Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Deadwood Liberals?
If conservatives get to claim South Park, I hope their ideological counterparts will consider for self-branding purposes the astonishing HBO series Deadwood, which I finally saw for the first time last night. Sure, it's a little rough around the edges, but that's the point! Out with the mealy-mouthed PC murmuring, in with the ribald & flowery language of the American frontier. Gun ownership is a given, spontaneous order is a daily, peach-gobbling experiment; and the federal government is a meddlesome, land-stealing enemy.
OK, that may be a bit far-fetched. But there is something going on with Democrats and the Mountain Time Zone, as this L.A. Times front-pager suggests. Though the party's gains may be based largely on Latino population growth, there's a promising don't-tread-on-me element at play as well:
If there is an opening for Democrats, several political analysts say, it is in the social issues that animate the Republican Party base but collide with the Western ethos of live and let live.
"The main chance Democrats have is if the Republicans become perceived, even more so than they are now, as the party of morality and not the party of low taxes," said Ted G. Jelen, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Arizona, traditionally a Republican state, has a Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, who was elected in 2002 when many GOP voters crossed over rather than support Matt Salmon, a staunch social conservative who campaigned on a pledge to put God back into government.
Here in Colorado, Democrats won control of the Legislature in November in part by presenting themselves as problem solvers who were focused on concerns such as the state budget, while portraying Republicans as extremists obsessed with issues like same-sex marriage. Republicans ascribed most of the Democratic gains to that party's edge in money and machinery, not issues.
The excellent website New West has been all over this interesting if elusive meme.
|4.18.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Deadwood is a Sunday night ritual with the wife and
me.
Flowery language? You
bet.
|4.18.05 @ 12:56PM|#
Do liberals still have googly eyes for the fantasy world of The West Wing, or is that getting long in the tooth now?
|4.18.05 @ 12:58PM|#
Ahhh... the daydream of every "small-l" libertarian: A
Democratic Party not afraid of guns or markets, or a Republican
party not afraid of gays or porn.
Sadly, they re both just that. Daydreams. Both parties know where
the money/votes come from and they'll have to play to them or risk
losing the power they have so carefully cultivated over the last
150 years.
|4.18.05 @ 1:08PM|#
That pretty much sums it up, Akira. South Park Republicans and Deadwood Democrats could be a potent political force if they united, but for that to happen, their frustration with their own party has to exceed their fear of the other. That's somewhat of a tall order in current political climes, so I suspect the 'small-l' crowd will remain afflicted with battered spouse syndrome for years to come.
Peter K.|4.18.05 @ 1:14PM|#
Akira,
Have you watched Deadwood? Markets in all their wonderous glory are
on full display. The Hearst "combine" and its "market power" is
beyond the Law and government. All of the characters know the
government is mostly predatory as Matt mentioned, so its not a
stereotypically liberal show as some might think.
Anyway, it seems to me porn, gays, markets and guns are all doing
well at the moment despite the oppostion they have.
|4.18.05 @ 1:17PM|#
but for that to happen, their frustration with their own
party has to exceed their fear of the other
I agree with Phocion. A merger between the small-l factions in each
party would immediately present dilemmas:
1) Which major party do they sign up behind? Oh, that one? Why not
the other one? Why do we have to vote for your guys but you don't
vote for our guys?
2) OK, we'll vote for whichever party runs the lesser evil in any
given election. Yeah, well, do you actually think that (insert
issue here) is more important than (insert other issue here)? Cuz
there's no way I'm voting for anybody who supports (insert yet
another issue here), no matter how good he is on (insert other
issue here)!
3) Well, then, we could unite behind the LP. Except I think the LP
is a bunch of loons! And, while I agree with them on most issues,
I'm a small-l type, and I disagree with them on (insert issue
here). If their candidate emphasizes (insert issue here) too much
then there's no way I can vote for him!
4) Not to mention that voting LP could result in the
(Democrat/Republican, circle one) winning, and I simply cannot let
that guy win! Really, it would be better if all of the small-l
types from the (Democrats/Republicans, circle one) just started
voting for the small-l types from the (Republicans/Democrats,
circle one).
Yeah, there's a winning coalition!
|4.18.05 @ 1:21PM|#
"A Democratic Party not afraid of guns or markets"? Well, I
could see half of that--the gun half. They certainly have not been
putting much emphasis on gun control in the past couple of
presidential elections--especially the most recent one--and indeed
one of their major contenders in 2004 (Howard Dean) had a pro-gun
record as governor of Vermont. Even *The Nation* has recently been
warning Democrats not to make gun control a litmus test, lest they
lose the West.
