Vicious TV Attacks on 1960s Politicians

So those who don't watch Mad Men woke this morning to find that a TV show had taken a shot at Mitt Romney's dad. Let's get into it!

First: the character who calls Michigan Governor George Romney a "clown" is an operative for New York City Mayor John Lindsay, and for that matter not one who we in the audience are supposed to be, as far as I can tell, particularly fond of.* At the time, both Romney and Lindsay were positioning for the 1968 Republican nomination, on the hope that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 would make a liberal Republican the choice -- and, as Garry Wills tells it, on the assumption that Kennedy-like "charisma" was needed against LBJ (see also  here for more Wills quotes on G. Romney; and here for Brad DeLong on Nixon Agonisties).

Dave Weigel says:

This episode of Mad Men was set in 1966, when George Romney was about to be re-elected governor. He was one of the best-known critics of the GOP's conservative wing; he trashed Barry Goldwater for his Civil Rights Act vote, and would say in speeches that "state's rights" was a weasely term that excused racism. A liberal New York Republican would like Romney.

 Would Francis feel otherwise because Romney threatened his client's national ambitions? Maybe, but the "clown" line still sounds out of place. The myth of Romney's foolishness really got going when he gave an interview in 1967 about his shifting position on the Vietnam War. He said, mea culpa, that he'd had "the greatest brainwashing" from generals and the diplomatic core.

See also Ezra Klein, who says that "In 1966, George Romney was an incredibly admirable politician."

Two things. One is that Wills has Robert McNamara helping Romney to get his political career going (remember, they were both auto industry executives), but later believing that the problem with Romney was "no brains." Unfortunately, Wills doesn't tell us where he got that from, or more to the point when he got it from, and I couldn't find it after a quick search (and remember -- it was McNamara's DOD and generals that Romney was criticizing). My impression is that (as Wills basically says) George Romney was always vulnerable to getting a "no brains" reputation, and that one reason the "brainwashed" gaffe hurt him was that it was taken to confirm something that political insiders already believed.

The second and more important thing is that it's certainly very possible that a politician could hold positions on matters of public policy which one agrees with, and which may even be courageous in a way, but still be widely viewed as a moron; indeed, it's possible that such a politician might actually be a moron. There's a natural tendency to attribute smarts to those who agree with us on issues, and moreover to assume that the side politicians take on pressing issues of the day tell us something about those politicians. But neither of these is a safe assumption. It's true that many choices politicians make come from their beliefs about the world; it's also true that choices politicians make are just responses to the incentives they are faced with. Granted, one might believe that a politician is admirable even when (and again, not saying it's true in this case) she's a moron and her positions are just what her pollster told her to take, but I probably wouldn't agree.

As for George Romney...I really don't know whether his reputation among insiders was already formed in 1966, pre-brainwashing. But I suspect so.Nor do I have any idea at all whether the reputation was deserved. I am certain, however, that admirable positions on public policy give us surprisingly little hint about the intellectual firepower of politicians.



*100 years from now, Lindsay will be even more forgotten than he is now -- but will achieve immortality as Gotham Mayor Linseed on the Adam West Batman show. Hey, you take what you can get in politics.

The Fox Code

I'm sure someone has got there before me, but I haven't seen it, so: are we really going to pretend that it's just a coincidence that Fox is running -- and hyping -- a new show about how corrupt Chicago pols are, just as the 2012 presidential cycle gets underway with conservatives hitting the theme of "Chicago-style politics" against Barack Obama?

Mind you, this is exactly the kind of thing that tends not to matter at all, as far as electoral politics is concerned. Zilch. And for all I know, it'll be a terrific show (my friend Steven Rubio, who is usually right about these sorts of things, is recommending giving it a try). And, hey, maybe it really is just luck of the draw. Could be. Really.

Monday Movies Post

Have you been watching The Boondocks third season?  It doesn't seem to be getting much buzz at all.  Partially because...well, let me organize this properly.

At its best, The Boondocks is simply one of the great TV shows of its time (2005 through now).  It is, however, wildly inconsistent.  Essentially, there are three parts to the show: the world according to Huey Freeman; comic relief; and everything else, mostly the adventures of Huey's little brother Riley.  Huey himself is sort of a modern, updated and very much Black (he's not Huey for nothing) version of Linus van Pelt, in his guise as the wise-beyond-his-years kid.  He's sort of the obvious stand-in for the show's creator, Aaron McGruder (the show, as I hope everyone knows, is based on McGruder's comic strip, which was terrific).

Let's see...I'm way out of practice with these.  I think I'm supposed to talk about the show, then talk about the politics, and then finish by giving a recommendation.  To do that, I'll skip two parts two and three of the show.  The humor?  When it's on, it's very, very, funny, but to my tastes it's pretty radically inconsistent.  I don't think that's (just?) because I miss the occasional reference, either.  McGruder has his hobbyhorses, and he can be very funny taking them down, but he also tends towards overkill.  So last night's episode started as a pretty good hit on all that is Tyler Perry, but eventually I thought went too far over the top, and just (again, to me at least) lost the humor.  What's frustrating to me is that even in a weak episode they'll drop in thirty seconds, or two minutes, of comic genius, before returning to an uninspired plot.

Most of which, as far as I'm concerned, focus on Riley.  Although not just him; Uncle Ruckus is a brilliant character in small doses, but please, we get it already.  Hmm...other elements of the show... I should say something about the performances, I guess, but I don't really find any of the voice work especially outstanding...Cedric Yarbrough as the pathetic (and underused) Tom Dubois is probably the best of the group.  I do like the look of the show, but it's again nothing to watch it for.  A fair number of fun guest voices have appeared. Oh, the theme & credits are awesome.

See, the problem is...as I said, the first part of the show is Huey; the show is basically the madness of the world seen through Huey, the one sane person.  And yet, as the show has gone on, Huey is often reduced to little more -- and often less - than Lurch's old moan.   Now, this is strictly what I'm seeing, and I could be entirely wrong, but...my impression is that as time goes on, McGruder is more and more frustrated with the insanity he sees around him, and has less and less to say about it: isn't it just obvious how insane everyone is?  Now, that's a statement about the world; in fact, I think it's a political statement, although I'm sure some would argue that it's more cultural than political.  Essentially, McGruder sees us all acting like idiots when it comes to race (and, for that, matter, pretty much everything else): blacks, whites, everyone, and is just exasperated that people don't realize what fools they are.  

And he may be correct about that. but it doesn't make for great TV, because the Huey-to-Riley ratio keeps getting more and more skewed in favor of Riley. 

But: first of all, it's often very funny, and there's not a lot of funny around, so it's worth watching just for that.  As I said, in the weaker episodes the funny make make a brief cameo, but in the stronger episodes, such as the Tyler Perry one last night, there's quite a bit.  Moreover, much of what McGruder has to say needs saying, not least on cable TV.  His targets are usually (always?) richly deserving of his scorn, and the show, when its working right, has that rare balance that doesn't give the viewer a comfortable place to rest -- not even with Huey, who after all is just a kid, and he's been too quick to judge, too (at least that's what I remember from season one, several years ago, when he was a more consistently active character).  Now, as far as politics goes, a message of "hey, you're being stupid.  Cut it out" isn't exactly the most well-developed philosophy...except that it seems quite appropriate to much of the material that McGruder turns his attention to.  

So: at its best, in maybe half a dozen episodes so far, it's absolutely essential television.  Most of the rest of season one was still pretty good; seasons two and three, really, have been far more spotty.  I'll go ahead and give it  a very high recommendation, with serious reservations.  Watch it, but keep your expectations low.