When I was a kid, it never occurred to me that San Francisco was a bastion of immoral hypocrisy and anti-Americanism. Perhaps it was because they don’t teach you what immoral hypocrisy is in the first grade. Or perhaps it was because the only representation of the city I knew of came from the hit television show “Full House.” The wholesome Tanner family never exuded the traits of San Francisco liberals, nor did their sitcom experiences match what I see in the Bay Area now — judgmental pot smokers, militant peaceniks, and indulgent anti-capitalists.
With a few actors in a Los Angeles studio, and a script that could only be found on the Hallmark Channel these days, one can mask the decadence of San Francisco and present to the masses an image of Any Town, USA. As it is often said, image is everything.
The 6th of this month marks the birthday of Ronald Reagan, a president loved by nearly all conservatives. Many will cherish the wit and wisdom of the “Great Communicator,” and others will remember him for the policies that freed the world from Communism. It is important to recognize that Reagan is celebrated for what he did, and not necessarily how he did it. It is true that The Gipper brought a very personable and engaging style to the Oval Office, but conservatives who celebrate him will elevate the substance of Reagan’s legacy and not merely his style. It was a time when character, not image, mattered. On Page 26, Sid Radhakrishnan commemorates another president of outstanding character.
The next presidential election is two years away, but many have already situated themselves on the starting blocks. Once again, politics reminds us of the enduring façade that it erects for its cast of characters. There exists, however, a stark difference between contenders from the right and contenders from the left, and that is the use and saliency of that political façade. Indeed image is everything. For Democrats, though, image is the only thing.
Senator Barack Obama has stirred up enough fanfare on his side of the aisle to make the premiere of the next season of “American Idol” jealous. And at least the latter has something to offer. With little experience, and even less legislative accomplishment, Obama has undoubtedly relied upon lofty platitudes and his minority background to propel him to popularity. Many on the left eagerly await a black president for the sake of a black president, and Obama is their guy. Ignore his short resume and unknown platform; as long as his skin color makes history, put him on the ballot.
Meanwhile, others on the left are drooling over the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton. After all, wouldn’t it be nice to have a female president for once? It is profound how liberals will allow gender to get the better of individual merit, a position that is very much opposite of what they profess. We have seen it already with the unwarranted adoration of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the first female House speaker. But even those from outside the left have sold out to the promise of image politics. Dismissing her socialist agenda, America delivered to Pelosi the speaker’s dais last. Perhaps they too had reruns of “Full House” clouding their judgment.
What exactly do Senators Obama and Clinton stand for? Anything you want them to, lest it sully their image. And though the Republican candidates have been thus far uninspiring, they have at least centered their campaigns on issues and ideas. That is what conservatives care about. On the other hand, like in the familiar high school elections for student government, liberals will struggle over image and appearance, with reasons that are condescending and superficial.
The shallow emphasis on appearance is not limited to national political races, but seeps deep into the social issues in our own back yard. Liberal elites and their affirmative-action activists are lamenting the emergence of college campuses that look too Asian. Only a perfect but artificial mix of races will please the aesthetic senses of left-leaning campus administrators. Greg Ge exposes these efforts in full view on Page 14, urging readers not to allow image to trump merit.
Liberals value things other than those that simply look good. If that were not the case, Michael Moore would never be invited to another Hollywood party. Indeed even if something just sounds good Democrats will seize upon it and add it to their list of talking points. It is why every Democrat running for office has legally changed his or her middle name to Global Warming and supports any meaningless piece of legislation that purports to save the world from itself. What is sacrificed is a meaningful and constructive exchange of ideas. On Page 16, Rohit Joy addresses the ineffectiveness of trendy green legislation, and the alternatives that have been recklessly disregarded.
Nowadays, it seems quite easy for politicians to turn their self-absorption into an appealing platform, as most of America is itself narcissistically preoccupied. The phenomenon has not stopped at Facebook or MySpace. As Chris Page reports on Page 10, we can further obsess over image but place special emphasis on ethnicity. A new site called NiggaSpace has hit the Internet, and is furthering the acceptance of racial self-segregation.
As each episode of “Full House” drew to a close, one or more of the Tanner family members slowly realized the lessons that that installment provided. And though the concluding moralism came about through some fictitious scenario, it was still meaningful. It was a family show and, unlike most present-day programming, it didn’t take advantage of our profligate inclinations with shallow images. The message mattered.
As our campus and our country increase their efforts to look proper, but not act it, it is my hope that the Patriot can help bring the nation back to a more substantive civic discourse. Character, and ideas, still matter.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot