Drivel

Here is my first nominee for the silliest article written in the Washington Post all year. It's an article by Andrew Klavan decrying the liberal propaganda of Hollywood. Baically, he outlines how Hollywood is a censuring, fascistic propaganda machine for the far left, decidedly unpatriotic. Lets take a look at what Mr. Klavin takes issue with.

First of, as someone who is presumably economically conservative, Hollywood's first crime is not being dedicated enough to the profit motive and potentially having a point of view. I don't know why he cares that liberal devils don't make money, but he does.

"...only one war-on-terror film, the mediocre "Vantage Point," did good business. Why? Because it showed Americans as the good guys they are. If Hollywood were all about making money, it would do that a lot more often. "

According to Mr. Klavan, though, Hollywood does not attempt to express sincere points of view which cause it to make bad, unpatriotic movies, but rather its players desire to conform to the liberal Hollywood establishment. The majority of movies as far as I can see are in the vein of Iron Man, High School Musical, and Knocked Up. I may criticize some of Hollywood's output as well, but I can't see what the agenda is in superhero, pop singing goof-offs.

"To the true Hollywood power, liberal filmmakers speak nothing but slavish conformity . . . and after a while, they start to think it's the truth. "

Klavan's third point is that Hollywood is not actually liberal, because they censor un-establishment conservative opinions, outsource filming elsewhere (hey, I thought they weren't motivated by profit?), and attack Palin for being a woman. I can't really respond to these points because they involve logical inconsistencies with prior arguments Klavan has made and because he cites vague anecdotes on sexism and censorship to condemn a whole organism (Hollywood), when really the wholeness is sort of fictitious and is really comprised of a bunch of individuals.

Klavan's fourth point- again, hard to respond. He says Hollywood excludes conservatives by saying they have no talent. He jumps straight to equating this practice with the old color line in baseball, without providing evidence first that the discrimination actually exists. I think it occurs to him later that he had better make that argument, so he cites two movies which should get made and have not. My guess is that generally there are lots more scripts than movies actually made. Perhaps Mr. Klavan himself bears grudges. I sympathize- no one makes my screenplays either. But that's because I'm a shitty writer. Klavan's essay indicates that as well.

Now we come to Klavan's coup de grace- it's where he gets to define patriotism and tell us that Hollywood liberals hate America (again, supported by a couple of anecdotes). He says that being a patriot means loving one's country, and that liberals don't love the ocuntry. Here's a fun quote:

"Making anti-war films while American troops are under fire is not patriotic. Exporting movies that consistently show the United States in a bad light is not patriotic. Ceaselessly casting America and its government as the bad guy is not patriotic, either."

Since Mr. Klavan's definition of patriotism as loving your country is somewhat vague, let's analyze his definition further as evidenced by his assertions as to what is unpatriotic. The one theme tying the three statements above together is that criticizing actions that originate within our government is not patriotic. In order for this statement to retain logical consistency, I would ask Mr. Klavan to confirm these questions:

-If Obama becomes president and the democrats maintain power in both houses, will all of their actions be patriotic as well?
-Can one dissent from any policy taken by the federal government and be a patriot? Was slavery patriotic and Uncle Tom's Cabin (anti-government propaganda aimed at showing America in a bad light) unpatriotic?
-If you had lived in Germany, would decrying the blitzkrieg be unpatriotic? (no intent to draw parrallels between us and the Nazis, just wondering if criticizing a war can be patriotic so that we can thus have a reasonable dialogue about Iraq without being accused of treason)

My own view of loving my country, or loving any person, involves a desire for that entity to be the best that it can be. I would say that much of the actions Americans have been proud of are based on dissent and progress: universal suffrage, equal rights, etc... Klavan's reactionary conservatism hearkens more to what we regret as a country and is the impediment to making this country the best it can be.