuality, and just plain promiscuity for everyone while trying to keep their own spouses and children from sleeping around.

    You know; little things like that.

  • Random Bob||

    so make the evil exploiters of your right-wing movie a bloated government bureaucracy

    Ghostbusters had the EPA as an enemy in the film as well as jokes about academia versus the private sector. However, everything else about the film (swearing, the wrong kind of demons, sexuality, interest in the occult) was offensive to conservative Christians. If you just made a movie about insect exterminators that went to Bible study and fought the EPA, it would have been pretty boring.

    It's difficult to make a pure "conservative" film because there's always bound to be something that irritates some subgroup. It's rather like the selection process for the Republican presidential nominee. "This one is too friendly to Mexicans!" "This one is the wrong kind of Christian!" "This one sufficiently hates the gays but loves big government!"

    I will say that if you're desperate for the kind of movies you list in your last full paragraph, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples from the 1940s and 1950s when there were strict morality controls on movies. They just happen to be really boring.

  • Robert||

    I thought of Ghostbusters too, and you're right: "conservatives" are bound by too many constraints; they're conservative in that sense too. The biggest problem for Christians with Ghostbusters is that, in effect, these guys defeated and hence prevented the apocalypse.

  • Southerner||

    No, the biggest problem with Ghostbusters from the Christian perspective is that it's spiritual junk food. I sure hope we can all agree that--no matter what Dan Brown's followers may say--deliberately silly popcorn flicks are not a sound basis for any kind of religion.

  • Southerner||

    You've missed the point completely.

    If you just made a movie about insect exterminators that went to Bible study and fought the EPA, it would have been pretty boring.

    Yeah, because nobody remembers crap like The Exorcist, do they? Nice strawman, Bob, but it doesn't even remotely relate to anything I actually said conservative and/or Christian film-makers ought to do.

    It's difficult to make a pure "conservative" film because there's always bound to be something that irritates some subgroup.

    Sure, everybody remembers how civil and harmonious the Democratic primaries were back in 2008, right? Nobody on the left is at all skeptical or discontented with the Messiah now either, right? To get back to movies, remember how Redacted and Jarhead hit all the left wing's favorite hot-button issues, satisfied all of its special interest groups, and therefore had huge audiences, made huge piles of money, and were real shoo-ins for Oscars in every category? Yeah, me neither. Again, nice strawman you're attacking there.

    I will say that if you're desperate for the kind of movies you list in your last full paragraph, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples from the 1940s and 1950s when there were strict morality controls on movies.

    There might be thousands that fit the description of your strawman. I doubt there are more than a dozen or so that fit what I actually described. As others have already pointed out, the left wing is making plenty of pretentious and preachy nonsense these days too; you just don't hear about it so much because of confirmation bias: a hit, by definition, is a memorable movie; but for every hit, there might be a hundred--nay, a thousand misses. Sturgeon was an optimist; I say 99% of everything is crap.

    Gregory seems to think the source of South Park's success is its sex, violence, and swearing. My point is that none of these things make a movie good. For just one example, The Dark Side of the Moon (1990) is full of sex, violence, and swearing. It's also a major suckfest because the story (something about the Bermuda Triangle being connected to Satan; no kidding) makes no sense whatsoever.

    Left Behind didn't fail for lack of sex, violence, or swearing, but because it didn't have too many credible characters, the actors didn't give very credible performances for any it did have, and it didn't have the budget to produce the one special effect that might have been worth seeing--people disappearing and leaving their clothes, jewelry, and medical devices hanging ever-so-briefly in midair. It failed because without credible characters, actors, and special effects, it didn't make much sense.

    The Passion likewise succeeded not because of its violence, but because had at least some credible characterization, some story to it, and if any flaws turned up in these things, enough special effects budget to make the beating, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus--and I dare say the resurrection as well--look very real. It did this all without any sex whatsoever, and only one mild bit of swearing which comes from adapting a certain Bible passage (which did say something about Peter "calling down curses on himself" without specifying what those curses were.)

