South Park Conservatism
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">According to Andrew Sullivan</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Young and swinging to the Right
By Andrew Sullivan
23Dec03
WHEN, one wonders, did conservatism in America become hip? In the US the new millennium seems to have entrenched a growing trend among the younger generations that, if not culturally conservative, is anti-liberal.
Go to a college campus and you will find the young Republicans gaining in strength. You'll find plenty of sullen and not-so-sullen disdain for 1960s-style professors. You will notice that the internet, as well as providing the groundswell for the Howard Dean campaign, is just as popular among more Right-leaning undergraduates.
But you'll notice something else as well. These new non-lefties aren't exactly wearing bow ties and sipping sherry. They have adopted the full clothing and accessories of their liberal peers; they watch pay TV channel Comedy Central; some smoke pot; they have few problems with premarital sex; some are even g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass).
I came up with a name for this fledgling generation of countercultural righties: South Park Republicans. The name comes from the Comedy Central cartoon show (shown in Australia on SBS television) in which four foul-mouthed eight-year-olds wreak havoc on their friends, families, school and town. Not everyone who watches South Park, of course, is a conservative. Far from it. But the sensibility that the program exudes - bawdy, shameless, relentlessly anti-politically correct - has real resonance today.
The Simpsons presaged this development. Knowing, witty, sardonic, it is a cartoon obviously written by and for young adults. But South Park took this formula and made it cruder, sharper and more rebellious. No PC shibboleths are left unmolested. From handicapped child Timmy to black youngster Token, every stereotype enjoys itself. The idiocy of hate-crime laws, the fawning condescension of well-meaning liberal adults, the dumbness of Hollywood celebrity, the surrealism of sexual harassment legislation: the targets are brutally assaulted for an enthusiastic audience of those 18 to 39.
If people wonder why anti-war celebrities such as Janeane Garofalo or Michael Moore failed to win over the younger generation, you have only to watch South Park to see why. The next generation sees through the cant and piety, and cannot help giggling.
In one episode, when liberal talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell shows up to lecture the children about democracy, their teacher declares: "People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to middle America you think we're all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment. Just because you're on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government." The teacher is a thinly veiled closeted homosexual.
In a recent essay in the neo-conservative magazine City Journal author Brian Anderson celebrated the show as evidence that conservatives were winning the culture wars. He may be on to something.
Here is a passage he cited that the Body Shop founder Anita Roddick might appreciate. It occurs when one of the children, Kyle, comes down with a rare kidney disorder. His liberal parents decide to try a Native American homeopathic cure. It doesn't work.
Kyle's mum: "Everything is going to be fine, Stan; we're bringing in Kyle tomorrow to see the Native Americans personally."
Stan: "Isn't it possible that these Indians don't know what they're talking about?
Stan's mum: "You watch your mouth, Stanley. The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us."
Stan: "And that has something to do with their medicines because ... ?"
Stan's mum: "Enough, Stanley!"
There you have the voice of a younger generation driven to distraction by clueless liberal parents. Think of Ab Fab's Saffy but with a wild streak.
Am I making too much of this? Maybe. The younger generation is more liberal in some respects: they tend to be more pro-g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass) and more comfortable in a multiracial society. But, in a natural reaction against their parents, their distaste for do-gooder cant is well developed. September 11 made a critical difference as well. It turned a sensibility into something a little more urgent.
Comedian Dennis Miller, a graduate of the US television comedy show Saturday Night Live and a loud-mouthed, libertarian rebel, exemplifies the change in sensibility. Nobody can think of him as a typical conservative. His four-letter words alone keep him a few thousand miles away from the religious Right.
But in an interview with Time magazine he summed up his politics: "I'm Left on a lot of things. If two g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass) guys want to get married, I couldn't care less. If a nutcase from overseas wants to blow up their wedding, that's when I'm Right. (September 11) was a big thing for me. I was saying to liberal America, 'Well, what are you offering?' And they said, 'Well, we're not going to protect you, and we want some more money.' That didn't interest me."