No, the Democrats are not going to be a consistently pro-market
party, but neither are the Republicans. The debate on Social
Security is not a pro- versus anti-market debate; one could argue
that a system of "private" accounts with the government regulating
which stocks they can invest in would amount to *more* government
intervention in the market for capital than the current system.
|4.18.05 @ 1:34PM|#
You gotta love a show where a main character, a ruthless power-broker, goes on a drunken, profane rant while he is getting a BJ from a lady of leisure. He must be a libertarian.
|4.18.05 @ 1:38PM|#
porn, gays, markets and guns
Throw in a car chase and you've got a hit show, oh wait...
|4.18.05 @ 1:41PM|#
No, the Democrats are not going to be a consistently
pro-market party, but neither are the Republicans.
Markets don't lobby, vote, or contribute. Businesses and unions do.
We have a pro-business party and a pro-union party.
Business tends to like economic freedom more than unions do (the
lobbying is usually "let us do this" as opposed to the unions
saying "stop business from doing this"), but there are a number of
issues where being pro-business and pro-market don't line up.
|4.18.05 @ 1:42PM|#
You gotta love a show where a main character, a ruthless
power-broker, goes on a drunken, profane rant while he is getting a
BJ from a lady of leisure. He must be a libertarian.
C'mon man. What libertarian has power?
|4.18.05 @ 1:59PM|#
libertarians have lots of power, Man! We have power coming out of our ears. We are masters of the universe. We...um...
|4.18.05 @ 2:02PM|#
..um..
Ted Nugent is pretty powerful!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=487&e=8&u=/ap/people_nugent
|4.18.05 @ 2:08PM|#
I think the Motor City Madman would fall cleanly within the "conservative" camp, given those death penalty views.
|4.18.05 @ 2:13PM|#
I'm under the impression that The Nuge is a staunch individualist who is unapologetic about his days of sex, drugs, and R&R, but I could be wrong..
|4.18.05 @ 2:17PM|#
This is a stretch. Nice point but it still doesn't create a tie
between Dems and Deadwood.
Also "South Park conservatives" really describes young
conservatives who are non-traditional conservatives because they
back some liberal social issues besides also supporting limited
government and capitalism.
|4.18.05 @ 2:25PM|#
Nugent is vehemently anti-drug. He's more of the "sex, guns, and rock'n'roll" camp...
|4.18.05 @ 2:28PM|#
The Nuge fits your description, my only point was his "kill 'em
all" attitude (expressed recently at a NRA gathering, not sure if
that's what you were linking to) doesn't jive in the libertarian
crowd, as I'm often reminded, being pro-DP.
That being said, "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" would probably be
better received at a libertarian gathering, as opposed to a CPAC
convention.
|4.18.05 @ 2:31PM|#
I gotta give props to Matt for even thinking of jumping on the Deadwood wagon train in mid-stream. Even with the brief recap at the beginning of the show, there's no way to know the background behind half the stuff that's going on---because Milch has created such a complex and living world. Shit, I missed one episode one time, and I felt like I was watching a different show when the next one came on.
Matt Welch|4.18.05 @ 2:36PM|#
Evan -- Well, I watched it with a group of 10 close friends, using Tivo (and its miraculous stop button), and they delighted in filling me in on the back-story every 15 seconds or so. A highly recommended way of watching it.
|4.18.05 @ 2:43PM|#
I just got season 1 on DVD. That's an easy way to catch up on
the back story.
I'm not sure I understand this Deadwood liberal concept. South
Park, despite the lack of social conservatism, still represents
some basic conservative principles. Deadwood has nothing at all to
do with liberalism. Half of the profanity involves the use of
"cocksucker" as an insult (which the left doesn't particularly
like) and although the sexual mores are very loose, many of the
women in Deadwood were coerced into prostitution (also not so
popular with the left). Deadwood liberalism would be great except
that it would be a complete rejection of everything liberalism
stands for.
Matt Welch|4.18.05 @ 2:50PM|#
Xavier -- They also used "cunt-licker" last night, to which one
friend commented "why is that an insult?" ...
As for the Deadwood-Democrat connection, it was a friendly
*suggestion*, more than an actual observation. There is a
don't-tread-on-me aspect of Western life, and a celebration of
invididualism that is by no means the sole domain of the Republican
Party. And there *are* some interesting trends afoot with
Schweitzer and Bill Richardson. I'm just encouraging the Donks to
go more in that direction, instead of the touchier-feelier
government-is-the-solutionism of (say) Los Angeles politics.
|4.18.05 @ 2:54PM|#
The case for a "southwestern strategy" for the Democrats in
2008: If Kerry had carried New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, he
would have won the election, even had Bush still carried Ohio and
Iowa (the closest Bush states outside the West).
