The day after President Obama was elected, I told advocates of the principles of limited government not to despair; as Obama would make the best case for the cause in decades. More (but not nearly enough) people are becoming very attuned to economic policy, but that tends to happen when one in ten people are out of work and the grave threat of our debt exceeding GDP is now a mathematical certainty. Too bad it had to get to this point.
Last night’s elections were historic. Washington has a lot of energetic new faces who have vowed to restore fiscal sanity. I extend major congratulations to Rand Paul of Kentucky, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Marco Rubio of Florida and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. And now for the buzz kill…
History serves an important purpose. If we wish to know where we are going, let’s remember where we’ve been. Once upon a time, it was 1994. A much younger, naïve and idealistic “me” enjoyed the left-wing media drowning in their tears over the election results. For the first time in four decades, Republicans won control over both houses of Congress and had a commanding gubernatorial majority. Who can forget the disenchanted faces of Peter Jennings and Cokie Roberts? Let’s take a twenty minute journey back to 1994…
ABC News Election Coverage - Part 1
It will be interesting to see if Obama’s speech today will mirror former President Clinton’s. Clinton took some of the blame for the defeat, but quickly noted that the results were not a vote against policies. People were simply fed up with the process and feuding in Washington. My money is on Obama repeating most of the tenants of this speech verbatim, along with a reminder for people to continue to be patient with “hope and change.” (Anyone recognize Fox’s Britt Hume reporting in the video?)
The results of 1994 about mirrored last night’s results, as several of the same states had GOP gains.
ABC News Election Coverage - Part 2
This video is worth the watch, as we see a newly elected George W. Bush as Governor of Texas, who ironically asked the federal government to “leave Texas alone.” Too bad he didn’t subscribe to that position as President. Cokie Roberts was quick to point out her opposition to a balanced budget amendment, as she wondered if newly elected GOP governors would give up the siphon of federal funds. Fair and balanced journalism at its best!
Before we warp back to the present, who could forget Rush Limbaugh’s television show?
The Day After: “Thanks for the Memories”
I certainly won’t miss Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, or any of the other “comrades” who were sent packing last night, but now it’s time to get serious …
History has indeed repeated itself. Unfortunately, it is very likely that the ugly part of this history will repeat – the reality that the GOP will fail to deliver just as it did in 1994. Remember the Contract with America? Look at the empty promises for yourselves. Who would have thought at the time that the 104th Congress would have helped Bill Clinton and prominent Democrats devise an asset bubble that would bring the economy to its knees in 2008? Mr. Newt Gingrich was hired as a top consultant to Freddie Mac. Don’t believe me? Allow me to put you on the path.
I referred to myself as being idealistic and naïve in 1994; however, in my shameful defense, at least the 1994 Republicans had a better selling product. The current GOP Pledge is very weak and full of holes, as I pointed out in my recent column. This is largely due to the fact that the establishment leadership survived the brunt of last night’s attack. In 1994, Democratic Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, actually lost his seat. At the time, 134 years passed since a sitting Speaker had lost their seat in an election. However, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (thanks to Sharron Angle shifting the focus OFF the economy) will still be alive and well in Congress although the larger problem lies with establishment Republicans.
John Boehner will presumably take Pelosi’s place as Speaker of the House. However, how can the public be confident in a man to be fiscally responsible whose voting record reeks of fiscal irresponsibility? Let us not forget Boehner’s overwhelming support for the bailouts and TARP.
I believe Boehner’s drunken, emotional speech last night will give Saturday Night Live plenty of much needed comedic material; but the following speech is no laughing matter for those deeply concerned about the country’s economic woes.
Boehner’s Bailout Rally Cry
There he was in 2008 begging for support on the bailout bill - an “imperfect product” by his own admission. Rather than dazzle his listeners with economic know how (which is obviously absent) he suggests that a “mud sandwich” will save the economy. He really believed he put “America first” by pledging support for this bill. Am I supposed to be excited about his recent promotion and confident that he will put the country on the right fiscal path? Give me a break.
Hopefully, the history I have provided here will jog the memories of those who were dancing in the streets last night looking just as foolish as the “Obamabots” did in 2008. Some inroads have been made, but we need to see a lot more before I’ll be sipping champagne. While I’m excited about the victorious candidates I mentioned earlier; at the same time, I’m deeply concerned that their efforts will either be blocked by the establishment or they will BECOME the establishment. However, if these dedicated folks follow the current path of New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, it will be possible for America to be put back on the path to prosperity. Christie has shown it can be done, even in the most impossible areas. Their success will give way to more like-minded candidates in 2012, but their task will not be easy.
If the GOP is to gain any kind of steam, then their members need the political courage to have an adult conversation of the following nature with the American public. It begins with a revelation that the entitlement days are over, which includes but is not limited to the following:
• Raising the retirement age for social security as well as introducing private investment options
• Discontinue extending unemployment benefits, as it RAISES hiring costs
• Eliminate thousands of government jobs and modify government employee retirement plans to emulate a defined contribution plan
• Require federal and state governments to balance their budgets
• Enact REAL healthcare reform, which goes far beyond the repeal of Obamacare. Americans need to be told that insurance as access to healthcare is severely flawed and is directly responsible for costs spiraling out of control. Reducing the role of insurance companies through high-deductible plans along with tort reform are the places to begin.
• Eliminate the current severely progressive income tax in favor of the Fair Tax. The days of punishing success, innovation and investment need to come to an end.
Who can honestly say that they are confident in the GOP to bring forth this message? Most of these measures are not even listed in their “Pledge.” Who will have to political guts to tell people out of work that their unemployment benefits are being cut off, that they need to pay for their OWN healthcare and work LONGER before they receive any social security benefits? (Anyone follow France’s news lately?) Who has the economic knowledge to ward off the predictable leftist backlash, when they chant their tired, silly rants such as “tax cuts for the wealthy,” and “people will die in the street?”
Do people know and fully understand what needs to be done? Will all who claim that they want the size of government shrunk and entitlements reformed continue to hold this view if it affects them personally? Can the government worker, who voted to eliminate their own job, really understand that their skills can be better used in the private sector; or will they regret their vote? Does the CPA understand that there is more to life than the tax code if they lose their job explaining the tax code to people? How about all of you in the financial sector who are making a fine living off of complex, job inhibiting government regulations – are you ready for a different job description? There are a vast number of people who have relied on big government to make their living, many of whom don’t even realize this reality. Are we ready for REAL change, or do we get scared when this change affects us directly? Are we as a country done eroding our liberties by running to the government for safety in uncertain times; and worse, RELYING on the government to provide economic prosperity? The latter is something the government will NEVER be able to do, as the opposite occurs in each instance it tries. Yet it doesn’t stop elected officials from talking about how they will “create” jobs with their magic wand.
When I am convinced that most of the country will answer “yes,” without a shadow of a doubt, to the aforementioned questions, then I’ll have something to celebrate. More people have begun to open their eyes, as I predicted in 2008, but we are not yet there as a society. Until then, I’m afraid that the efforts of our new, energetic faces will not be enough to overthrow the status quo. The voices of our select few will be overshadowed by the words “work together,” “compromise,” “avoid gridlock” – the very words that got Republicans in so much trouble the last time around. I’m afraid the GOP still doesn’t get it and perhaps never will…
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Rebel Inside Voices
In the fat years and the lean years, the ideologues, the partisans and the activists never stop believing they're the oppressed. Republicans held Congress for years, spent like wolves in the hen house, but now lays blame for it all on Democrats. Yet, Democrats have ruled Congress for almost every session since World War II, but its the Republicans who block all their pet projects dreamed up by the proto-fascist heroes or their current corrupt jawboners, and not America's keen resistance to overbearing government (when we recognize it). Why does this happen? Because, I believe, American political culture, and culture in general, has become fully invested in victimhood.
Sometime ago, probably at the beginning of the leftist Cultural Revolution in the 60s, the idea of the eternal struggle against the Other (in their case, sanity) became mainstream. The New Left (democratic socialists, front group communists, etc) and the New Right (neoconservatives, big government conservatives, etc) both took and ran with the idea they were the ones who held the American idea AND were oppressed by the government or mass movement. It works well. Americans love to root for the underdog. Mr. Smith, Rudy, Rocky; American heroes in media are usually ones who start from nothing and achieve everything. These stories aren't always false. President Obama himself was born to an impoverished (and somewhat mentally damaged) mother. Obama used this story to his benefit to gain the love of even his political enemies. Yet, it clouds the fact that he was raised by well-off grandparents (who he threw under the bus) and became the center of the Chicago political machine way before even thinking about running for President. Like the President, the Democrats and the Republicans are hardly oppressed, and in fact do a lot of oppressing themselves, and that both ideologies have a long history with massive funding from think tanks, oligarchs like George Soros (by the way, f**k you, Jimmy Carter) and wealthy private citizens. People like Nancy Pelosi, who've got millions, and Micheal Bloomberg, who has billions, can hardly start complaining about being held back. Being the mayor of a city as giant as New York City, or being a American Congressman, makes you more powerful than 99.5% of the rest of the world. Shut up and actually lead for once.
But this infection has also hit we noble citizens as well. We sympathize with the party out of power. We feel the words of a politician recalling a past trauma though it doesn't explain his voting record. Americans give more in private donations than anyone else. We are too emotional for our own good. We are too nice to our political leaders and we suffer for it by being gipt out of our earned labor, our futures, our standard of living and our freedoms. If we were harder on our leaders, inflation wouldn't have destroyed the American family by forcing both parents to work for a good living. If we were more hawkish, the debt wouldn't be at $14 trillion. If we were meaner, they'd fear crossing us by putting a majority of teens out of work by raising the minimum wage beyond what most small business can afford.
It's nice to believe you're the rebel, even if you're a straight-line Democrat or Republican. But you're not, dear reader. You're part of the mainstream. You're okay with Social Security, like the Republican Party. You're a-okay with Obamacare, like the Democratic Party. You may think the Tea Party is racist and is oppressing you from having a big government view, like many leftist anchors... commentators.... no, wait, MSNBC anchors.... believe. You may think Fox News is the next Paul Revere. But none of it makes you the next American revolutionary. It makes you part of the problem.
The problem isn't Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart or the liberal/libertarian/socialist/atheist/agnosticwhatever Bill Maher. It isn't that Nancy StretchyFace has no clue what's in any of the bills her cronies write for her, though that's a big issue. The overall problem is the complanency of the citizenry with short-term programs and short-term issues when the entire facade of central banking and demcoratic socialism is coming down around them. Most people don't have a plan for that. Most people won't know its happened under the paper mache arches that held up the last 100 years of the American Republic are at their feet and our leaders are no where to be seen.
The name of the game is LONGVIEW, people. Not who has whose seat in 2 years, but what structure the American government NEEDS to be in the next 20.
Sometime ago, probably at the beginning of the leftist Cultural Revolution in the 60s, the idea of the eternal struggle against the Other (in their case, sanity) became mainstream. The New Left (democratic socialists, front group communists, etc) and the New Right (neoconservatives, big government conservatives, etc) both took and ran with the idea they were the ones who held the American idea AND were oppressed by the government or mass movement. It works well. Americans love to root for the underdog. Mr. Smith, Rudy, Rocky; American heroes in media are usually ones who start from nothing and achieve everything. These stories aren't always false. President Obama himself was born to an impoverished (and somewhat mentally damaged) mother. Obama used this story to his benefit to gain the love of even his political enemies. Yet, it clouds the fact that he was raised by well-off grandparents (who he threw under the bus) and became the center of the Chicago political machine way before even thinking about running for President. Like the President, the Democrats and the Republicans are hardly oppressed, and in fact do a lot of oppressing themselves, and that both ideologies have a long history with massive funding from think tanks, oligarchs like George Soros (by the way, f**k you, Jimmy Carter) and wealthy private citizens. People like Nancy Pelosi, who've got millions, and Micheal Bloomberg, who has billions, can hardly start complaining about being held back. Being the mayor of a city as giant as New York City, or being a American Congressman, makes you more powerful than 99.5% of the rest of the world. Shut up and actually lead for once.
But this infection has also hit we noble citizens as well. We sympathize with the party out of power. We feel the words of a politician recalling a past trauma though it doesn't explain his voting record. Americans give more in private donations than anyone else. We are too emotional for our own good. We are too nice to our political leaders and we suffer for it by being gipt out of our earned labor, our futures, our standard of living and our freedoms. If we were harder on our leaders, inflation wouldn't have destroyed the American family by forcing both parents to work for a good living. If we were more hawkish, the debt wouldn't be at $14 trillion. If we were meaner, they'd fear crossing us by putting a majority of teens out of work by raising the minimum wage beyond what most small business can afford.
It's nice to believe you're the rebel, even if you're a straight-line Democrat or Republican. But you're not, dear reader. You're part of the mainstream. You're okay with Social Security, like the Republican Party. You're a-okay with Obamacare, like the Democratic Party. You may think the Tea Party is racist and is oppressing you from having a big government view, like many leftist anchors... commentators.... no, wait, MSNBC anchors.... believe. You may think Fox News is the next Paul Revere. But none of it makes you the next American revolutionary. It makes you part of the problem.
The problem isn't Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart or the liberal/libertarian/socialist/atheist/agnosticwhatever Bill Maher. It isn't that Nancy StretchyFace has no clue what's in any of the bills her cronies write for her, though that's a big issue. The overall problem is the complanency of the citizenry with short-term programs and short-term issues when the entire facade of central banking and demcoratic socialism is coming down around them. Most people don't have a plan for that. Most people won't know its happened under the paper mache arches that held up the last 100 years of the American Republic are at their feet and our leaders are no where to be seen.
The name of the game is LONGVIEW, people. Not who has whose seat in 2 years, but what structure the American government NEEDS to be in the next 20.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Government Gone Wild: Teenagers Banned from Trick-or-Treating in an Illinois Town
Mayor Mark Eckhert of Belleville Illinois believes the long arm of government should enact his father’s views regarding the age when kids are too old to trick-or-treat. The Mayor told ABC News “When I was a kid my father said to me, 'You're too damn big to be going trick-or-treating. You're done.’ When that doesn’t happen, then that’s the reason for the city governments to intervene.”(*) Therefore, if you are over the age of 12 and trick-or-treat in Belleville Illinois, you will be fined $100. It seems that other townships in several states are quickly following suit.
I understand the position of single mothers and senior citizens. It can be very frightening to have obnoxious teenagers ringing your doorbell, especially when it is dark outside. They could also be adults who can force their way in to rob the person’s home. It is often very difficult to tell just who it is underneath the costume.
Halloween never did much for me as a child and as an adult. I always ended up wrestling the shaving cream out of some punk kid’s hands who thought it was comical to douse people in shaving cream. My kids do not share my view; they absolutely love it, although they are rapidly approaching that “cut-off” age.
Nevertheless, in spite of my views and those who agree that high school kids are too old to be trick-or-treating; I absolutely abhor the idea of the government robbing people of their freedoms. In my neighborhood, there are subdivisions that get so into the day, the intensity of the decorations rivals Christmas. Adults dress in costumes to greet the trick-or-treaters. There are mobs of kids of all ages having a good time and not causing any trouble.
When the long arm of government reaches in, there is great loss of individual freedom. If you detest Halloween; then close up your house, and don’t answer the door. It might be a good day to catch up on all of those errands in which you’ve been procrastinating. It is one’s right to dismiss the day. Nervous single mothers and senior citizens may decide who they open their door to on an individual basis. Those who love the day can go all out. The bottom line is FREEDOM.
Why do some people’s viewpoints trump others and prevail because one is in a position of power to make their views law? The argument always goes back to safety. The news will report on the poor old lady who was robbed for opening her door to who she thought were innocent trick-or-treaters. Playing on the people’s raw emotions of outrage, the knee-jerk reaction is to support such a ban. The truth is people’s homes are robbed every single day. Therefore, people who never outgrow Halloween and wish to do no harm have to surrender their right to celebrate.
I quote Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” The magnitude of the erosion of people’s liberties ranges from minor incidents such as Halloween ordinances all the way up to the Patriot Act.
*http://shine.yahoo.com/event/momentsofmotherhood/how-old-is-too-old-for-trick-or-treating-2403664/
I understand the position of single mothers and senior citizens. It can be very frightening to have obnoxious teenagers ringing your doorbell, especially when it is dark outside. They could also be adults who can force their way in to rob the person’s home. It is often very difficult to tell just who it is underneath the costume.
Halloween never did much for me as a child and as an adult. I always ended up wrestling the shaving cream out of some punk kid’s hands who thought it was comical to douse people in shaving cream. My kids do not share my view; they absolutely love it, although they are rapidly approaching that “cut-off” age.
Nevertheless, in spite of my views and those who agree that high school kids are too old to be trick-or-treating; I absolutely abhor the idea of the government robbing people of their freedoms. In my neighborhood, there are subdivisions that get so into the day, the intensity of the decorations rivals Christmas. Adults dress in costumes to greet the trick-or-treaters. There are mobs of kids of all ages having a good time and not causing any trouble.
When the long arm of government reaches in, there is great loss of individual freedom. If you detest Halloween; then close up your house, and don’t answer the door. It might be a good day to catch up on all of those errands in which you’ve been procrastinating. It is one’s right to dismiss the day. Nervous single mothers and senior citizens may decide who they open their door to on an individual basis. Those who love the day can go all out. The bottom line is FREEDOM.
Why do some people’s viewpoints trump others and prevail because one is in a position of power to make their views law? The argument always goes back to safety. The news will report on the poor old lady who was robbed for opening her door to who she thought were innocent trick-or-treaters. Playing on the people’s raw emotions of outrage, the knee-jerk reaction is to support such a ban. The truth is people’s homes are robbed every single day. Therefore, people who never outgrow Halloween and wish to do no harm have to surrender their right to celebrate.
I quote Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” The magnitude of the erosion of people’s liberties ranges from minor incidents such as Halloween ordinances all the way up to the Patriot Act.
*http://shine.yahoo.com/event/momentsofmotherhood/how-old-is-too-old-for-trick-or-treating-2403664/
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Lester Burnham: American Hero
One of the greatest dramas I've ever seen is American Beauty. Lauded by tons of critics, winner of a dozen awards, on the lists of countless “Best of...”; its already been turned upside down in interpretation. It's a satire, a drama, a love story, an attack on middle America. It's everything to everyone. I haven't read all reviews and essays on it, but I haven't come across anything that has taken a more face-value interpretation of the movie. Specifically, that Lester Burnham, the hero of the movie because he rejects the materialism and hollowness of suburbia, is in fact a new icon of traditional marriage and alpha male behavior.
Let's summarize: 40-year-old Lester has hit his mid-life crisis with the speed of the space shuttle. Caught between his monotone job at a media magazine, insecure daughter Jane and cold wife Carolyn, Lester has felt hollow and “dead” for years. But, as he tells the audience in the first act, “its never too late to get it back”. Lester does this by becoming infatuated with Jane's flirty best friend Angela, buying pot from his new neighbors' son, quitting his job and blackmailing the company and pretty much doing whatever he wants. The movie also has several sub-plots including affairs, courtships, homosexuality, death, beauty, etc, but our focus is the lovable “Les”.
When we first see Lester, he wakes up like many of us do: completely unenthusiastic with what is to come in the next 10-14 hours. Dressed in a two-piece pajama outfit, which has vertical stripes akin to prison bars, he gets into the shower for a daily dose of his happy time. He calls it “the high point of my day”. Through a window, he watches his wife out in their garden, already in her work clothes, trimming roses. She chats idly with their very friendly neighbor Jim, and his lover... Jim. Lester's morning ends with his briefcase opening up on him after being nagged by Carolyn about being late. The look she gives him is as cold as liquid oxygen. Suffice to say, Lester could die in his sleep and he wouldn't be the only one happy with the death.
Between this sequence and the Angela catalyst, we are shown how much Carolyn is defined by status and work. When Lester tells her that his employer is making everyone write out a job description to find out who's worth keeping, she immediately tells him to write it. We don't hear the entire conversation, but it can be assumed he mentioned that a manager at the magazine lost $50 000 of company money on a hooker. During dinner, Carolyn plays old jazz and big band tunes much to the chagrin of her husband and daughter. She steamrolls their objections with a “I cooked dinner” defense. The next day, Carolyn, a realtor, shows a house to several people, but none bit at the juicy apple. She reacts to this failure badly, crying hysterically and slapping herself in an empty room of the house. But as fast as she began she stops, silently walking out of the room.
In the movie, Carolyn is made out to be the bad guy, and she is on so many levels. Her careerism, her materialism, her coldness towards her husband are all bad things, but she isn't entirely to blame. Lester is the man, the husband, the protector and provider. As a husband, its Lester's job to take control and direct the family. But he didn't. Somewhere, he let his responsibilities go and let Carolyn take hold. I noticed that Lester's actions are mostly defined by his relationship with Carolyn. Would Lester need to have a infatuation with a teenage cheerleader if his wife was more loving? Probably not. Though I'm not excluding that a major driving force of his change is to sleep with Angela; Lester was, before and after seeing Angela, controlled directly and indirectly by the actions of his wife. His relationship with Jane is not outside this, either. His long ignoring of his daughter is paralleled by his wife's, except she isn't remorseful about it. In fact, she celebrates not being the hated parent when Jane rips Lester for his lax affection, but later smacks Jane for questioning her love.
While the movie does skewer suburbia like so many other movies do, Lester doesn't really rebel so much as he takes his rightful place in the household. Yes, he starts smoking pot, quits his corporate job (dunno how “corporate” in the IBM sense a media magazine is, but whatever), plays 60s music and insults his wife by calling her a “money-grubbing freak”, but he also gets $60 000 from his job through blackmail, buys himself his dream car and chases after a young woman. Not exactly the icon of anti-corporate America. But what he is though is the icon of born-again masculinity and traditional gender roles. After “finding himself” through lust, pot and a giant set of balls, he begins to dominate his wife. Before, her screeching voice yelling “LESTER” would literally make him slump, but later in the movie he is taking her on and surpassing her control of the relationship. He becomes attractive in her eyes once again because he's standing up for himself and emitting alpha behavior, not because he's got a new car or dresses differnetly. Eventually, they almost rekindle their love life until Carolyn freaks at a couch almost getting stained. In one of the many loved scenes from American Beauty, Lester slams a pillow over and over and yells “Its! Just! A! Couch!” and “its just stuff”. Yet, just a minute previous, he congratulated himself for buying a perfect 1970 Pontiac Firebird that no doubt chewed up a good portion of his $60 000. While this materialist hypocrisy is never pointed out by the script, it does make me smile that only Carolyn, the materialistic wife, is hated for her materialism, while Lester, the “rebel” husband that buys classic cars, gets a pass. I don't think writer Alan Ball, a gay, new agey, leftie sort of guy, meant it to be that way, but that's how it came out. And because of that, Lester loses a big edge of his written anti-establishment persona and becomes a more realistic, more American, more alpha male hero. A rare find in Hollywood.
From my perspective, Lester goes from shlub to stud in every sense. He loses the accountant-style clothes that were no doubt suggested by his wife and takes up more blue collar outfits. He stands straighter, losing his “Walter Matthieu” walk. He works out and takes care of himself. His behavior goes from soft-spoken mumbler to stern voiced, though it doesn't always work out the way he wants. He quits taking orders and starts giving them in the family, with his wife and, most importantly, with himself. These are all things that staple the traditional gender role of a man. Of course, the provider role goes out the window when he quit his job, but in today's world, the provider role is considered shlub unless backed up by the more masculine behavior that was Lester's persona change. Otherwise, he'd just be a piggy bank with a penis.
And that isn't exactly a rare cage the modern American male lives in, is it?
Let's summarize: 40-year-old Lester has hit his mid-life crisis with the speed of the space shuttle. Caught between his monotone job at a media magazine, insecure daughter Jane and cold wife Carolyn, Lester has felt hollow and “dead” for years. But, as he tells the audience in the first act, “its never too late to get it back”. Lester does this by becoming infatuated with Jane's flirty best friend Angela, buying pot from his new neighbors' son, quitting his job and blackmailing the company and pretty much doing whatever he wants. The movie also has several sub-plots including affairs, courtships, homosexuality, death, beauty, etc, but our focus is the lovable “Les”.
When we first see Lester, he wakes up like many of us do: completely unenthusiastic with what is to come in the next 10-14 hours. Dressed in a two-piece pajama outfit, which has vertical stripes akin to prison bars, he gets into the shower for a daily dose of his happy time. He calls it “the high point of my day”. Through a window, he watches his wife out in their garden, already in her work clothes, trimming roses. She chats idly with their very friendly neighbor Jim, and his lover... Jim. Lester's morning ends with his briefcase opening up on him after being nagged by Carolyn about being late. The look she gives him is as cold as liquid oxygen. Suffice to say, Lester could die in his sleep and he wouldn't be the only one happy with the death.
Between this sequence and the Angela catalyst, we are shown how much Carolyn is defined by status and work. When Lester tells her that his employer is making everyone write out a job description to find out who's worth keeping, she immediately tells him to write it. We don't hear the entire conversation, but it can be assumed he mentioned that a manager at the magazine lost $50 000 of company money on a hooker. During dinner, Carolyn plays old jazz and big band tunes much to the chagrin of her husband and daughter. She steamrolls their objections with a “I cooked dinner” defense. The next day, Carolyn, a realtor, shows a house to several people, but none bit at the juicy apple. She reacts to this failure badly, crying hysterically and slapping herself in an empty room of the house. But as fast as she began she stops, silently walking out of the room.
In the movie, Carolyn is made out to be the bad guy, and she is on so many levels. Her careerism, her materialism, her coldness towards her husband are all bad things, but she isn't entirely to blame. Lester is the man, the husband, the protector and provider. As a husband, its Lester's job to take control and direct the family. But he didn't. Somewhere, he let his responsibilities go and let Carolyn take hold. I noticed that Lester's actions are mostly defined by his relationship with Carolyn. Would Lester need to have a infatuation with a teenage cheerleader if his wife was more loving? Probably not. Though I'm not excluding that a major driving force of his change is to sleep with Angela; Lester was, before and after seeing Angela, controlled directly and indirectly by the actions of his wife. His relationship with Jane is not outside this, either. His long ignoring of his daughter is paralleled by his wife's, except she isn't remorseful about it. In fact, she celebrates not being the hated parent when Jane rips Lester for his lax affection, but later smacks Jane for questioning her love.
While the movie does skewer suburbia like so many other movies do, Lester doesn't really rebel so much as he takes his rightful place in the household. Yes, he starts smoking pot, quits his corporate job (dunno how “corporate” in the IBM sense a media magazine is, but whatever), plays 60s music and insults his wife by calling her a “money-grubbing freak”, but he also gets $60 000 from his job through blackmail, buys himself his dream car and chases after a young woman. Not exactly the icon of anti-corporate America. But what he is though is the icon of born-again masculinity and traditional gender roles. After “finding himself” through lust, pot and a giant set of balls, he begins to dominate his wife. Before, her screeching voice yelling “LESTER” would literally make him slump, but later in the movie he is taking her on and surpassing her control of the relationship. He becomes attractive in her eyes once again because he's standing up for himself and emitting alpha behavior, not because he's got a new car or dresses differnetly. Eventually, they almost rekindle their love life until Carolyn freaks at a couch almost getting stained. In one of the many loved scenes from American Beauty, Lester slams a pillow over and over and yells “Its! Just! A! Couch!” and “its just stuff”. Yet, just a minute previous, he congratulated himself for buying a perfect 1970 Pontiac Firebird that no doubt chewed up a good portion of his $60 000. While this materialist hypocrisy is never pointed out by the script, it does make me smile that only Carolyn, the materialistic wife, is hated for her materialism, while Lester, the “rebel” husband that buys classic cars, gets a pass. I don't think writer Alan Ball, a gay, new agey, leftie sort of guy, meant it to be that way, but that's how it came out. And because of that, Lester loses a big edge of his written anti-establishment persona and becomes a more realistic, more American, more alpha male hero. A rare find in Hollywood.
From my perspective, Lester goes from shlub to stud in every sense. He loses the accountant-style clothes that were no doubt suggested by his wife and takes up more blue collar outfits. He stands straighter, losing his “Walter Matthieu” walk. He works out and takes care of himself. His behavior goes from soft-spoken mumbler to stern voiced, though it doesn't always work out the way he wants. He quits taking orders and starts giving them in the family, with his wife and, most importantly, with himself. These are all things that staple the traditional gender role of a man. Of course, the provider role goes out the window when he quit his job, but in today's world, the provider role is considered shlub unless backed up by the more masculine behavior that was Lester's persona change. Otherwise, he'd just be a piggy bank with a penis.
And that isn't exactly a rare cage the modern American male lives in, is it?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