Miller is not alone. Alongside the religious Right, there is also an irreligious Right in the US. They are an often urban, culturally liberal, fiscally conservative slice of the population who are as appalled by Left-liberal humbug as they are turned off by evangelical theocrats. Politics is not as important to these people as their everyday lives, their desire to be left alone. But when those lives are threatened -- by over-taxation, government regulation or the mass murders perpetrated by Islamist terrorists -- they get engaged.
Theirs is a negative politics in the classic conservative sense. Their politics is in the service of their lives, not the other way round. To quote Miller again: "I will say this, I feel more politically engaged than I've ever felt in my life because I do think we live in dangerous times. Anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss - I can't buy that anymore."
Neither can a burgeoning group among the young. They tend not to be noticed. But they are perhaps the key to understanding the huge generation that will one day remake the US as surely as their boomer parents once did.
The Sunday Times <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very very interesting read, and one I rather agree with personally on many levels. growing up on the border of political correctness (being from 1974, I saw the before and after), it gives me a little hope to think that my generation has a chance to undue 40 years of babyboomer mistakes, where hippies became yuppies became wienies.
By Andrew Sullivan
23Dec03
WHEN, one wonders, did conservatism in America become hip? In the US the new millennium seems to have entrenched a growing trend among the younger generations that, if not culturally conservative, is anti-liberal.
Go to a college campus and you will find the young Republicans gaining in strength. You'll find plenty of sullen and not-so-sullen disdain for 1960s-style professors. You will notice that the internet, as well as providing the groundswell for the Howard Dean campaign, is just as popular among more Right-leaning undergraduates.
But you'll notice something else as well. These new non-lefties aren't exactly wearing bow ties and sipping sherry. They have adopted the full clothing and accessories of their liberal peers; they watch pay TV channel Comedy Central; some smoke pot; they have few problems with premarital sex; some are even g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass).
I came up with a name for this fledgling generation of countercultural righties: South Park Republicans. The name comes from the Comedy Central cartoon show (shown in Australia on SBS television) in which four foul-mouthed eight-year-olds wreak havoc on their friends, families, school and town. Not everyone who watches South Park, of course, is a conservative. Far from it. But the sensibility that the program exudes - bawdy, shameless, relentlessly anti-politically correct - has real resonance today.
The Simpsons presaged this development. Knowing, witty, sardonic, it is a cartoon obviously written by and for young adults. But South Park took this formula and made it cruder, sharper and more rebellious. No PC shibboleths are left unmolested. From handicapped child Timmy to black youngster Token, every stereotype enjoys itself. The idiocy of hate-crime laws, the fawning condescension of well-meaning liberal adults, the dumbness of Hollywood celebrity, the surrealism of sexual harassment legislation: the targets are brutally assaulted for an enthusiastic audience of those 18 to 39.
If people wonder why anti-war celebrities such as Janeane Garofalo or Michael Moore failed to win over the younger generation, you have only to watch South Park to see why. The next generation sees through the cant and piety, and cannot help giggling.
In one episode, when liberal talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell shows up to lecture the children about democracy, their teacher declares: "People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to middle America you think we're all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment. Just because you're on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government." The teacher is a thinly veiled closeted homosexual.
In a recent essay in the neo-conservative magazine City Journal author Brian Anderson celebrated the show as evidence that conservatives were winning the culture wars. He may be on to something.
Here is a passage he cited that the Body Shop founder Anita Roddick might appreciate. It occurs when one of the children, Kyle, comes down with a rare kidney disorder. His liberal parents decide to try a Native American homeopathic cure. It doesn't work.
Kyle's mum: "Everything is going to be fine, Stan; we're bringing in Kyle tomorrow to see the Native Americans personally."
Stan: "Isn't it possible that these Indians don't know what they're talking about?
Stan's mum: "You watch your mouth, Stanley. The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us."
Stan: "And that has something to do with their medicines because ... ?"
