SOME GOOD QUESTIONS

Riffing on Bill Kristol's good liberal/bad liberal shtick, I now offer my definition of a good conservative (the same thinking works equally well for liberals, I think, too). A good conservative does not hate other Americans who simply disagree with him. A good conservative is able and willing to distinguish between opposing viewpoints offered from sincere, patriotic, dissenting Americans and viewpoints offered by destructive, hateful, anti-Americans. A good conservative engages in clear, fair debate about the state of the nation and understands that, because we live in (what is supposed to be) a democracy, it is both his and his political opponents' patriotic obligation to do so. A good conservative pursues friendships with both liberals and other conservatives because he understands that we are all Americans.

Such a conservative is my good friend, Stephen. My friend lives up to his Biblical namesake's reputation as a superb debater. He has a keen intellect. He is always a gentleman, and we have had many thought-provoking and enjoyable discussions and debates on art, culture, and politics. He's a pretty good actor, too. To date, he is the only conservative that I have personally asked to read my weblog.

I think he really enjoys trashing my rantings:

I’m confused. Do others contribute to your weblog – answering or confirming your “observations” – or is it just your spot to rant? If the former, it is unclear how one goes about that. Maybe I’m just too new at this to recognize the right button when it floats past my screen.

By the way, I read Medved’s article on NRO about “Captain America”. It displayed a reasonable concern about the moral equivalence of “us” and “them” advanced in a medium aimed largely at children. Or did I miss the part where he demands that the offending “comic” be yanked from the shelves?

Incidentally, Medved is a devoted and observant Jew, not a “[k]ooky Christian fundamentalist”. From my further reading on your blog, I acknowledge that facts are not important, but glaring errors of this type are far worse than just plain wrong: they don’t look good.

Cheers.

S

Harsh. But fair. That's Stephen. He's actually launched a couple of more sophisticated conservative challenges to my words via email, and I will probably try to post the debate here on Real Art in some way, shape, or form soon. However, I just wanted to quickly respond to his above email because he raises some good, brief points.

Here goes.

This is, in fact, my spot to rant. However, I am very interested in hearing what others have to say, and in sometimes posting their words here, even if I disagree. Ultimately, however, liberal views must dominate Real Art--after all, it is my blog. The main reason I started doing this is both to get my own thoughts in order and to provoke discussion. Given that so few people actually read Real Art, I don't really see much need for one of those commenting systems a la Eschaton. Instead, I would really like people to email any of their thoughts, both favorable and unfavorable to the address in the upper left corner. I don't expect to be buried in email.

As for Medved's views on the questionable Captain America comic, I really need to make a couple more observations. First, Medved contradicts himself: "Especially in a comic book aimed largely at children and teenagers (and rated PG)..." Well, is it aimed at children or is it rated PG? Simply put, "PG" strongly suggests that this comic, in fact, is not aimed at children. At the very least, such a rating means that parents should first be aware of what the book's contents are before allowing their children to read it. Medved ought to know that the comics industry has been producing products exclusively for their adult audience (which, I might add, includes myself) for nearly two decades now. Not that exposing children to such views is that bad of an idea. After all, kids will not be taught such dissenting views in school--young Americans need to understand early in life the oppositional aspects of democracy; schools are awful at getting this point across. Furthermore, the vast majority of super-hero comic books push a black and white, tough on crime, pro-vigilante view of law and order, a view that most conservatives ought to be comfortable with. One or two books that mix up the standard narrative of "truth, justice, and the American way" most decidedly are not going to create a mass of communist youth. Medved's fears are unfounded.

And yes, I overstated when I called Medved's attack "blacklisting." Medved does not demand that the comics be taken off the shelves. However, given that National Review writers such as Medved often appear on television and on the mainstream press's editorial pages, given that such conservative pundit-types often are able to pull mainstream discussion to the right (read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? for a full, well-documented discussion on this topic), Medved's essay represents what could very well be a major threat that these comics and others like them are eventually eradicated--it happened in the 1950s; why not now?

Finally, facts are very important to me, but I'm no journalist. I need help. So, thank you, Stephen, for helping me get it right. Medved is not a kooky Christian fundamentalist. However, I put him in the same category for purposes of this discussion. That is, like Joseph Lieberman, I'm sure that if Medved was a Christian, he would go for one of the fundamentalist varieties: Old Testament oriented, pro-Israel, wrathful God, lots of laws, lots of killing, lots of punishment, lots of righteous anger, a place where a conservative Jew can feel right at home. None of this, however, changes Medved's kookiness.

Please, anyone who spots a factual error on Real Art notify me as soon as possible so I can correct the error and 'fess up. The last thing I want is for my ideas to be based on bullshit. And Stephen is right; such errors "don’t look good." Credibility is hard to come by when you're asserting very unpopular views.

So, that's my buddy, Stephen. Expect his views to pop up here from time to time. He really does keep me on my toes. Remind me to tell you about my not really conservative, not really liberal, ex-lawyer pal, Alan. He keeps me on my toes, too.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$