    What I'm saying is that to succeed, conservative film makers should take a story that's already well-written on its own merits and then do the exact reverse of what Hollywood does to such stories. Without its politics, Avatar is a thinly plotted but serviceable script about humans oppressing blue extraterrestrials. With Hollywood's left-wing trappings, it becomes a tale about those ee-vil corporations enlisting the ee-vil military to oppress those noble blue-skinned savages so that it can strip-mine for the minerals it needs to mitigate all the damage its ee-vil has done to Earth; and oh yeah, lots of eye candy.

    Take the same script, give it a more conservative spin, and you get a tale about a corporation looking to make everybody rich, including the blue-skinned savages of this great new planet who've been living in squalor up to now and need to be shown a better way of life. The ee-vil government that's been oppressing Earth then sends U.N. "peacekeepers" to "negotiate" a deal that will keep those blue-skinned aborigines living in squalor as a means of "respecting" their culture while confiscating the corporation's materials and profits for itself. Then the corporation has to ally with the natives to drive away the evil government operatives trying to impose their socialist agenda on the planet Pandora the same way they've imposed it on Earth. Along the way, we're treated to lots of eye-candy.

    Give it the Christian treatment, and you trade the benevolent big corporation for a benevolent band of missionaries looking to save souls. The socialist U.N. remains the big bad villain, and instead of getting a valuable mineral, its goal becomes the spreading of one-world socialist dogma and government to new planets, including this one. For the most part, though, this story will also have lots of eye candy and explosions as these missionaries go full-paladin-mode on the godless commies trying to enslave the natives for the Greater Good.

    In the end, though, the movie will only succeed if it has a good--or at least watchable--story. If all it has is a message, be it from the right, the left, Christians, or godless commies, it won't work no matter what level of blood, bare breasts, and blasphemy it's got.

  • Random Bob||

    But what if Avatar is about eminent domain? Doesn't that make it more conservative?

    My whole point is that it's pretty silly to label an entire movie as conservative or liberal just because of a few elements in it. I don't think that Ghostbusters is really a conservative film, but people who really hate the EPA praise it as such.

    If a movie has a gay character in it, it's not liberal propaganda, it's just a character in a movie. People have looked at Red Dawn as sympathetic to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because some have drawn that particular message does not make it a liberal film.

    My comments about the old movies were not meant to be dismissive--there was literally a time when you could be sent to jail for making a movie with elements offensive to conservatives. So there is a substantial backlog of films available. Likewise, upthread I mentioned the highly conservative Mormon film industry. If these films are not widely popular, it's the free market at work. Which is really what pop culture's all about--not a broad conspiracy to impose an agenda, but rather how people voluntarily choose to spend their free time.

    If you're looking to change an entertainment industry to impose a specific set of ideals (I'm not accusing you of this, but rather the goals of the people in the original post), it's frankly closer to North Korea or Soviet Russia, which should be anathema to conservatives.

  • Southerner||

    If you're looking to change an entertainment industry to impose a specific set of ideals (I'm not accusing you of this, but rather the goals of the people in the original post), it's frankly closer to North Korea or Soviet Russia, which should be anathema to conservatives.

    Call me paranoid, but that sounds a lot like an accusation to me. If people want to make films that reflect their side's ideology rather than the other side's, that's "imposing" those ideals on others the way far-left nations like North Korea and the Soviet Union would "impose" their ideals at gunpoint on their people? So what do you call the oceans of left-wing garbage Hollywood has been imposing on its films for decades now? Why are left-wing film makers getting a free pass from you for cozying up to the ideals of Soviet Russia and North Korea while you smear conservatives for trying to put the very opposite ideals in a movie? You're not making a very good case for yourself, Bob.

    I don't see any mention of the conservatives in that article calling for a restoration of censors' laws, and as for going to jail for making stuff offensive to conservatives, that's one hell of a loaded statement! Those laws never banned anything for being offensive to conservatives specifically, but rather to the morals of the time, which are "conservative" only in comparison to the left-wing insanity that presides in our own time.