Stan's mum: "Enough, Stanley!"
There you have the voice of a younger generation driven to distraction by clueless liberal parents. Think of Ab Fab's Saffy but with a wild streak.
Am I making too much of this? Maybe. The younger generation is more liberal in some respects: they tend to be more pro-g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass) and more comfortable in a multiracial society. But, in a natural reaction against their parents, their distaste for do-gooder cant is well developed. September 11 made a critical difference as well. It turned a sensibility into something a little more urgent.
Comedian Dennis Miller, a graduate of the US television comedy show Saturday Night Live and a loud-mouthed, libertarian rebel, exemplifies the change in sensibility. Nobody can think of him as a typical conservative. His four-letter words alone keep him a few thousand miles away from the religious Right.
But in an interview with Time magazine he summed up his politics: "I'm Left on a lot of things. If two g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass) guys want to get married, I couldn't care less. If a nutcase from overseas wants to blow up their wedding, that's when I'm Right. (September 11) was a big thing for me. I was saying to liberal America, 'Well, what are you offering?' And they said, 'Well, we're not going to protect you, and we want some more money.' That didn't interest me."
Miller is not alone. Alongside the religious Right, there is also an irreligious Right in the US. They are an often urban, culturally liberal, fiscally conservative slice of the population who are as appalled by Left-liberal humbug as they are turned off by evangelical theocrats. Politics is not as important to these people as their everyday lives, their desire to be left alone. But when those lives are threatened -- by over-taxation, government regulation or the mass murders perpetrated by Islamist terrorists -- they get engaged.
Theirs is a negative politics in the classic conservative sense. Their politics is in the service of their lives, not the other way round. To quote Miller again: "I will say this, I feel more politically engaged than I've ever felt in my life because I do think we live in dangerous times. Anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss - I can't buy that anymore."
Neither can a burgeoning group among the young. They tend not to be noticed. But they are perhaps the key to understanding the huge generation that will one day remake the US as surely as their boomer parents once did.
The Sunday Times <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very very interesting read, and one I rather agree with personally on many levels. growing up on the border of political correctness (being from 1974, I saw the before and after), it gives me a little hope to think that my generation has a chance to undue 40 years of babyboomer mistakes, where hippies became yuppies became wienies.
Comments
I'd say I'm a South Park Republican, though a morally conservative one at that. From my perspective as a youth, his observations are dead on. There is definetly a swing to the right with the younger generation. Ironically, the counter culture that pushed left has become the establishment, creating a counter culture that pushes right.
Politically, I think South Park is pretty good. They certainly simplify many issues, but the moral and logic is the same at heart. The recent smoking episode parodied the Anti-Smoking lobby, but it made the mistake of show Tobacco companies as blameless (clearly not the case.)
Conservatives in America are changing. Young Conservatives can have long hair, drink beer and party without sacraficing our views on foreign policy, individual liberty and the economy.
The South Park series represent utter individualism, that we have been taught for generations. But it doesn't work, does it? If you're your own God, then everyone else around you are superfluous, and every opinion is Right because an individual holds it; well, everyone is entitled to an opinion but some of them are just plain wrong. Our South Park conservatives lack a fundamental understanding of what they're supposed to do with their lives. There's no strong dogma that works any more, the church seems to be full of fosilized or insentivite bible thumpers and double moral child abusers. Politicians seems to be kneading their own breads exclusively. It's a world of everyone for himself, and that just sucks. So in the face of authority-lacking authorities, what can one do but say shove it and try for oneself to figure out whats is good and bad?
Problem is, not everyone makes good decisions in that area. And we make a lot of losers or people wasting years of their lives basically wasting their time. I bet that in the next 30 years we will see the return of dogmatic authorities in one sense or another. When the South Parkians of today turn 40, they'll see the many errors that they made because no one could tell them what was good and what was bad - not for a lack of trying, but because too many opinions muddle the waters.
