Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIBERTARIANS AND FALSE EQUIVALENCE. In my review of The Simpsons Movie for The Guardian, I mentioned the libertarian impulse to falsely equate the harmless foibles of liberals with the nefarious proclivities of conservatives. As if to prove that point Michael C. Moynihan, a blogger for Reason, opines in response that the main argument of my piece, (that liberal Simpsons fans should be forewarned that though the movie is funny and worth-seeing it has a streak of politically conservative humor) makes me the equivalent Brent Bozell.
Having actually covered Bozell's shenanigans I seriously resent the comparison. Bozell, like most conservative media watchdogs, does much more than write light-hearted columns gently critiquing a little political message he does not support. Bozell leads campaigns to berate corporations out of promoting content he finds offensive for political or moral reasons. As Moynihan may have noticed I didn't call for a boycott of The Simpsons movie. In fact, I encouraged readers to see it. Apparently, though, in Moynihan's simplistic way of thinking all criticisms are equal, and all political/cultural critics are equally dim-witted and illiberal regardless of what they actually say. I suppose Moynihan thinks no one should write op-eds discussing the political implications of cultural products at all. That's very open-minded indeed.
--Ben Adler
COMMENTS (6)
Looking over your review, now having seen the movie, I find myself disagreeing with your characterization somewhat. While I agree with the idea that the TV show has found ways to mock liberals (and mercilessly tar conservatives), I don't think this movie deviates from that especially.
*The Simpsons Movie spoilers below*
The two main points you make to demonstrate the film’s illiberal qualities seem to be 1) that Lisa and her friend are seen as busy bodies, not well meaning and overzealous and 2) that the bad guy was the chief of the EPA (instead of something like the Defense Department.).
As for the first point, I did read the reactions of residents as more rude than Lisa being annoying. (The bit from the woman who says "Ah, it's the little girl who saved my cat" and then slams the door in her face would seem to punctuate that point.) And since she is absolutely correct and catastrophe follows (in part, when Homer pretends that "one more little bit" won't hurt a thing), I would argue that Lisa's truth is both irritating and the truth. (There's also the well-made point that Homer is really NOT the cause of their destruction, just the last piece.)
So, I don't think you can say that this is an especially anti-liberal point.
Your second point in this case is, I think, simply incorrect. I think the makers of The Simpsons Movie are actually being much more conscious of social and political shifts. Six years ago we might have thought that the EPA administrator would be someone who wants to help the environment. But the new FEMA and the new Labor Department are not about helping the little guy anymore. Instead, they are excuses to do what these former big business executives and lobbyists want to do anyway.
A more direct critique of a liberal government might have shown the EPA administrator meaning to help things by creating a giant dome. Instead, this is more of a Halliburton moment, where catastrophe is an opportunity to bilk taxpayers out of a bunch more money and fail to solve the problem in the process.
In the end, though, the film mostly just parodies human behavior, both left and right. (The right, however, still ends up as the villain.)
Posted by: Paulk | August 7, 2007 11:30 AM
I don't think you "got" a lot of the movie or are running around with a big chip on your shoulder or something. The "politics" on the Simpsons, the TV show, does skew left--but it's not in existence to be a political show. It's a comedy, for one thing, and in any case it's a little difficult to take seriously someone who can't laugh at themselves. The message in the movie was definitely pro-environment in the vein of some other Lisa-centric episodes in which Lisa is both correct AND a self-righteous goody two shoes. And liberals are NEVER like that, right?
Posted by: JMS | August 7, 2007 12:49 PM
I don't think you "got" a lot of the movie or are running around with a big chip on your shoulder or something. The "politics" on the Simpsons, the TV show, does skew left--but it's not in existence to be a political show. It's a comedy, for one thing, and in any case it's a little difficult to take seriously someone who can't laugh at themselves. The message in the movie was definitely pro-environment in the vein of some other Lisa-centric episodes in which Lisa is both correct AND a self-righteous goody two shoes. And liberals are NEVER like that, right?
Posted by: JMS | August 7, 2007 12:50 PM
Anyone familiar with Groening's brillian "Life In Hell" knows that he abhors Republicans.
Posted by: ed | August 7, 2007 2:46 PM
I saw the movie and don't really think it strayed too far from the episodes as far as dishing it out to those on the left and the right.
I guess I also disagree with the original review that said the episodes were definitely biased in favor of those on the left. The author mentions Mr. Burns as the archetypical Republican, but his character on the show is almost a liberal caricature of what a Republican is. It’s so over-the-top it’s funny. It’s not a subtle dig at Republicans; it’s practically making fun of the liberal rhetoric to the effect of “all Republicans want to do is steal your kids school milk and throw senior citizens out in the cold.” The Simpson’s is funny precisely because it goes after both sides pretty much equally.
Posted by: Owen Meany | August 7, 2007 3:13 PM
I just clicked through and read the piece. That was "lighthearted"? When is this guy dour and humorless?
Posted by: Simon | August 7, 2007 9:05 PM