    You might not go to jail for making a skin flick anymore, but the perverts and sexual libertines of the left might just enlist their lapdog media's aid in suppressing your film if it makes them look bad as they did to Windows (1980), for one. Also, if you think the laws of the 1940s and 1950s were restrictive, try making a film like Child Bride (1938) today and see if you don't end up in jail for it.

    All of this is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. Can't you see Suderman's tongue is planted firmly in his cheek when he speaks of a "plot" to "seize" Hollywood? There's no conspiracy theory in the article itself, just an examination of the conservative and Christian efforts to promote more fiscally and socially conservative ideas in movies which--so far--aren't making much progress.

    I do think on the whole these movie makers have got the right idea initially: the way to overcome enemy propaganda is not to censor it, which will only make people more curious to see it, but rather to produce propaganda of your own. However, movies that let the propaganda get in the way of the story are doomed to fail both as a story and as propaganda. This is exactly what happened to so many left-wing films that did this, and what's happening now to right-wing films that do the same thing: whatever idea they're promoting, their execution of the film ends up killing it!

    The reason they're not succeeding is not their political and religious alignment, or because they aren't cramming enough sex, violence, and profanity into their movies, but because they either don't have enough of a story in the first place, or the story is being buried under the message. If they don't have enough story to them, all the media hype and financial connections Hollywood can muster can't make their movies work. Whenever they do get enough story, they'll have a hit. Hollywood's leftists have churned out oceans of forgettable nonsense learning this lesson, and some of them still haven't learned it. My fellow right-wingers will likely have to go through the same process before they finally manage to make some films we'll want to see.

  • ||

    Strict moral codes, yes, except in regards to race. (looks at "Breakfast at Tiffany's)

  • ||

    Wow! I wouldn't trade 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Godfellas' for a lifetime of that crap.

  • Southerner||

    You wouldn't know a good movie if you saw it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    which, let us recall, helped introduce the PG-13 rating to people

    Not to nitpick, but I thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the first PG-13 flick.

  • Southerner||

  • ||

    It would be dead easy to do up more libertarian-oriented entertainment, based on nothing more than who the Bad Guy is, and who the Good Guy is.

    Hollywood has been coasting on fumes for years, showing their usual total lack of imagination and slotting in tediously repetitive Corporate Bad Guys, taken down by firm-jawed G-Men of some stripe or other.

    Its not hard to do Government Bad Guys, taken down by the Plucky and Resourceful Common Man.

    But Hollywood loves remaking the same movie over and over again. At this point, the barrier is as much inertia as it is politics.

  • ||

    Clint Eastwood did a LOT of that stuff, really. From Josie Wales to Dirty Harry, Joe Kidd to Pale Rider, with many other variations, the "who is the good guy and who is the bad guy" theme is pervasive. Of course he is a libertarian, though I'm sure some of the religious purists will come along and say that he's any number of other things...

    It would be difficult to argue that he was unsuccessful, either in terms of box office or viewer appreciation.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ol' Clint was never quite ideological in his presentation of those issues, though -- he leaves the line blurry in films like Unforgiven, or his Flags of Our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima. You can suss out some libertarian or conservative themes from his works, but if you just want to enjoy a movie, you can do that.

    That's not really true with works like Atlas Shrugged, Left Behind, or any other ideological work. Basically, your "entertainment" comes with a dollop of ideological content of varying quality. Usually, that kind of stuff goes down like castor oil.

  • ||

    Well, yeah. That's what I was saying. What RC Dean said has been done, and it has worked.

  • ||

    Clint is a registered (R) of course but he is VERY liberal in his positions so your depiction of him as Libertarian is probably accurate even if he would never admit it.

    That is why I say social cons fuck everything up. As long as they taint the GOP many of us rationalists and secularists will never vote Republican.

  • barfman||

    "they taint the GOP many of us rationalists and secularists"

    BARF!

  • ||

    What I meant to say was, until you losertardians realize that we Marxists who worship Satan are far superior to you, we're not even going to vote for blue dog Democrats, let alone a Libertarian or Hell... er, Heaven-spawned Republican.