But the current standing institutions of our societies simply lack the authority as well as the justification to show people what is good and what is bad. How can you expect kids to "Grow up" when they can see completely narcissistic so-called "adults" behave like bigger versions of very much spoiled children? "I want to become famous, and a journalist, and have great sex every day, and look like a God/Goddess and be rich and be content and be happy all the time, and if it hurts or sucks, it must be bad for me so I must throw it away and buy some new".
We need well functioning, stable socieities and Super Invididualism is eroding it away quickly. People need to rediscover the meaning of life. Its not hard to find, it's been driving our societies for millennia <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> When I describe authority, I simply mean the ability to say "This is good for you, and this is bad" and not get lip for it because they know you ARE right! But who's to take orders from a parent that is too busy living their own hedonistic egotistical lives?
I don't know how it is in America, but in denmark kindergartens and schools really SUFFER from too many small children raised to believe they are Tiny Gods. They completely lack social skills, and the teachers try to get some sense of social responsibility worked into them. It's the best way to make a school class run smoothly. But each day irate parents call or show up and demand this or demand that, because it's BAD FOR THEIR CHILDREN when the school isn't running the show as they see fit. Try multiplicating that with 30 for each class!
I think Kyle's mother is a great example of this type of super-egotistical and socially irresonsible parent.
Go back and re-read what I said: from what I have seen of hundreds of friends, relatives, and associates in my age group in North Carolina and Illinois, USA, THEY ARE FAR LESS NARCISSISTIC THAN MY PARENT'S GENERATION. There, you made me use all caps, I hope you're happy. I find that a lot of people in my age group that donate their time to charity, that served their country in the armed forces, and that are more concerned about the world than their parent's ever were. They are certainly nowhere near the sheer spoiling level that WW2 and Depression survivors lavished on their horrid brats.
It's a very retro look - I'm sure a return to Art Deco is not far behind <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> .
As for figuring out why they are here and what their purpose is, hopefully most of them will not realise that they serve no purpose, no one cares if they are here, and their legacy dies when someone throws away their scrapbooks a few months after they're buried. But that's been the case for ohhhh.... about a million years.
Well the author calls it South Park conservatism, but yet they are not like Old conservatives. That's the problem with the liberal/conservative axis, it lacks other dimensions to describe people by. Kids of South Park are rejecting the "classic" do-gooder attituded of the liberals - the PCishness of that Indian medicine actually is better than modern medicine because the indians were there first and horribly persecuted. Yet they gladly take up other liberal mainstays such as racial equality and they're outright rebellious. They are not conservatives, or liberals. You simply lack a convenient political catchphrase to label them by.
Now had you enjoyed a multiple-party system, there would have been by definition n number of parties with n number of distinct political orientation. A party never mimics another completely but tries to stand out on key issues. This could be the party of "Radical conservatives" for instance. They would tout the value of racial equality and g4y rights, but scorn religious freedom for instance but encourage a complete capitalistic system with almost no governmental control. This is a complete mockup party, pay attention.
Well the author calls it South Park conservatism, but yet they are not like Old conservatives. That's the problem with the liberal/conservative axis, it lacks other dimensions to describe people by. Kids of South Park are rejecting the "classic" do-gooder attituded of the liberals - the PCishness of that Indian medicine actually is better than modern medicine because the indians were there first and horribly persecuted. Yet they gladly take up other liberal mainstays such as racial equality and they're outright rebellious. They are not conservatives, or liberals. You simply lack a convenient political catchphrase to label them by.
Now had you enjoyed a multiple-party system, there would have been by definition n number of parties with n number of distinct political orientation. A party never mimics another completely but tries to stand out on key issues. This could be the party of "Radical conservatives" for instance. They would tout the value of racial equality and g4y rights, but scorn religious freedom for instance but encourage a complete capitalistic system with almost no governmental control. This is a complete mockup party, pay attention. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I don't think this is so much a vindication for Republicans as it is an indication that we are in serious need of more parties, with more nuanced platforms.
And if these kids can divorce themselves from the Religious Right and still be Republican, then why is it fair to judge all liberals as if they are part and parcel of the militant PC set?