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
New Mexico and Nevada were both close, and even in Colorado, Bush's
margin was down from over eight points in 2000 to less than six in
2004 (admittedly, much of the reason for that was Nader doing much
worse in 2004). Even Colorado as well as the other two states might
be within reach if, say, Ken Salazar (who could also help with the
Hispanic vote outside the Southwest) were on the ticket...
|4.18.05 @ 2:59PM|#
"vehemently anti-drug"? That is a real bummer. I hope he's not
the Steve Jones "drugs suck" type. :(
Conservatives who embrace South Park as their own are ignorant. The
show skewers right-wing sacred cows just as much as left-wing, and
is deeply cynical of both sides. That's why it's brilliant.
|4.18.05 @ 3:00PM|#
They also used "cunt-licker" last night, to which one friend
commented "why is that an insult?"
It's not, really. Simply put, the man who said it, EB Farnum, is a
fucking weasely halfwit masquerading as a man of great thought and
power. Yet, aside from his retarded cook, his wits are bested by
all he meets. Some of my favorite moments of the show are when Al
lambasts him for one reason or another.
As for the Deadwood-Democrat connection, it was a friendly
*suggestion*, more than an actual observation. There is a
don't-tread-on-me aspect of Western life, and a celebration of
invididualism that is by no means the sole domain of the Republican
Party. And there *are* some interesting trends afoot with
Schweitzer and Bill Richardson. I'm just encouraging the Donks to
go more in that direction, instead of the touchier-feelier
government-is-the-solutionism of (say) Los Angeles
politics.
Yes, and that will last until...? Who knows the answer? Yes, yes,
that's right: until the very moment their party is back in
power. I calls it "fair-weather federalism". Or, put another
way, "don't tread on me, unless I happen to agree with the one
doing the treading".
Wasted effort. Reversion is inevitable when their team gets back up
to bat. Gridlock is the only help...
|4.18.05 @ 3:07PM|#
A Democratic Party not afraid of guns or markets, or a
Republican party not afraid of gays or porn. Sadly, they re both
just that. Daydreams.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. The cultural split over gays and
porn is largely a generational split. Anyone under the age of 35
grew up in an America where porn and homosexuality were legal. It
is the normal state of affairs for us. For the generation after us,
which is growing up in a world where overtly gay people are easy to
find in pop culture and porn is a click away on the internet, it is
an even *more* normal state of affairs. The Republican Party won't
be able to scare people to the polls with sex issues for much
longer.
|4.18.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Cunt-licker as an insult? I can understand it, considering the hygiene practices of the day...
|4.18.05 @ 3:35PM|#
The cultural split over gays and porn is largely a
generational split. Anyone under the age of 35 grew up in an
America where porn and homosexuality were legal.
True. Too bad the baby boomers are over 35 and many of them are set
to live and vote for another 50 years thanks to modern
medicine!
Matt Welch|4.18.05 @ 4:02PM|#
The interesting thing (to me!) about the gay marriage/35 thing is whether that means a significant number libertarian-leaning under-35s will automatically reject the GOP for as long as they remember the desperate "marriage-protection" scam of '04....
|4.18.05 @ 4:43PM|#
I'd like to see some libertarian-leaning people from "right" and
"left" make some compromises and form some sort of coalition. How
about this platform: anti-hate-crime-laws, and
anti-drug-prohibition-laws?
Any of you limber-dick cocksuckers or crooked-holed whores who've
used a portion of the proceeds of your claim to acquire a
subscription to the Comstock (er, Comcast) Digital Cable and HBO
can watch any fuckin' episode of Deadwood whenever the feeling
fuckin' strikes you.
Just go to the On Demand menu, select Premium Channels...HBO...HBO
Series...Deadwood. All the episodes are there. This was a shockin'
fuckin' revelation when it hit me.
|4.18.05 @ 7:06PM|#
Not sure if Arizona is moving to a Democrat state, or it is and
always will be a thinking Goldwater state. Don't forget that Barry
Goldwater was a true conservative - state's rights, individual's
rights - whose wife founded the Arizona chapter of Planned
Parenthood. He wasn't too fond of what his party became.
As for Janet Napolitano, she's a disappointment to real Arizona
Democrats, kowtowing to special interests and doing nothing for
education.
|4.18.05 @ 7:35PM|#
The interesting thing (to me!) about the gay marriage/35
thing is whether that means a significant number
libertarian-leaning under-35s will automatically reject the GOP for
as long as they remember the desperate "marriage-protection" scam
of '04
I doubt it. The Democratic Party went from being the party of
institutionalized anti-black racism to the party of "affirmative
action" in less than a single generation. They've even got former
Klan officials winning the black vote. If a party can evade the
fallout from its past mistakes on a major issue like civil rights,
I don't see them suffering any major backlash from a comparatively
trivial thing like gay marriage. Especially since the Democratic
Party is anti-gay-marriage too, albeit not as vocally so.
|4.18.05 @ 8:34PM|#
Dan, you left out the part where the Democratic Party loudly
renounced its racist past, took up the cause of civil rights as its
defining, core issue, and remained true to its ideals even after
they cost it their long-standing national majority.
If you are positting a future in which the Republicans loudly and
dramatically embrace gay rights, the Democrats spend several
elections slamming gay people in a "Red County Strategy" to scare
bigots away from the GOP, and the Republicans continue to stand up
for gay people even as the cause costs them election after election
after election...then yeah, I can see the Republicans not suffering
for their behavior among gay voters.
|4.18.05 @ 10:02PM|#
Dan, you left out the part where the Democratic Party loudly
renounced its racist past, took up the cause of civil rights as its
defining, core issue, and remained true to its ideals even after
they cost it their long-standing national majority
Its racist past? The Democratic Party never stopped being racist;
it just switched races. There was never a point in its history when
the Democratic Party actually pushed for the idea of treating
people by the content of their character rather than the color of
their skin.
But, ironically, you've hit on exactly the problem the Democrats
face: a core defining trait of their party is that of pandering to
blacks and Hispanics. The problem is that blacks and Hispanics are,
on average, virulently homophobic. So are two other key Democratic
voting blocks: union members and poor/uneducated people.
The Democrats were only able to spin themselves as the party that
had "learned its lesson" on civil rights because the Republicans,
in recruiting white racists, gave up its century-old status as the
party of civil rights. But there IS no party of gay rights. There's
just the homophobic party, and the OTHER homophobic party. That's
why Clinton signed DOMA, and why Kerry and Edwards flagrantly
pandered to homophobes during the '04 debates. That's why Kerry and
Bush both opposed gay marriage during the '04 election, and why no
major Democrat is willing to mount a serious push to repeal
DOMA.
So the question is: which party is going to end up poaching the
other party's homophobes? Personally, I think Christians are a lot
more likely to defect to the Democrats (whose 'help the poor'
schtick resonates) than blacks, hispanics, and unions are to defect
to the Republicans. The Republicans, in turn, will keep doing what
they've been doing -- poaching middle-class whites and Asians from
the Democrats.
|4.19.05 @ 6:20AM|#
Matt's kidding. "Friends filling him in?" Maybe that works in dentistry but not in art or entertainment, especially since said 'friends' sound like they're spinning faster than a gym full of aerobic trainers. Deadwood, where the only thing appealing to Democrats would be....the potty mouths? Or would that be South Park Republicans? Matt's confused here...and it shows. Deadwood is South Park set in the old west, where capitalism rules unabated, sex is effected without a contract, women are 'harassed' by the minute, big government is mistrusted and survival of the fittest rules. Hmmm. Not exactly 'People for the American Way.' Human Rights Watch would have a collective heart attack trying to annotate the violations that occur per second. Doesn't sound like any Dems I've ever heard about. Purely imaginative fiction for a party that doesn't really have a chance to survive in the Democratic family's small tent.
|4.19.05 @ 7:32AM|#
"Dan, you left out the part where the Democratic Party loudly
renounced its racist past, took up the cause of civil rights as its
defining, core issue, and remained true to its ideals even after
they cost it their long-standing national majority."
joe, if you can actually say this with a straight face, they
should've elected you as the DNC cheerleader instead of that
"RRRARRRRGH!" guy.
hsidney|4.19.05 @ 11:21AM|#
the thing i think most of you have missed here is that the raw
nature of which government took root in deadwood was completely
rebellious. i would certainly not ascribe it to the left head of
our two headed beast, aka john kerry dems. but more, libertarian.
nice try libs, capitalising on the spirit of their lackluster
movement and ridiculously believing it has been capsulated in a
program that does not embody their limited values via air
america.
when a dem takes office tomorrow the cons will use an outlaw brand
to depict themselves as the defenders of "values". that just wont
work anymore. the world knows the john kerry libs would NOT have
made a difference in today's washington.
deadwood was an outlawed town that espoused a slap bang disgust for
governmental corruption.