  • RockLibetyWarrior||

    shrike I don't like your views too much but your probably a stand up guy. I agree though with your above opinion wholeheartedly!

  • RockLibetyWarrior||

    The Clint Eastwood comment that is.

  • shrike||

    Why am I a Marxist? Because I still live in my mother's basement, don't have to work, and jerk off at gay porn while my dad watches. Please dad pass the Cheetos!

  • ||

    Conservative filmmakers might just want to watch more successful and entertaining movies, instead of all that gay porn. Gay porn doesn't really give you much training in how to entertain the masses.

  • ||

    Well it does entertain the gay masses......

  • ||

    All three of us.

  • Random Bob||

    If they were really serious about this project they would look at the "Mollywood" industry, or the movies produced by and for Mormons. It is rare for one of these films to ever escape a couple of states--one exception is Napoleon Dynamite, although the LDS church is never directly referenced in the film. There's nothing stopping the rest of the country from seeing these films, but they're mostly regarded as boring, bland, and sometimes confusing because of heavy moral messages.

    There are also media outlets that are fiercely conservative, and are getting worse and dying a slow death. I'm not talking about any news channel or radio station, but rather the comics page of the newspaper. There can't be anything controversial. It's better to rehash old jokes from 50 years ago than to make a new one. Nothing racy. No characters or dialogue that might offend a 70 year old woman and cause her to cancel her news subscription. "If the humorless adventures of the Family Circus aren't in my paper every day, then truly the Communists have won and America is dying."

    The controversies that show up from time to time are so bizarre. Zits gets censored for using the word "sucks". Bloom County strip got pulled for using the word "damn". People across the country freak out because there's a gay character in For Better or For Worse.

    The result of this adherence to purity, tradition, and complete non-offense is why newspaper comics are stagnant, it's almost impossible for a new artist to break in, and the genre will be dead within a generation.

  • Robert||

    OK, but newspapers themselves are a dead end, so the fact that one small organ of the beast is dying faster than the rest means nothing. Plenty of interesting strips on the Internet, such as Vladimir Putin Action Comics, and that's where an Al Capp would be today.

  • Southerner||

    Of course, somehow cowardly lefty censorship escapes all mention in your tidy little narrative, as does the failure of pathetic left-wing attempts to emulate the success of right-wing radio.

  • Random Bob||

    I could have brought up the fact that Fox refused to air an abortion-themed episode of Family Guy, but I fail to see what TV animation or Air America have to do with newspaper comics.

    The fact is that the printed comic page is full mostly of comics whose creators are dead. Unlike TV, movies, and other media, the newspaper comics were actually more complex, political, interesting, and occasionally controversial back in the first six decades of the 20th century. The present state of affairs favors rerunning the same Garfield joke over and over again, or dragging out the corpse of Blondie for yet another joke about Dagwood being late for work.

  • I Heart Capitalisms||

    I watched that FG ep the other day. I'm completely pro-choice but McFarlane is an insufferable ass. If you're going to make something that's hyper-preachy, you'd better have some Avatar-quality special effects.

  • Southerner||

    The point is that each of those cases of self-censorship in newspapers (and Fox's refusal to run Family Guy's pro-abortion episode) was based on the reaction of their regular audience. In other words, the free market killed those things, not ideology or legal censorship. Fox and those newspapers were perfectly free to run all of those offensive things if they didn't mind losing subscribers and ratings they rather preferred to keep. Comedy Central, in contrast, responded not to free market pressures, but to terrorism (from Muslims who weren't watching the show in the first place). So who are the real suppressors of free expression?

    As to why I brought up Air America, that would be because you assert with little evidence that the newspapers are failing because they're being "conservative" by refusing to run stuff that might offend and alienate a significant portion of their readers. Yet conservative talk radio is thriving while left-wing talk radio is failing. I don't think you've really established any cause-and-effect relationship between conservatism and the stagnation of any particular medium here; what's killing newspapers (many of which are actually far to the left) is fierce competition from the new media, not conservatism. The same market that isn't watching right-wing movies apparently has little use for left-wing radio or for newspapers. The jury's still out on TV...