Face it, our parties are just very out of date, and for many people, party selection has less to do with the group that you agree with more; it can often be a matter of who you disagree with less.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree. I don't think this is so much a vindication for Republicans as it is an indication that we are in serious need of more parties, with more nuanced platforms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
forever a cycle, history is... (no, I'm not quoting Yoda <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
never forget that...
I guess people are happier with the government and are wanting less social reform and change now than they used to. Means things are a lot less fun anyway.
South Park isn't so much conservative as it is 'Anti-Liberal'. Creator Trey Smith (I think it was him) said "I hate conservatives, but I really f-ing hate liberals." South Park attacks the idiocy in many liberal causes, giving it a seemingly conservative tilt. The show champions personal responsibility and common sense, not so much a single ideology. South Park Republicans share that view. Its not the show is written to be conservative; the show shares similar viewpoints.
For example...
-Conservaties see minority-specific legislation as a problem because recognizing race only creates the oppurtunity for racism. South Park sees it the same. In 'Cartman's Silly Hate Crime', the boys attack hardcore hate crime legislation as stupid for that reason.
-In 'Cartman Joins NAMBLA', the head of the Colorado chapter of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) makes a touchign speech about the freedoms America was founded on, the founding fathers, and persecution. It is very eloquent. Stan replies "Dude. You have sex with CHILDREN."
The show recognizes self responsibility, not self importance. Is it a coincidence that the all important, self centered kid is an incredible **** who, deep down, no one really likes? The entire movie was about parents taking responsibility for the media their children consume- it parioded the controversy it caused WHILE it was causing it!
EDIT
Is it bad I can quote episodes from memory? <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
And Immac, the party you are trying to describe is called <a href='http://www.lp.org/' target='_blank'>Libertarian</a>, of which I am often affiliated. It is one of those parties that don't exist in your world because it's not shown on Danish TV, but includes a sizable minority. Stop thinking we have only two parties just because SkyNews tells you so. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Feel free to read up and compare it to the SPR ideal.
There still is an importance in multiple parties though. Look at the 1992 and 1996 elections. Sure, Ross Perot certainly didn't win in 1992, but take a look at the 1996 platforms for the Reps and the Dems, Perot's campaign had a very dramatic impact on their issues.
Even if this new generation doesn't have much clout in terms of dominance, as a political force it's enough to be reckoned with on the basis of the ability to put some serious ideas on Dem and Rep agendas. I certainly agree with a swing to conservative ideals as of late, the Liberals have been dropping the ball a bit, especially with much of the PC hubbub. As a swing to new conservatives, I don't think there's going to be a big change in the Republican party, but you can certainly expect that when these new age conservatives start voting, theres going to be alot of neo-conservative issues on their platform.
This resonated with me quite a bit. I'm a sophomore in college, and my friends seem like the most lost group of people I've ever heard about. I suppose a lot of this is commonplace at this age, but I wonder if it was ever before to this degree. Its an entire generation of kids who from puberty on starting trying to discover the basis of proper action in the universe entirely on their own. Most of the people I know also have the intellectual honesty to realise that they aren't any clear answers, and they are ending up stagnant in an incomprehensible world. As much as I shunned organized religion in my teen years, I'm starting to think that some form of indoctrination is a necessary part of developing a way to view the world, and people are completely without that. It's high time for philosophy to yield some answers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And Immac, the party you are trying to describe is called Libertarian, of which I am often affiliated. It is one of those parties that don't exist in your world because it's not shown on Danish TV, but includes a sizable minority. Stop thinking we have only two parties just because SkyNews tells you so. Feel free to read up and compare it to the SPR ideal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he can be excused for not knowing about them considering they draw fewer votes in national elections than even the green party. The ironic thing about this is that it seems like everyone I know is a libertarian at heart but still feels forced to vote for one of the two major parties. It ends up being a decision about whether cultural freedom or economic freedom is more important to them, and what they end up getting doesn't clearly represent either. It doesn't help that a substantial portion of the actual libertarian party believes that any and all taxation is fundamentally evil.
