BSC Rebuttal to “Conservatives ♥ South Park”

The Blue State Conservatives site has a good rebuttal to the May 1, 2005 NY Times Article written by Frank Rich “Conservatives ♥ South Park”, that tried to debunk Brian C. Anderson’s book “South Park Conservatives”. In his article, Rich claims that the “faith-based right became the new left” and suggests that the Christian fundamentalist zeal to rid the public airwaves of “indecent” programming would lead to a new “political correctness” in which evangelical overlords would dictate what we were allowed to watch based upon their moral values.

In short, Mr. Rich’s article is hyperbole, simple rhetoric designed to portray the evangelical right as mainstream conservatism. Granted, the GOP has its fair share of ideological extremists just as the DNC does, but they are no more indicative of the mainstream Republican agenda any more so than Ward Churchill is indicative of mainstream Democratic doctrine. The difference is that liberal bias in the mainstream American press ensures that conservative embarrassments get a lot more airtime.

Mr. Rich does have a point however. Regarding the activities of some “decency” advocates aligned with the Republican movement to police entertainment subject matter on the airways, Mr. Rich writes:

Should such theocratic conservatives prevail, "South Park" conservatives will be hipper than they ever could have imagined - terminally hip, you might say.

He is right on that point. At present, the mainstream media bends left and now that there are alternatives available to information consumers they are taking their intellect elsewhere, as the book “South Park Conservatives” authoritatively illustrates. If the ultra-conservative elements of the GOP start over-exploiting the recent rightward shift in American attitudes by attempting to impose their morals on mainstream voters, they can expect the same sort of backlash that they benefited from when the liberals attempted the same thing with same-sex marriage. One of the quickest ways the right can undo recent gains is by trying to “clean-up” the airways and censor material they consider objectionable but mainstream America considers entertaining. Personally, I welcome advice on how to entertain myself from the moral majority about as much as Pope Benedict would welcome fashion tips from Marilyn Manson. Letting the religious right, people who are susceptible to delusional interpretations of latent homoeroticism in Spongebob Squarepants cartoons, have a voice about what I should be able to watch on television is completely ludicrous, and I would bet most conservatives would agree with me.

Unfortunately, it is not just far-right fruit loops bestowing believability to Mr. Rich’s dissertations. Recent FCC actions have provided some real concern to those of us who are vehemently opposed to being subject to legislated morality. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl fiasco was a perfect case in point. I was not personally offended by what happened during the halftime show (which my multiple TiVo re-viewings of the incident will certainly attest to) but I was not at all happy that it happened during a family oriented event with no warning to viewers of what was to have transpired. People should have been held accountable for that, namely the performers that committed the act and, to a limited extent, the organizers of the event for not knowing what their performers were up to. Fining every station that broadcast it however was going way too far and I believe that the FCC really overstepped their bounds on that action.

Then you have the repeated persecution of Howard Stern. Now, I will go on record right now and say that I am not a Howard Stern fan by any means. It is not because I find him indecent or offensive, it is just that humor is a very subjective personal trait and I do not find him all that funny. I will be the first to point out however that millions of people DO find him funny and he has developed a rabidly loyal following. Now even though I may not appreciate his humor all that much, that gives me no right to clamor for his show to be thrown off of the air. His fans have a right to listen to him and I have the right to tune into WRIF’s Drew and Mike morning show if I am not enamored with Howard Stern. Turning the dial is not that hard of a thing to do and frankly, if Stern’s product had no entertainment value as his critics imply, he would not have enjoyed the spectacular success that he has. Even though I am not a fan, I wish him all the luck in the world on his new endeavor at Sirius.

Of course, the evangelicals have the fallback argument that their actions are designed to “protect our children” but frankly, if the children’s mothers and fathers are not monitoring what their kids are exposed to, the children are in far greater danger of bad parenting than they are of bad radio.

In my opinion, Mr. Rich is unable to debunk Brian C. Anderson’s “South Park Conservatives” so he is resorting to the tactic of trying to sew hysteria about what the implications could possibly be of a nation seduced by Republicanism. I believe the truth of the matter to be that in 2004, independent voters were not so much seduced by the right as they were repulsed by the left. As a conservative, I believe we now have home court advantage. The independents are ours to lose, which we could easily do by giving the religious right too much sway over the GOP’s domestic policy. If moderate voters feel threatened by the specter of faith-based policymaking in 2008, they could easily cross the aisle. The only thing that would save us then would be a cataclysmic blunder by the DNC, something like nominating Hillary Clinton to run for president in which case the 2008 election would be in the bag.