  • Ted S.||

    I had the great bad sense to watch Dondi a week or so ago on TCM. It's based on a comic strip that ultimately went defunct in the 1980s, and from what I've read, the comic strip was just as bad as the movie, which is an amazingly bad howler.

  • Thomas O.||

    Heh... I remember when Bloom County actually got the word "ass" into a Sunday comic of theirs. As for content, truth be told, the edgier cartoonists (myself included) would rather put our effort into making less-visible webcomics - and go by our own standards of taste - than have to conform ourselves to antiquated ideals for the syndicates. (Fortunately there are some envelope-pushes out there in the funny pages, like Pearls Before Swine.)

  • Corporate Drone||

    Bleecchh. I'm tired of entertainment which is pimped out as either Liberal or Conservative messages. Fuck. I watch movies and listen to music to GET AWAY from that sort of thing!

    More Blade Runner and Primer, less suck.

  • Ska||

    I dig The People Vs. Larry Flynt , but it highlights differences between conservatives and libertarians; conservatives are not going to really like that one.

  • ||

    If Ray Stevens is their reference point for popular culture? Was Yakov Smirnoff busy? Maybe he's too liberal.

  • RockLibetyWarrior||

    Or YIKES a Russian.

  • MJ||

    Ironic as this post is two above a post shilling for "Atlas Shrugged", which (given the source material) has the potential to be preachy and unentertaining to anyone who is not already a secular capitalist true believer.*

    *I liked the book, but it ain't exactly subtle.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Rand was never subtle.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    More on this: I like that it wasn't subtle, but you have to admit that only someone who goes in with an open mind to the message will accept it. I went in with a conservative-libertarian-traditionalist mindset, which was close enough to Rand that Atlas Shrugged make me a liberal-libertarian-rationalist.

    For the masses, though, we're going to need something that people will read long enough to absorb some of the message.

  • Nortaneous||

    Another problem is that there's nowhere near as much obvious comedy potential in the left. The tropes aren't there yet, and the few tropes that still exist (think Diversity Lane) aren't all that effective anymore, except for preaching to the choir.

    The right might want to pay more attention to Jim Goad. He's already built a lot of the tropes; now all they need to do is spread them.

  • ||

    I want naked women in films. I want people taking drugs and acting badly as a result, and yet, somehow everything turning out Ok despite the puerile actions of the people taking them. Is that so bad?

  • Ska||

    Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas?

  • ||

    No!

    More like 'Bully' or any Ken Russell film.

    Girl-on-girl is always a plus.

  • ||

    I'm such a faggot.

  • Southerner||

    For a naked chick, try Blue Lagoon (1980). For the drugs... Hm. You got me there. Easy Rider (1969), maybe? I mean, it didn't end so well for the guys taking drugs, but they did relatively little damage and everybody else in that movie was probably pretty happy about the ending...

  • Southerner||

    Just thought of one for the drugs, actually: Airplane! (1980)

    "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines!"

  • Scott||

    This makes me think of why I prefer Dostoevsky to Rand. Dostoevsky railed against both the feudal system and against impending socialism, but he did it by first creating a great story and then filling it with characters who embodied the points he wanted to make, rather than building a story around dialogue.

  • KPres||

    What was that horse movie? Secretariat? Didn't conservatives like that one?

    Problem with conservatives is that they're no fun. How's that going to work for the entertainment? Whole reason I'm attracted to libertarianism is so I can get the capitalism without the wholesomeness.

  • ||

    I think you mean 'Seabiscuit'.

    Very uplifting (I hear).

  • ||

    Guess again. Secretariat came out last year, and was very well received by socon movie goers. In fact, in some of the race scenes the soundtrack features a gospel choir singing "Oh Happy Day" as Secretariat runs.

    Seabiscuit was released earlier this decade. Both are crowd pleasing films.

  • PMG||

    reading some conservapedia footnote links; AMAZING!

    On fitting everything into the Ark:

    "Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine ‘kind’, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed."

    Yet another article cited says:

    "However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false."