We need a system of voting in which multiple people running on the same platform don't block eachother from the majority vote. Personally, I'd like a system in which you vote for as many people as you would like. You vote once for each condidate who you would be happy with as your elected official. This would completely eliminate "vote wasting" and bring the national elections closer to our actual preferences.
Having googled proportional representation, I don't think that is what I am thinking of. I had trouble finding sites that listed a specific algorithm though. In the limited amount of voting theory that we did in my highschool discrete math class, the method I listed above (which I forget the name of) seemed to make the most sense, was the easiest to count, and was prone to the fewest paradoxes.
Edit: found an article on it <a href='http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~croft/research/government/approval/voting.html' target='_blank'>http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~croft/resea...val/voting.html</a>
The best way I can describe myself is an independent conservative, combining libertarian and moderate social conservatism philosophy.
For example, I opposed the war on Iraq, I opposed Bush's education and medicare bills. Actually, Bush makes me puke, but the Democrats are even worse. I am against **** marriage, but not civil unions, I oppose the death penalty, but I really don't care about pornography as long as it is kept away from children.
A good friend of mine who is a rank and file Republican calls Bush a "big government conservative". BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVE. That is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. The whole system here in the United States is corrupt to the core.
Well, here is something interesting to look at. <a href='http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org' target='_blank'>SAF</a>
Essentially, it is an organization that is trying to break the monopoly liberals have on higher education, left over from the radical 60's and 70's. I know from personal experience that college professors are very very liberal. They aren't even Democrat liberal, they are like communist liberal.
I admire the efforts of third parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists, even if they have no real hopes to gain any power.
I think it's all going to hell in a hand basket anyways, so I try to stay out of politics short of watching the t.v news and maybe the occasional letter to the editor. I do enjoy O'Reilly Factor though.
One time the Simpsons had Michael Moore on near the end. If I can remember correctly, Moore rambles of some statistic, the news reporter asks him where he got it from, and he replies "Your Mom!". Obviously, this refers to the inumberable inaccuracies in his "documentaries". Since I am a huge protector of the second amendement, his films anger me. At the same time, South Park is always poking fun at "gun nuts". Does anyone remember "It's coming right for us!!" (Enter Bazooka) "Bunny Rabbit goes boom!" I think South Park simply goes after whatever they see as ridiculous, with no ideological backround to it.
This resonated with me quite a bit. I'm a sophomore in college, and my friends seem like the most lost group of people I've ever heard about. I suppose a lot of this is commonplace at this age, but I wonder if it was ever before to this degree. Its an entire generation of kids who from puberty on starting trying to discover the basis of proper action in the universe entirely on their own. Most of the people I know also have the intellectual honesty to realise that they aren't any clear answers, and they are ending up stagnant in an incomprehensible world. As much as I shunned organized religion in my teen years, I'm starting to think that some form of indoctrination is a necessary part of developing a way to view the world, and people are completely without that. It's high time for philosophy to yield some answers.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll be pleased to know that I am working on writing "The Meaning of Life" for the modern generation then <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm friends with a number of Libertarians, and I admire the party in many respects, but as Sirus says downline, the 'wasted vote' premise really hurts them, because those I know invariably end up voting Republican, though it means crawling into bed with the religious right.
However, NPR had an interesting story awhile back about a movement being started by a group of diehard Libertarians to orchestrate a mass move into a chosen state (Montana and NH were the front runners) in order to concentrate enough votes to become a viable political force. Interesting idea-- I'm curious to see whether it pans out or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One time the Simpsons had Michael Moore on near the end. If I can remember correctly, Moore rambles of some statistic, the news reporter asks him where he got it from, and he replies "Your Mom!". Obviously, this refers to the inumberable inaccuracies in his "documentaries". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I do enjoy O'Reilly Factor though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you enjoy mangled facts, provided that they're your brand of mangled facts? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I skimmed through too much of your post Moultano, you're right, you're not thinking of PR. There is no system similar to that, per se, but proportional representation solves alot of these problems. It eliminates the wasted vote syndrome by having a proportional amount of officials in legislation based on their their percentage of votes, there is no take all system.
PR does share your concerns though, thats what I was thinking of when I read your post, unfortunately I didn't read it through. Sorry if I made myself seem like a dunce for a minute there. ;p
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, NPR had an interesting story awhile back about a movement being started by a group of diehard Libertarians to orchestrate a mass move into a chosen state (Montana and NH were the front runners) in order to concentrate enough votes to become a viable political force. Interesting idea-- I'm curious to see whether it pans out or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best they can do until their voting base actually votes Libertarian is going to just be able to shake the two parties, maybe they can get an issue or two on the agenda of the two parties platforms, but that would probably just hurt them even more as Libertarians decision of going with the Reps would be that much easier.
And I like O'Reilly factor also, obviously, it's not my news and facts source, but it is good entertainment. Hey, it makes me crack a smile every once in a while! Nothing is funnier then Crossfire though, theres just something about five sixty year olds yelling at each other that strikes me as hilarious.
By Andrew Sullivan
23Dec03
WHEN, one wonders, did conservatism in America become hip? In the US the new millennium seems to have entrenched a growing trend among the younger generations that, if not culturally conservative, is anti-liberal.
Go to a college campus and you will find the young Republicans gaining in strength. You'll find plenty of sullen and not-so-sullen disdain for 1960s-style professors. You will notice that the internet, as well as providing the groundswell for the Howard Dean campaign, is just as popular among more Right-leaning undergraduates.
But you'll notice something else as well. These new non-lefties aren't exactly wearing bow ties and sipping sherry. They have adopted the full clothing and accessories of their liberal peers; they watch pay TV channel Comedy Central; some smoke pot; they have few problems with premarital sex; some are even g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass).
I came up with a name for this fledgling generation of countercultural righties: South Park Republicans. The name comes from the Comedy Central cartoon show (shown in Australia on SBS television) in which four foul-mouthed eight-year-olds wreak havoc on their friends, families, school and town. Not everyone who watches South Park, of course, is a conservative. Far from it. But the sensibility that the program exudes - bawdy, shameless, relentlessly anti-politically correct - has real resonance today.
The Simpsons presaged this development. Knowing, witty, sardonic, it is a cartoon obviously written by and for young adults. But South Park took this formula and made it cruder, sharper and more rebellious. No PC shibboleths are left unmolested. From handicapped child Timmy to black youngster Token, every stereotype enjoys itself. The idiocy of hate-crime laws, the fawning condescension of well-meaning liberal adults, the dumbness of Hollywood celebrity, the surrealism of sexual harassment legislation: the targets are brutally assaulted for an enthusiastic audience of those 18 to 39.
If people wonder why anti-war celebrities such as Janeane Garofalo or Michael Moore failed to win over the younger generation, you have only to watch South Park to see why. The next generation sees through the cant and piety, and cannot help giggling.
In one episode, when liberal talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell shows up to lecture the children about democracy, their teacher declares: "People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to middle America you think we're all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment. Just because you're on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government." The teacher is a thinly veiled closeted homosexual.
In a recent essay in the neo-conservative magazine City Journal author Brian Anderson celebrated the show as evidence that conservatives were winning the culture wars. He may be on to something.
Here is a passage he cited that the Body Shop founder Anita Roddick might appreciate. It occurs when one of the children, Kyle, comes down with a rare kidney disorder. His liberal parents decide to try a Native American homeopathic cure. It doesn't work.
Kyle's mum: "Everything is going to be fine, Stan; we're bringing in Kyle tomorrow to see the Native Americans personally."
Stan: "Isn't it possible that these Indians don't know what they're talking about?
Stan's mum: "You watch your mouth, Stanley. The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us."
Stan: "And that has something to do with their medicines because ... ?"
Stan's mum: "Enough, Stanley!"
There you have the voice of a younger generation driven to distraction by clueless liberal parents. Think of Ab Fab's Saffy but with a wild streak.
Am I making too much of this? Maybe. The younger generation is more liberal in some respects: they tend to be more pro-g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass) and more comfortable in a multiracial society. But, in a natural reaction against their parents, their distaste for do-gooder cant is well developed. September 11 made a critical difference as well. It turned a sensibility into something a little more urgent.
Comedian Dennis Miller, a graduate of the US television comedy show Saturday Night Live and a loud-mouthed, libertarian rebel, exemplifies the change in sensibility. Nobody can think of him as a typical conservative. His four-letter words alone keep him a few thousand miles away from the religious Right.
But in an interview with Time magazine he summed up his politics: "I'm Left on a lot of things. If two g4y [edit by MonsE: a necessary filter bypass) guys want to get married, I couldn't care less. If a nutcase from overseas wants to blow up their wedding, that's when I'm Right. (September 11) was a big thing for me. I was saying to liberal America, 'Well, what are you offering?' And they said, 'Well, we're not going to protect you, and we want some more money.' That didn't interest me."
Miller is not alone. Alongside the religious Right, there is also an irreligious Right in the US. They are an often urban, culturally liberal, fiscally conservative slice of the population who are as appalled by Left-liberal humbug as they are turned off by evangelical theocrats. Politics is not as important to these people as their everyday lives, their desire to be left alone. But when those lives are threatened -- by over-taxation, government regulation or the mass murders perpetrated by Islamist terrorists -- they get engaged.
Theirs is a negative politics in the classic conservative sense. Their politics is in the service of their lives, not the other way round. To quote Miller again: "I will say this, I feel more politically engaged than I've ever felt in my life because I do think we live in dangerous times. Anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss - I can't buy that anymore."
Neither can a burgeoning group among the young. They tend not to be noticed. But they are perhaps the key to understanding the huge generation that will one day remake the US as surely as their boomer parents once did.
The Sunday Times <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very very interesting read, and one I rather agree with personally on many levels. growing up on the border of political correctness (being from 1974, I saw the before and after), it gives me a little hope to think that my generation has a chance to undue 40 years of babyboomer mistakes, where hippies became yuppies became wienies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly! Not all conservatives are REPUBLICANS.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike republicans, masking themselves as conservatives with all this moral bullcrap and constitutional violating law ideas.
Monse, I'm with you. Libertarian all the way.
Really, South Park is 90% strawmanning issues, 5% making fun of retarded people, and 5% comedy. I wouldn't want to mold myself after a group of children who have not had to look at real world issues, only strawman versions of them. The indian medicine shtick that Sullivan mentioned is a perfect example of it. It's SO easy to knock an argument or idea down when you simplify it to the extreme, or even when the argument is almost completely made up (as in this case. When have you EVER heard of someone using the Indians' past plight as a justification for taking ther medicine?). In the world of South Park, feminists are evil and never accomplished or fought for anything, history be damned. Social responsibility is "g4y" in South Park, as it is entirely appropriate to destroy property, manipulate and take advantage of the retarded, the elderly, etc. If they just tried to portray this as a bunch of naughty kids having fun and attacking the odd PC BS, it wouldn't be something to worry about. However, all of it is packaged together as a twisted moral argument against authority and social responsibility.
It figures that, since you had nothing of substance to add, you just called what I said "PC". Yeah, it would help if you actually had an argument instead of intent to troll.
It figures that, since you had nothing of substance to add, you just called what I said "PC". Yeah, it would help if you actually had an argument instead of intent to troll. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was not your PC I was using, unless you meant Politically Correct.
IT'S A CARTOON, IT SHOULD BE FUNNY, LAUGH DAMN YOU!!! LAAAUUUUUUUGH!
There, lol.
I really don't care what politcal side a damn cartoon show is on. Why should you even care anyways. As long as it's funny or interesting, it's all good.