/"i hate the pinkertons, they represent muscle."
-Al Swearengen
|4.19.05 @ 11:21AM|#
"The Democratic Party never stopped being racist; it just
switched races."
Ohhhhhh, so THAT explains why there are so few white Democrats in
the Senate! Because the majority-white Democratic Party hates white
people!
And Dan, Asians are still an overwhelmingly Democratic voting
black, much more so even than Hispanics, who you allege to be a
core constituency.
|4.19.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Those of you pointing out that the worldview behind "Deadwood"
doesn't describe the current leaders of the Democratic Party are
missing the point. "South Park" doesn't describe the worldview of
the current leaders of the Republicans, either.
The point of both theories is that there is a disconnect between
the current leaderships, and the people whose loyalties they are
trying to capture. The ethos behind "Deadwood" (as I understand
it), is one of the little guy joining with others in his position
to stand up to wealthy powers-that-be who are eager to grind people
up to advance their own self interests. This effectively captures
to the worldview of most Democrats - moreso than the general
disdain towards social uplifters that defines South Park captures
the worldview of most Republicans.
drf|4.19.05 @ 11:38AM|#
""South Park" doesn't describe the worldview of the current
leaders of the Republicans, either."
good call: but remember we have several friends on this forum that
continue to believe the bullshit that republicans are pro-liberty,
freedom, etc. did you read that fucking walrus's retirement message
yesterday? it's full of his anti-individualist blather and ends
with "freedom and liberty".
until the republicans actually get honest with themselves that
they're not the group of limited gov't, individual responsibility
(what a fucking dumb sentiment), etc., and just another
big-goverment, coercive bunch of fucking twaddlenocks, we'll
continue to rip them.
(oh yeah - fuckers - "democrats are much worse")
sincerely,
IM Fletcher
p.s., have a nice day.
Eric Deamer|4.19.05 @ 2:08PM|#
I said that you guys should get into this show 4 days before you posted this
BUJO|4.19.05 @ 4:11PM|#
I don't mind realistic language if it's representative of the
era. I doubt seriously that the frontierspeople peppered their
language with the level of profanity served up in "Deadwood". I
suspect these people were much more "church-taught" and God-fearin'
than we are today, and even the most lowdown, onery sidewinders
would think twice before profusin and pronouncin'.
But, it's a good show so whatthefuck.
|4.19.05 @ 6:08PM|#
joe, if you can actually say this with a straight face, they
should've elected you as the DNC cheerleader instead of that
"RRRARRRRGH!" guy.
I especially like how he claims that Democratic support for the
civil rights movement "cost them their majority". The Democrats
controlled the House of Representatives almost continuously from
1931 to 1995 (the two gaps were 47-49 and 53-54, when Republicans
were the civil-rights party and Democrats were burning crosses on
people's lawns throughout the South). They also controlled the
Senate from 1955-1981 and 1987-1995.
|4.19.05 @ 7:45PM|#
The ethos behind "Deadwood" (as I understand it), is one of
the little guy joining with others in his position to stand up to
wealthy powers-that-be who are eager to grind people up to advance
their own self interests. This effectively captures to the
worldview of most Democrats
Yes, that just screams "George Soros".
Eric Deamer|4.19.05 @ 7:47PM|#
Matt:
Oh, and I'm glad your friends caught you up on what was going on,
but you should really try to catch up with at least the episode
prior to the one you saw if you can - the one in which Wolcott
killed the 3 prostitues. It was one of the most haunting, intense
things I've ever seen done in any medium, with an incredible amount
of complex plot advancement and subtle charcterization. There's a
scene in there between Swearengen and Trixie in which they're
discussing her relationship (and using that word in every sense)
with Saul (Sol?) that's a masterpiece of acting: "When he fucks me
his eyes get all wild and he tells me he loves me." Powerful
stuff.
|4.20.05 @ 9:41AM|#
Dan,
Democratic control of Congress after about 1976 was almost entirely
about inertia, the power of incumbancy, and the willingness of the
national party to accept serious deviations from the party line
from southern Congressmen. Look at the national elections during
that period.
Don, good job reading the part about the split between party
leaders and rank-and-file. You should probably just fill in all the
"D" bubbles on the Verbal SAT.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245