  • ||

    "Facts have a liberal bias"

    Source = Colbert + any rational person.

  • ||

    No, I'm the source, you plagiarist!

  • Random Bob||

    If only more conservative websites were willing to link to Conservapedia to fight the bias of Mainstream Reality.

    You've got to love part of the article on Penn & Teller:

    Hate Speech

    Penn and Teller take anti-Catholics views to a level of hate speech. Mocking, lies and potty-mouth Catholic people for their faith. They villified Mother Teresa for helping the poor.
  • ||

    The dinosaurs are still alive, except we call them birds. Anyone for some KFD?

  • Robert||

    Darn, it took me until just now to realize the opening credits sequence of Simpson cartoons is just a pastiche of the opening credits sequence of Flintstone cartoons!! They rush home from work, and then go see themselves on the screen. But Simpson cartoons don't have a pastiche of the Flintstone closing credits sequence.

    Of course Flinstone cartoons are just Fleischer Stone Age Cartoons with Jackie Gleason imitation characters. And Gleason & Carney said they were doing Laurel & Hardy.

  • Robert||

    And I didn't get it until now even though there was one Simpson intro that made the resemblance extremely explicit: "In the town of Springfield, I'm about to hit a chestnut tree."

  • PMG||

    Something you always here from a reputable source:

    "Without getting into all the math"
    -Conservapedia

  • PMG||

    U no Im a reputable sorce cuz I kant spel.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If we've learned one thing in this thread, it's that Conservapedia = conservative entertainment.

  • ||

    For more religious/conservative entertainment, check out Fundies Say the Darndest Things at www.fstdt.org.

  • PMG||

    I am a libertarian film maker, so I don't want the government to force me to do anything, but personally I have conservative values, but I still think most conservative movies are too preachy. How about instead of preaching against sex, they just don't involve it in the plot? 'The Expendables' I think is perfect in that sense, Communists and out control Pols are the bad guys; love interests where the most intimate moments are beating the shit out of your woman's man are the most intimate and personal in the film. Even the religious Right loves them some violence.

  • zoltan||

    Even the religious Right loves them some violence.

    You mean especially.

  • Southerner||

  • Waquoit||

    Conservatives think Mallard Fillmore is funny and clever.

  • Iriquoit||

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You know what the best libertarian-oriented movie is?

    Conan the Barbarian

    A dude who earned his freedom, destroys anything that threatens to take it away, nails any bitch he wants, and works hard for his shit.

  • RockLibetyWarrior||

    Love it! Your right on! LOL!

  • ConfederalRepublicBy2030||

    Conan is the shit. He eradicated all the statists while still having time to
    skillfully and stylishly fuck the brains out of any woman he liked. Awesome.

  • DDavis||

    For Mattera, part of the key is subtlety. "When conservatives try to make a conservative film," he said, "it's so blatant. It's in your face. When liberals do it, it's very coy."

    Liberals are subtle? Are you kidding? They're just less inhibited about spouting their views - because of course everyone who isn't evil or a moron agrees with them.

    Subtlety and pop culture don't seem to coexist, left or right. All the subtlety of seal clubbing. Fine, have an opinion, but can't you show it in the art, instead of shrieking it at me with the volume on 11?

  • links 123||

    I am a libertarian film maker, so I don't want the government to force me to do anything, but personally I have conservative values, but I still think most conservative movies are too preachy. How about instead of preaching against sex, they just don't involve it in the plot?

  • juicycouture||

    so I don't want the government to force me to do anything, but personally I have conservative values, but I still think most conservative movies are too preachy. How about instead of preaching against sex, they just don't involve it in the plot?

  • RockLibetyWarrior||

    The above articles is why con-servatives will never have influence in the media, as long as they hold pro war and bible thumping views they will produce and make boring, tepid, stupid stuff. That Stevens guy can go fuck himself also, really consistent, believing in the constitution yet believing in unconstitutional wars. How pathetic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I can't believe no one's mentioned The Incredibles. Heavily influenced by Rand. Also, 300.

    I'm a little shocked and very glad to see the brutal honesty from the speakers. They seem to be serious. I like RC Dean's idea: just take stories and invert the plot. The TV show Tremors has a lovable redneck hero while the G-man is portrayed as a hatable doofus. As RC Dean said, with Hollywood running on fumes, it shouldn't be so damn hard to penetrate it with subversive ideas.

    Also, fuck McCullough.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Tremors should have lasted longer. So annoying...

    You have a point there though.

    I thought a couple of years back about doing a sorta cyberpunkish-noir show where the good guy works for a megacorporation and the bad guy is a corrupt government official. I didn't develop the idea very far, but I might work on it again.

  • LibertyBill||

    Conservative pop culture? Wouldn't that be an oxymoron? Lets be honest majority of what Hollywood puts out sucks pretty bad but to think Conservatives would put out anything better is foolish. All that would happen is changing the bad guy. With liberals the bad guy is typically a rich guy, a preacher, or some law and order preching politician. The conservative bad guy would be some gay activist, a hispanic, a arab, an atheist and so on.

    Nugent is a neocon the only thing Libertarian about him is gun rights. He is more or less a single issue voter.

    Conservative comedians do suck, why do you think majority of the successful comedians are either liberal or Libertarian?

  • ||

    The entertainment business (as well as advertising, marketing and academia) skews left for the same reason the energy business and the military skew right. Certain personalities will always be more attracted to, and better at, certain types of jobs. Wishing for a "conservative Hollywood" is as pointless as wishing for a liberal Marine Corps.

  • Petras||

    I think you're probably right about that. Good insight.

  • ConfederalRepublicBy2030||

    I'm conservative. I'm also an unequivocally strict constitutionalist and libertarian. I wish to CONSERVE the United States as the land of liberty that it was supposed to be.

    I don't know how many of you fit my profile, but I'll share it nonetheless -

    I love movies and books and TV shows that aren't afraid of candor and realism, with sex, violence, and profanity galore. I'm an atheist, and I dislike the Abrahamic faiths passionately. I believe no governmental entity has any authority whatsoever to regulate firearms in any way.

    I detest governments that do anything beyond their rightful functions of punishing unjustifiable initiation of force, and the enforcement of contracts and prevention of fraud (i.e. a basic framework for the economy of a society).

    I enjoyed Avatar's special effects and action, and while the way it romanticized (perhaps unwittingly) tribalism and primitiveness, demonized capitalism and and military personnel (with a Southern accent, of course, personifying ignorance and hatred), and even weapons, and administered its nonsensical political message to its viewers in such a condescending manner that it momentarily made me cringe, it was just a movie.

    What CPAC should concentrate on is real conservatism - an intent to conserve and restore the free republic we were given in 1776 - instead of the social conservative horseshit that it seems to have touted so many times in the past.

    Michael Moore's documentaries supposedly suck, by the way, but I've never actually watched any of them. Can you guys tell me a little bit about them, or one of them?

  • Petras||

    I'd like to see Kevin McCullough in a room with a veteran Hollywood Agent.. He would be like a deer in the headlights. The fact of the matter is, McCullough is completely in over his head and totally out of his league. He doesn't have an inkling about how the entertainment industry runs. Outside of conservative DC circles, he is no more than a dumpy dressed conservative embarrassment. I bet he LOVES talking about his "media company." There are youtube channels with more impact...

  • ||

    The reason Conservative comedy sucks is because really, at this point it almost sounds like whining, and it's going to be hard making a prudish approach funny. It's like taking your accountant to a drunk party or strip club. You're just going to be listening to how it's all wrong financially or morally.

    Liberals are anything but prudes...on social issues. Fiscal? Forget about it. But no one I know is entertained by finance.

    Caddyshack might be considered Libertarian or maybe a bit right wing.
    The 'bad guy' is a judge. Alot of the comedy comes from Rodney Dangerfield who plays an unrepentant capitalist pleasure seeker.

  • منتديات العراق||

    thank you man

    thank you man

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u man

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • goallen||

    ty rights, etc. seem like a more accurate measure of freedom than democracy.

  • دلعني||

    good man

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement