Politics And Entertainment

I never thought I'd mention Snoopy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Neville Chamberlain in the same sentence. (Actually I never considered the possibility at all, positively or negatively.) But now I've done it, and I won't mention them by name again. I will, however, write about some of the things that tie them together in my mind. And, I assume, yours. After all, every day the world seems to be getting smaller, and nowadays “we're all connected” (see https://www.pinterest.com/pin/569846159070661982/ for source. There are better references but the URLs include the name of the originator). I don't mean the telephone or social media. And I'm not alluding to six degrees. Our ideas are connected as well.

When I was growing up I enjoyed reading the comics. And I've continued to do so, though some of the changes have been, in my view, unfortunate. Over the years I've enjoyed Mutt and Jeff, The Katzenjammer Kids, Li'l Abner, Dick Tracy, Peanuts, The Lone Ranger, Bloom County, and numerous others. They were distracting, and often funny. I was entertained by them. Some of them may still exist, but they're not in my paper.

And I liked the popular music of my youth. And the movies. So when I watched Kukla, Fran, and Ollie on our antediluvian Dumont it was because I found it entertaining. The same was true when I went to the theater or, on rare occasion, a dance performance. I went to be entertained – not lectured.

That, as the saying goes, was then. It was a time when “first down” in a football game referred to the playing of the game, not the “honor” of being the first to kneel during the National Anthem. Respect the National Anthem and the flag now and you must be a racist. We live now, sadly, in a time when everyone is likely to be opinionated and every opinion is loudly expressed or provocatively demonstrated.

I don't want to suggest that the arts have not always been political to some degree. Artists, like everyone else, have opinions, but it wasn't always as obvious and “in your face” as it is now. Pogo was certainly involved, but his politics were gentler than those in Doonesbury, where anti-Republican rants are standard fare. And popular music has always contained examples of comment on the society of the time (eg We're in the money) but they were friendly and humorous as opposed to the hip-hop and”folk songs” which are in vogue now. (Instrumental music, like Shostakovitch's To October and The Year 1917 also “comment” on political issues and society at least in the composer's mind, but lacking “lyrics” they don't intrude.)

What strikes me about all this is that we're now living in a time when the most important thing anyone can do is make a point. And there is no arguing with that point if you're not to become an outsider. Everything is subsumed under the general headings of diversity and free speech. Nothing can exist except by making obeisance to these social gods. There's no such thing as a sports event, for example, without a political view expressed. Failure to follow the fashion of the times is likely to cause one to be sent to Coventry. We may honor and require diversity, but we demand uniformity in all we support – uniformity in our allegiance to whatever is the current dogma.

It doesn't matter what that is. Whatever is discussed must contain some favorable mention of the “right” position. Archie, no matter the view of bigoted dissenters, had to die defending a gay man. The New York Times must find fault with President Trump irrespective of the subject of the article. Rap “songs” frequently promote sex and crime – especially against the police – and their words are viewed as poetry. Opposition to transgender activity is clearly a proof of prejudice – for that is not the preferred view – and displays of interracial relationships are de rigueur. And we're intolerant of anyone whose attitudes or words differ from ours. They're wrong and don't deserve to be heard.

Diplomats have a different perspective. While I may not agree with their goals and tactics in general, there is one tool that they use that can be productive – at least productive of what they are trying to achieve, which may be ill-advised. It is compartmentalization. They can separate issues, and not require that unrelated matters be mutually dependent. Comedy and dance don't have to be based on politics; there needn't be concurrence on all matters before there is agreement on one. They can agree to disagree, and they can politely listen to arguments that may not correspond to their own ideas. They disagree, but they learn – at least about the views of those they consider their enemies.

One of the big issues of our time is the existence of “safe spaces” which are designed to exclude anyone with an unwanted perspective. Safe spaces make sense. But the goal must be to exclude rhetoric, posturing, required uniformity, and anything that promotes the merging of unrelated issues. We need to bring back entertainment that is entertainment, not a vehicle for political ideology. And we need discussion that is more than the promotion of a political view that isn't incitement to riot or to silence the opposition or to cause believers to deface their symbols. That's not free speech. It's propaganda.

October 1, 2017