Show Bidness

Frank Rich's column on Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby seems pretty solid, but I can't really comment on that aspect of it, since I haven't seen the movie yet. What I want to address is a comment Eastwood makes regarding the political tempest-in-a-teapot brewing around his movie.

"Maybe I'm getting to the age when I'm starting to be senile or nostalgic or both, but people are so angry now," he adds. "You used to be able to disagree with people and still be friends. Now you hear these talk shows, and everyone who believes differently from you is a moron and an idiot - both on the right and the left." His own politics defy neat categorization. He's supported Democrats (including Gray Davis in the pre-Schwarzenegger era) as well as Republicans, professes the libertarian creed of "less government" and "was never a big enthusiast for going to Iraq but never spoke against it once the troops were there." In other words, he's in the same middle as most Americans. "I vote for what I like," he says. "I'm not a loyalist to any party. I'm only a loyalist to the country." That's no longer good enough, apparently, for those who feel an election victory has empowered them to enforce a strict doctrine of political and spiritual correctness.

I have a feeling that the friends of Clint Eastwood who disagree with him politically are still his friends. I mean, he's Clint Freakin' Eastwood, right? And Clint's always been alright by the Hammer; even when we might disagree with the man, at least you know where he stands, and you can generally figure that his sentiment attempts to come from an honest place. (Heartbreak Ridge being the lone notable exception.)

Anyway, Eastwood is essentially correct. It's not really a friend thing, I don't think; I live in a very red county in a blue state, so most of my friends are pretty conservative, by the law of averages. This is not a problem for me, nor do I think it is for them. Most of them don't follow politics terribly closely anyway, so discussing issues in any depth is largely a waste of time.

What Eastwood's point is is a symptom of the road-rage mentality of the industry that's grown up around political discussion. Rather than sober, fact-based evaluations of policy positions and such, you get sensationalized talking-points with pro-wrestling antics and production values. This has seriously devalued the currency of political discussion, obviously.

A great deal of soul-searching has gone on among liberals as to whether to rise above it all on principle, or to fight fire with fire. (Guess which side I'm on.) This is good, because at least it forces the tactics to be thought through. Still, it sucks when it filters through to the world of art, or at least that place where craft intersects with commerce and sets some hookers on the corner to attract attention.

The people to criticize, along with the various screamers who have done their part in lowering the bar, are of course the consumers of this drivel, who do not detach the antics from the facts, and instead conflate and regurgitate the two. If I had a nickel for every time I had to set some Limbaugh-addled dittohead straight on some bullshit he heard from that pill-popper, I'd buy my own Caribbean island.